    [Senate Hearing 111-688, Part 2]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-688

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                      Department of Defense

                                                             Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2011

    111th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                                    S. 3800

    PART 2  (Pages 1-650)

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

              Department of Defense Appropriations, 2011 (S. 3800)

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-688

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 3800

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                                    PART 2

                              Department of Defense
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    54-962 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2010

    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 APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JON TESTER, Montana
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
                      Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                            Subcommittee on Defense

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

                               Professional Staff

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

                             Administrative Support

                                  Rachel Meyer

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, March 3, 2010

                                                                       Page

    Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................     1

                           Wednesday, March 10, 2010

    Department of Defense: Medical Health Programs...................    65

                           Wednesday, March 17, 2010

    Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   173

                           Wednesday, March 24, 2010

    Department of Defense:
        National Guard...............................................   235
        Reserves.....................................................   291

                           Wednesday, April 21, 2010

    Department of Defense: Missile Defense Agency....................   337

                            Wednesday, May 12, 2010

    Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   365

                            Wednesday, June 16, 2010

    Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary...................   409

                            Wednesday, June 23, 2010

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   473

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:31 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Shelby, and Brownback.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. JOHN M. McHUGH, SECRETARY
            GENERAL GEORGE W. CASEY, CHIEF OF STAFF

                 opening statement of chairman daniel k. inouye

        Chairman Inouye. The hearing will come to order.
        This morning, we welcome the Honorable John McHugh,
    Secretary of the Army, along with General George Casey, the
    Chief of Staff of the United States Army.
        Gentlemen, we thank you for being here with us today as we
    review the Army's budget request for fiscal year 2011.
        Before proceeding, I'd like to announce that, because of
    illness, the vice chairman will not be with us this morning. In
    his place, we have the gentleman from Alabama.
        The Department of the Army's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request is $143.4 billion, an increase of $2.5 billion over
    last year's enacted budget, excluding funding appropriated to
    the Army in the fiscal year 2010 supplemental.
        The Army also has requested $20 billion for overseas
    contingency operations for the remainder of this fiscal year,
    primarily to fund surge operations in Afghanistan. In April of
    last year, President Obama and Secretary Gates announced
    substantial initiatives within the Department of Defense to
    strengthen our All-Volunteer Force, change how and what the
    Department buys, and rebalance military capabilities.
        After an overhaul of the Army's modernization effort last
    year, fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $3.2 billion for
    the Army's revamped Brigade Combat Team Modernization Program
    and provides $6 billion for Army aviation. The fiscal year 2011
    budget request builds upon the reform agenda set by Secretary
    Gates last year and supports the final year of a 5-year plan to
    restore balance to an Army that has experienced the cumulative
    effects of years upon years of conflict.
        The subcommittee is looking forward to hearing not only
    about these efforts, but also about the Department's vision to
    rebalance and reshape, as directed in the Quadrennial Defense
    Review (QDR) completed this past January. One of the central
    themes of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review is balance. The
    Department needs to find balance between providing capabilities
    to prevail in today's wars, while building the capabilities
    needed to counter future threats. The Army is shouldering a
    very heavy burden, since it has been conducting combat
    operations in two theaters while transforming and modernizing
    at the same time. However, budget pressures to support current
    operations have made it very difficult to allow for the
    investment in modernization.
        Not only is balance included and needed between meeting the
    demands of today and the threats of the future, it is also
    needed within each of the military services, and the Army has
    continued to answer the Nation's call, but it has been at the
    expense of maintaining a well-balanced force.
        We are aware of the demands created by more than 8 years of
    continuous war. Repeated and lengthy deployments have stressed
    our soldiers, their families, and our support systems and
    equipment. Currently the Department is managing a shift in
    focus in our overseas contingency operations. While the
    withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq has begun, an additional
    30,000 troops have been committed to supporting operations in
    Afghanistan.
        Since the Army is the service most heavily engaged in these
    operations, the Secretary of Defense has permitted the Army to
    retain 22,000 soldiers, temporarily, above the authorized end
    strength of 547,000. This decision was made to acknowledge the
    fact that future readiness is dependent upon restoring balance
    and lessening the strain upon the force.
        Finally, there is one other type of balance that this
    subcommittee will be looking for during the budget review, the
    balance between risk and resources. The Quadrennial Defense
    Review has set the agenda and defined requirements, and
    presumably the Department has budgeted for those priorities.
    However, there will never be enough resources to eliminate all
    risk. It is our hope that today's hearing will help illuminate
    how the Army's fiscal year 2011 budget request addresses the
    recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review while
    maintaining balance among a number of valued, yet equally
    important, priorities.
        Gentlemen, we sincerely appreciate your service to our
    Nation and your dedication and sacrifices made daily by the men
    and women in our Army. We could not be more grateful for what
    those who wear our Nation's uniform do for our country each and
    every day.
        Gentlemen, your full statements will be made a part of the
    record.
        And I would now wish to turn to the Senator from Alabama.

                     statement of senator richard c. shelby

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I
    just want to join you in welcoming Secretary McHugh and General
    Casey to this subcommittee. They're no strangers here.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        Now, with that, Secretary, we are depending on you, sir.

                     summary statement of hon. john mc hugh

        Mr. McHugh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        As you noted, we'll enter, with your permission, our full
    statements into the record. And I know time is of some concern
    here this morning, so I just would like to summarize a few of
    those points.
        First of all, I want to, at the risk of stating the
    obvious, say what an honor it is to be here today. I had the
    distinct honor of serving for 17 years on the House Armed
    Services Committee, and in that time I gained a great
    appreciation for the great work this subcommittee does, for the
    enormous support that it has, historically, and certainly under
    the leadership of you, the vice chairman, and the current
    members, have continued in support of not just our Army, but
    all of our services. I certainly want to take this opportunity
    to express my personal appreciation and thanks for all that you
    do, and all that you will continue to do.
        If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a few comments on my now 5
    months as the 21st Secretary of the Army. And while it's been a
    crash course of learning, I think some things are obvious. And
    I would add, Mr. Chairman, in listening to your opening
    comments, I think you've encapsulated very well the key
    questions, the key challenges that lie before us.
        As you've said, Mr. Chairman, and as I have seen from the
    first day I walked into that hallowed building on the other
    side of the Potomac, this is an Army that clearly is fatigued,
    is stressed by nearly 9 years of combat. But, it is still an
    Army that is amazingly resilient, that is amazingly effective.
    Today, as you know, this is an Army that has more expertise,
    more education, it has more capability and lethality than any
    Army in our Nation's history. That is, in no small measure,
    because of the great support and leadership that has come out
    of this great subcommittee.
        Those are significant gains, but, in spite of those gains,
    this is, quite simply, an Army that is, and remains, out of
    balance. The Chief of Staff--General Casey--and my predecessor,
    Pete Geren, the Army leadership, along in partnership with the
    Congress have made great progress in bringing that balance
    back. I think, one of the key assets and key attributes of the
    President's proposed budget is that it allows us to continue
    the regaining of balance, and, in fact, should allow us to
    finish it. But, this is a very delicate balance, and we need to
    stay focused on that objective.
        You noted, Mr. Chairman, the variety of appropriations that
    take us toward that goal, the $1.7 billion in requests to
    continue to fund our vital family programs in support of those
    amazing families, and other initiatives. I won't continue to
    repeat those, but a couple of other points, I think, do bear
    noting.
        We remain extraordinarily committed to our wounded
    warriors. Tomorrow, I will have the opportunity to pay my
    regular visit to Walter Reed, and I know what I will see. I
    will see a cadre of individuals who have stepped forward, who
    have given more in their time on the battlefield than most
    Americans could possibly imagine, and who will ask one simple
    question, ``What can I do to serve more?'' We recognize the
    obligation we have to provide world-class transition, world-
    class healthcare services to those heroes. This budget provides
    us with that opportunity and allows us to go forward in that
    solemn obligation.
        It also allows us to do something very important, in terms
    of recapitalizing, rebalancing, and modernizing our equipment
    systems that require those kinds of adjustments. And, as you
    noted, Mr. Chairman, that's a significant challenge under the
    best of circumstances, but clearly, at time of war, becomes
    even more problematic. But, with your support, we will continue
    to do that. The funding is there--$3.1--$31.7 billion in
    research and development, brigade combat team modernization
    funds, et cetera, et cetera.
        The other thing--and it's something that this Congress
    recognized last year--that we need help in is acquisition
    reform. I think it's necessary to give our acquisition people,
    who have also been at war for nearly 9 years, their due. Over
    the last 10 years, they've had a 15-percent cut in personnel
    and a 500-percent increase in their dollars to bring under
    contract. And in spite of that, in that time, 1,000 protests
    brought against the decisions that they made, and only 8 of
    those 1,000 protests upheld. Still, they would be the first to
    recognize they need help. We need to continue to redevelop the
    acquisition rules and regulations to allow us to be more
    effective in support of the warfighter, and, equally important,
    more efficient in support of our taxpayer dollars. We look
    forward in engaging with this Congress, with this great
    subcommittee, in bringing that about.

                               prepared statement

        In the end, I would tell you, we have an Army that is
    strong in spirit, it is strong in ability and in results. But,
    as I said in my opening comments, and as you noted, Mr.
    Chairman, it is an Army that is greatly stressed. We can do
    better by them. We feel that's our obligation and what this
    budget brings to the table and allows us the opportunity to do.
    And, in partnership with you, we look forward to pursuing that
    very worthy goal.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd yield back.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of John M. McHugh and General George W. Casey, Jr.
                                  introduction
        America's Army continues to answer the Nation's call, as it has
    since it was established nearly 235 years ago. Today our Army is
    fighting two wars, assisting other nations as they build their own
    security capacity, supporting civil authorities at home, helping the
    people of Haiti rebuild after a devastating earthquake, and preparing
    to deter and defeat new threats. The Army's Soldiers, Civilians, and
    Families faithfully shoulder the load that our Nation asks of them.
    With the support of the Congress, we are on track with our 4-year plan
    to put the Army back in balance.
        Though their sacrifices can never be fully repaid, the Nation
    continues to recognize and honor our Soldiers and their Families by
    supporting them before, during, and following deployments. Our Soldiers
    rely upon the best training and equipment that our Nation can provide
    to accomplish their mission. Yet even with this continued support, the
    demands of 8 years of war weigh heavily on our Army. The strain of
    multiple deployments is evident on Soldiers and their Families.
    Equipment is used at a pace that seriously challenges our maintenance
    and replacement capabilities and resources. The stress is present in
    our institutions as we change 20th century systems and processes to
    meet the demands of the 21st century.
        Our Nation faces the difficult challenge of balancing when, where,
    and how to engage in a dynamic and uncertain world while meeting
    important priorities at home. However, when the security of our
    citizens or allies is threatened, the Nation can depend on America's
    Army--the Strength of the Nation.
                               strategic context
        The United States faces a complex strategic landscape with an array
    of diverse security challenges. We are fighting wars in Iraq and
    Afghanistan while preparing for future challenges to our national
    security. For the foreseeable future, violent extremist movements such
    as Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations comprise the most
    immediate threats. Current global economic conditions, changes in
    demographics, cultural pressures associated with globalization, and
    competition for scarce resources exacerbate the uncertainty and
    volatility of the strategic environment. Within this setting, the
    American Soldier stands as our Nation's most visible and enduring
    symbol of commitment in an era of persistent conflict.
                              persistent conflict
        For the near future, persistent conflict--protracted confrontation
    among state, non-state, and individual actors that are increasingly
    willing to use violence to achieve their political and ideological
    ends--will characterize the global security environment. Security
    crises will arise unpredictably, vary in intensity and scope, and last
    for uncertain durations. These challenges will take place in all
    domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. Natural disasters and
    humanitarian emergencies will continue to be frequent and unpredictable
    missions, requiring the commitment of Soldiers and resources. In this
    dynamic environment, the Army will conduct operations that span the
    spectrum of conflict from humanitarian and civil support to
    counterinsurgency to general war, often simultaneously.
                                 global trends
        Several global trends will continue to shape the international
    security environment and the conflicts confronting our Nation.
    Globalization may increase prosperity, but it can also spread
    destabilizing influences. The unequal distribution of benefits creates
    societies with divisions between ``haves'' and ``have nots''--divisions
    that can be exploited by extremist ideologies and lead to conflict.
    Fault lines reflecting protracted competition and friction can erupt
    unpredictably as societies struggle to adjust to the move toward
    modernity and greater interdependence. Meanwhile, increasingly
    available and affordable technology provides our adversaries
    sophisticated tools to enable a networked approach to recruiting the
    disenfranchised and exporting terror.
        Shifting demographics and rapid population growth that is
    increasingly urbanized can continue to break down traditional,
    localized norms of governance, behavior, and identity, and further
    strain already stressed governments. This is especially true where a
    lack of economic opportunity increases the potential for instability
    and extremism. Those who are disaffected may rebel against perceived
    Western interference, challenges to traditional values, and ineffective
    governments. Increased resource demand, in particular energy, water,
    and food, is a consequence of growing prosperity and populations. The
    growing global competition for resources will continue to produce
    friction and increase opportunities for conflict. In this environment,
    climate change and natural disasters will compound already difficult
    conditions in developing countries by igniting humanitarian crises,
    causing destabilizing population migrations, and raising the potential
    for epidemic diseases.
        The two trends of greatest concern are the proliferation of weapons
    of mass destruction (WMD) and failed or failing states. A catastrophic
    attack utilizing WMD has the potential to be globally destabilizing.
    Failed or failing states, lacking the will or capacity to maintain
    effective territorial control, contribute to regional instability and
    provide ideal environments for terrorist groups to plan and export
    operations. The merging of these two trends constitutes a significant
    and compelling threat. Together, these trends make conflict in the
    decades ahead more likely.
                   character of conflict in the 21st century
        Global trends and recent conflicts--such as those in Lebanon and
    Georgia--and our own recent combat experience indicate the evolving
    character of conflict in the 21st century.
        Conflicts will be waged among diverse actors--state and non-state--
    with the latter employing capabilities that, during the last century,
    remained largely the purview of nation-states. Motives, objectives, and
    often the identities of these actors will be difficult to discern, and
    are likely to shift as some act covertly and others use proxies. The
    battle to gain influence over, and support from, populations will be
    central to our success. Therefore, conflict will be unavoidably waged
    among the people.
        The initiation, location, duration, and intensity of conflicts are
    increasingly unpredictable. In an interdependent world, conflicts are
    more susceptible to the potential for spillover, creating regionally,
    and potentially globally, destabilizing effects. All of this will occur
    under the unblinking scrutiny of the 24-hour global media cycle and the
    Internet. Details of conflict as well as misinformation will flow
    equally across social, communications, and cyber networks. Our
    adversaries will exploit these media and communication sources locally
    and globally.
        We are more likely to face hybrid threats--diverse and dynamic
    combinations of conventional, irregular, terrorist, and criminal
    capabilities employed asymmetrically to counter our advantages. Hybrid
    threats require hybrid solutions--adaptive military forces that can
    function in a variety of situations with a diverse set of national,
    allied, and indigenous partners. Given the strategic environment,
    enduring global trends, and the character of 21st century conflict, the
    Army will operate as part of a Joint, interagency, inter-governmental,
    and multi-national team to fulfill its global commitments.
                              roles of land forces
        More than one million of our men and women have served in the
    ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 3,900 American Soldiers
    have given their lives, and more than 25,000 others have been wounded
    during this longest period of sustained conflict ever fought by an all-
    volunteer force. Today, America's Army has over 255,000 Soldiers and
    more than 18,500 Army Civilians serving in nearly 80 countries around
    the world--with the remainder stationed within the United States
    supporting domestic missions, resetting from recent deployments, or
    preparing for an upcoming deployment.
        Our Soldiers are performing magnificently around the world every
    day, and the roles for land forces in this environment are becoming
    increasingly clear.
        First, the Army must prevail in protracted counter-insurgency
    (COIN) operations. Not only must we prevail in our current missions in
    Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, we must be prepared to prevail
    in any future COIN operation.
        Second, the Army must engage to help other nations build capacity
    and to assure our friends and allies. Through security force
    assistance, we can increase the capacity of other nations' military and
    police to uphold the rule of law, ensure domestic order, and deny
    sanctuary to terrorists--thereby helping avoid future conflicts that
    might otherwise develop. American Soldiers are currently deployed to
    Central America and the Balkans, building the capacity of indigenous
    security forces. Additionally, the Army has established an Army Service
    Component Command for U.S. Africa Command to assist partner nations and
    humanitarian organizations in Africa.
        A third role that the Army fulfills is to provide support to civil
    authorities at home and abroad. In the past year alone, American
    Soldiers have fought fires in the west, conducted search and rescue
    operations in the Rockies and Alaska, and assisted with tsunami relief
    in American Samoa, in support of civil authorities. The Army has also
    provided a sizeable force to support the relief efforts in Haiti
    following the catastrophic earthquake that destroyed its capital. Army
    units from both the active and reserve components remain prepared to
    react to a variety of crises as consequence management and response
    forces. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a lead organization in
    providing DOD support to civil authorities for disaster relief at home
    and engineering support to USAID overseas. Abroad, the Army has also
    supported civil authorities in many ways, such as sending Agribusiness
    Development Teams from the Army National Guard to Afghanistan.
        Finally, the Army must deter and defeat hybrid threats and hostile
    state actors. As an Army, we recognize that we must remain prepared to
    meet and defeat hostile state actors that threaten our national
    security. But we recognize that the probability of facing a nation that
    will challenge America's military head-on is lower than it was during
    the Cold War and other periods in our history. Our readiness and
    capability to confront near-peer competitors also deters war by raising
    the stakes for nation-state and hybrid actors who would threaten our
    security interests.
        To meet these threats, Army units continue to participate in Joint
    and international training exercises around the world, ensuring that
    military skills and cooperative partnerships remain strong. The Army
    continues to position forces in Korea and at various missile defense
    sites in order to discourage actors who seek to disrupt regional
    stability and security.
                            two critical challenges
        The Army has operated at a demanding pace for the last 8 years, and
    while it has met each challenge, the strain has placed the Army out of
    balance. Demand for Army forces continues to exceed the sustainable
    supply. Against that backdrop, the Army continues to meet the wartime
    requirements of our Nation while it addresses the two major challenges
    facing our force--restoring balance and setting conditions for the
    future. In 2007, we established a 4-year plan to restore balance to an
    Army that had experienced the cumulative effects of years of conflict.
    The fiscal year 2011 budget supports the final year in that plan. As we
    continue to restore balance to the force, we are also setting the
    conditions for the Army of the 21st century--an Army that fulfills our
    strategic role as an integral part of our Joint Force.
                 restoring balance: the army's four imperatives
        With the help of Congress, we have made significant progress over
    the past 3 years in our plan to restore balance--a plan founded on four
    imperatives. Yet today the Army remains out of balance. We've improved
    our ability to sustain the Army's Soldiers, Families, and Civilians;
    prepare forces for success in the current conflict; reset returning
    units to rebuild the readiness consumed in operations and to prepare
    for future deployments and contingencies; and transform to meet the
    demands of the 21st century. As a result of this progress we now are in
    a better position to achieve balance than we were 2 years ago. Critical
    to this was the growth in the size of the Army.
        The security agreement with Iraq that transferred security in urban
    areas to Iraqis was a momentous and welcomed accomplishment. The hard
    work and sacrifice of our Soldiers with the support of Congress helped
    make this achievement possible and set the conditions for our
    responsible drawdown of combat forces in Iraq this year. Coupled with
    our growth, the drawdown in Iraq allowed for our increased commitment
    of forces to Afghanistan to stem the rising violence, and disrupt,
    dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda while reversing the momentum of the
    Taliban insurgency. However, the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan
    continue to create demands that have our Army operating beyond
    sustainable capacity. In fact, in 2009 more Soldiers were deployed in
    Iraq and Afghanistan combined than during the height of the Iraq surge.
        Presently, and for the short term, we lack sufficient strategic
    flexibility, and we continue to accumulate risk. We continue to stress
    our Soldiers, Families, Civilians, equipment, and institutional
    systems, so our efforts to restore balance must not waiver.
    Sustain
        Sustaining our all-volunteer force is our first imperative. Nowhere
    is the stress on our force more profound than in the toll it takes on
    our people, as is tragically evident in the rising number of suicides
    and increasing need for counseling among our Soldiers and Families. We
    are aggressively addressing the causes of stress on individuals
    resulting from the cumulative effects of multiple deployments, and
    seeking to build resilience in Soldiers, Families and Civilians. The
    Army is committed to ensuring that the quality of life of those who
    serve the Nation is commensurate with the quality of their service.
                Goals
        To sustain the force, the Army continues to pursue four major
    goals. Our first goal is to Recruit and Retain quality Soldiers and
    Civilians dedicated to service to the Nation. Next, we are committed to
    furnishing the best Care, Support, and Services for Soldiers, Families,
    and Civilians by improving quality of life through meaningful
    initiatives such as the Army Family Action Plan, the Army Family
    Covenant, Army Community Covenants, and the Comprehensive Soldier
    Fitness Program. It is our solemn obligation to provide world-class
    Warrior Care and Transition to our wounded, ill, and injured Warriors
    through properly led and resourced Warrior Transition Units. Finally,
    by Supporting the Families of our Fallen Comrades we honor their
    service and sacrifice.
                Progress and Accomplishments
        The Army met 104 percent of its recruiting goals for 2009, and
    achieved both numeric goals and quality benchmarks for new recruits.
        All components exceeded 105 percent of their reenlistment goals.
        We reduced off-duty fatalities by 20 percent, to include a 15
    percent reduction in overall privately-owned-vehicle fatalities and 37
    percent reduction in motorcycle fatalities.
        In collaboration with the National Institute of Mental Health, the
    Army began a seminal study into suicide prevention that will inform the
    Army Suicide Prevention Program and society's approach to suicide.
        We began instituting Comprehensive Soldier Fitness--an all-
    inclusive approach to emotional, social, spiritual, family, and
    physical fitness--as the foundation to building resiliency within the
    Army.
        We initiated an unprecedented series of construction projects at
    five major hospitals as part of our commitment to modernize our
    healthcare system.
        The Army established the Warrior Transition Command and reorganized
    Warrior Transition Brigades to provide centralized support,
    rehabilitation, and individualized transition planning to our
    recovering Warriors.
        We expanded Survivor Outreach Services to over 26,000 Family
    members, providing unified support and advocacy, and enhancing survivor
    benefits for the Families of our Soldiers who have made the ultimate
    sacrifice.
        We implemented the Post 9/11 GI Bill, significantly increasing
    educational benefits for active duty Soldiers, Veterans, and Family
    members.
        The Army Reserve established Army Strong Community Centers to
    support geographically-dispersed Soldiers and Families. Together with
    Army National Guard Family Assistance Centers and Soldier and Family
    Assistance Centers on active duty installations, these centers provide
    help to Soldiers' Families near their hometowns.
                Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
        Provides $1.7 billion to standardize and fund vital Family programs
    and services to include welfare and recreation; youth services and
    child care; Survivor Outreach Services; and expanded education and
    employment opportunities for Family members.
        Provides a 1.4 percent military basic pay raise and Civilian pay
    raise, a 3.9 percent basic allowance for housing increase, and a 3.4
    percent basic allowance for subsistence increase.
        Warrior Transition Units for our wounded Soldiers will continue to
    receive strong support in fiscal year 2011 with $18 million in Military
    Construction funds allocated to resource construction of barracks
    spaces.
        Supports Residential Communities Initiatives program, which
    provides quality, sustainable residential communities for Soldiers and
    their Families living on-post, and continues to offset out-of-pocket
    housing expenses for those residing off-post.
    Prepare
        Our Soldiers face determined enemies--so preparing the force for
    our current conflict is complex and time-consuming, but essential for
    success. Our units must have the people, training, and equipment they
    need to prevail. Meanwhile, our institutions and systems must adapt to
    provide those critical capabilities in a timely manner and in
    sufficient quantities.
                Goals
        To prepare the force, we have four key goals. First, we accelerated
    the pace at which we needed to Grow the Army to our end strength and to
    grow our modular brigades to 73 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and nearly
    230 Support Brigades. Second, the Army is committed to improving
    individual and collective Training to better prepare Soldiers and
    leaders for a complex and challenging operational environment. Next, we
    continuously work to provide our formations with effective Equipment in
    a timely manner that maintains our technological edge and protects our
    most critical resource--the Soldier. Finally, we must transform the
    Army to a rotational model--Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN)--the core
    process for generating trained, ready, and cohesive units on a
    sustained and rotational basis--to meet current and future strategic
    demands.
                Progress and Accomplishments
        We began the phase-out of stop-loss, starting with the Reserve
    Component in August 2009 and the Army National Guard in September 2009,
    and followed by the Active Army in January 2010. Today, no mobilizing
    or deploying units have stop-loss Soldiers in their ranks.
        The force achieved its ``Grow the Army'' end strength goal of 1.1
    million in 2009. The active component continues to grow toward its
    additional authorized Temporary End Strength in order to improve unit
    manning within the already existing Army structure as we eliminate
    stop-loss.
        Fifteen month tours effectively ended in November 2009, when the
    last Soldiers on those extended deployments returned.
        We completed fielding nearly 12,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
    (MRAP) vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan and delivered the first MRAP
    All-Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs) to Afghanistan--just 15 months after
    identifying the need for that capability. As of the beginning of
    February, we have provided nearly 800 M-ATVs to Afghanistan.
        This year, we successfully manned, trained, equipped, and deployed
    67 brigade equivalents.
        The Army exceeded fleet readiness of 90 percent for ground
    equipment, to include MRAPs, and 75 percent for aviation.
        We established Army Training Network (ATN)--a 21st Century Approach
    to Army Training. This revolution in training knowledge access is now
    providing a one-stop portal to share training best practices,
    solutions, and products across the Army.
        The Army increased its employment of biometric technologies
    enabling the Army to better identify the enemy among the populace.
    Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
        Funds permanent, active component end strength at 547,400; Army
    Reserve at 205,000; and National Guard at 358,200 in the base budget
    and supports a 22,000 temporary increase in the active component
    through the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request.
        Procures and upgrades the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk, CH-47 Chinook,
    and AH-64 Apache helicopters, which are vital to operations in
    Afghanistan and Iraq.
        Provides over $1 billion for flight crew training in all components
    to fund flying hours, maintenance, fuel, airfield operations, and
    specialized skill training.
    Reset
        With the pace of continuous combat operations in two wars for the
    past 8 years, we are consuming our readiness as fast as we can build
    it. Reset restores returning units--their Soldiers, Families, and
    equipment--to a level of readiness necessary for future missions.
                Goals
        Our Reset plans include four goals. Our efforts to Revitalize
    Soldiers and Families seek to reestablish and strengthen relationships
    following deployments. The Army's comprehensive efforts to Repair,
    Replace, and Recapitalize Equipment affected by the harsh environments
    of the war are essential to resetting units. In particular, achieving
    responsible drawdown in Iraq while increasing our commitment of forces
    and equipment to Afghanistan will require an unprecedented reset
    effort. The Army must Retrain Soldiers, Leaders, and Units to build
    critical skills necessary to operate across the spectrum of conflict in
    the current security environment. Lastly, we are identifying and
    applying the lessons learned from the Reset Pilot Program that was
    designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Reset
    process. Army Reset is a necessary process that must continue not only
    as long as we have forces deployed, but an additional two to three
    years after major deployments end.
                Progress and Accomplishments
        The Army completed the reset of 29 brigades' worth of equipment in
    fiscal year 2009 and continued the reset of 13 more. In total, we have
    reset more than 98,000 pieces of equipment as depot production has
    doubled since September 11, 2001.
        We began executing a responsible drawdown in Iraq which will
    redistribute, transfer, or dispose of 3.4 million pieces of equipment;
    redeploy 143,000 military and Civilian personnel, and 147,000
    contractors; close 22 supply support activities; and consume or dispose
    of over 21,000 short tons of supplies.
        In 2009, more than 160,000 Soldiers and Family members participated
    in over 2,600 Strong Bonds events designed to strengthen Army Families.
        The Army continues to revise its approach to training by
    emphasizing doing fewer tasks better, making judicious use of field
    time, and maximizing the use of mobile training teams and distributed
    learning.
        We completed our Reset Pilot Program and will begin instituting the
    full Reset model across the Army in 2010.
        The Army fostered partnerships by executing more than $24 billion
    in new foreign military sales.
                Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
        Provides $10.8 billion to reset Army equipment through the Overseas
    Contingency Operations (OCO) request.
        Supports training and sustainment of Army forces to include
    individual skills and leader training; combined arms training toward
    full spectrum operations; and adaptable, phased training based on the
    ARFORGEN process.
    Transform
        Since 2004, the Army has been transforming our force to provide the
    combatant commanders tailored, strategically responsive forces that can
    dominate across the spectrum of conflict. Transformation is a
    continuous process that sets the conditions for success against both
    near-term and future enemies.
                Goals
        Our goals for transformation include continued Modular
    Reorganization to standardize our formations to create a more
    deployable, adaptable, and versatile force. We will accelerate fielding
    of Advanced Technologies to ensure our Soldiers retain their
    technological edge. The Army will Operationalize the Reserve Components
    by systematically building and sustaining readiness while increasing
    predictability for these Soldiers, Families, employers, and
    communities.
        Completing the requirements of the Base Realignment and Closure
    (BRAC) statutes is central to Restationing Forces. Soldier and Leader
    Development will ensure that we produce the next generation of agile
    and adaptive military and Civilian leaders who are supremely competent
    in their core proficiencies and sufficiently broad enough to operate
    effectively in the Joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multi-
    national environments.
                Progress and Accomplishments
        The Army is 88 percent complete on the modular conversion of its
    brigades. The fiscal year 2011 budget will support the near completion
    of this process.
        The Army consolidated existing aviation force structure to create a
    12th active component combat aviation brigade (CAB) forming an
    additional deployable CAB without adding force structure.
        The Army activated the 162nd Infantry Brigade at Fort Polk,
    Louisiana, providing a dedicated and enduring capability to prepare
    combat advisors to train and build capacity in foreign security forces.
    Trainers from the brigade are now deployed to Afghanistan to assist
    with the training and development of the Afghan Security Forces.
        The Army developed a new incremental capability package approach to
    modernization which will allow technologically mature, Soldier-tested,
    proven technologies to be prioritized, bundled in time, and fielded to
    the force more quickly than ever before.
        We provided combatant commanders with dedicated, regionally based
    network operations support, and integrated cyber security capability in
    the form of Theater Network Operations and Security Centers, unique
    within the Department of Defense.
        This past year, the Army closed three active installations and five
    U.S. Army Reserve Centers and is on course to complete BRAC in fiscal
    year 2011. To date, we have awarded 265 major military construction
    projects, of which 59 are complete.
        The Army built a Leader Development Strategy that balances
    experience, greater opportunities for professional education, and
    training in full spectrum operations.
                Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
        Invests nearly $3.2 billion in BCT modernization programs that
    include procurement of the first incremental changes packages for
    Infantry BCTs and additional research, development, testing, and
    evaluation funding for subsequent change packages as well as initial
    development of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV).
        Provides funds to begin equipping a 13th Combat Aviation Brigade.
        Supports the increase in ISR platforms to include the Extended
    Range/Multi-Purpose, Raven, Shadow unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and
    the Extended Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System.
                       setting conditions for the future
    21st Century Army
        The second critical challenge facing the Army is setting the
    conditions for the future through a continuous process of
    transformation. We must ensure that our Nation has the capability and
    range of military options to meet the evolving challenges we face in
    the 21st century. We need an Army that is a versatile mix of tailorable
    and networked organizations, operating on a rotational cycle, to
    provide a sustained flow of trained and ready forces for full spectrum
    operations and to hedge against unexpected contingencies--at a tempo
    that is predictable and sustainable for our all-volunteer force.
        Versatility is the central organizing principle of a balanced Army.
    It enables our forces and institutions to effectively execute
    operations across the spectrum of conflict. Our modular heavy, Stryker,
    and light brigades provide a versatile mix of forces that can be
    combined to provide multi-purpose capabilities, and sufficient capacity
    to accomplish a broad range of tasks from peacetime engagement to major
    combat operations.
        Our modular units are designed to be tailorable. Brigades now have
    capabilities previously found at division level and higher. These
    brigades can be tailored for specific missions and combined with
    support units and key enablers such as ISR, communications, civil
    affairs, psychological operations, public affairs capabilities, and
    expanded logistics support, to accomplish a wide variety of missions
    and increase the land options available to combatant commanders.
        The network is essential to a 21st century Army. Networked
    organizations improve the situational awareness and understanding
    leaders need to act decisively at all points along the spectrum of
    conflict, while providing connectivity down to the individual Soldier.
    The network allows dispersed Army organizations to plan and operate
    together, and provides connectivity to Joint, combined, and interagency
    assets. To support this objective, the Army will use the Global Network
    Enterprise Construct (GNEC) as our strategy to transform LandWarNet to
    a centralized, more secure, operationalized, and sustainable network
    capable of supporting an expeditionary Army.
        To provide a sustained flow of trained and ready forces at a tempo
    sustainable for our all-volunteer force, we will put the whole Army
    under a rotational model--ARFORGEN.
        The ARFORGEN process includes three force pools--Reset, Train-
    Ready, and Available. Each of the three force pools contains a
    versatile force package, available at varying time intervals based on
    its readiness level. Each force pool consists of an operational
    headquarters (a corps), five division headquarters (of which one or two
    are National Guard), twenty brigade combat teams (three or four are
    National Guard), and 90,000 enablers (about half of those are Guard and
    Reserve). Each will be capable of full spectrum operations once we
    reach a steady-state, ratio of time deployed (known as ``boots on the
    ground'' or BOG) to time at home (dwell) of 1:2 (BOG:dwell) for active
    component forces and 1:4 for reserve component forces. This versatile
    mix of land forces could sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At
    lower demand levels, a sustainable BOG:dwell ratio of 1:3 for active
    component forces and 1:5 for reserve component forces provides ready,
    global reaction forces and regionally-oriented forces for engagement in
    support of Theater Security Cooperation Programs. This process also
    allows strategic flexibility to surge in response to unexpected
    contingencies across the spectrum of conflict, and provides operational
    depth with more forces available for longer commitment times.
        The increased demands of our combatant commanders, coupled with the
    size of our active component (AC) force, require that we continue to
    integrate reserve component (RC) forces as part of our operational
    force. Continued and routine access to our RC forces is essential to
    sustaining current operations, and is improving the overall operational
    experience and quality of our RC forces. Additionally, sufficient Army
    National Guard (ARNG) forces must be ready and immediately available to
    their state and territorial authorities to respond to domestic crises.
    We are building an integrated Army in which our RC forces are included
    in the rotational cycle, but at a deployment rate of about half that of
    their AC counterparts.
        The ARFORGEN process increases predictability for Soldiers,
    Families, employers, and communities, and enables our RC to remain an
    integral element of the operational force while providing the Nation
    with the strategic depth (i.e. those non-deployed units which are 2 to
    3 years from commitment) and operational flexibility to meet unexpected
    contingencies.
        The Army has undergone significant changes in recent years, and we
    must continue to change in order to keep pace with an environment of
    uncertainty and complexity in this era of persistent conflict. The same
    requirements that drive the imperative to change also drive our
    modernization efforts and need for institutional adaptation.
    Realizing Change
        To become the Army the Nation needs in the second decade of the
    21st century, we are transforming the Army and prioritizing programs
    and efforts that show the most promise for today and tomorrow.
    Similarly, we are transforming business processes across the Army,
    including how we identify requirements, acquire, and provide materiel
    capabilities to our Soldiers, and how we adapt our institutions to
    align with the ARFORGEN process.
        On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates announced his adjustments to the
    defense program as part of the President's budget proposal for fiscal
    year 2010. The Secretary's decisions had an immediate and major impact
    on our FCS-centric Army modernization effort. He terminated the MGV
    portion of FCS, directing that we ``reevaluate the requirements,
    technology, and approach--and then re-launch the Army's vehicle
    modernization program. . . .'' He further directed the Army to
    ``accelerate the initial increment of the program to spin out
    technology enhancements to all combat brigades,'' and retain and
    deliver software and network development program in increments, and
    incorporate MRAP into our force structure. Secretary Gates' intent for
    these bold adjustments was clear--to better reflect the lessons that we
    were learning from ongoing operations and better posture Army forces
    for a broader range of future challenges.
        To fully implement the Secretary of Defense's direction, the Army
    has developed a comprehensive plan. We refer to this new program as the
    Army's ``Brigade Combat Team Modernization Plan,'' which is a subset of
    our overall Army Modernization Strategy.
                BCT Modernization Plan
        We will leverage the lessons learned from the last 8 years to
    provide effective and affordable equipment now, while reducing the time
    it takes to develop and field new and updated materiel solutions. BCT
    Modernization includes four elements: modernizing the network over time
    to take advantage of technology upgrades, while simultaneously
    expanding it to cover ever increasing portions of the force;
    incorporating MRAPs into our force; rapidly developing and fielding a
    new Ground Combat Vehicle that meets the requirements of the 21st
    century Army; and incrementally fielding Capability Packages that best
    meet the needs of Soldiers and units as they train and then deploy.
        Army Network.--Central to the Army's modernization efforts is an
    enhanced and interoperable communication network that gives the Army a
    decisive advantage across the spectrum of conflict. The network
    supports leaders in making timely, informed decisions, and supports
    organizational agility, lethality, and sustainability. It allows our
    Soldiers to know where the enemy is, where other friendly forces and
    civilian populations are, and what weapon systems are available for
    them at any given time. The network links Soldiers on the battlefield
    with space-based and aerial sensors, robots, and command posts--
    providing unprecedented situational awareness and control and enabling
    the application of precise lethal fires on the modern battlefield.
        Maintaining our technological advantage is a constant challenge.
    The Army's battle command network must be continuously upgraded to
    ensure security and provide improved capability, capacity, connectivity
    and operational effectiveness. The Warfighter Information Network
    (Tactical) (WIN-T) is designed to extend the network ultimately to the
    company level for BCTs and provide real-time information, such as high
    definition imagery, from surveillance sources. The Joint Tactical Radio
    System (JTRS) was born Joint with the specific requirement to resolve
    radio interoperability among the services. It will provide Soldiers at
    the tactical level with connectivity at extended ranges, including
    voice, data, and video, enabling them to move information from platoon
    to higher-level command posts in complex terrain (including urban and
    mountainous areas).
        MRAP Strategy.--In response to deadly IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    the Nation made a tremendous investment in fielding MRAPs that have
    saved lives by providing significantly improved protection for our
    Soldiers. The Army is incorporating these vehicles throughout its unit
    formations. Additionally, we used the basic design of the MRAP as the
    foundation for the M-ATV, modifying it for the mountainous terrain in
    Afghanistan and in other regions around the world. The MRAP family of
    vehicles provides the versatility our forces need to rapidly move
    around the battlefield, particularly in an IED environment, with the
    best protection we can provide.
        Ground Combat Vehicle.--Combining the lessons learned from the
    survivability of the MRAP, the tactical mobility of the Bradley
    Fighting Vehicle, and the operational mobility of the Stryker, the Army
    is developing a Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) that possesses all of these
    qualities. Providing Soldiers protected mobility is our top design
    criteria. The first combat vehicle designed from the ground up to
    operate in an IED environment, the GCV will have enhanced mobility that
    will allow it to operate effectively in both urban and off-road
    environments. It will be designed to host the Army's network. And
    perhaps most importantly, it will have the capacity available to accept
    future upgrades incrementally as technologies mature and threats
    change.
        The GCV will be versatile enough to support our expeditionary
    requirements and be capable of carrying an infantry squad. It will
    combine sustainability features that match the availability rates of
    the Stryker while consuming less fuel than current vehicles of similar
    weight and power. The pace of change and the operational environment
    demand an expedited acquisition timeline, so the Army is pursuing a GCV
    program timeline that provides the first production vehicles in seven
    years.
        Capability Packages.--Capability packages provide the Army a
    regular, timely process to enable our deployable units with the latest
    materiel and non-materiel solutions based on the evolving challenges of
    the operating environment. The best available capabilities will go to
    the Soldiers who need them most, based on the threats they are likely
    to face. These bundles of capabilities will include materiel, doctrine,
    organization, and training to fill the highest priority requirements
    and mitigate risk for Soldiers. This incremental packaging approach
    will enable leaders to make timely, resource-informed decisions, and
    will help ensure that we provide the best available technologies to
    fulfill urgent needs to Soldiers in the fight--all driven by the cyclic
    readiness produced by ARFORGEN. These capability packages will upgrade
    our units as they prepare to deploy by providing them improved
    capabilities such as precision fires and advanced Intelligence,
    Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR).
                The Army Modernization Strategy
        The Army's Brigade Combat Team Modernization Plan is a key element
    of our overall Army Modernization Strategy. The Army Modernization
    Strategy reflects our overarching vision of how we will achieve our
    ends, which is to:
      --Develop and field an affordable and interoperable mix of the best
            equipment available to allow Soldiers and units to succeed in
            both today's and tomorrow's full spectrum military operations.
        The Army Modernization Strategy relies on three interrelated lines
    of effort:
      --Develop and field new capabilities to meet identified capability
            ``gaps'' through traditional or rapid acquisition processes. In
            support of this Line of Effort in fiscal year 2011 we have
            requested $934 million to develop the Army's new Ground Combat
            Vehicle (GCV), which will overcome critical capability gaps in
            both current and future operations. It is envisioned to have
            the tactical mobility of a Bradley, the operational mobility of
            a Stryker, and the protection of an MRAP. We are also
            requesting $459 million to procure the Extended Range Multi-
            Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. This extraordinarily capable
            platform, which is already making a difference in Operation
            Enduring Freedom, gives commanders longer dwell ISR
            capabilities across a joint area of operations.
      --Continuously modernize equipment to meet current and future
            capability needs through upgrade, replacement,
            recapitalization, refurbishment, and technology insertions.
            Army efforts in this Line of Effort include our request for
            $887 million for the procurement of 16 Block III AH-64 Apache
            Helicopters, as well as the upgrade of 13 AH-64 Helicopters to
            Block II. Block III Apache is part of a long-term effort to
            improve situational awareness, performance, reliability, and
            sustainment of the Apache. Block II upgrades continue our
            commitment to modernize the Army National Guard Aviation Fleet.
            Additionally, in this line of effort, we have requested $505
            million to upgrade Shadow RQ-7 UAVs. This key upgrade will
            increase the payload capacity and enhance the performance of
            this key ISR asset for our BCT Commanders.
      --Meet continuously evolving force requirements in the current
            operational environment by fielding and distributing
            capabilities in accordance with the Army Resource Priorities
            List (ARPL) and Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) Model. Meeting
            the constantly evolving needs of theater commanders and the
            demands of persistent conflict will require unprecedented
            agility in our equipping and modernization programs. One
            example of this agility can be found in our Kiowa Warrior
            fleet. We are currently maneuvering our fleet of OH-58D Kiowa
            Warrior Light Helicopters to meet Army and COCOM requirements
            based on the ARFORGEN model. As Air Cavalry Squadrons return
            from conflict, their OH-58D helicopters are placed into Reset.
            Units in Reset have very few aircraft, if any. Because the
            Kiowa Warrior fleet is short 35 aircraft overall, when the
            squadrons transition into the Train/Ready Phase of ARFORGEN,
            they are provided a number of helicopters sufficient to conduct
            training (25), but less than what they are fully authorized
            (30). When the units move into the Available phase, they are
            provided their full complement of aircraft. It is this agility
            that has allowed Army forces to meet the needs of theater
            commanders for over eight years of sustained combat.
        What do we need? Congress has been very supportive of Army
    Modernization needs in the past. Their tremendous support has ensured
    that the Army Soldier is the best equipped and most respected combatant
    in the world. In order to execute Army Modernization and ensure the
    continued success of Soldiers and units, we depend on a variety of
    resources, not the least of which is predictable funding. For fiscal
    year 2011, we have requested $31.7 billion for procurement and
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) efforts.
                Adapting the Institution and Transforming Business
                        Practices
        In addition to modernizing our operating force, we are transforming
    our institutional Army. As required by Section 904 of the 2008 National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the appointment of the Under
    Secretary of the Army as the Army's Chief Management Officer (CMO) has
    allowed the Army to develop a series of initiatives to adapt the
    institutional Army and transform our business practices. In accordance
    with Section 908 of the 2009 NDAA, these efforts will result in the
    development and implementation of a comprehensive program that
    establishes a series of measurable performance goals and objectives.
    Specifically, the comprehensive program will address the following:
     --Developing and implementing a business transformation plan focused
            on running the Army as effectively and efficiently as possible.
     --Continuing the Army's business process reengineering activities, led
            by OSD's Business Transformation Agency.
     --Developing an integrated business systems architecture that
            emphasizes transparency and seamless access to data, and
            provides timely and accurate information to decision makers.
     --Preparing Army leaders to take a greater role in inculcating the
            Army with a cost-conscious culture.
        While the Army transformed its operating force--building versatile,
    agile units capable of adapting to changing environments--the
    institutional Army continued to use processes and procedures that were
    designed to support a pre-9/11 Army based on tiered levels of
    readiness. To support this new operating force, the Army must have an
    updated institutional Army--our generating force.
        Once the mission is defined, our institutions must seamlessly and
    continuously adapt--tailoring force packages and quickly adjusting
    training, manning, and equipping--to ensure units have all of the
    physical and mental tools necessary to succeed.
        Institutional agility allows us to adapt to the realities that
    present themselves. To that end, the CMO and Office of Business
    Transformation will build upon progress that has already been made
    toward the Army's institutional adaptation, specifically:
     --Improvement of the ARFORGEN process--aligning the generating force
            and its processes to better support Soldiers, Families, and
            units within the operating force.
     --Adoption of an Enterprise Approach--developing civilian and military
            leaders who take a collaborative, holistic view of Army
            objectives and resources to make better decisions for the Army.
     --Reformation of the requirements and resource processes--delivering
            timely and necessary capabilities at best value.
        This transformational approach will overlay everything that the
    institutional Army does, with the unwavering goal of effectively and
    efficiently providing trained and ready forces to meet combatant
    commander requirements.
                           stewardship and innovation
        The Army remains devoted to the best possible stewardship of the
    resources it is provided by the American people through Congress. The
    establishment of the CMO and initiatives related to the transformation
    of Army business practices represent the Army's effort to act as a
    responsible steward. Several other initiatives serve to conserve
    resources and to reduce waste and inefficiencies wherever possible.
        The Army achieved full operating capability of the new Army
    Contracting Command, Expeditionary Contracting Command, and Mission and
    Installation Contracting Command in 2009. These organizations are
    dedicated to ensuring professional, ethical, efficient, and responsive
    contracting.
        Civilians are assuming increased responsibilities within the Army.
    The Army is recouping intellectual capital by in-sourcing former
    contracted positions that were associated with inherently governmental
    functions. In fiscal year 2009, the Army saved significant resources by
    in-sourcing more than 900 core governmental functions to Army
    Civilians. We plan to in-source 7,162 positions in fiscal year 2010,
    and are programmed to in-source 11,084 positions during fiscal year
    2011-2015, of which 3,988 are acquisition positions. These positions
    were identified in the Army's ongoing contractor inventory review
    process.
        In the Employer Partnership program, the Army Reserve works with
    public agencies and private employers to leverage their shared
    interests in recruiting, training, and credentialing highly skilled
    Citizen-Soldiers. The Army Reserve has signed more than 800 partnership
    agreements with corporations, state agencies, and local police
    departments.
        Energy security is a key component of Army installations, weapons
    systems, and operations. The Army has developed a comprehensive energy
    security strategy, and is acting now to implement initiatives to make
    us less dependent on foreign sources of fuel and better stewards of our
    nation's energy resources. In support of these goals, we fielded the
    largest hybrid vehicle fleet within the Department of Defense. Energy
    will continue to be a key consideration in all Army activities in order
    to reduce demand, increase efficiency, seek alternative sources, and
    create a culture of energy accountability, while sustaining or
    enhancing operational capabilities.
        The Army is committed to environmental stewardship. Through
    cooperative partner agreements and the Army Compatible Use Buffer
    Program, the Army protected more than 28,000 acres of land at 14
    locations in fiscal year 2009. Through creative solutions, the Army
    continues to conduct realistic training on its installations while
    protecting threatened and endangered species on Army lands.
                   america's army--the strength of the nation
        The professionalism, dedicated service, and sacrifice of our all-
    volunteer force are hallmarks of the Army--the Strength of our Nation.
        Our Soldiers and their Families quietly bear the burdens of a
    Nation at war. Our Civilians stand with them, dedicated to the Nation
    and the Army that serves it. Despite the toll that 8 years of combat
    has taken, these great Americans continue to step forward to answer our
    Nation's call. In an environment in which we must make hard choices,
    they deserve the very best we can offer, commensurate with their
    dedication and sacrifice.
        To continue to fulfill our vital role for the Nation, the Army must
    sustain its efforts to restore balance and set conditions for the
    future. We have made significant progress this year, but challenges
    remain. The continued support of Congress will ensure that the Army
    remains manned, trained, and equipped to protect our national security
    interests at home and abroad, now and in the future. America's Army--
    the Strength of the Nation.
              addendum a--the fiscal year 2011 president's budget
        The fiscal year 2011 President's budget asks for $245.6 billion for
    the Army. This budget, which includes $143.4 billion for the Base and
    $102.2 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request,
    is necessary to: support current operations, increase forces in
    Afghanistan, responsibly drawdown in Iraq, sustain the all-volunteer
    force, and prepare for future threats.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Amounts requested by major appropriation category in the fiscal
    year 2011 President's budget include:
    Military Personnel
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $71.0 billion, a $300 million
    increase over fiscal year 2010. Military Personnel funds support Army
    end-strength requirements for a Nation at war. This includes $1.2
    billion for the temporary wartime increase in personnel, an increase of
    $684 million over fiscal year 2010.
        This amount funds pay, benefits, and associated personnel costs for
    1,110,600 Soldiers: 547,400 Active, 358,200 Army National Guard,
    205,000 Army Reserve and funds an active component temporary end
    strength increase of 22,000.
        The OCO request will fund special pays, incentives, and the
    mobilization of reserve component Soldiers.
                Compelling Needs
        Support the Army's base endstrength and the temporary end strength
    increase in fiscal year 2011 to reduce strain on the force.
        Sustain authorities and funding of programs in support of wounded,
    ill, and injured Warriors and their Families as they transition back to
    duty or to civilian life.
        Provide recruiting and retention incentives and benefits to sustain
    the quality of our all-volunteer force, allow the Army to meet end-
    strength objectives, and achieve Army standards for recruit quality.
        Enable the transition of the reserve component to an operational
    force by systematically building and sustaining readiness across the
    force and fund mobilization of RC units to support growing demand.
    Operation and Maintenance
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $107.3 billion--a $7 billion
    increase from fiscal year 2010. Operation and maintenance funds Soldier
    and unit training; ground and air vehicle operating costs; depot
    maintenance; base operations, sustainment, restoration, and
    modernization; and a 1.4 percent Civilian pay raise.
        The OCO portion of the request includes $628 million for the
    training and sustainment of the temporary wartime increase in
    personnel--an increase of $242 million from fiscal year 2010.
        The budget request works to restore balance to the force by
    recognizing $587 million of enduring requirements for training and
    depot maintenance in the base rather than in OCO. The base funds home
    station training for 59 brigade combat teams, 24 rotations through the
    Army's combined arms training centers, and an increased investment of
    $154 million in scholarships, language and individual training. It
    improves network security; operationalizes the LandWarNet; supports
    continued development and fielding of administrative systems; and
    provides funding for improvements in financial audit readiness (as
    required in NDAA 2009) by requesting an additional $578 million above
    the fiscal year 2010 levels for these activities. The base budget also
    increases funding for facilities sustainment restoration and
    modernization by $320 million and includes one-time requests to support
    BRAC and the transition out of NSPS.
        The OCO request will fund the day-to-day cost of the wars, training
    to prepare units for deployment, force protection, in-theater
    maintenance and repair, drawdown of equipment from Iraq, and reset of
    Army Prepositioned Stocks and equipment returning from deployment.
                Compelling Needs
        Sustain readiness through Soldier and unit training, including
    realistic, full spectrum training at the Army's three combat training
    centers.
        Fund the reset of 30 brigades, other enabling units, and equipment.
        Resource installation services worldwide and support the Army
    Family Covenant to provide Soldiers and their Families the quality of
    life they deserve and to enhance the health of the force.
    Procurement
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $30.3 billion--a $200 million
    decrease from fiscal year 2010. Procurement funds the Army's future
    force equipment requirements; sustains modernization and
    recapitalization; and fills equipment shortages. The OCO request will
    fund procurement of weapon systems to replace battle losses,
    replacement of equipment taken for current operations from the reserve
    components, and to fill urgent operational needs for deployed forces.
                Compelling Needs
        Fund the fielding of the first Capability Packages to two more Army
    brigades.
        Enhance Army command and control by providing an initial on-the-
    move networking capability resident in the Warfighter Information
    Network--Tactical (WIN-T), Increment 2.
        Increase the Army's tactical agility through an aviation
    modernization strategy that highlights the increasing importance of
    unmanned aerial systems (ERMP, Shadow and Raven) and rotary wing
    aviation (AH-64D Block III Apache, UH-60M Black Hawk and CH-47F
    Chinook).
        Improve lethality and precision fires by modernizing the Patriot
    PAC-3 missile, the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, the High
    Mobility Artillery Rocket System, and the Paladin howitzer.
        Sustain access to training and war reserve ammunition by restoring
    stocks and the selective repair, upgrade and replacement of key
    ammunition production base equipment and facilities.
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $10.5 billion, approximately
    the same amount requested last year.
                Compelling Needs
        Fund Brigade Combat Team modernization including initial Ground
    Combat Vehicle development and further development of the second set of
    Capability Packages.
        Support Network modernization including continued development of
    WIN-T increment 2 and increment 3.
        Continues the international partnership to develop the Patriot
    Medium Extended Air Defense systems (MEADS)
    Construction, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), and Army Housing
        Fiscal year 2011 is a critical year for BRAC since this will be the
    final budget executed to meet the statutory deadline for many of the
    BRAC actions. fiscal year 2011 will be a particularly challenging year
    for BRAC as four of our major command headquarters and many of our
    military schools will be moving to new locations. The fiscal year 2011
    budget requests $7.9 billion--a $2.5 billion decrease from fiscal year
    2010. This funding supports the construction of facilities to support
    the growth and re-stationing of Army forces. The OCO request will fund
    construction in Afghanistan.
                Compelling Needs
        Fund BRAC requirements to meet fiscal year 2011 statutory
    timelines.
        Support construction of new family housing and improvements to
    existing housing.
        Support construction of permanent party and training barracks.
    Other Accounts
        The Army is the executive agent for a variety of critical functions
    within the Department of Defense, to include the Chemical Agents and
    Munitions Destruction Program. Funding for this account is $1.6 billion
    in fiscal year 2011--a decrease of $100 million from fiscal year 2010.
    The Army also has responsibility for the Iraq Security Forces Fund
    (ISFF), Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF), and Joint Improvised
    Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) appropriations. The Army
    budgets for recurring sustainment costs of JIEDDO with fiscal year 2011
    funds at $200 million--an increase of $100 million from fiscal year
    2010. The OCO Request will fund JIEDDO initiatives. The ISFF and ASFF
    are funded entirely through the OCO request.
                Compelling Needs
        Fund the Afghan Security Forces Fund and the Iraq Security Forces
    Fund to enable building essential security capacity.
        Support JIEDDO appropriations and initiatives to combat the most
    dangerous threat to U.S. forces.
        Continue the safe destruction of chemical agents and munitions and
    the closure activities at selected chemical demilitarization sites.
    Restoring Fiscal Balance
        Timely and full funding of the Army's fiscal year 2011 request of
    $245.6 billion will help ensure the Army is ready to meet the needs of
    the Nation and continue the process of restoring balance while setting
    the conditions for the future. Over the last 8 years, the Army has
    received significant portions of its funding for combat readiness
    through OCO appropriations. This recurring reliance on OCO funds and an
    overlap between base and OCO sustainment programs means that the Army's
    base budget does not fully cover the cost of both current and future
    readiness requirements. Because of this reliance, a precipitous drop or
    delay in OCO funding does not fully fund the readiness of our Army for
    the current conflict. Army continues the orderly restoration of the
    balance between base and OCO requirements in its fiscal year 2011 base
    budget request. This request fully funds Army authorized end strength
    and brings $965 million in O&M expenses back into the base rather than
    finance those requirements in OCO.
                    addendum b--reserve component readiness
        Sections 517 and 521 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    (NDAA) 1994 require the information in this addendum be reported.
    Section 517 requires a report relating to implementation of the pilot
    Program for Active Component Support of the Reserves under Section 414
    of the NDAA 1992 and 1993. Section 521 requires a detailed presentation
    concerning the Army National Guard (ARNG), including information
    relating to implementation of the ARNG Combat Readiness Reform Act of
    1992 (Title XI of Public Law 102-484, referred to in this addendum as
    ANGCRRA). Section 521 reporting was later amended by Section 704 of
    NDAA 1996. U.S. Army Reserve information is also presented using
    Section 521 report criteria.
        Section 517(b)(2)(A).--The promotion rate for officers considered
    for promotion from within the promotion zone who are serving as active
    component advisors to units of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
    Reserve (in accordance with that program) compared with the promotion
    rate for other officers considered for promotion from within the
    promotion zone in the same pay grade and the same competitive category,
    shown for all officers of the Army.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year 2008                     Fiscal year 2009
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  In the Zone                AC in RC              Army Average              AC in RC   Army Average
                                               \1\      Percent   (percent) \2\   Percent      \1\     (percent) \2\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Major.................................     0 of 1  .........         92.8     56 of 63       88.9         94.1
    Lieutenant Colonel....................     1 of 1        100         89.1     16 of 20       80.0         87.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Active component officers serving in reserve component assignments at time of consideration.
    \2\ Active component officers not serving in reserve component assignments at the time of consideration.

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

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year 2008                     Fiscal year 2009
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Below the Zone               AC in RC              Army Average              AC in RC   Army Average
                                               \1\      Percent   (percent) \2\   Percent      \1\     (percent) \2\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Major.................................     0 of 4  .........          4.9       2 of 4       50.0          6.0
    Lieutenant Colonel....................     0 of 0  .........         13.5       0 of 1  .........          7.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Below the zone active component officers serving in reserve component assignments at time of consideration.
    \2\ Below-the-zone active component officers not serving in reserve component assignments at time of
      consideration.

    Section 521(b)
        1. The number and percentage of officers with at least 2 years of
    active-duty before becoming a member of the Army National Guard or the
    U.S. Army Reserve Selected Reserve units.
        ARNG officers: 14,760 or 36.3 percent
        Army Reserve officers: 19,573 or 59 percent
        2. The number and percentage of enlisted personnel with at least 2
    years of active-duty before becoming a member of the Army National
    Guard or the U.S. Army Reserve Selected Reserve units.
        ARNG enlisted: 85,255 or 26.8 percent
        Army Reserve enlisted: 63,311 or 41.6 percent
        3. The number of officers who are graduates of one of the service
    academies and were released from active duty before the completion of
    their active-duty service obligation and, of those officers:
      --The number who are serving the remaining period of their active-
            duty service obligation as a member of the Selected Reserve
            pursuant to section 1112(a)(1) of ANGCRRA:
        --In fiscal year 2009, 10 graduates from Service Academies were
                serving in the Army National Guard to complete their
                service obligation.
        --In fiscal year 2009, 0 graduates from Service Academies were
                serving in the Army Reserve to complete their service
                obligation.
      --The number for whom waivers were granted by the Secretary of the
            Army under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA, together with the
            reason for each waiver:
        --In fiscal year 2009, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
                the Army.
        4. The number of officers who were commissioned as distinguished
    Reserve Officers' Training Corps graduates and were released from
    active duty before the completion of their active-duty service
    obligation and, of those officers:
      --The number who are serving the remaining period of their active-
            duty service obligation as a member of the Selected Reserve
            pursuant to section 1112(a)(1) of ANGCRRA:
        --In fiscal year 2009, no distinguished Reserve Officers' Training
                Corps (ROTC) graduate was released before completing their
                active-duty service obligation.
      --The number for whom waivers were granted by the Secretary of the
            Army under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA, together with the
            reason for each waiver:
        --In fiscal year 2009, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
                the Army.
        5. The number of officers who are graduates of the Reserve
    Officers' Training Corps program and who are performing their minimum
    period of obligated service in accordance with section 1112(b) of
    ANGCRRA by a combination of (a) 2 years of active duty, and (b) such
    additional period of service as is necessary to complete the remainder
    of such obligation served in the National Guard and, of those officers,
    the number for whom permission to perform their minimum period of
    obligated service in accordance with that section was granted during
    the preceding fiscal year:
      --In fiscal year 2009, one ROTC graduate was released early from
            their active-duty obligation. The officer is serving the
            remainder of his/her obligation in the ARNG
        6. The number of officers for whom recommendations were made during
    the preceding fiscal year for a unit vacancy promotion to a grade above
    first lieutenant, and of those recommendations, the number and
    percentage that were concurred in by an active duty officer under
    section 1113(a) of ANGCRRA, shown separately for each of the three
    categories of officers set forth in section 1113(b) of ANGCRRA (with
    Army Reserve data also reported).
      --There are no longer active and reserve component associations due
            to operational mission requirements and deployment tempo.
            Active component officers no longer concur or non-concur with
            unit vacancy promotion recommendations for officers in
            associated units according to section 1113(a). However, unit
            vacancy promotion boards have active component representation.
      --In fiscal year 2009, 2,223 ARNG officers from units were
            recommended for position-vacancy promotion and promoted. This
            number consists of 319 U.S. Army Medical Department, 1,864 Army
            Promotion List and 40 Chaplains.
      --In fiscal year 2009 the estimated percentage of Unit Vacancy
            Promotions CPT through COL in which an active component
            representation was on the state unit vacancy promotion board is
            as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AMEDD........................................................         12
    APL..........................................................         10
    Chaplain.....................................................         13
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --In fiscal year 2009, 59 Army Reserve officers from units were
            recommended for position-vacancy promotion and promoted. This
            number consists of 9 U.S. Army Medical Department, 47 Army
            Promotion List, and 3 Chaplains.
        7. The number of waivers during the preceding fiscal year under
    section 1114(a) of ANGCRRA of any standard prescribed by the Secretary
    establishing a military education requirement for non-commissioned
    officers and the reason for each such waiver.
      --In fiscal year 2009, the ARNG had a total of 201 Noncommissioned
            Officers receive a military education waiver. As of September
            30, 2009 all those waiver recipients were eligible for
            promotion to the next rank, but none have obtained the military
            education requirement that was previously waived.
      --In fiscal year 2009, the Army Reserve had a total of 331 Soldiers
            receive a military education waiver. Of these, 124 were SGTs in
            need of a waiver for Warrior Leader Course (WLC) as a result of
            being deployed or assigned to Warrior Transition Units (WTU)
            (Medical Hold or Medical Hold-Over Units) whose medical
            condition was incurred in direct support of Overseas
            Contingency Operations and who were otherwise eligible for
            promotion, if recommended. Furthermore, eligible Soldiers
            lacking the prerequisite level of military education due to
            operational deployment conflicts or the inability of the Army
            to schedule the course, were granted waivers. This included 173
            Soldiers who were granted waivers for the Basic NCO Course (Now
            Advanced Leader Course) and 34 Soldiers who were granted
            waivers for the Advanced NCO Course (now Senior Leader Course).
      --The Secretary of the Army has delegated the authority for the
            waivers referred to in section 1114(a) of ANGCRRA to the
            Director, ARNG and to the Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command.
            A majority of these waivers were approved due to the Soldiers
            being deployed and/or performing operational missions. Each
            reserve component maintains details for each waiver.
        8. The number and distribution by grade, shown for each State, of
    personnel in the initial entry training and non-deployability personnel
    accounting category established under section 1115 of ANGCRRA for
    members of the Army National Guard who have not completed the minimum
    training required for deployment or who are otherwise not available for
    deployment. (A narrative summary of information pertaining to the Army
    Reserve is also provided.)
      --In fiscal year 2009, the ARNG had 61,812 Soldiers considered non-
            deployable for reasons outlined in Army Regulation 220-1, Unit
            Status Reporting (e.g., pending administrative/legal discharge
            or separation, medical non-availability, incomplete initial
            entry training, officer transition, unsatisfactory
            participation, or restrictions on the use or possession of
            weapons and ammunition under the Lautenberg Amendment).
      --In fiscal year 2009, the Army Reserve had 49,330 Soldiers
            considered non-deployable for reasons outlined in Army
            Regulation 220-1, Unit Status Reporting (e.g., pending
            administrative/legal discharge or separation, medical non-
            availability, incomplete initial entry training, officer
            transition, unsatisfactory participation, or restrictions on
            the use or possession of weapons and ammunition under the
            Lautenberg Amendment).
        9. The number of members of the Army National Guard, shown for each
    State, that were discharged during the previous fiscal year pursuant to
    section 1115(c)(1) of ANGCRRA for not completing the minimum training
    required for deployment within 24 months after entering the National
    Guard. (Army Reserve data also reported.)
      --The number of ARNG Soldiers discharged during fiscal year 2009
            pursuant to section 1115(c)(1) of ANGCRRA for not completing
            the minimum training required for deployment within 24 months
            after entering the Army National Guard is 141 officers and
            15,105 enlisted Soldiers from all U.S. states and territories.
            The breakdown by each state is maintained by the NGB.
      --The number of Army Reserve Soldiers discharged during fiscal year
            2009 for not completing the minimum training required for
            deployment within 24 months after entering the Army Reserve is
            63 officers and 2,910 enlisted Soldiers. Soldiers who have not
            completed the required initial entry training within the first
            24 months are discharged from the Army Reserve under AR 135-
            178, Separation of Enlisted Personnel. Officers who have not
            completed a basic branch course within 36 months after
            commissioning are separated under AR 135-175, Separation of
            Officers.
        10. The number of waivers, shown for each State, that were granted
    by the Secretary of the Army during the previous fiscal year under
    section 1115(c)(2) of ANGCRRA of the requirement in section 1115(c)(1)
    of ANGCRRA described in paragraph (9), together with the reason for
    each waiver.
      --In fiscal year 2009, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
            the Army for the Army National Guard or the U.S. Army Reserve.
        11. The number of Army National Guard members, shown for each
    State, (and the number of AR members), who were screened during the
    preceding fiscal year to determine whether they meet minimum physical
    profile standards required for deployment and, of those members: (a)
    the number and percentage that did not meet minimum physical profile
    standards for deployment; and (b) the number and percentage who were
    transferred pursuant to section 1116 of ANGCRRA to the personnel
    accounting category described in paragraph (8).
      --The number and percentage who did not meet minimum physical profile
            standards required for deployment:
        --In fiscal year 2009, 242,777 ARNG Soldiers underwent a Periodic
                Health Assessment (PHA) physical. Of these personnel 18,830
                or 7.7 percent were identified for review due to a possible
                deployment limiting condition or failure to meet retention
                standards.
        --In fiscal year 2009, 115,133 Army Reserve Soldiers underwent a
                PHA physical. Of these personnel 21,505, or 18.68 percent
                were identified for review due to a possible deployment
                limiting condition or failure to meet retention standards.
                The fiscal year 2008-2009 increase is most attributable to
                PHA physicals now being required annually.
      --The number and percentage that were transferred pursuant to section
            1116 of ANGCRRA to the personnel accounting category described
            in paragraph (8).
        --In fiscal year 2009, 18,830 ARNG Soldiers were transferred from
                deployable to nondeployable status for failing to meet
                medical deployability standards. This number includes
                Soldiers returning from a mobilization with a new medical
                condition and reflects an increase in the accuracy of
                electronic databases.
        --In fiscal year 2009, 21,505 Army Reserve Soldiers were considered
                non-available for deployment for failing to meet medical
                deployability standards. The new PHA physicals being
                required annually may account for the increase in those
                being found to be non-deployable.
        12. The number of members and the percentage total membership of
    the Army National Guard shown for each State who underwent a medical
    screening during the previous fiscal year as provided in section 1117
    of ANGCRRA.
      --Repealed. Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII,
            Section 704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1117 of
            ANGCRRA.
        13. The number of members and the percentage of the total
    membership of the Army National Guard shown for each State who
    underwent a dental screening during the previous fiscal year as
    provided in section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
      --Repealed. Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII,
            Section 704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1117 of
            ANGCRRA.
        14. The number of members and the percentage of the total
    membership of the Army National Guard shown for each State, over the
    age of 40 who underwent a full physical examination during the previous
    fiscal year for purposes of section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
      --Repealed. Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII,
            Section 704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1117 of
            ANGCRRA.
        15. The number of units of the Army National Guard that are
    scheduled for early deployment in the event of a mobilization, and of
    those units, the number that are dentally ready for deployment in
    accordance with section 1118 of ANGCRRA.
      --Repealed. Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII,
            Section 704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1118 of
            ANGCRRA.
        16. The estimated post-mobilization training time for each Army
    National Guard combat unit (and Army Reserve unit), and a description,
    displayed in broad categories and by State of what training would need
    to be accomplished for Army National Guard combat units (and AR units)
    in a post-mobilization period for purposes of section 1119 of ANGCRRA.
      --Per January 2007 direction from the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF)
            reserve component unit mobilizations are limited to 400-day
            periods, including a 30-day post-mobilization leave and all
            post-mobilization training.
      --The most significant impact of this policy change is that many
            training tasks previously conducted during the first 3 to 6
            months of mobilization have been identified for premobilization
            training, and units are training to standard on as many of
            these tasks as resources permit. Information on the type of
            training required by units during postmobilization is
            maintained by First Army. The data are not captured by state.
      --ARNG units strive to train in accordance with the Army Force
            Generation (ARFORGEN) process in order to prepare for
            operational missions and reduce post-mobilization training
            time. The ARFORGEN process requires increased resources for
            company-level training proficiency prior to mobilization. This
            training generally consists of individual warrior training
            tasks, weapons qualification and gunnery, battle staff
            training, and maneuver training. This is followed by theater-
            specific tasks and higher level collective training to complete
            the predeployment requirements for the unit's specific mission.
            The goal for post-mobilization training time for a brigade-size
            organization is approximately 60 days.
      --Post-mobilization training time is contingent upon the amount of
            certified pre-mobilization training conducted, the type of
            unit, and its assigned mission. In order to reduce post-
            mobilization training time, the ARNG has developed programs and
            products such as the ARNG Battle Command Training Capability,
            the eXportable Combat Training Capability (XCTC), training
            devices, and range complexes for our units.
      --The combination of programs and products, provide units with the
            capability to accomplish more during pre-mobilization training
            and therefore reduce post-mobilization training time.
      --The Army Reserve developed the Regional Training Center (RTC)
            concept in response to the SECDEF decision to restrict RC
            mobilizations to 1 year. These centers provide the capability
            for Army Reserve units to conduct training on Theater Specific
            Required Training (TSRT) to theater standards and conditions.
            The majority of training is on individual tasks but some
            collective training is also conducted. Because of certification
            by unit commanders, most of the training is not repeated in
            post-mobilization status. Exceptions are for tasks incorporated
            into other required training events and for convoy operations
            training.
      --The TSRT training is for units that will deploy to theater,
            including non-rotational forces (MTOE and TDA). Units
            mobilizing for CONUS based missions do not require this
            training.
      --Each RTC conducts standard rotations throughout the year although
            each has the capability to adjust training for selected large
            unit participation. Initially the Army Reserve provided a staff
            projection to DA that the training would require 17 days, but
            in actual implementation the training has required 21 days.
      --Army goals for post-mobilization training for Army Reserve
            headquarters and combat support/combat service support units
            range from 30 to 60 days. Post-mobilization training conducted
            by First Army typically consists of counterinsurgency
            operations, counter-improvised-explosive-device training,
            convoy live-fire exercises, theater orientation, rules of
            engagement/escalation-of-force training, and completion of any
            theater-specified training not completed during the pre-
            mobilization period.
        17. A description of the measures taken during the preceding fiscal
    year to comply with the requirement in section 1120 of ANGCRRA to
    expand the use of simulations, simulators, and advanced training
    devices and technologies for members and units of the Army National
    Guard (and the Army Reserve).
      --During fiscal year 2009, the ARNG continued to synchronize the use
            of existing and ongoing live, virtual, and constructive
            training aids, devices, simulations and simulators (TADSS)
            programs with the training requirements of the ARFORGEN
            training model. By synchronizing the use of TADSS with
            ARFORGEN, the ARNG continues to improve unit training
            proficiency prior to mobilization.
      --To support the training requirements of M1A1 Abrams and M2A2
            Bradley-equipped Brigade Combat Teams (BCT's), the ARNG
            continued the fielding of the Advanced Bradley Full-Crew
            Interactive Simulation Trainer, which provides full crew-
            simulations training for M2A2 units, Tabletop Full-fidelity
            Trainers for the M2A2, and the Conduct of Fire Trainer XXI for
            M1A1 and M2A2. When fully fielded, these devices, in addition
            to the Abrams Full-Crew Interactive Simulation Trainer XXI,
            will be the primary simulations trainers to meet the virtual
            gunnery requirements of M1A1 and M2A2 crews.
      --In order to meet the virtual-maneuver training requirements in the
            ARFORGEN process, M1A1 and M2A2 units use the Close-Combat
            Tactical Trainer (CCTT) and the Rehosted Simulations Network
            (SIMNET) XXI, in addition to the Rehosted SIMNET CCTT Core. The
            CCTT, SIMNET XXI, and SIMNET CCTT provide a mobile training
            capability to our dispersed units.
      --In order to train all ARNG units on the tactics, techniques, and
            procedures (TTPs) of convoy operations, the ARNG is fielding
            the Virtual Convoy Operations Trainer (VCOT). The VCOT, through
            the use of geo-specific databases, provides commanders with a
            unique and critical mission rehearsal tool. Currently, 32 VCOT
            systems are positioned in the ARNG force to train units on the
            fundamentals of convoy operations.
      --In order to meet basic and advanced rifle marksmanship
            requirements, the ARNG is fielding the Engagement Skills
            Trainer (EST 2000). This system is the Army's approved
            marksmanship-training device. The ARNG is also continuing use
            of its previously procured Fire Arms Training System (FATS)
            until EST 2000 fielding is complete. The EST 2000 and FATS are
            also used to provide unit collective tactical training for
            dismounted Infantry, Special Operations Forces, Scouts,
            Engineer, and Military Police squads, as well as combat support
            and combat service support elements. These systems also support
            units conducting vital homeland defense missions.
      --The ARNG supplements its marksmanship-training strategy with the
            Laser Marksmanship Training System (LMTS). The ARNG currently
            has over 900 systems fielded down to the company level. The
            LMTS is a laser-based training device that replicates the
            firing of the Soldier's weapon without live ammunition. It is
            utilized for developing and sustaining marksmanship skills,
            diagnosing and correcting marksmanship problems, and assessing
            basic and advanced skills.
      --The ARNG has further developed its battle command training
            capability through the three designated Battle Command Training
            Centers (BCTCs) at Fort Leavenworth, Camp Dodge, and Fort
            Indiantown Gap, and the Distributed Battle Simulation Program
            (DBSP). BCTCs provide the backbone of the program as collective
            hubs in the battle command training strategy. The DBSP provides
            Commanders assistance from Commander's Operational Training
            Assistants, TADSS facilitators, and Technical Support Teams.
            BCTCs and the DBSP collectively help units in the planning,
            preparation, and execution of simulations-based battle staff
            training that augments the Department of the Army-directed
            Warfighter Exercises and greatly enhances battle staff and unit
            proficiency.
      --In order to provide the critical culminating training event of
            ARFORGEN, the ARNG has implemented the XCTC. The XCTC program
            provides the method to certify that ARNG combat units have
            achieved company-level maneuver proficiency prior to
            mobilization. The XCTC incorporates the use of advanced live,
            virtual, and constructive training technologies to replicate
            the training experience until now only found at one of the
            Army's Combat Training Centers. The centerpiece of the XCTC is
            the Deployable Force-on-Force Instrumented Range System
            (DFIRST). DFIRST utilizes training technologies that allow for
            full instrumentation of the training area from major combat
            systems down to the individual Soldier, role player, and
            Civilian on the battlefield.
      --The most important part of every training exercise is the After-
            Action Review (AAR). By full instrumentation of the units,
            Soldiers, and training areas, units receive an AAR complete
            with two-dimensional, three-dimensional, and video playback of
            the actual training exercise. This allows Commanders and
            Soldiers to see what occurred during the training exercise from
            a different perspective, further enhancing the training
            experience.
      --The Army Reserve continues to leverage--to the extent resources
            permit--TADSS into its training program. Implementation of Army
            Campaign Plan Decision Point 72 continues with establishment of
            the 75th Battle Command Training Division (BCTD) (Provisional).
            This division, with five battle command training brigades,
            employs legacy constructive simulations to provide battle
            command and staff training to Army Reserve and Army National
            Guard battalion and brigade commanders and staffs during pre-
            mobilization and post-mobilization. The concept plan as well as
            requirements for supporting Army battle command systems and
            simulations drivers for the 75th BCTD is pending Headquarters
            Department of the Army (HQDA) approval.
      --The Army Reserve continues to partner with the Program Executive
            Office, Simulations, Training and Instrumentation; Training and
            Doctrine Command agencies; and HQDA to define TADSS
            requirements for combat support and combat service support
            units. The 75th BCTD is on the Entity-level Resolution
            Federation (ERF) fielding plan. The ERF provides a high-
            resolution (e.g., individual Soldier-level fidelity aggregated
            to unit resolutions) joint constructive battle staff training
            simulation.
      --The LMTS and EST 2000 remain essential elements of Army Reserve
            marksmanship training. LMTS procurement continues, and
            distribution throughout the Army Reserve force continues to
            increase. The LMTS has also been adapted to support convoy
            operations training. In either individual pre-marksmanship
            training or convoy modes, the system allows the Soldier to use
            an assigned weapon, as well as crew-served weapons, in a
            simulation/training mode. EST 2000 systems have been fielded to
            many Army Reserve Engineer and Military Police organizations to
            enable full use of its training capabilities by units with high
            densities of crew-served weapons their at home stations.
      --The Army Reserve also has a number of low-density simulators it
            employs to reduce expensive ``live'' time for unique combat
            service support equipment. For example, Army Reserve watercraft
            units train on the Maritime Integrated Training System (MITS),
            a bridge simulator that not only trains vessel captains but the
            entire crew of Army watercraft. In 2007 the Army Reserve
            invested in communications infrastructure so that the MITS at
            Mare Island, California can communicate and interact with
            another Army MITS at Fort Eustis, Virginia. This provides the
            capability to conduct distributed multi-boat collective
            training among all the simulators. Of note, the MITS is also
            used by U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and harbor management
            agencies. Other simulators include locomotive simulators used
            by Army Reserve railroad units and a barge derrick simulator
            for floating watercraft maintenance units. Other simulator
            requirements are being identified in requirements documents.
        18. Summary tables of unit readiness, shown for each State, (and
    for the Army Reserve), and drawn from the unit readiness rating system
    as required by section 1121 of ANGCRRA, including the personnel
    readiness rating information and the equipment readiness assessment
    information required by that section, together with:
      --Explanations of the information: Readiness tables are classified.
            This information is maintained by the Department of the Army,
            G-3.
      --Based on the information shown in the tables, the Secretary's
            overall assessment of the deployability of units of the ARNG
            (and Army Reserve), including a discussion of personnel
            deficiencies and equipment shortfalls in accordance with
            section 1121:
        --Summary tables and overall assessments are classified. This
                information is maintained by the Department of the Army, G-
                3.
        19. Summary tables, shown for each State (and Army Reserve), of the
    results of inspections of units of the Army National Guard (and Army
    Reserve) by inspectors general or other commissioned officers of the
    Regular Army under the provisions of Section 105 of Title 32, together
    with explanations of the information shown in the tables, and including
    display of:
      --The number of such inspections;
      --Identification of the entity conducting each inspection;
      --The number of units inspected; and
      --The overall results of such inspections, including the inspector's
            determination for each inspected unit of whether the unit met
            deployability standards and, for those units not meeting
            deployability standards, the reasons for such failure and the
            status of corrective actions.
        --During fiscal year 2009, Inspectors General and other
                commissioned officers of the Regular Army conducted 947
                inspections of the ARNG, inspecting 1,403 ARNG units. The
                bulk of these inspections, 711, were executed by Regular
                Army officers assigned to the respective States and
                Territories as Inspectors General. First Army and the
                Department of the Army Inspectors General conducted 96 of
                the inspections, and the remaining 140 by the U.S. Army
                Forces Command (FORSCOM); Training and Doctrine Command
                (TRADOC); Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM); and
                the U.S. Army Audit Agency. Because the inspections
                conducted by Inspectors General focused on findings and
                recommendations, the units involved in these inspections
                were not provided with a pass/fail rating. Results of such
                inspections may be requested for release through The
                Inspector General of the Army.
        --Operational Readiness Evaluation data for the Force Support
                Package and expanded separate brigades are unavailable, as
                inspections thereof were eliminated as requirements in
                1997. Data available under the Training Assessment Model
                (TAM) relates to readiness levels and is generally not
                available in an unclassified format. TAM data are
                maintained at the state level and are available upon
                request from state level-training readiness officials.
        --In accordance with AR 1-201, Army Inspection Policy, the U.S.
                Army Reserve Command (USARC) conducts inspections of
                regional readiness commands and direct support units within
                requirements of the USARC Organizational Inspection Program
                (OIP). Per the Army Regulation, OIPs at division levels and
                above mainly comprise staff inspections, staff assistance
                visits, and Inspectors General. Staff inspections are only
                one aspect by which Commanding Generals can evaluate the
                readiness of their commands. The Inspector General conducts
                inspections and special assessments based on systemic
                issues and trends analysis with emphasis on issues that
                could impede the readiness of the Army Reserve.
        --The Chief, Army Reserve, directed the Inspector General to
                conduct special assessments in fiscal year 2009 prompted by
                concerns over systemic issues. One was the Special
                Assessment of Training Management. Its objective was to
                determine if units in the Army Reserve were in compliance
                with Command Training Guidance for Training Years 2008-
                2010, with emphasis on the execution of weapons training,
                remedial training, qualification, and ammunition
                availability. This assessment also encompassed an annual
                regulatory review of compliance with and effectiveness of
                the Army Voting Assistance Program, a program of special
                interest to the Department of the Army. Another was the
                Special Assessment of the Impact of Army Reserve Equipment
                Shortages (Funding/Availability/Modernization) and Training
                with the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC), which evaluated
                training issues due to equipment shortages and the affect
                it had on our Soldiers' morale.
        --The Army Reserve is meeting regulatory requirements through a
                combination of Battle-Focused Readiness Reviews (BFRRs) and
                staff assistance visits, with the assistance visits
                conforming to regulatory requirements of AR 1-201. The BFRR
                is the tool used by major subordinate Commanders to provide
                the Army Reserve Commanding General a status on resources
                and readiness of their commands, and resolve systemic
                issues/trends in order to achieve continuous improvements
                in readiness. The Army Reserve conducted 19 BFRRs in fiscal
                year 2009, while inspecting 65 units. The staff assistance
                visits were more oriented to a particular topic in the
                staff proponent's area.
        20. A listing, for each ARNG combat unit (and U.S. Army Reserve FSP
    units) of the active-duty combat units (and other units) associated
    with that ARNG (and U.S. Army Reserve) unit in accordance with section
    1131(a) of ANGCRRA, shown by State, for each such ARNG unit (and for
    the U.S. Army Reserve) by: (A) the assessment of the commander of that
    associated active-duty unit of the manpower, equipment, and training
    resource requirements of that National Guard (and Army Reserve) unit in
    accordance with section 1131(b)(3) of the ANGCRRA; and (B) the results
    of the validation by the commander of that associated active-duty unit
    of the compatibility of that National Guard (or U.S. Army Reserve) unit
    with active duty forces in accordance with section 1131(b)(4) of
    ANGCRRA.
      --There are no longer ground combat active or reserve component
            associations due to operational mission requirements and
            deployment tempo.
      --As FORSCOM's executive agent, First Army and U.S. Army Pacific
            (USARPAC) for Pacific based Reserve Component units, execute
            active duty associate unit responsibilities through both their
            pre-mobilization and post-mobilization efforts with reserve
            component units. When reserve component units are mobilized,
            they are thoroughly assessed in terms of manpower, equipment,
            and training by the appropriate chain of command, and that
            assessment is approved by First Army or USARPAC as part of the
            validation for unit deployment.
      --Validation of the compatibility of the Reserve Component units with
            the active duty forces occurs primarily during training and
            readiness activities at mobilization stations, with direct
            oversight by First Army, USARPAC, and FORSCOM.
        21. A specification of the active-duty personnel assigned to units
    of the Selected Reserve pursuant to section 414(c) of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (10 U.S.C. 261
    note), shown (a) by State for the Army National Guard (and for the U.S.
    Army Reserve), (b) by rank of officers, warrant officers, and enlisted
    members assigned, and (c) by unit or other organizational entity of
    assignment.

                   TITLE XI (FISCAL YEAR 2009) AUTHORIZATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     OFF        ENL         WO       TOTAL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Army Reserve...........         97        110          8        215
    TRADOC......................         50          3          0         53
    FORSCOM.....................        979      2,165        101      3,245
    USARPAC.....................         30         49          1         80
                                 -------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................      1,156      2,327        102      3,593
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      TITLE XI (FISCAL YEAR 2009) ASSIGNED
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     OFF        ENL         WO       TOTAL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Army Reserve...........         28         77          7        112
    TRADOC......................          5          5          0         10
    FORSCOM.....................        659      2,119         85      2,863
    USARPAC.....................         28         53          1         82
                                 -------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................        720      2,254         93      3,067
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --As of September 30, 2009, the Army had 3,067 active component
            Soldiers assigned to Title XI positions. In fiscal year 2006,
            the Army began reducing authorizations in accordance with the
            National Defense Authorization Act 2005 (NDAA 2005, Public Laws
            108-767, Section 515). Army G-1 and U.S. Army Human Resources
            Command (HRC) carefully manage the authorizations and fill of
            Title XI positions. The data is captured at the command level.
            The actual duty location for each position is not captured down
            to the state level of detail.

        Chairman Inouye. And, may I now call upon General Casey.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL GEORGE W. CASEY

        General Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. I'll give
    you my whole statement for the record, and just try to
    summarize here for you, because of time.
        What I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is give you a short
    update on where we are on restoring balance, and then talk
    briefly about three areas that are priorities for the Army and,
    I would hope, for this committee, and that's sustaining our
    soldiers and families, reset, and our modernization efforts.
        Now, if I might, just to give you a quick update on
    balance, I've been saying, since 2007, that we were out of
    balance, that we were so weighed down by our current
    commitments that we couldn't do the things we knew we needed to
    do to sustain this force for the long haul, this All-Volunteer
    Force, and to prepare ourselves to do other things. And, with
    you, we have been working steadily at this since 2007.
        I will tell you, this budget, this 2011 budget, plus the
    drawdown in Iraq, gives us the resources and the time to
    complete the efforts that we began in 2007 to get ourselves
    back in balance.
        Let me just give you an update on some key parameters:
        First of all, growth. We completed the personnel growth
    that President Bush directed in January 2007, late last summer.
    And that is a huge boost for us. But, even as we completed that
    growth, it was clear that, for a number of reasons, we needed
    to continue to grow. And, as you mentioned in your opening
    statement, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Defense did authorize
    us to grow by another 22,000, and we can talk a little bit more
    about that in the questions and answers.
        The second element of balance is probably the most
    important, and that's ``dwell,'' the amount of time the
    soldiers spend at home. We have intuitively known that it takes
    about 2 or 3 years to recover from a 12-month combat
    deployment, yet we have been returning soldiers to combat in
    about 12 months, because we've been too small. Well, we've now
    documented that with a scientific study that we finished last
    year that shows it takes 2 to 3 years to recover from a 12-
    month combat deployment. And so it is critically important that
    we continue to make progress to our dwell goals of 1 year out,
    2 years back, for the Active force; 1 year out, 4 years back,
    for the Guard and Reserve.
        Because of our growth and the drawdown in Iraq, even with
    the plus-up in Afghanistan--and our portion of that plus-up is
    about 20,000--we will get 70 percent of the Army to our goal
    of--Active Army to our goal of 1 to 2 by 2011; and 80 percent
    of the Guard and Reserve to 1 to 4 by 2011. The rest will get
    there in 2012. So that's critically important for us.

                            MODULARITY AND REBALANCE

        Third element I'd update you on is modularity. And you'll
    remember, back in 2004, we came to the subcommittee and said we
    were a cold war Army. We weren't organized into formations that
    could be organized to deal with the threat that presented
    itself. We were designed to face a Warsaw Pact threat. And we
    have been progressing ever since. Well, we are 90 percent of
    the way through converting all 300 brigades in the Army to
    modular designs, and we will largely finish that by 2011, which
    was our goal.
        The other element of organizational change is rebalancing.
    We had a lot of skills that were needed in the cold war, but
    were not necessarily as needed today. And we've converted over
    200 tank companies, artillery batteries, air defense batteries,
    into civil affairs, psychological operations, special forces
    companies. So that change has been going on.
        So together, modularity and rebalancing--largest
    organizational change of the Army since World War II, and done
    while we've been deploying 150,000 soldiers over and back to
    Iraq and Afghanistan every year.
        Next element of balance, we feel we can get more out of our
    force if we organize it on a rotational model, much like the
    Navy and Marine Corps have been on for years. And we're moving
    toward that, and it'll pay great benefits.
        And last, restationing. With the base realignment and
    closure and the growth, we're moving 380,000 soldiers,
    civilians, and family members all around the world, here, over
    the next few years, to complete that. But, the end result will
    be much better facilities for our soldiers and families.
        So, that's an update on rebalancing. With your support, we
    expect to largely complete what we set out to do in 2007, and
    be in a much different position by the end of 2011. And this
    budget is what gets us there. Still got stresses and strains,
    as the Secretary said, and not out of the woods yet.
        Now, if I could, just three quick priorities:
        Sustaining soldiers and families. They're the heart and
    soul of this force. Two years ago, we doubled the amount of
    money we were putting toward soldiers and family programs.
    We've sustained that, and this budget continues that effort.
        Second, reset. This budget contains almost $11 billion to
    reset about 30 brigades worth of equipment. That's, one,
    absolutely critical to sustaining the operational ready rates
    in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the long-term
    health of the force. And as we come down--draw down in Iraq,
    all that equipment has to go through the depots and get
    reconditioned before it's put back in the force. And I worry
    that people will say, ``Yes, okay, we're out of Iraq, we don't
    need money for reset anymore.'' That's not the case.

                                  MODERNIZING

        And then, last, modernization. As you mentioned in your
    statement, the FCS--future combat systems--program was
    terminated. And we have, in this budget, the beginning of a
    brigade combat team modernization strategy that we believe is
    both affordable and achievable. And that's based on four
    elements:
        First of all, incrementally modernizing our network. And we
    do that incrementally so that we can take advantage of
    continuing growth in information technology.
        Second is incrementally fielding capability packages. In
    the future combat systems, we talked about spinouts, about
    capabilities that we could put into the force, ahead of the
    full system. We've refined that concept into capability
    packages, where we will incrementally put ready capabilities
    into the force as they're ready, rather than wait for the whole
    system to be developed.
        Third, we've incorporated the MRAP, the mine resistant
    ambush protected, vehicles into our forces. There's a
    significant investment in those vehicles, and we've
    incorporated them into the force. And then, last, this budget
    includes just under $1 billion of research and development
    effort for a new ground combat vehicle. And this vehicle will--
    is designed as a replacement for the Bradley. It is an infantry
    fighting vehicle, and it is the first infantry fighting vehicle
    designed, from the ground up, to operate in an improvised
    explosive device (IED) environment. And it will become a very
    important element for us.
        I'll close with saying that I share your pride in what the
    men and women of this Army are doing around the world every
    day. I couldn't be prouder of them.
        And so I'd look forward to taking your questions.
        Thanks very much.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Brownback.
        Senator Brownback. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a
    statement to make. I would like to put one into the record.
        And I certainly thank our two presenters here today. And I
    look forward to making a couple of questions when my turn
    comes.
        Chairman Inouye. Without objection, your statement will be
    made part of the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Senator Sam Brownback
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you and am pleased to attend my first Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing. I welcome Secretary
    McHugh and General Casey and look forward to your testimonies. On
    behalf of my state, I would like to thank the Secretary and General
    Casey for their commitment to the military men and women in Kansas,
    particularly at Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth.
        The Army faces a number of major challenges covered in the prepared
    statements of today's witnesses. In particular, however, I would like
    to focus on the subject of warrior care and our commitment to soldiers
    and families.
        First, I applaud the Army's new Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
    program, an all-inclusive approach to emotional, social, spiritual,
    family, and physical fitness, to build resiliency within the Army.
    Recently the Army began a brain mapping program and I encourage these
    types of efforts to more fully understand the effect that trauma and
    injury can have on the functionality of the brain. These efforts could
    be a huge step in the right direction in suicide prevention and drug
    and alcohol abuse prevention. I also want to commend the Army for their
    collaboration with the National Institute of Mental Health on suicide
    prevention and I look forward to the benefits we as a society can gain
    from the research and programs the Army implements.
        Next, I would note that the budget provides $1.7 billion to family
    programs and services and I commend the Army for making these programs
    an important part of its budget. The Army is built on the backs of the
    families of its soldiers. I am pleased with the commitment the Army has
    made to the military family and I encourage the continued investment in
    support services to these families. The implementation of the Army
    Strong Community Centers is a needed service for those family members
    of the Army Reserve who so often do not have a physical base to call
    home.
        In particular, I want to highlight a couple of items worth of
    additional attention from the Army. First, following the example in
    Illinois and other facilities, I encourage the Army to look at joint
    VA/DOD hospitals to streamline care and provide the best medical
    services to military members, their families, and military retirees. A
    related issue involves transitioning our active duty soldiers into the
    VA system. There are several pilot programs that attempt to seamlessly
    transition active duty soldiers into the VA system but they have had
    limited success. Obviously, the new electronic medical records will be
    a huge step in help transition a soldier from DOD to the VA. However,
    the disability rating system is still too slow and behind the times. I
    ask that you work closely with the VA to ensure these soldiers are
    getting the proper care and benefits they are entitled to.
        I also want to highlight an emerging problem at Fort Riley, in my
    state, as well as other Army posts: school overcrowding. Fort Riley is
    again the home of the headquarters of the First Infantry Division and
    the combination of that move with other BRAC and Grow the Force
    decisions has led to a dramatic expansion of this post. I am very proud
    that the surrounding communities stepped up to the plate to prepare for
    the thousands of soldiers and family members arriving in the area. But
    after exhausting their bonding capacity to provide classroom space off-
    post (which has already been filled), the local communities lack the
    ability to handle a much larger than anticipated on-post student
    population. I know that the Army and the Department of Defense are not
    usually in the business of school construction, but I also know that
    Fort Riley is not the only installation facing this problem. Other
    posts are now or will soon face similar issues, and we have to find a
    way to make sure these children have a place to go to school.
        It is a huge concern in the Fort Riley school district, a top
    priority of Major General Brooks, who commands the First Infantry
    Division, and something that I intend to prioritize during the upcoming
    appropriations process. I hope to learn more from the Army about what
    can be done to address this concern.
        Again, I thank the panel for their time and look forward to hearing
    how the Army plans to use this budget to meet the needs of our nation's
    military.

        Chairman Inouye. Gentlemen, I have a few questions. I'd
    like to submit the rest because of the technological nature of
    the questions. They refer to the Stryker, the cargo ship, and
    your program on balance.

                              STRESS ON THE FORCE

        But, at this stage, may I ask--as noted by all the
    witnesses and everyone that has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan,
    if they would say that the troops are under great stress? And,
    as such, we have noted suicide rates rising, alcohol abuse, and
    divorce rates. And you have provided additional mental health
    providers and launched a suicide prevention education program.
    Can you give us an update, Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. McHugh. I can, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your
    starting with this question, because obviously it goes to the
    core of the stress and the pressure under which these brave
    soldiers have been for the last 8 years, but it also shows, I
    think, the extent to which it reaches beyond the soldier into
    the family structure. I think it is one of the most important
    things we've done--I want to start by giving a tip of the hat
    to the Chief, and to my predecessor Pete Geren--who helped
    establish the program called comprehensive soldier fitness.
        This is a program that was started to try to provide
    resiliency training--to provide resiliency trainers to go out,
    throughout the force. And perhaps the Chief would like to
    comment further. But it allows people the opportunity, on an
    anonymous basis, through computer technology, but in a very
    real way, to find particularly tailored programs to help them
    cope. And that's a great start.

                               BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

        But we have to get down on the ground on a one-to-one
    basis. And, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, we're working very hard
    to try to expand the wide range of programs, including a
    dramatic plus-up in behavioral health specialists. In fact, now
    we see, in forward-deployed positions, the availability of
    behavioral health specialists, which is rated, generally, the
    ideal of one to every 700 troops. We're actually below that
    level now, but we're continuing to grow to that. Like what
    happens in the private sector, of course, growing that cadre of
    specialists has been a challenge, but I think we're making good
    progress.
        With respect to suicide, the Vice Chief of Staff, General
    Pete Chiarelli, has taken that under his wing and, I think, has
    done a terrific job in establishing a way forward to try to
    provide stress release, to try to keep a better assessment, the
    pre- and during and post-assessment surveys that are required
    now, as mandated by this Congress, for each soldier, so we can,
    hopefully, identify problems that--as they emerge, to engaging
    in a pretty revolutionary 5-year longitudinal study, for the
    cost of $55 million, with suicide specialists and the National
    Academy of--National Institute of Mental Health, rather, to try
    to understand the causes of suicide. The specialists tell us
    that the exciting thing about this is, they feel it will have
    application to the factors behind those who find themselves in
    a position of choosing suicide in the civilian sector, as well.
        We will receive reports, on a quarterly basis, to try to
    make sure that we're implementing hopeful and developing
    procedures to try to do a better job.
        So, whether it's alcohol abuse programs, with more money,
    more counselors, more availability; mental health; military
    life; family consultants; people to talk to; people to go to,
    to try to receive more help--we've taken a very holistic
    approach to this. We're doing a better job, but, as you noted,
    Mr. Chairman, the stresses continue, and those stressor
    indicators, across the board, continue to be troubling to us.
        Chairman Inouye. General, would you care to add to that?

                                    SUICIDE

        General Casey. If I could, Chairman Inouye. Frankly, I'm
    personally frustrated with the effort that we have put on this
    over the last 3 years, and then particularly over the last
    year, that we haven't stemmed the tide. And we've increased by
    about 18 suicides a year since 2004. In this past year, with
    all the effort we made, we increased by about 20. And as I
    looked at this over the past years, it was clear that we were
    shooting behind the target with a lot of these programs. And
    that's why we instituted the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
    Program, to give the soldiers and family members and civilians
    the skills they need on the front end to be more resilient and
    to stay away from suicide to begin with. It's a long-term
    program, but I think that is the only way that we are
    ultimately going to begin to reduce this.
        And the last thing I'd say is this is not just an Army
    problem. There was an op-ed in The Washington Post this morning
    talking about the impact of suicide in society; we all have to
    go at this together. I think this National Institute of Mental
    Health study that we've done is going to help everybody.
        Thank you.
        Mr. McHugh. Mr. Chairman, can I add just one point? We
    know, both intuitively and, as the chief mentioned in his
    comments, by the findings of the mental health advisory teams
    that we employ, that the operations and personal tempo--OPS and
    PERSTEMPO--and the boots on the ground (BOG)/dwell inadequacies
    are critical, across the board, to all of those stressor
    indicators, and suicide is primary amongst them. So, as we
    continue to do a better job on keeping people back home between
    deployments, we're hopeful that'll have a positive effect on
    the suicide rates, as well.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.

                                    STRYKER

        General, I'd like to ask a few questions on the Stryker.
    We've been watching media reports from Afghanistan that suggest
    that these Strykers are quite vulnerable to the explosive
    devices; and also they suggest that the Strykers' weight may be
    a bit too heavy to give it the necessary mobility it needs in
    this Afghanistan theater. What are your thoughts on this?
        General Casey. Well, as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman,
    we've been watching this very carefully for some time. And, the
    Stryker Unit that went into southern Afghanistan ran into some
    pretty heavy IEDs--I mean, hundreds of pounds of explosive
    weight--and, it did suffer some significant casualties. We've
    been working very hard on this, over time, to increase the
    survivability of the Stryker. I will tell you, it is more
    survivable than the up-armored Humvee and less survivable than
    the mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP), and we knew that,
    going in there.
        Before we sent it in, we implemented a number of
    survivability enhancements to the vehicle, and we are in the
    process of evaluating whether those are enough to operate in an
    IED environment. We are actually in the process of exploring a
    V-shaped hull kit, much like we were developing for the manned
    ground vehicle with the Future Combat Systems Program, that
    could enhance the survivability of the Stryker against
    underbelly improvised explosive devices. But, again, we've
    implemented a range of different options to enhance the
    survivability.
        I'm less concerned about the weight and the decrease in
    mobility. The Strykers have been remissioned, actually, to a
    mission of road security that actually takes advantage of the
    mobility that they provide.
        Last thing I'll say is, they served for me in Iraq in an
    IED environment, and we were not nearly as challenged in that
    environment as we were in Afghanistan. So, it's still a very
    important vehicle in an element of our force mix.
        Mr. McHugh. Well, the only thing I would add is that, as
    we're finding in these theaters, not all equipment fits in all
    circumstances. The Stryker, something that I was a big
    supporter of when I was on the Armed Services Committee, has
    proven to be enormously effective. It's had 11 successful
    deployments in these two theaters, and we expect more. In terms
    of the feedback from the commanders forward-deployed, they view
    it as a very valuable resource. Can we make it better, more
    survivable? As the Chief mentioned, we're doing that on a
    variety of R&D programs. And the V hull--double V hull is
    preeminent amongst them. But, we think this is a very important
    program, and we have a great deal of confidence in it.

                                  RECRUITMENT

        Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary, we'd like to congratulate
    you on your recruiting program. You have recruited all the
    numbers you need, and the quality of personnel. My question
    would be, can you maintain this trend? And are you funded
    sufficiently?
        Mr. McHugh. The answer to the first question, sir, is, we
    hope so, and we're working to try to make sure that happens.
    General Ben Freakley, who's the head of our Accessions Command,
    I think has done an amazing job. But, the most effective thing
    he's done is to try to recognize that we, in our recruiting and
    retention efforts, are, to a very significant degree, the
    beneficiaries of this economy. As Americans, we hope the
    economy turns around quickly, but that will change the
    environment in which we send out these recruiters and bring
    people--young people into the force. And we're trying to
    prepare and revamp and refigure our efforts and our programs to
    be prepared for that.
        The money, for the moment, is significant. One of the major
    complaints I had, when I was chairman of the Personnel
    Subcommittee in the other body, was that we had an up-and-down
    on recruiting resourcing. And you have to maintain, in my
    humble judgment, a certain level of consistency to make sure
    you're not eroding away your base, not eating your seed corn.
    Now, it's totally appropriate, in this environment, that we cut
    back on some of the inducements, some of the bonuses we're
    paying. They're not necessary in this environment. But, we have
    to maintain that. I'm hopeful we're going to do that, I think
    we're poised to do it, but we'll have to keep a very close eye
    on it in the future.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you, sir.
        General Casey. If--Mr. Chairman, if I could.
        Chairman Inouye. Yeah.
        General Casey. To your point about stress on the force we
    measure a lot of things to tell us about whether the force is
    under stress. And it is. But, also to alert us that we may
    break the force. Last year, over 260,000 men and women enlisted
    or reenlisted in the Army, the Army Guard, or the Reserve.
    That's a very positive indicator of their commitment and their
    willingness to continue to serve.
        Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary and General, I'll be
    submitting for your consideration questions on the brigade
    combat team modernization, on the future role of the MRAP, the
    Aerial Scout helicopter; the question on SDS, and the question
    on joint cargo aircraft.
        As you know, we are attending the memorial services for our
    great friend, and a great patriot, the Congressman from
    Pennsylvania.
        So, if I may, at this stage, call upon Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                    STRYKER

        I'd like to pick up on the area dealing with the Strykers,
    and so forth, that the chairman was getting into. It's been my
    understanding, from serving on this subcommittee many, many
    years, and the Armed Services Committee, before this, when they
    were developing, you know, the Stryker.
        The Stryker has been very good in a lot of areas, as the
    Secretary alluded to. The question, I guess, now, General
    Casey, is, How long would it take, if we do go a double V-, or
    something like that, -shaped hull on the Stryker, to give them
    the MRAP-like protection, give them more protection? Because
    our troops need that in Afghanistan. And where are you in that
    regard?
        General Casey. I can't tell you exactly how long it's going
    to take----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        General Casey [continuing]. Because we're in the early
    design stages of it. But, we are moving rapidly to get it
    built, tested, and into the hands of the forces as quickly as
    we can.
        Senator Shelby. But, from an engineering standpoint, it
    looks to me, from what I've been briefed on, that that could be
    a probability, more than a possibility, to do this stuff. In
    other words, to reequip and make the Stryker more safe.
        General Casey. Absolutely. In fact, as I said, we developed
    a V-shaped hull kit for the manned ground vehicle, the future
    combat systems vehicle. So, the technology is out there, and
    it's available. And, I think it has great promise.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Do you agree with that Mr. Secretary? I know you--you've
    been a supporter of the Stryker----
        Mr. McHugh. Yeah----
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. As I have.
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. I have, and--although the
    environment has changed dramatically. That's not a step----
        Senator Shelby. You have to----
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. Back----
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. Change with it----
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. From----
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. Though, don't you?
        Mr. McHugh. Yes, you--absolutely, sir.
        I think it's worth noting that the manufacturer stepped out
    and recognized this early on, and has been working--not
    extrajudiciously, but been working on this and studying it for
    some time. And, that's a great compliment to them, to recognize
    they want to keep this platform as relevant and as safe as
    possible.
        I'm optimistic, at this time, that we can field this. We've
    done it with the MRAP as a start-from-the-ground-up system, we
    have the Stryker out in the field. I'd like to think, and have
    enough faith in our engineering capability, that we can pull
    this off, and do it in a timely fashion.
        Senator Shelby. If we can do that, though--the Stryker has
    a lot of utility that some of the other vehicles don't have,
    right?
        Mr. McHugh. The commanders have told us, time and time
    again--and I just got back from my 15th visit to Iraq and 4th
    to Afghanistan--that they like and value this platform.
        Senator Shelby. Yeah. We all do.
        General Casey. If I--sorry. Could I just add----
        Senator Shelby. Yes, sir, General.
        General Casey [continuing]. Something to this, because I
    think it's important. I mentioned that the ground combat
    vehicle that we're putting in this budget is the first vehicle
    designed from the ground up to operate in an IED environment.
        Senator Shelby. That would take----
        General Casey. Each----
        Senator Shelby. That would take the place of the----
        General Casey. The Bradley.
        Senator Shelby. That would succeed the Bradley.
        General Casey. That's correct. But the issues that we're
    having with the Humvee and the Stryker are all because they
    were developed not necessarily to operate in IED environments.
    So, we're adapting as we go.

                            UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to get in the area
    of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), if I could, which is
    very important to the Army and to our soldiers. One issue that
    continues to be of concern is the Army's ability to continue
    utilizing unmanned systems when and where our soldiers want to
    control them. I continue to hear, from our commanders on the
    ground, about the importance of the Army--of our commanders--
    retaining control of tactical UAVs. We've been through this
    before. I know that a great deal of our success in the theater
    hinges upon this capability, command and control. And I'm
    pleased that the Army has not lost many of these systems, due,
    in part, to the fact that the unmanned systems can land
    themselves.
        What I'm concerned about, Mr. Secretary--and I'll bet
    you've been through this--you and General Casey--is enemies
    being able to back into these systems, like we saw with the Air
    Force Predator system last year. Could you describe what the
    Army is doing to mitigate this threat, if you can talk about it
    here, and also talk a little about the cyber initiatives that
    the Army's pursuing in this area? Without getting into
    classified.
        Mr. McHugh. I appreciate your sensitivity there----
        Senator Shelby. Yeah.
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. Senator. I think I can say,
    generically--first of all, the Army greatly values, and, as you
    noted, sir, correctly, the commanders feel very strongly about
    the Army's need to have these capabilities, particularly at a
    strategic level. The Army's----
        Senator Shelby. And control, too, isn't it?
        Mr. McHugh. Yes, sir. The Army is going forward with an
    unmanned systems program that starts with the extended range
    multi-purpose (ERMP), which is provided for in this budget,
    future development, right down to the Raven, which provides
    command-and-control opportunities for us, as well.
        As to what we read about in the press, I think I can say
    that all the services recognized that potential vulnerability
    early on, and have reacted very aggressively to it. And, for
    the moment, we feel comfortable as to the security systems in
    place. I'd be happy to go into closed session----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. And provide you----
        Senator Shelby. Whenever the chairman wants to get into
    that, sure.

                                MI-17 HELICOPTER

        One last question, Mr. Secretary. The Mi-17 helicopters.
    The Department of Defense, as you well know, has spent about $1
    billion of funding to noncompetitively purchase nearly 50
    Russian Mi-17 helicopters for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
    I've expressed to the Secretary of Defense, not to you yet, as
    well as this subcommittee, my grave concerns regarding the use
    of U.S. taxpayer dollars for Mi-17s, based on what we believe
    are false assumptions, a total lack of requirements and no
    analysis of alternatives.
        The Army has been very involved with the procurement of
    these helicopters. And until I raised this concern, last fall,
    it appeared that the Army was completely fine with funneling
    millions of dollars to the Russians to equip the Iraqis and
    Afghans, based on nothing more, as we understand it, than the
    fact that these militaries had once seen an Mi-17 in the area.
        I'd like to point out that the Mi-17s have an exceptionally
    high, as you well know, maintenance requirement, parts and
    services, and they're not ready available for in theater. And
    the U.S. trade sanctions, I believe, were violated in the
    initial procurement.
        Finally, it's also my understanding that this platform
    specifically violates the U.S. Army airworthiness requirements,
    document AR 70-62. The question--I'm getting to it, Mr.
    Secretary, slowly--now, that the Army has been designated as
    the lead service for the Mi-17 procurement and has established
    a nonstandard rotary-wing program management office, why are
    there still no requirements or analysis of alternatives to
    this?
        And, if I could, Mr. Secretary, I'd like to just remind the
    subcommittee--our subcommittee, here--that the 2010 Defense
    appropriation bill requires a report detailing the current and
    anticipated demand for Mi-17s for Iraq, Afghanistan, and
    Pakistan; the anticipated availability or shortage of
    additional airframes; the sustainability of the airframe slated
    for use; an analysis of alternative airframes; and the future
    cost and funding sources available for procuring Mi-17--C-17s
    within 60 days of the enactment of the bill. That was 74 days
    ago, Mr. Secretary. Where are we, here?
        Mr. McHugh. After 5 months----
        Senator Shelby. That was a----
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. In the----
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. Long statement----
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. Building, I've had a----
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. I know that.
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. Great time to analyze what your
    question suggests is a very complex problem, Senator. And, I
    would answer in this way.
        First, I would beseech you for the opportunity to sit down
    with you and to go into----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Mr. McHugh [continuing]. Greater detail.
        Second of all, as I--as you stated correctly, and as I
    think it needs to be further expanded upon, this is a DOD-
    directed program. The Army has been--as you again correctly
    noted, been designated the lead agent and administrator on
    this, but that is to implement DOD policy. The procurement
    program is intended, and has been explained to me, to meet
    current and near-term needs on the battlefield. And both the
    Iraqis and Afghanistans have seen the Mi-17s. It's been
    explained to me----
        Senator Shelby. Probably flying around.
        Go ahead.
        Mr. McHugh. It's been explained to me that those pilots--
    and I know you understand the development of the personnel and
    the specialists to serve in both the Iraqi and the Afghan
    security forces, to actually pilot and to do other specialty
    military occupational specialists (MOSs), in their ranks, is
    somewhat strained. But, in the near term, those who have seen
    it have also flown it and are prepared to operate in those
    particular platforms.
        You're correct, as well, their maintenance scheduled needs
    are somewhat of high operations tempo, but in complexity they
    are somewhat simple, in that--and I'm probably the last person
    in the world to be talking about this, but--in that the
    mechanics and the opportunities for repair and maintenance are
    relatively routine.
        Having said that, and as a Buy American kind of individual,
    I think it's totally appropriate, as we go forward, that we
    continue to assess the program. And at such time as it's
    appropriate, when perhaps the theater needs growth, we
    reexamine exactly which way should--we should go in future
    platforms. But----
        Senator Shelby. Well, that would include alternatives as
    you analyze the needs, right?
        Mr. McHugh. As directed by the Department of Defense. And
    as everybody in theater, including the Iraqis and Afghanistans,
    get more sophisticated across the board, I assume their needs
    and their capabilities will expand.
        Senator Shelby. Well, I'd like to meet with you sometime,
    and we'll expand this a little bit further.
        Mr. McHugh. I'd be honored to.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Brownback.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary, General, good to see you.
        Let me start off just thanking you for your work you're
    doing on the--both the suicide and post traumatic stress
    disorder (PTSD)--traumatic brain injury (TBI)--work. I think
    it's--one of the startling things to me, when I came in as
    Congressman, was the number of veterans that we were having in
    our office and coming by that were having a lot of long-term
    difficulties from the Vietnam war and era.
        And I think one of the things we didn't get on top of was
    what was happening to them mentally after they came back from
    combat. And I--boy, I see that thing playing out again, if we
    don't get on top of it. And, it seems like the military's
    recognizing that and saying, ``No, something's going on here,
    and we need to get on top of this.'' Because, otherwise, you're
    going to get a lot of long-term problems, difficulties. And
    it's like almost anything, the sooner you get on top of it, the
    more likely you are to be successful with your options, and the
    more options you generally have available. So, I really applaud
    that.
        And I also applaud that I think we can find things out,
    here, that could be helpful to the broader society. Suicide
    rates in our young people is the third highest cause of death
    in teenagers. And you're going, ``You know, why on Earth is
    that?'' You know, when you live in a great country like this,
    and opportunities that are here. But, you know, people really
    develop a thought that there's just no hope. And when they get
    to that point in time, then options for doing very drastic,
    dramatic, self-harmful things grows, and the more likelihood
    there is that it happens.
        You're doing some work on brain mapping studies, that I'm a
    big fan of, because I think that may teach us what's going on
    mentally, inside of a person. And the brain is the final
    frontier for us as a--as an organ. I mean, it's just
    phenomenal, and it's complex, and we don't understand it very
    well. But, you guys' work on this could really help us
    understand a lot of those complex inputs, and how they're
    processed, and what happens. So, I really want to urge you, and
    support that effort.
        A final thought in this area, my own personal experience
    and view has been that the resources are available, but it's
    that there are plenty of resources that are there, but
    generally when a person gets into this stage, they've blown
    through most of their relationships. They've blown through,
    maybe, a spousal relationship, family relationship, friends,
    and they're on their own now. They're alone in it.

                               SUICIDE PREVENTION

        And that's when you get in trouble, in that if there's a
    way that we can look at encouraging those, or spotting the
    people when they start moving to a loner status, I'd--that's,
    to me, the whole key of it. And that's very hard to do. I think
    it's on a front-end basis, where we try to encourage the
    building of more relationships, and be very systematic about
    it. You know, you've got a buddy program in the military,
    you're always watching for the guy next to you. If there's a
    way we expand that, get the volunteer community around these
    bases, around Fort Riley and places like that to do it; faith
    communities, very happy to step in and work in a relationship-
    building setting because I think that, at the core, is where we
    lose it. It's not technology, it's old fashioned ``I care for
    you.'' And having somebody there that actually cares for them,
    and through thick and thin, and when--this is generally when
    it's getting really thin, and people self-treating places and
    ways, and I've seen plenty of it. And that's at the core, but
    what you've got to get at is that relationship building.
        So, I really want to support that effort, because I think
    you can help us out in the broader society, and we need to
    address it as a military.
        I've got two narrow Kansas issues I want to push out to
    you. And this is, by virtue of the things you've identified
    here today, this is very small potatoes. So, you can look at it
    as such. They're important to us. We've got two major Army
    installations, a number of Guard installations in the State.
    Fort Leavenworth, Fort Riley, we're very proud of in our State,
    and we love them. And we really are very appreciative of those
    installations, those units.

                            NEW MILITARY/VA HOSPITAL

        At Fort Leavenworth, there's not a military hospital there.
    And I know we've looked at the numbers on this and said,
    ``Well, it's not a size, yet.'' We do have the disciplinary
    barracks that's there, we do have a small Veterans
    Administration (VA) that's there. And I think it may be one, if
    you look into your future plans, that you may look at and
    decide a combined military/VA hospital might be the way to go
    with this, because it's got a large military community, a large
    military retiree community. I understand, in Chicago, you've
    done a combined Army/VA center. And in our future, I think
    we've just got to be less stovepipe and a lot more
    interconnected. And I think this may be a classic one where it
    actually could work pretty well and also fit the disciplinary
    barracks that's there, too.
        [The information follows:]

        Recapitalization of the Munson Army Health Center, Fort
    Leavenworth, Kansas, is in the very early phases of planning.
    The next planning visit is scheduled for March 22-26, 2010 to
    clarify requirements and determine full replacement costs or
    program amount. The replacement project will compete in the
    Department of Defense's Capital Investment Decision Making
    (CIDM) process for likely programming in the fiscal year 2012-
    17 Defense Health Program Future Years Defense Plan. While the
    Army Medical Command and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    have opened dialogue at the local level, the currently
    developed project that will be presented in this year's CIDM is
    a modern 175,000 gross square foot replacement Army Health
    Center. Collaborative efforts between the Army and the VA
    concerning this project are not ready for consideration in this
    year's CIDM process.

        Senator Brownback. A second issue--and this, again, is a
    narrow one--at Fort Riley, with bringing the Big Red One back,
    which we are delighted to have--the community, the area, is
    just delighted their headquarters is back from Germany. We're
    busting at the seams on our grade school, middle schools, with
    the numbers coming back in. And if you can look at if there's
    any way to help out with that, because we want to make sure we
    provide a good family experience for these young men and women
    in uniform, and their families. And we're having difficulty
    meeting that.
        So, as I say, those are small potatoes, relative to the
    other things.
        And overall, I want to commend you for what you're doing in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. I think this military has performed very,
    very well. It has been tough circumstance, difficult to do, but
    I'm really proud of what you're doing. I'm proud of how the
    military is operating.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

        The Army has no specific authority to fund public school
    construction.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary and General, thank you for being here.
        Let me ask a couple of questions. First, the issue of the
    Sky Warriors. I know that my colleague is very interested in
    that issue, and has been for some while. I have wondered aloud
    and questioned why we have almost identical programs run by
    both the Army and the Air Force: Sky Warriors, the Warriors,
    and the Predators.

                             DUPLICATION OF SYSTEM

        And when I came to Congress, several decades ago, I joined
    a group then, with Senator Gary Hart, talking about trying to
    change the procurement process and try to stop the duplication.
    Because every level of service wants to do everything that
    everybody else does, and they're pretty successful in making
    that happen. And as I watched the growth of the Predator and
    the Warrior program, it looked to me like you've got two
    branches of the service that have done exactly the same thing.
    And I've been enormously frustrated by that.
        So, the question is, How will the Army Sky Warrior's UAVs
    integrate with the 50 Air Force UAV caps that are planned for
    2011? I mean, are you working with the Air Force trying to--
    tell--try to----
        Mr. McHugh. We are, Senator. In fact, we have been for some
    time. In fact, I started working with ``Buzz'' Moseley on UAV
    employment a couple years ago. It's not only the procurement
    side of it, it's the employment side of it. And as we sat down,
    we realized that we were talking past each other a bit. If you
    look at the levels of war, it was pretty clear to us that the
    Air Force had the strategic UAV requirement. That was their
    baby, nothing for the Army in there.
        At the tactical level, that was really the Army's purview,
    because we need to maintain pretty tight control so we can
    shift them around based on changing tactical situations.
        At the theater level, the operational level is where we
    were bumping up against each other. We worked with the Air
    Force to build a--we call it a CONOP, concept of operations--
    that gave the Air Force the higher--not altitude, but the
    higher-level requirements for the theater commander; and the
    Army had the lower-level operational requirements for the core
    commanders. I think we've done a good job of differentiating
    that. Probably not as much progress on the procurement side, in
    differentiating that.
        Now, we--these ERMP, that are basically enhanced Predators,
    that are in this budget, 26 of them, are somewhat different
    than the Predator. But, I ask myself the same question you do,
    Is it so much different that it ought to be a different
    program? And could we not gain efficiencies working with one
    program? And I have not cracked that one with the Air Force
    yet.
        Senator Dorgan. I hope you will, because I have thought
    there should be an executive agency for UAVs in the Pentagon so
    that we don't have different levels of service doing the same
    thing, and duplicating the research, duplicating the management
    of the program, and so on. I--it is frustrating to see. And I
    understand that most services want to do everything, and even
    some things another service is doing. It's been a battle we've
    fought for 30 years; mostly unsuccessfully, I'm afraid. But,
    thank you for that answer.
        I want to just mention to you that I'm going to ask the
    chairman, at some point--I've not had a chance to visit with
    him--but, in this appropriations bill, to include an amendment
    that will take a new and completely fresh look at whether
    deciding in LOGCAP to, essentially, contract everything out
    instead of doing it in the service, whether that has been an
    effective thing for the country--whether it's producing food
    for troops, you know, under a contract, or buying towels for
    troops, or moving water to base. I happen to think that the
    LOGCAP, and the contracts under LOGCAP, have produced the
    greatest waste, fraud, and abuse, perhaps in the history of our
    country. I've done 20 hearings in the policy committee on this.
    Let me just go through a couple of them quickly.
        The contract to provide water to the military bases in
    Iraq, that contract resulted in nonpotable water at a number of
    the military bases being more contaminated than raw water from
    the Euphrates River. And I had the internal documents of KBR
    that said this was a near miss, could have caused mass sickness
    or death. Both KBR said it didn't happen and the Army said it
    didn't happen. And yet, I got an e-mail from a commander, a
    woman, a physician with the U.S. Army in Iraq, saying, ``No.
    No. I read these things. It did happen. I'm here. I'm treating
    patients as a result of that nonpotable water that is
    contaminated.'' And I got the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) to do--or the inspector general, rather, to do an
    investigation. He said, ``Yes. In fact, it did happen.''

                                 BAD CONTRACTS

        And it kind of bothers me that--it bothered me then, and
    does now, that the contractor said it didn't happen, the Army
    says it didn't happen, and, in fact, when you investigate, it
    did happen. The sodium dichromate. We now have the Indiana
    National Guard and several others testing troops. Again, we had
    the person who worked for KBR on the site, who was a safety
    inspector, said he warned the contractor. Contractor denies all
    these issues.
        Electrocutions, you're well familiar with. The contractors
    work on providing electricity. And wiring had to be redone, and
    we found massive mistakes. Soldiers have died. Mr. Maseth died,
    taking a shower, because of incompetence, hiring third-country
    nationals, that could barely speak English, to do the work.
        A man showed up, who worked in Saudi Arabia, who was doing
    part of what the Army used to do, he was ordering the supplies.
    He was ordering towels. And he held up a towel, he said, ``Here
    is a towel I was going to order. My boss said no, that towel is
    not the one to order, I want you order this towel. It has our
    company logo on it.'' He said, ``Well, that'll cost three to
    four times more.'' His boss said, ``Doesn't matter. I mean,
    this is a cost-plus contract. We're going to make more money.''
    So, he ordered the towel with the logo.
        And the list goes on and on. I mean, 22-year-old Mr.
    Diveroli gets $300 million in contracts. He's a 22-year-old
    president of his dad's shell company, and he hires a 26-year-
    old masseuse as a vice president, and gets $300 million in
    contracts.
        I had the head of your Army Sustainment Command in my
    office, and we had quite a talk. He said, ``You know what? I'd
    do the same thing today, knowing what I knew then.'' I said,
    ``Well, then you wouldn't--if I were running the Army, you
    wouldn't remain in my Army.''
        But, all of those things suggest to me that there's been
    something fundamentally broken in the procurement process, in
    the contracting process. In some cases, we even have contracted
    out contractors to supervise other contractors. I know some of
    that's now going to change.
        I'm going to ask that we include an amendment, in this
    year's bill, to take a fresh look at all that's been done and
    evaluate if there is a better way to have done that, perhaps
    bringing some of those functions back into the Army? But, give
    me your assessment of all that, General Casey, and perhaps
    Secretary McHugh.

                           RESPONSE TO BAD CONTRACTS

        General Casey. Well, first of all, I think your efforts
    have shined the light on some things that needed a light shined
    on them. And all those things that you said, happened. But, I
    think we have learned from them, in advance. I mean, we're not
    where we were 3 years ago, with contracts today. We actually--
    Pete Geren, in 2007, had an independent assessment of our
    contracting capability, and it was striking how much work we
    had to do. And since we've set up an Army Contracting Command
    with an Expeditionary Command and a Mission and Installations
    Command, and we have more than doubled the number of trained
    contractor representatives that are out there to supervise
    these contractors. And we're actively training soldiers in
    units before they deploy to give them the skills they need to
    do some of the oversight that was clearly missing in the cases
    that you saw.
        My sense is, your call to re-look this is timely. And it--
    I'm not sure how much of this is folklore, but when I talk to
    folks about this, what they tell me is, when we took the Army
    down, back in the late 1980s early 1990s, from 780,000 to
    480,000, some--the mitigation for that was to be able to go to
    contractors to the logistical support. And way back then, they
    did--I'm sure they did cost-benefit analysis and costed the
    cost of a logistics soldier out over the lifecycle of the
    soldier, and they figured it was going to be cheaper to do
    contract for some of those logistical tasks. I think it's high
    time that we go back and see if those assumptions are still
    valid.

                             CONTRACTING CAPABILITY

        Mr. McHugh. Let me echo the Chief's comments to you,
    Senator. And having served a number of years, and watching your
    efforts while I was in Congress, and a big fan of the military
    and the Army, I deeply appreciate it. And I think I can speak
    with some validity in saying that so do the men and women in
    uniform and their families.
        I agree with the Chief. We have taken steps to try to do
    the best we can within the framework that is provided. As you
    know, we're transitioning to a LOGCAP IV that is different. I
    don't want to suggest, at this early date, it is perfect, but
    it does do away with the sole-source and range of potential
    abusive practices that LOGCAP III did, but it may not be the
    perfect answer. And I assure you, the Army will administer and
    implement, to the best of its ability, whatever oversight
    structure that this Congress, in its wisdom, decides to place
    before us.
        I agree. Your final comment was about insourcing. We went
    far--too far, in my humble judgment. And I was part of the
    Armed Services Committee that supported those outsourcing
    initiatives that, perhaps well-intended, I think had difficult
    results. We've already re-brought into house, insourced, some
    900 core capabilities that have provided the Army and the
    taxpayers $41 million in savings and, I would argue, better
    oversight. And we have an objective that is, in large measure,
    supported in this budget, to, by the end of 2015, insource to
    the Army another nearly 4,000.
        Chief mentioned our efforts at the brigade and battalion
    level to provide well-trained and more sufficient numbers of
    CORs, contract oversight officers, and we're going to continue
    to do that.
        But, my experience has been, there's always a better way;
    the challenge is to find that. And to the extent we can be
    supportive in that search, we want to do that.
        Senator Dorgan. I know that the chairman wants to end the
    hearing; I think we have another engagement. But, I--let me
    just make one final point.
        First of all, thank you for your answers. I described some
    negatives; there are many, many positives. And I finished
    reading a book recently, and I think the title was ``A
    Soldier's Life,'' and it is an extraordinary book about what
    soldiers do every day, and what our military does every day.
    And while I talked today about my concerns of some things, let
    me add what I'm sure you've heard from my colleagues, we are
    enormously grateful for the work both of you do on behalf of a
    lot of people today who got up this morning to face danger on
    our behalf. So, General Casey, thanks for your long service.
    Secretary McHugh, I'm glad you're where you are.
        And thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Secretary McHugh
    and General Casey, for your testimony.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        I have two questions here, submitted by Senator Cochran,
    who cannot be with us, so I will submit them for your
    consideration.
        We look forward to working with you in the coming months.
    And I can assure you that we will do our utmost to make certain
    that the men and women in uniform are given whatever is needed
    to make certain that their service to our country is not only
    one that our Nation would appreciate, but it will be good for
    them. And I commend you for the effort being made now to look
    into matters, such as stress, which is very important.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted to Hon. John M. McHugh
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                    brigade combat team (bct) modernization
        Question. Secretary McHugh, the Army's Future Combat Systems
    program, FCS, has been terminated and replaced with a program to
    incrementally field many of the technologies that were developed under
    the FCS program. However, a recent Limited User Test showed that
    despite an investment of almost $21 billion in the last 7 years, many
    of these technologies are unreliable and do not work as intended. This
    raises serious questions about the acquisition strategy pursued by the
    Army for FCS. What lessons has the Army learned from its FCS program
    acquisition strategy and how will you incorporate them into future Army
    acquisition programs?
        Answer. After cancellation of the FCS program, the Army conducted
    an analysis of requirements based on the lessons learned from the last
    8 years of war. We retained the family of systems knowledge base
    acquired during the FCS program as well as technologies related to the
    network, and unmanned/ground vehicles developed during the program.
    This analysis will now support the BCT Modernization Strategy.
        We found that modeling, simulations and scenarios depicting FCS
    capabilities and operations became increasingly complex over time,
    which resulted in fewer scenarios that limited our ability to analyze
    across a wide range of relevant operating conditions. A key lesson
    learned from this experience was that the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI)
    was contracted to produce analytical deliverables that were duplicative
    of what the Army was doing and that were more advocacy than analysis.
    These products were therefore of questionable value. Additionally,
    during critical early program stages, the unique technical expertise
    and capabilities resident within the Army were not leveraged by the
    Program Manager/LSI team, especially for platform survivability and the
    network. The Army has moved away from the LSI model and restructured
    the contract, establishing a Prime Contractor to deliver Increment 1
    capabilities to our Brigade Combat Teams.
        While retaining the effort to integrate, develop and field
    capabilities as a system, the Army is also fully embracing competition
    and Department of Defense Instruction 5000.2 to support our BCT
    Modernization strategy. For example, the Ground Combat Vehicle program
    will be competitive beginning at a Milestone A and using best
    practices, including competitive prototyping through its acquisition
    process.
        Further, FCS did not adequately revalidate operational concepts at
    regular intervals to address lessons learned or reassess technology
    development. The BCT Modernization Plan will focus on technologically
    feasible and affordable solutions, address lessons learned, allow for
    incremental technological development, and have appropriate mitigation
    plans in place. For example, the Army will field Increment 1
    capabilities only when they are mature and will structure the program
    to allow for technological upgrades and refinements even during the
    fielding process.
        Early in development, the Army decided to let Soldiers test and
    evaluate the systems through the Army Evaluation Task Force. As a
    result, Soldier feedback has played a key role in optimizing designs
    throughout the development phase--ultimately leading to a better end
    product. Increment 1 capabilities are now in their third year of the 4
    year test cycle.
                          future role of mrap vehicles
        Question. Secretary McHugh, a success story from the wars has been
    the rapid development and fielding of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
    Vehicles, ``MRAPS''. The Army has taken receipt of 12,000 MRAPs and has
    a requirement for about 5,800 light-weight MRAPs. But despite the
    MRAP's unquestioned success, I get the feeling that these vehicles are
    treated like the ``ugly step-child''. The Army has no funded plan to
    integrate them into its force structure, and you are developing another
    tactical vehicle that won't deliver for several years.
        Mr. Secretary, given the difficult fiscal times and Secretary
    Gates' guidance to focus on the 80 percent solution that can be
    provided immediately instead of developing gold-plated exquisite
    systems that don't show up for years to come, what is the future role
    of MRAPs in the Army?
        Answer. The Army has developed an allocation plan for MRAPs as they
    return from theater. This plan, and associated courses of action, was
    briefed to the Under Secretary of the Army (USA) and the Vice Chief of
    Staff of the Army (VCSA) on December 22, 2009. The plan included
    placing MRAPs in task organized sets, select units, and the training
    base. The USA and VCSA directed the proponents to conduct a detailed
    cost benefit analysis on two courses of action for task organized set
    placement. The results of this cost benefit analysis will be presented
    to the USA and VCSA on March 25, 2010.
                         armed aerial scout helicopter
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget continues to modernize Army
    aviation units at a rapid pace. However, one key program, the
    replacement of the aging Kiowa Warrior helicopter, has been set back by
    the failures of the Comanche and the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.
        The Army is conducting new studies on how to replace the Kiowa
    Warrior and the studies are reportedly examining new concepts of
    ``teaming'' helicopters with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). However,
    it is not currently known how many years it will be before a prototype
    Armed Aerial Scout helicopter will fly.
        Secretary McHugh, the Secretary of Defense has warned about the
    dangers of pursuing exotic and costly weapons systems, while ignoring
    the 80 percent solution. Do you feel the Army is taking the right
    approach to the Armed Aerial Scout helicopter?
        Answer. In July 2009, the Defense Acquisition Executive directed
    the Army to conduct an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to meet Armed
    Aerial Scout capabilities and to determine a replacement for the OH-58D
    Kiowa Warrior. This AoA will determine the appropriate materiel
    solution(s) to address any capability gaps and meet Army requirements.
    The base for analysis is the current Kiowa Warrior, but the review will
    also include ongoing improvements to the Kiowa Warrior as an option.
    The AoA will be conducted in two non-sequential phases with the
    preliminary results completed in December 2010 and final results
    published in April 2011.
        On April 14, 2009, the Secretary of the Army approved a strategy to
    reinvest in the Kiowa Warrior helicopter to address obsolescence and
    sustainment issues until a viable replacement is ready. The strategy
    includes a funded ACAT II program called the Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade
    Program (CASUP). The CASUP addresses obsolescence, safety and weight
    reduction so the aircraft performs better in the current combat
    environment. The Army expects to sustain the Kiowa Warrior until 2025.
                   army funds running out in fiscal year 2010
        Question. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of the Army was
    appropriated $141 billion in baseline funds and an additional $78
    billion for an entire year of Overseas Contingency Operations. When the
    budget request was submitted last month, it included a fiscal year 2010
    supplemental to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Much
    of those expenses are for Army operating costs and in total, the Army's
    request to support the new policy is $20 billion. Secretary McHugh,
    with the current resources available to the Army in fiscal year 2010,
    how far do you think you can make it into the fiscal year before
    running out of funding?
        Answer. A critical portion of the fiscal year 2010 supplemental
    request is the Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) funding for
    increased operations in Afghanistan. Because OMA comprises the majority
    of the Army's funding, this account becomes the measure by which we
    project a run-out date at the end of June, beginning of July. Passage
    of the supplemental prior to Memorial Day would make funds available in
    June, and would minimize the risk of impact on theater operations, base
    operations support, readiness and family programs. It would enable the
    Army to maintain required execution flexibility across all
    appropriations.
                              joint cargo aircraft
        Question. Secretary McHugh, I have a couple of questions on the C-
    27 Joint Cargo Aircraft--the plane that will replace the Army's fleet
    of C-23 Sherpas. Last March, the Congress was told that the Army needed
    54 of the 78 aircraft planned for procurement. In May, the Department
    announced that it would procure just 38 aircraft, less than half the
    number in the original plan, and transferred management to the Air
    Force. Has your staff reviewed the analyses which produced the lower
    requirement and are you satisfied that the Army's lift needs will be
    satisfied with the planned buy of 38 aircraft?
        Answer. The Army has a validated requirement for 75 cargo aircraft,
    per the Joint Cargo Aircraft Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) and
    addendum. Office of the Secretary of Defense Program Analysis and
    Evaluation (OSD PA&E) completed a sufficiency review validating the
    Army's acquisition objective of up to 75 aircraft. The Army's initial
    procurement was for 54 Joint Cargo Aircraft (C27J). However, in April
    2009, the SECDEF directed the Joint Cargo Aircraft (C27J) program be
    transferred from a joint Army led program to a single service Air Force
    program. He further reduced the initial joint procurement from 78
    aircraft (54 for Army and 24 for Air Force) to 38 aircraft. The SECDEF
    has directed that the lift requirements be met by the Air Force,
    leveraging their entire fleet mix.
                                tactical radios
        Question. Secretary McHugh, the Army successfully incorporated
    commercial radio technology into the Joint Network Node system in the
    last decade. Is the Army planning to leverage other commercial
    technologies as part of the Joint Tactical Radio System? In particular,
    has Army looked at commercial technologies to meet the wide band
    networking requirements?
        Answer. The Army has leveraged commercial technologies to fill
    urgent operational capability gaps; however, there are no commercial
    alternatives to the JTRS programs that meet all the Joint Service
    requirements. Commercial off-the-shelf alternatives may offer an
    attractive up-front price over the JTRS programs; however, they only
    provide limited solutions and potentially make it more difficult for
    the DOD to achieve interoperability of our joint secure communications.
        Question. Secretary McHugh, what is the Army's position on fielding
    additional AN/PRC-117G radios to meet contingency needs?
        Answer. In certain situations and missions, forces in contingency
    operations have expressed urgent operational requirements for a
    wideband networking radio capability. The Army Staff is currently
    analyzing each request carefully to determine the proper materiel
    solution for validated requirements. In some cases, the AN/PRC-117G is
    the best solution available to satisfy these needs. The Army has
    sufficient stocks of AN/PRC-117G on hand to meet all known contingency
    operations requests, and plans to resource/field any approved requests
    from these stocks only. The Army is not currently planning to purchase
    additional AN/PRC-117G to meet contingency needs. The preferred
    approach is to accelerate Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)
    capabilities, wherever possible, to satisfy wideband networking radio
    requirements.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                        army guard and reserve equipment
        Question. How much funding is included in the President's fiscal
    year 2011 for Army Guard and Reserve Equipment? How does this compare
    to the relative size of the Army Guard and Reserve compared to the
    active duty Army? Does the Army support a separate budget line item
    that annotates equipment procurement for the Guard and Reserves?
    Wouldn't this provide greater transparency?
        Answer. Funding requested for equipment procurement is as follows:
    $15 billion (76 percent) for the Active Component (AC); $3.6 billion
    (18 percent) for the Army National Guard (ARNG); and $1.1 billion (6
    percent) for the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). There are some deviations of
    funding versus size (based on requirements). However, a more telling
    comparison is requirements versus equipment on hand, which shows that
    we are funding to increase readiness in all components equally.
        The Army does not support a separate budget line item, as it would
    limit the Army's fiscal flexibility, which is required in a constantly
    changing world.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) has provided the Services with
    implementation instructions on how to attain transparency. The
    instructions direct the Services to provide component-level funding
    data for the AC, ARNG, and USAR on annual budget exhibits. The Army has
    complied with this by providing the data on the P-40 (Budget Item
    Justification) and the P-21 (Production) budget exhibits for both the
    fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budget requests.
        The DOD instructions also direct the Services to provide quarterly
    reports that track the execution of Reserve Component funding and
    procurement. The DOD intends to provide those reports to Congress on a
    semiannual basis. The Army fully supports and is in compliance with the
    DOD implementation instructions and has provided the required reports
    for fiscal year 2009 and 1st Quarter fiscal year 2010.
                           director of the army guard
        Question. In what stage of the nomination process are we for the
    position of the Director of the Army Guard? When can the Senate
    anticipate receiving a new nominee for this position?
        Answer. Currently, the Army and the National Guard are in the
    selection phase of the nomination process. The Senate can anticipate
    receiving a nominee as soon as the selection phase is complete, which
    is estimated to be within a few weeks.
                            homeland response force
        Question. How will the Department of Defense organize Emergency
    Management Assistance Compacts between the state that owns a Homeland
    Response Force and the other states in the region that share it? Under
    what emergency circumstances would you envision Federalizing the
    Homeland Response Force and taking command and control away from the
    Governor in favor of U.S. Northern Command? Was the decision to
    establish the Homeland Response Forces made jointly by DOD and DHS?
        Answer. Emergency Management Assistance Compacts (EMACs) are
    arranged and entered into by the states and territories in order to
    provide mutual assistance and support of one another. They are not
    compacts with the Department of Defense.
        The Department is drawing on existing National Guard forces to
    build a Homeland Response Force (HRF) in each of the ten Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions. Creation of HRFs within the
    existing National Guard force structure recognizes the need for
    increased Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield
    Explosives (CBRNE) response capabilities and capacity in the event of
    catastrophic CBRNE incidents. It also takes into account the
    operational experience states and territories have in supporting each
    other using National Guard forces in either State Active Duty (SAD) or
    Title 32 statuses.
        As is the case for the states that currently maintain National
    Guard CBRNE Enhance Response Force Packages (CERFPs), the Adjutant
    General of the state or territory that gets an HRF agrees in writing
    that the HRF is a national response capability, which can be employed
    outside of the state to provide support within the FEMA region or in
    other FEMA regions, as necessary. The 17 existing CERFPs are employed
    in state, out of state, regionally and nationally to respond to CBRNE
    incidents regardless of the unit's location.
        The HRF will have the same early, life-saving capabilities of the
    CERFPs (e.g., Search and Extraction, Decontamination, Emergency
    Medical, and Command and Control (C\2\)), as well as security and
    Brigade level C\2\ for synchronizing multiple CBRNE units. Each HRF
    will have approximately 566 personnel.
        States generally have jurisdiction over the welfare of their
    citizens. However, in many circumstances the President, by law, has
    preeminent jurisdiction to handle certain incidents (e.g., terrorism,
    most nuclear or radiological events and/or environmental impacts). He
    or she also may have the political/moral obligation to assist
    regardless of the nature/size of incident. Accordingly, it is essential
    to facilitate a unity of effort as Federal forces integrate with
    ongoing State responses.
        The HRF is designed to be employed in SAD or Title 32 statuses.
    Only in an extreme situation, such as a state's incapacitation to
    govern and/or control the emergency situation (continuity of
    government/continuity of operations), is it possible that the President
    would Federalize the HRF and place it under the command and control of
    the Commander, U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM).
        Historically, over 90 percent of all incidents are handled at the
    local level; approximately 6 to 8 percent involve state level
    engagement, and an even smaller percentages have a Federal response. As
    such, the Department does not envision the likelihood of placing the
    HRF into a Title 10 status under the command and control of USNORTHCOM.
    However, USNORTHCOM will command the follow-on CBRNE Consequence
    Management Response Forces (CCMRF) when requested to augment the
    consequence management efforts of State and local first responders,
    National Guard forces and Federal agencies by providing complementary
    and unique capabilities when the effects of a CBRNE event exceed their
    capabilities.
        The Department of Homeland Security participated in both the
    initial consequence management study and observed the Quadrennial
    Defense Review. FEMA provided information about Federal, state, and
    local consequence management capabilities for inclusion in the
    consequence management study. State involvement, in the form of the
    Adjutants Generals, was facilitated by the National Guard Bureau.
                               title 32 line item
        Question. In each of the past several years, the Department of
    Defense has paid for Title 32 funding requests for domestic disaster
    relief missions as requested by State Governors and approved by the
    Secretary of Defense. Naturally, paying for these much needed
    operations out of regular Army Operations and Maintenance accounts
    shortchanges other programs. Does the Army have plans to create a Title
    32 line item in its Operations and Maintenance accounts? If not, why
    not? If such a line item already exists, please provide the
    identification numbers used in the Army budget justification documents.
        Answer. Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
    Assistance Act, Public Law 106-390, October 30, 2000, DOD may be
    required to provide assistance to Federal agencies and state and local
    governments in response to major disasters or states of emergency
    declared by the President.
        In fiscal year 1990, Congress established the Defense Emergency
    Response Fund (DERF) to reimburse DOD for providing disaster or
    emergency assistance to other Federal agencies and to state and local
    governments in anticipation of reimbursable requests. The Treasury
    index symbol for the DERF is 97X4965 and was initially funded at $100
    million. The purpose of DERF is to allow DOD to provide disaster and
    emergency relief assistance in response to natural or manmade disasters
    without depleting the funds it needs to accomplish its mission. DOD
    Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR), Volume 12, Chapter 6 provides
    for the policy and procedures governing the Defense Emergency Response
    Fund.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                          national guard and reserves
        Question. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the National Guard
    and Reserves have been called upon to support the efforts in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Despite their dedicated service they often come home to
    hardships, especially in the current economy. In the state of
    Washington, National Guard unemployment is over 14 percent vice the 9.5
    percent unemployment rate statewide. In the last year there have been
    seven suicides with 70 percent of those tied to the Guardsman's
    financial situation. 2,100 Washington National Guardsmen live at or
    below the poverty line as a result of their employment situation. I am
    concerned for these soldiers mental and emotional well-being as they
    are returning from serving their country to possible unemployment and
    financial instability instead of a happy family reunion. What is the
    Army doing across the nation to help these National Guard and Reserve
    soldiers and their families when they return from deployment to
    financial hardship?
        Answer. The Army Reserve Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP)
    provides information, services, referral, financial planning and
    assistance, and other proactive outreach programs to Soldiers of the
    Army Reserve and their Families through all phases of the deployment
    cycle.
        The goal of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program is to prepare
    soldiers and families for mobilization, sustain families during
    mobilization, and reintegrate soldiers with their families,
    communities, and employers upon redeployment.
        When a soldier or family member contacts the Army Reserve Family
    Programs Office for financial counseling or assistance, the staff will
    support the soldier or family member by providing the appropriate
    assistance and/or connect them to community resources based on
    individual needs. Local Army Reserve Family Programs personnel also
    provide referrals to professional financial counseling services for
    deploying soldiers and their family members.
        In-person financial counseling is now available in most locations
    through Military OneSource in partnership with National Foundation for
    Credit Counseling (NFCC). NFCC provides financial education and
    counseling services at hundreds of local offices nationwide. Military
    OneSource arranges for soldiers and family members to meet face-to-face
    with a financial consultant in their community. This program is
    specially designed to provide short-term, solution-focused financial
    counseling for service members and families, who may be experiencing a
    financial setback. Up to 12 counseling sessions per issue, per calendar
    year are allowed for each National Guard or Reserve soldier (regardless
    of activation status) and families located in the continental United
    States. For those unable to attend in-person counseling or who are in
    locations where in-person counseling is not available, Military
    OneSource will provide telephone consultations.
        Additional assistance for returning Reserve Component soldiers is
    available through the Employer Partnership Office portal. The U.S. Army
    Reserve created the Employer Partnership Office (EPO) of the Armed
    Forces with the goal of assisting soldiers and family members with
    access to employment when they return from deployment. Launched in
    2007, the program expanded in 2009 to include the Army National Guard.
        EPO regularly participates in Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events,
    job fairs, Wounded Warrior events and visits to units to advise
    soldiers and family members of the hundreds of thousands of jobs
    available to them. Through EPO, service members have access to more
    than 500,000 jobs listed by nearly 1,000 employers who have partnered
    with EPO. Additional assistance includes personal contact with EPO's
    Program Support Managers who serve as caseworkers, advising service
    members not only about employment listed on the EPO portal, but about
    in-kind services offered by many of our partners and military service
    organizations. Services include mentoring and career development, job
    counseling, resume writing assistance, how to negotiate salaries, how
    to dress for success, tips on how to succeed in positions which are
    competitive and how to find jobs that compliment their military
    service.
        Question. How has this affected the readiness of our National Guard
    and Army Reserves?
        Answer. Financial hardships, caused by possible unemployment for
    redeploying Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers, have not had a measureable
    impact on readiness. During the beginning OIF and OEF, RC readiness did
    decline. With the implementation of the ARFORGEN model and the
    additional resources provided by Congress for RC units, however,
    overall readiness has been steadily improving since early 2009.
        Question. How is the Army assisting these soldiers to improve their
    job skills to make them relevant and competitive in the current job
    market?
        Answer. In addition to the highly valued skills Soldiers learn in
    the military, the Army has a number of programs to assist Soldiers as
    they transition into the civilian workforce. One of the newest, and
    most innovative programs is the Employer Partnership Office (EPO)
    launched in 2007 by Lt. Gen. Jack C. Stultz, Chief, Army Reserve. The
    program was designed as a collaborative effort between employers and
    the Army Reserve to provide a continuum of career for our service
    members. In July 2009, the Army National Guard joined the EPO.
    Currently nearly 1,000 companies have signed non-legally binding
    memorandums of agreement with the EPO. Many of our partners are Fortune
    500 and Fortune 1000 companies; others are nonprofit organizations who
    contribute in-kind support to our service members as they transition
    into or back to the civilian job market.
        Through EPO, service members have access to program support
    managers and business partners who can assist with resume writing in
    order to capture the skills and talent these men and women earn while
    they're serving in the military. Other services include interviewing
    skills and how to dress for success. EPO program support managers can
    identify partners who offer internships and apprenticeships or offer
    assistance with relocation or continuing education. EPO also regularly
    briefs Soldiers and families at events such as Yellow Ribbon
    reintegration events, Veterans events, Wounded Warrior events, job
    fairs and briefings to individual units. Many of the skills that reside
    in the Reserve Components are shared skills Soldiers use in their
    civilian employment such as the medical field, transportation, city
    planning, management and military police. Due to these shared skills,
    through the EPO, we are currently developing pilot programs that would
    provide cross-training opportunities. One such program to be unveiled
    in the coming months represents a partnership between a major American
    automotive manufacturer and EPO to offer RC Soldiers an opportunity to
    train on the manufactures' fleet training package. In the second phase
    of this pilot, the partnership will embed Soldiers in industry to train
    as mechanics on hybrid vehicles before hybrid vehicles are used on the
    battlefield. Additionally, we are reviewing ways in which a Soldier can
    earn credit towards a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) while learning
    to be a truck driver.
                                    families
        Question. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, I applaud your
    efforts in making the families of our soldiers a top priority. Family
    readiness and support is crucial for the health of the Army. The
    health, mental health and welfare of Army families, especially the
    children has been a concern of mine for many years. This also includes
    education, living conditions, and available healthcare. How are you
    meeting the increased demand of healthcare and mental health
    professionals to support the families? If not, where are the
    shortfalls?
        Answer. The Army listens to Family members who want easier access
    to care. Attempts to improve access to care include two new Army
    programs associated with the new Child, Adolescent and Family
    Behavioral Health Proponency (CAF-BHP). The CAF-BHP focuses on two new
    innovative clinical programs to bridge the access gap: School
    Behavioral Health and Child and Family Assistance Centers (CAFAC).
    Breaking tradition, the School Behavioral Health program proactively
    brings care to the children rather than requiring them to travel to the
    clinic in the military treatment facility. Similarly, the Military and
    Family Life Consultant program provides care closer to where Soldiers
    work and Families live. Clinicians provide short-term, situational, and
    problem-solving consultation services outside the walls of the clinic,
    which breaks down some of the traditional barriers to care. The CAFAC
    is a model designed to be established at the installation level. The
    CAFAC brings together under one ``roof'' all the services on an
    installation providing for Army Families who are experiencing the
    stress of multiple deployments. This model creates a single point of
    entry for family members seeking help, thus allowing for more effective
    triage and efficient allocation of behavioral health resources while
    increasing access to care and reducing the associated stigma.
        However, due to the national shortage in Child Psychiatry,
    shortfalls remain and we are having difficulty filling the numerous
    Child Psychiatry provider vacancies throughout the Army. As a result of
    these shortages, some locations experience an inadequate number of
    therapists to help Families during the deployment cycle. The Army is
    continuously working to improve both military and civilian provider
    recruitment and retention. Recent incentives, including bonuses and
    relocation allowances, aid in these efforts.
        Question. What improvements have been made with respect to the
    children of soldiers and meeting their special requirements? What
    programs have you implemented to assist the children of servicemembers
    with coping with frequent deployments, re-integration, and other
    stresses of military families?
        Answer. The health and welfare of our children is tremendously
    important to the Army, and we recognize the difficulties frequent
    deployments cause. As a result, the Army has taken great strides by
    creating and bolstering numerous Child, Youth, and School Services
    infrastructures, programs and services to help our children cope with
    the full spectrum of the deployment cycle.
        Army Families receive reductions in child care fees during the
    deployment cycle and Child Development Centers have extended operating
    hours. They offer many options to support Family Readiness Groups and
    the Chaplains' Strong Bonds program. No-cost respite child care has
    increased from 5 to 16 hours per child, per month.
        Operation Boots On and Operation Boots Off help children understand
    and prepare for their parents' deployment and redeployment. Child
    Behavioral Health Consultants are embedded in our programs to provide
    social, emotional, and behavioral support for both children and staff.
    Military Family Life Consultants provide non-medical, short term,
    situational, problem-solving counseling services in schools with high
    military-connected populations. Army School Liaison Officers serve as
    advocates for military-connected students and assist them through
    school transitions and with school-related issues. Academic support
    services help students compensate for parental absences with on-post
    homework centers, and 24/7 online tutoring support for students
    regardless of where they live.
        Army-sponsored Community Child Care Programs such as Operation
    Military Child Care and Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood
    provide fee assistance to geographically dispersed Families to reduce
    out-of-pocket child care expenses. Operation Military Kids coordinates
    networks of citizens and organizations in every state to support
    military children impacted by deployment.
        Detailed information about these programs is available at the Army
    OneSource website, www.myarmyonesource.com.
        Question. Jobs have also been a concern of military spouses of
    deployed soldiers or who transition because of a Permanent Change of
    Station (PCS). Especially in the current job market, what is the Army
    doing to assist family members seeking employment after a PCS? What
    about spouses who must quit their job or reduce the number of hours
    worked caused by a deployment and the demands of the family?
        Answer. Families are important to the Army, a priority to soldiers,
    and a vital factor in the Army's overall readiness. A prepared family
    is better able to manage deployment, long-term separations and Army
    life in general. The Army has a myriad of employment support programs
    that are geared towards our spouses, both Active and Reserve Component.
        The Employment Readiness Program provides assistance to family
    members in acquiring skills, networks and resources that will allow
    them to participate in the workforce and to develop a career plan.
    Employment services are available to all Army Components, regardless of
    location. Services include: career counseling and coaching; employment
    training classes; job fairs; Army Spouse Career Assessment Tool; job
    listings and information and assistance on the Military Spouse Career
    Advancement Account.
        The Army Spouse Employment Partnership (ASEP) is an expanding
    partnership that is mutually beneficial to the Army and corporate
    America. ASEP consists of a small group of committed partners from the
    private sector, military and Federal government that have pledged their
    best efforts to increase employment and career opportunities for
    military spouses. The partnership provides spouses the opportunity to
    attain financial security and achieve employment goals through career
    mobility and enhanced employment options.
        The Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) Program provides
    education and training opportunities to eligible dependents of deceased
    and/or permanently disabled veterans. DEA reduces tuition by offering
    up to 45 months of education benefits.
        The Stateside Spouse Education Assistance Program (SSEAP) is a
    need-based education assistance program designed to provide spouses of
    active duty and retired Army Soldiers, and widows(ers) of Army Soldiers
    who died either on active duty or in a retired status, and residing in
    the United States, with financial assistance in pursuing educational
    goals. The program assists spouses/widows(ers) in gaining the education
    required to allow them to qualify for increased occupational
    opportunities. SEAP provides for up to $2,500 maximum per academic year
    for fees, supplies, or books.
        In addition to these Army programs, many communities partner with
    their local installations through the Army Community Covenant and host
    job fairs and job centers to help spouses with employment searches,
    resume writing, interviewing techniques and other services to help them
    find meaningful employment.
        More detailed information on all of these programs may be found at
    the Army OneSource website, the Army's online resource for information
    on programs, services and support available to soldiers and their
    families.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                            resiliency of the force
        Question. Secretary McHugh, I have been informed that a third of
    the suicides this year have occurred at Fort Hood and Fort Carson. What
    measures are being taken alongside the Army Campaign Plan for Health
    Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention to address additional
    stressors at these two forts?
        Answer. As of March 2010, Fort Carson and Fort Hood each had 4
    suicide deaths. These two posts account for 24 percent of Active Duty
    suicide deaths this year (33). At this point last year, the Army had 53
    suicide deaths. The Army's senior leadership is committed to sustaining
    our current emphasis on this problem.
        The Army conducts an extensive review of every suicide death to
    improve our understanding of why Soldiers choose to take their lives.
    The Army's Suicide Prevention Task Force has created a standardized 37
    line report that units use to analyze the factors surrounding each
    Soldier's suicide. Within 30 days after a Soldiers death, this report
    is sent to Headquarters Department of the Army for review, and a
    General Officer must ``back brief'' the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
    during a monthly senior review board meeting. This back brief is done
    via a world-wide video teleconference, so that leaders across the Army
    can share lessons learned and improve early recognition of at-risk
    Soldiers.
        Additionally, the Army Public Health Command (Provisional) has
    created the Army Behavioral Health Integrated Data Environment (ABHIDE)
    database. This database provides a standardized, enterprise-wide
    capability designed to integrate information from legal, medical and
    personnel databases into a comprehensive health surveillance system to
    support mental, behavioral, social and public health activities.
        By increasing Soldiers' access to behavioral health (BH) care and
    the reducing stigma associated with seeking such care, the Army hopes
    to positively impact the delivery of BH services in garrison. At Fort
    Carson, Mobile Behavior Health Teams (MBHT) were created to meet this
    need. Each MBHT, which provides Soldiers with expedited BH evaluations
    and community-level treatment, can support a full Brigade Combat Team
    (BCT) (3,000-5,000 Soldiers) and has a licensed BH provider assigned
    exclusively to each battalion (500-600 Soldiers) (BCT). This system
    provides a single point of entry into BH care for Soldiers and a single
    point of contact for leaders with questions. The U.S. Army Public
    Health Command (Provisional) has evaluated similar BH outreach
    initiatives at other Army installations, such as Fort Sill's Outreach
    Program in Oklahoma, and is currently conducting a full program
    evaluation of MBHT.
        Preliminary results suggest a downward trend in off-post referrals,
    wait times for Senate Appropriations Committee appointment and key
    suicide indicators. Efforts to measure the impact of MBHT on BH
    accessibility, provider trust, stigma and mission readiness are
    ongoing. A final report is expected in January 2011.
        Fort Hood's Resiliency Campus focuses on wellness for its soldiers,
    families, and retirees. The campus is dedicated to integrating the
    body, mind, and spirit by aiding visitors in reaching individualized
    and measurable wellness goals through education and comprehensive
    programs. The Resiliency Campus is based on the idea of helping the
    soldier and the family before the crisis begins. Through a network of
    support services, the campus hopes to train and empower all soldiers
    and their families to be resilient, to continue fighting in spite of
    life's challenges.
        Question. Secretary McHugh, are resources available to Guardsmen
    and Reservists after they come off of active duty to help build
    resiliency? Is there outreach for their families when these soldiers
    return to a traditional Reservist role?
        Answer. The Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard (ARNG) are
    working diligently to increase the range and quality of services
    provided to soldiers throughout the deployment cycle and beyond.
    Currently, there are limited resources available through the Yellow
    Ribbon Reintegration Program and the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
    (CSF) Program. The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program contains
    outreach activities to help soldiers and their families with
    transitioning to a traditional role. In CSF, Master Resilience Trainers
    are being trained to teach resiliency to these soldiers. Soldiers and
    families can also use the ARNG's Family Assistance Centers to help with
    reintegration. The ARNG is looking to increase its capability to train
    Master Resilience Trainers.
                             armed scout helicopter
        Question. Secretary McHugh, Secretary Gates has been critical of
    recent modernization efforts and has stated that too often we seek a 99
    percent solution over a period of years rather the 75 percent solution
    over a period of months that's required for stability and
    counterinsurgency missions. I don't know what program or programs
    Secretary Gates had in mind when he expressed that view, but the last
    two Army efforts to replace the Kiowa Warrior helicopter fleet--the
    Comanche and the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter programs--resulted in
    program terminations due to requirements growth, cost overruns and
    schedule delays. In response to these program replacement missteps,
    this Committee recommended the Army consider upgrades to existing in-
    service rotorcraft as a low-risk path to a Kiowa replacement.
        Mr. Secretary, I know you have been in your job for less than 6
    months, so you may not have had time to consider the Committee's
    recommendation. If you have had the time to consider the merits of
    upgrading existing in-service rotorcraft, would you share with the
    Committee your thoughts, and if you have not had time to consider this
    approach, would you personally look at this and get back to us with
    your thoughts?
        Answer. Considering the rapidly changing battlefield and new
    developments in Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, existing in-
    service rotorcraft are receiving extensive modifications.
    Unfortunately, modifications often add weight, which has a negative
    effect on overall aircraft performance. An example is the aging OH-58D
    Kiowa Warrior fleet. Although the Kiowa Warrior has performed
    outstandingly in theater, there are materiel limitations. There are
    technology improvements, however, which are available to help address
    capability gaps on a new platform.
        On April 14, 2009, my predecessor approved a strategy to reinvest
    in the Kiowa Warrior until a viable replacement is procured. The
    strategy involves executing upgrades to the fielded fleet, weight
    reduction efforts and the Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade Program. This
    funded ACAT II program will address obsolescence, safety, weight issues
    in order to improve the aircraft's performance in the current combat
    environment. We expect to sustain the Kiowa Warrior until 2025.
        The Army is also exploring all options to leverage existing and
    potential developmental solutions. In July 2009, the Defense
    Acquisition Executive directed the Army to conduct an Analysis of
    Alternatives to meet the Army's aerial reconnaissance mission and
    determine a replacement for the Kiowa Warrior. The AoA will be
    conducted in two non-sequential phases with the preliminary results
    completed in December 2010 and final results published in April 2011.
                    brigade combat team (bct) modernization
        Question. Secretary McHugh, what are the lessons learned from the
    terminated Future Combat System program, and what steps are being taken
    to ensure they are incorporated in other Army modernization efforts?
        Answer. After cancellation of the FCS program, the Army conducted
    an analysis of requirements based on the lessons learned from the last
    8 years of war. We retained the family of systems knowledge base
    acquired during the FCS program, as well as technologies related to the
    network and unmanned/ground vehicles. This analysis will now support
    the BCT Modernization Strategy.
        We found that modeling, simulations, and scenarios depicting FCS
    capabilities and operations became increasingly complex over time. This
    resulted in fewer scenarios that limited our ability to analyze across
    a wide range of relevant operating conditions. A key lesson learned
    from this experience was that the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) was
    contracted to produce analytical deliverables that were duplicative of
    what the Army was doing and that were more advocacy than analysis.
    These products were therefore of questionable value. Additionally,
    during critical early program stages, the unique technical expertise
    and capabilities resident within the Army were not leveraged by the
    Program Manager/LSI team, especially for platform survivability and the
    network. The Army has moved away from the LSI model and restructured
    the contract, establishing a Prime Contractor to deliver Increment 1
    capabilities to our Brigade Combat Teams.
        While retaining the effort to integrate, develop, and field
    capabilities as a system, the Army is also fully embracing competition
    and Department of Defense Instruction 5000.2 to support our BCT
    Modernization strategy. For example, the Ground Combat Vehicle program
    will be competitive beginning at Milestone A and using best practices,
    including competitive prototyping through its acquisition process.
        Further, FCS did not adequately revalidate operational concepts at
    regular intervals to address lessons learned or reassess technology
    development. The BCT Modernization Plan will focus on technologically
    feasible and affordable solutions, address lessons learned, allow for
    incremental technological development, and have appropriate mitigation
    plans in place. For example, the Army will field Increment 1
    capabilities only when they are mature; but they will be part of an
    incremental process that will allow for technological upgrades and
    refinements even during the fielding process.
        Early in development, the Army decided to let soldiers test and
    evaluate the systems through the Army Evaluation Task Force. As a
    result, soldier feedback has played a key role in optimizing designs
    throughout the development phase--ultimately leading to a better end
    product. Increment 1 capabilities are now in their third year of the 4
    year test cycle.
                mine resistant ambush protected (mrap) vehicles
        Question. Secretary McHugh, considering Mine Resistant Ambush-
    Protected vehicles are being incorporated into unit formations and the
    Army may maintain a presence in Afghanistan for a very long time, do
    you foresee an increasing production requirement for MRAP vehicles, and
    do you plan to look at maintaining a production capability instead of
    cycling production and the workforce between full production and idle
    production lines?
        Answer. Current MRAP production will end in December 2010, and no
    follow-on production is planned at this time. This will satisfy every
    known MRAP requirement received to date. However, given the evolving
    nature of the MRAP warfighting requirements, the Department is
    confident in the industrial base's capacity and ability to respond to
    any future requirements. As of December 2010, 25,700 MRAP vehicles will
    have been produced to meet Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)-
    validated requirements from all Services (19,368 for the Army). This
    includes 8,104 MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV), the latest MRAP
    variant designed specifically for the OEF environment. Of the 8,104 M-
    ATVs to be produced, 5,776 will be for the Army.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
                                    suicides
        Question. Congress has established a national suicide hotline for
    returning troops, as well as increased funding for mental health
    programs for active duty military personnel. However, there remain a
    high number of soldier suicides. For example, at least 11 suicides
    occurred last year at Fort Campbell. What preventative measures are the
    Department of Defense taking to address this problem? What, if any,
    legislative action would the Department need Congress to take to expand
    suicide awareness and education on posts?
        Answer. The Army has taken unprecedented steps to reduce suicidal
    behavior in both the Active and Reserve Components. Every day, the
    Army's senior leaders address the issue of suicide prevention. For
    example, we conducted an Army-wide Suicide Prevention Stand-Down and
    Chain Teach (March thru July 2009), released an interactive and
    awareness training video and partnered with the National Institute of
    Mental Health to begin a 5-year study into risk and resilience factors.
    In 2010, we are continuing this effort by expanding the training for
    ``peer to peer support'' using the Ask-Care-Escort and other
    nationally-recognized suicide intervention models, developing new
    interactive and awareness training videos and increasing access to
    behavioral healthcare thru telemedicine initiatives.
        The Army fully supports the requirement set forth in the 2010 NDAA,
    which requires ``person to person'' behavioral health assessments for
    every Service Member upon their redeployment from an overseas
    operation. Finally, the Army is fully engaged with the Congressionally
    directed ``DOD Task Force for the Prevention of Suicide by Members of
    the Armed Forces,'' which is required to submit a report to Congress
    this summer providing recommended legislative recommendations to
    improve suicide prevention and awareness training and education.
        Army actions in 2009 to combat increasing suicide rates included
    the following:
      --Produced the interactive ``Beyond the Front'' training video.
      --Produced the ``Shoulder to Shoulder: No Soldier Stands Alone''
            training video.
      --Updated AR 600-63 (Army Health Promotion) and DA Pam 600-24 (Health
            Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention).
      --Published Suicide Awareness Pocket Guide for all Soldiers.
      --Increased access to behavioral health and substance abuse
            counseling.
      --National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) grant for the Army Study
            to Assess Risk and Resilience in Service Members (STARRS), $50
            million/5 year study--quarterly updates to VCSA to accelerate
            lessons learned.
      --Tele-Behavioral Health screening pilot project with 25th ID, 100
            percent screening thru face to face, VTC, or Computer Skype-
            like counseling.
      --Approved nationally-recognized best-practice suicide intervention
            skills training for Army use to assist in early recognition of
            at-risk individuals
        Army actions for 2010 include the following:
      --Developing interactive ``Home Front'' training video.
      --Developing sequel to ``Shoulder to Shoulder'' training video.
      --Developing an Additional Skill Identifier for certified suicide
            intervention skills trainers.
      --Expanding Tele-Behavioral Health pilot project, evaluate
            effectiveness, and determine feasibility for using Army wide.
      --Developing program effectiveness measures.
      --Utilizing the Suicide Specialized Augmentation Response Team/Staff
            Assistance Team to support commanders by assessing programs,
            policies, and resources, and identify gaps to improve local
            suicide prevention programs.
                              counseling services
        Question. With the current deployment schedule, a heavy toll is
    being placed upon the spouses and children of servicemembers. How
    accessible are counseling services for deployed servicemembers' spouses
    and children? Are these services available on all major military
    installations? What programs are available for those living away from
    major military installations?
        Answer. Counseling services are available for deployed service
    members' spouses and children on all major military installations.
    Spouses and children may access Military and Family Life Consultants
    through the Army Community Service by self referral, without having to
    provide a reason for seeking these services, or via Military OneSource.
        Military and Family Life Consultants are Licensed Clinical Social
    Workers, Professional Counselors, Marriage and Family Therapists, and
    Psychologists. They provide six free informal and confidential
    counseling sessions. No records are kept and flexible appointment times
    and locations are offered. Military and Family Life Consultants are
    also available to assist soldiers who are experiencing difficulty
    coping with daily life concerns and issues.
        For those family members who do not live near a military
    installation, the Department of Defense developed Military OneSource.
    Military OneSource is a free information center and website where
    family members can seek assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
    Counseling is provided by phone or in person by Masters-level
    consultants on issues such as family support, emotional support, debt
    management and legal problems for up to 12 sessions at no cost to the
    soldier. Military OneSource can also assist with the identification of
    a consultant in the family's local area. Military OneSource does not
    release information about users of the services, with the exception of
    issues of child abuse, elder abuse, spousal abuse and/or risk of harm
    to self or others. Military OneSource can be accessed at
    www.militaryonesource.com or 1-800-342-9647.
        Family Members may complete a free, voluntary online behavioral
    health self-assessment, and obtain referrals at
    www.MilitaryMentalHealth.org. This is an approach to assist soldiers
    and family members with identifying symptoms and getting assistance. It
    provides confidential and immediate feedback, as well as referrals to
    TRICARE, Veterans Administration Centers, and Military OneSource.
        In addition to the behavioral healthcare services offered at our
    military treatment facilities, the Army Medical Command recently
    established the Child, Adolescent and Family Behavioral Health
    Proponency (CAF-BHP). CAF-BHP, located at Joint Base Lewis McChord
    (JBLM), addresses Army-wide family behavioral health needs. Its mission
    is to support and sustain a comprehensive, integrated, behavioral
    health system of care for military children and their families. The
    CAF-BHP collaborates with national subject matter experts and
    professional organizations to develop and promote evidence-based
    behavioral health treatments for military children and their families.
    The CAF-BHP is developing media-driven information campaigns to address
    military culture and the stigma associated with seeking behavioral
    healthcare.
                                    hospital
        Question. Ireland Army Community Hospital at Fort Knox is one of
    the oldest hospitals in the Army. With the new Brigade Combat Team
    stationed at the post, I am concerned over the state of the current
    hospital and its ability to meet the increased demands placed upon it.
    What is the status of the Army's decision on whether and when to build
    a replacement?
        Answer. The Army ranks the Fort Knox Hospital replacement as our
    second highest priority, behind a significant addition/alteration
    project at Tripler Army Medical Center, Fort Shafter, Hawaii. However,
    the final decision to replace the 52-year old facility will be made by
    the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD Health Affairs uses a Capital
    Investment Decision Model (CIDM) process to rank order the consolidated
    military medical construction priorities for all three Services. The
    CIDM determines the Services' priority projects according to weighted
    and scaled criteria, and by assigning scores by a 12 member Tri-service
    Capital Investment Review Board. The results of the most recent CIDM
    for the fiscal year 2012-17 POM are expected in mid to late May, and
    will determine if and when Ireland Army Community Hospital is
    programmed for replacement.
                                    ptsd/tbi
        Question. What are the typical steps taken to identify soldiers who
    may have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain
    injuries (TBI) to ensure they get the proper care? Are there any
    further legislative steps that Congress could take to improve screening
    and the delivery of care to soldiers with PTSD and TBI?
        Answer. Screening Army Soldiers for PTSD and TBI is intensive. The
    Army recently implemented new guidelines for identification and
    treatment of TBI in Theater. Upon return from deployment, there is 100
    percent screening for PTSD and TBI exposure using the Post-Deployment
    Health Assessment (PDHA). The PDHA is mandatory within 30 days
    following deployment. An enhanced version of the PDHA replaced the
    April 2003 version in January 2008. A panel of mental health experts
    constructed the PDHA questions, and periodically reviews it to ensure
    it meets the intent.
        Many soldiers experience an initial ``honeymoon'' period when
    returning from a combat tour, when symptoms do not manifest themselves
    immediately. Accordingly, we initiated the Post Deployment Health Re-
    Assessment (PDHRA) in 2005. The PDHRA occurs between 90 and 180 days
    post-deployment. A review and enhancement process has been underway for
    the PDHRA, and the January 2008 edition replaced the original 2005
    version. In addition to the PDHA and PDHRA, the Army requires soldiers
    to complete a Periodic Health Assessment annually, which again screens
    for TBI and PTSD. Army Knowledge Online (AKO) now integrates all of
    these screening requirements with a readiness stoplight (i.e. red,
    green, amber) status, so both the soldier and his or her commander are
    aware when a screening is overdue. All primary care providers receive
    training in the identification of PTSD and TBI. As part of the Respect-
    Mil Program (http://www.pdhealth.mil/respect-mil/index1.asp) all
    enrolled soldiers are screened for PTSD and depression.
        In summary, the typical soldier is assessed and reassessed for TBI
    and PTSD at several points throughout his or her first year back from
    combat, and periodically thereafter. The Army is fully engaged in
    screening, as well as research to improve early detection, care, and
    treatment. Additionally, we are working to further de-stigmatize help
    seeking behaviors and to protect Service Members from adverse career
    consequences. We do not request any legislative action.
                              brigade combat team
        Question. With the recent addition of the Brigade Combat Team at
    Fort Knox, what is the Army doing to ensure that the installation is
    capable of deploying the unit with dispatch?
        Answer. Fort Knox is currently designated as a power support
    platform (PSP) with the mission of strategically deploying individuals
    and units from all Services to include Department of Defense civilian
    employees and Reserve Components. Even with the addition of an Infantry
    Brigade Combat Team, Fort Knox has sufficient capacity to support all
    deploying units.
        The Army is working on several methods to maintain Fort Knox's
    ability to support deploying units, including Forces Command providing
    additional resources to support movement/deployment operations under
    Title 10 requirements. Additionally, future military construction
    projects will be programmed to improve Fort Knox's services,
    infrastructure and deployment readiness as part of the Army Power
    Projection Upgrade Program (AP3).
                                housing barracks
        Question. In light of heavy deployments, I am concerned that many
    installations, including Fort Campbell, are still housing soldiers in
    Korean War-era barracks. What is the Department of Defense doing to
    ensure housing is brought up to date to help increase morale for our
    already overly taxed troops?
        Answer. At Fort Campbell the Army presently has barrack
    construction projects underway and programmed for fiscal year 2011,
    2012 and 2013. Completion of these projects will eliminate the need to
    occupy Korean War-era barracks at the installation.
        In 2008, the Army completed the Permanent Party Barracks Upgrade
    Program (BUP) using Army Sustainment, Restoration, & Modernization
    funding. BUP eliminated many inadequate barracks through modernization
    of existing facilities where feasible.
        Additionally, the Permanent Party Barracks Modernization Program
    (BMP) is scheduled for completion in the fiscal year 2013 MILCON
    program. BMP Military Construction eliminates the Army's barracks
    shortfall and eliminates inadequate barracks where modernization with
    Restoration and Modernization funding was not feasible.
        However, neither BUP nor BMP specifically address buyout of certain
    types of buildings. Facility modernization not included in BUP or BMP,
    typically involves gutting the building to its structural slab and
    columns then reconfiguring it to a 1+1 standard and adds approximately
    30 years to the life of the facility.
        The Army continuously reviews its capital investment strategy to
    validate the plans for replacement and sustainment of barracks
    facilities, a major feature in the Army Campaign Plan. These plans
    address Korean-War era, Vietnam-War era and any other barracks built
    before 1980.
                             blue grass army depot
        Question. Why is the Blue Grass Army Depot chemical weapons
    stockpile in central Kentucky not being monitored around the clock?
        Answer. The Blue Grass Chemical Activity (BGCA), which is
    subordinate to the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, is in charge of
    the safe storage of chemical weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. The
    stockpile is stored in earth covered steel reinforced concrete bunkers.
    The bunkers are in a secured area with intrusion detection, and armed
    guards on roving patrols providing surveillance 24 hours a day.
        The BGCA relies on multiple safeguards to monitor the chemical
    munitions stockpile to ensure public and workforce safety. These
    safeguards include monitoring in accordance with our Kentucky
    Department of Environment Protection permit, visual inspections and
    application of munitions lot leaker data from both BGCA and other
    chemical agent storage sites. These safeguards, as well as an active
    Chemical Stockpile Emergency Response Program have been in place at
    BGCA and all Army chemical stockpile storage sites for decades. History
    has proven their effectiveness at protecting both the workforce and the
    public.
        Question. It is my understanding a directive, FRAGO 10-041, was
    recently promulgated mandating that several restaurant concepts at
    military bases in Afghanistan be closed. What is the policy
    justification for this action? Why were some concepts chosen but not
    others? Might this limitation on food options have a negative impact on
    morale among our warfighters?
        Answer. FRAGO 10-041 was issued on February 3, 2010 by the United
    States Forces--Afghanistan Commander to implement a 60-day closure plan
    for specific commercial activities available in Afghanistan. This
    included all commercial fast food restaurants brought in by the Army
    and Air Force Exchange Service. Afghanistan is a war zone, which has
    very limited ground routes into and within it. The Commander's intent
    is to eliminate all non-mission essential traffic, because of higher
    priority cargo needing to be transported over those routes.
        Our forces have access to various high quality meals in military
    dining facilities and therefore commercial fast food restaurants are
    considered as non-mission essential. Furthermore, those fast food
    restaurants were only available to our forces operating on the larger
    bases. This decision levels the unequal lifestyle between those forward
    deployed and those living on fixed bases. We do not expect a
    significant morale issue to result.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
                                    schools
        Question. Secretary McHugh, I wrote to you in December to raise the
    issue of overcrowding in schools on Fort Riley. The Army's response to
    that question was that the issue is being studied, but in the meantime,
    the problem is getting worse.
        The community around Fort Riley has spent all of its available
    resources but can't keep pace with the influx of students. For that
    reason, General Brooks, the First Infantry Division Commander,
    requested help from the Army and from the Department of Defense to
    address the overcrowding problem.
        I also understand other installations that gained forces under the
    most recent round of BRAC, such as Fort Lewis in Washington, face
    similar problems.
        What is the Army's plan to handle this issue?
        Answer. The Army has no specific authority to fund public school
    construction. However, we recognize that some of the school districts
    serving our military children are experiencing school construction
    funding challenges, specifically, Fort Riley and Joint Base Lewis
    McChord (formerly named Fort Lewis), in Washington.
        To better understand the issues for all school districts serving
    our military Families, the Army recently completed a comprehensive
    condition and capacity inventory of all on-post schools in the United
    States. Results indicate that over 50 percent of the 122 on-post
    schools are in need of renovation or replacement. Our plan is to work
    with the Department of Defense, the Department of Education and the
    Congress to develop solutions for those districts that have exhausted
    local and state funding options. Please note that, although operated by
    the local school district, six of the seven schools at Joint Base Lewis
    McChord are owned by the Department of Education. Department of
    Education has the responsibility to fund necessary renovation or
    reconstruction for these schools, hence our need to work with them to
    develop solutions. Army owns the remaining school.
        Question. Does the Army require additional money to handle the
    issue of over-crowded schools at posts that gained forces through BRAC
    and Grow the Force? Was such funding included in the fiscal year 2011
    budget request, and if not, why not?
        Answer. Public school construction is normally a state and local
    responsibility. Because the Army has no specific authority to fund
    public school construction, we have not included such funding in the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request. Additional authorization and
    appropriation legislation would be needed for the Department of Defense
    to construct public schools.
        Question. Does the Army need any statutory changes to facilitate
    on-post school construction or modification?
        Answer. Yes, the Army would need a legislative change to assist
    local public school districts with school construction. One potential
    avenue would be through the use of American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act funds specifically targeted to school districts that have been
    significantly impacted by Base Realignment and Closure or Grow the Army
    stationing decisions.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted to General George W. Casey
                Question Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              equipment in theater
        Question. General Casey, the Army has massive amounts of equipment
    in Iraq which, as U.S. forces withdraw, require evaluation and transfer
    for reset, use in Afghanistan or disposal. We hear that the drawdown is
    well underway and that over 300,000 containers are moving equipment out
    each month. General, what is the prospective timeline for retrograde
    and who is in charge of this effort?
        Answer. The Commanding General, USARCENT (the Army component of
    U.S. Central command), is in charge of orchestrating the retrograde of
    Army materiel from Iraq. He has considerable support from the Army
    Materiel Command, which has a substantial presence in both Kuwait and
    Iraq. As directed by the President, the timeline for the drawdown in
    Iraq is to reduce our military presence to 50,000 U.S. forces by August
    31, 2010 and to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of December
    2011. We have developed synchronized and coordinated plans for the
    drawdown of personnel and for the redistribution and disposition of the
    equipment and supplies in Iraq. As you noted, that process is well
    underway. In fact, we are ahead of schedule against the our established
    monthly targets in every measurable area (e.g., personnel drawdown,
    vehicles, supplies, base closure, etc.).
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                                recapitalization
        Question. As the Army undertakes its recapitalization program, are
    there any differences in the rates of recapitalization for Army
    National Guard and Reserve units and the recapitalization of active
    duty Army units? Can you explain the rationale for the discrepancy if
    one exists?
        Answer. The Army recapitalizes equipment based on equipment type,
    not Army components. There is no difference in recapitalization of
    equipment between Reserve Components and Active Duty units.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                comprehensive soldier fitness and mental health
        Question. General Casey, I received a brief on Comprehensive
    Soldier Fitness by General Cornum early last year (February 2009) year
    and you spoke about it earlier today. This program is a valuable tool
    for equipping and training our soldiers and family members to maximize
    their potential and face the physical and psychological challenges of
    sustained operations. What is the status of this program?
        Answer. Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) is a rapidly maturing
    program designed to develop psychological and physiological resilience
    across the entire Army community, including soldiers, family members
    and Department of the Army civilians. To date, over 420,000 soldiers
    have taken the Global Assessment Tool, which is a web-based strengths
    assessment. Eight web-based training modules that target resiliency
    skills are currently available to soldiers once they complete the
    Global Assessment Tool, and 20 modules will be available by the end of
    fiscal year 2010. Additionally, CSF has trained 829 Master Resilience
    Trainers at the University of Pennsylvania and satellite locations,
    with a goal of training at least 1,800 trainers by the end of fiscal
    year 2010. These Master Resilience Trainers lead resilience development
    training in their units and local communities. CSF is currently
    budgeted for $42 million annually over the next 5 years.
                                 mental health
        Question. General Casey, your efforts to reduce the stigma of
    mental health has been worthwhile. I understand that the number of
    soldiers who feel there is a stigma has been reduced from 80 to 50
    percent. However, there is a difference between those who feel there is
    a stigma versus those who are actually coming forward to seek mental
    health treatment. Despite the reduced number of soldiers who feel there
    is a stigma, are more soldiers coming forward to seeking treatment?
        Answer. Yes, more soldiers are coming forward to seek treatment.
    Our behavioral health utilization data shows that active duty
    utilization of behavioral health services has nearly doubled from 2005
    to 2009.
        Question. What actions is the Army taking to continue to reduce the
    embarrassment around seeking mental help and encourage soldiers to seek
    treatment?
        Answer. The Army is aggressively working to address perceived
    stigma and/or fear of negative repercussions associated with seeking
    behavioral healthcare. We have developed programs not only to help
    decrease stigma, but to also provide an increased layer of privacy.
        The Re-Engineering Systems of Primary Care Treatment in the
    Military is a program designed to decrease stigma by placing these
    services within primary care facilities. Through this program, any
    visit a soldier makes to his/her primary care physician for any reason
    is an opportunity to screen the Soldier for symptoms associated with
    post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or other behavioral health
    diagnoses. This program is also accessible via the web, where soldiers
    can self-refer. Services provided are confidential, with the exception
    of the determination that a Soldier is at risk of harm to self or
    others.
        The Soldier Evaluation for Life Fitness program incorporates
    behavioral health as a routine component of the health readiness
    process for all soldiers returning to their home stations following
    deployment. Since every soldier receives a consultation on-site, no one
    is stigmatized when seen by a behavioral healthcare practitioner.
    Through the Soldier Evaluation for Life Fitness program, soldiers first
    complete a computer-based self-assessment. On-site clinicians review
    the results of the assessments immediately, allowing them to tailor
    their consultations to meet each soldier's unique needs. Soldiers can
    then be evaluated for individual health risks that may range from PTSD
    and other behavioral health diagnoses to physical health conditions.
        Military OneSource is a free information center and website, where
    soldiers can seek assistance 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Counseling is
    provided by phone or in person by Masters-level consultants on issues
    such as family support, emotional support, debt management, and legal
    issues at no cost to the soldier for up to 12 sessions. Military
    OneSource does not release information about users of the services,
    with the exception of issues of child abuse, elder abuse, spousal
    abuse, and/or risk of harm to self or others. Military OneSource can be
    accessed at www.militaryonesource.com or 1-800-342-9647.
        Soldiers may complete a free, voluntary online behavioral health
    self-assessment, and obtain referrals at www.MilitaryMentalHealth.org.
    This is an approach to assist soldiers and family members with
    identifying symptoms and getting assistance. It provides confidential
    and immediate feedback, as well as referrals to TRICARE, Veterans
    Administration Centers, and Military OneSource.
        Military and Family Life Consultants are also available to assist
    soldiers who are experiencing difficulty coping. Military and family
    life consultants are licensed clinical social workers, professional
    counselors, marriage and family therapists, and psychologists. They
    provide six free informal and confidential counseling sessions. No
    records are kept, and flexible appointment times and locations are
    offered. Soldiers may access military and family life consultants
    through the Army Community Services by self referral, without having to
    provide a reason for seeking these services, or via Military OneSource,
    which can assist Families with the identification of consultants in the
    local area.
        Question. Does your plan include the mental health of families, and
    if so what is that plan?
        Answer. The Army is committed to the Army Family Covenant, which
    recognizes the strong commitment and many sacrifices that families
    make. The Army also knows that the strength of soldiers is largely
    dependent upon the strength of their families. To address the
    behavioral health needs of families, the Army supports many deployment-
    related programs. For example, two well-developed programs include the
    Exceptional Family Member Program, which focuses on assistance for
    families with special needs; and the Family Advocacy Program, which
    strengthens family relationships and provides assistance and referral
    to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
        The Army also supports the Military and Family Life Consultant
    Program (MFLC), which provides deployment-related problem-solving
    consultation services for families and children in schools on post and
    in the local community. The Army has instituted Soldier and Family
    Assistance Centers (SFAC) at all the Warrior Transition Units. The SFAC
    is a soldier and family-friendly environment that has become a popular
    location for Warriors in Transition and their Families. The Center
    provides individualized, integrated support services.
        To augment the Military Treatment Facility's behavioral healthcare
    services, the Army Medical Command recently established the Child,
    Adolescent and Family Behavioral Health Proponency (CAF-BHP) at Joint
    Base Lewis McChord, Tacoma, Washington. This new Proponency
    specifically addresses family behavioral health needs; its mission is
    to support and sustain a comprehensive, integrated, behavioral health
    system of care for military children and their families.
        The CAF-BHP collaborates with national subject matter experts and
    professional organizations, including the American Academy of
    Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and
    American Psychological Association, to develop and promote evidence-
    based behavioral health treatments for military children and their
    families. The CAF-BHP focuses on two new innovative clinical programs,
    the School Behavioral Health (SBH) and Child and Family Assistance
    Center (CAFAC). CAFACs are being developed and deployed to help
    mitigate traditional stove piping of behavioral health services. The
    CAFAC will provide adult and child family members with 24/7 telephone
    triage and to mental health services at a single location. Services
    include psychiatric, psychological, social services and community
    resourcing. This integrated, comprehensive behavioral healthcare
    delivery system promotes military readiness, wellness, and resilience
    in Army children and Families.
        Schofield Barracks has an established CAFAC and we are pursuing
    initiatives at JBLM and Fort Carson. In the next couple of years, we
    expect to establish the program at Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Bliss,
    Fort Campbell, Fort Sill, and Fort Drum. To promote evidence-based
    treatments and best practices, the CAF-BHP trains primary care
    providers and their staff in screening, diagnosing and treating common
    behavioral health concerns. The CAF-BHP also designs marketing
    strategies to decrease the stigma associated with seeking behavioral
    healthcare.
                                stryker v hulls
        Question. General Casey, as you well know, three Stryker brigades
    from Fort Lewis Washington are on deployment today. Two are in Iraq and
    another in Afghanistan. It is my understanding the Army has gone to
    great lengths to enhance the safety of these troops by adding armor
    kits to the vehicles to defeat various threats. It is also my
    understanding that a so-called double-V hull--something similar to the
    MRAP vehicle--has been developed for the Stryker to further increase
    the protection of our soldiers. Can you explain the utility of the
    double-V hull and if this is something we should be doing to protect
    those brave Stryker brigade soldiers?
        Answer. The Double V-hull enhancement shows great potential for
    increasing survivability and mitigating the blast effects of Improvised
    Explosive Devices. The Double V-hull is an accelerated portion of the
    current Army acquisition strategy for Stryker modernization. The
    Double-V shaped hull will potentially provide Mine Resistant Ambush
    Protected vehicle-like protection to a proven fighting vehicle in the
    Army's most highly demanded Brigade Combat Team.
        If testing proves successful, the Army anticipates fielding an
    initial capability of Double V-hulled Strykers in late fiscal year
    2011, with a complete brigade set (minus Mobile Gun System and Nuclear
    Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle) to Operation Enduring
    Freedom by late fiscal year 2012.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                             restoring balance/risk
        Question. General Casey, over the past few years, we have heard
    about efforts to restore balance to the Army. In your prepared
    testimony, restoring balance is discussed, and it is noted that the
    Army lacks sufficient strategic flexibility and continues to accumulate
    risk to meet the challenges you may face in the future. Can you expand
    on this statement and explain what it means, and over time, how much
    risk has accumulated and is now being accepted by the Army. Does the
    Army and our Armed Forces find themselves in the same situation as the
    proverbial frog in a pot of water--the frog is cozy as the water slowly
    heats-up and doesn't recognize the danger it is in?
        Answer. The Army's forces are committed to prevailing in the
    current fight by ramping up in Afghanistan as we responsibly draw down
    in Iraq. Thanks to the support of Congress and the American people, the
    Army is receiving the resources it needs to restore readiness, but the
    continuing pace of operations means we are consuming that readiness as
    fast as we produce it. The commitment of the Army to Iraq and
    Afghanistan limits the choices available to our national leadership if
    another crisis--whether humanitarian or armed conflict--arises. It also
    means the Army cannot train all units to standard on full spectrum
    operations, which is necessary to provide a trained and ready force for
    the variety of possible missions in a world of persistent conflict.
        We are making progress in restoring balance, reaching a sustainable
    and predictable force rotational cycle in 2012 of 2 years at home
    station for every year deployed for our Active Component, and 4 years
    at home station for every year mobilized for our Reserve Component.
    However, even after the end of major combat operations in Afghanistan,
    we expect a few challenging years of recapitalizing and repairing
    equipment, re-integrating with our families, and training forces for
    full spectrum operations, before we can provide true strategic
    flexibility to our leaders.
        With Congress' continued support, the Army will restore balance by
    achieving sustainable deploy-to-dwell ratios; adequately providing for
    soldiers, civilians, and families; and with reliable, timely, and
    consistent funding, resetting our equipment and pre-positioned stocks.
    These measures will restore readiness and the strategic flexibility
    necessary to provide trained and ready forces for full spectrum
    operations and future contingencies at a tempo that is predictable and
    sustainable for our All-Volunteer Force.
                         army unmanned aerial vehicles
        Question. General Casey, I am informed that the Army plans to
    modify the Shadow Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to meet requirements that the
    terminated Fire Scout program was expected to fulfill. The fiscal year
    2011 budget request includes over a half billion to begin this work.
    General Casey, can you share with the Committee the thought behind the
    Fire Scout termination, and will this $500 million investment in Shadow
    provide your soldiers with the full capability needed to conduct their
    missions?
        Answer. With the termination of Future Combat Systems, we
    determined that the Fire Scout did not fulfill a requirement in the
    modular Brigade Combat Teams (BCT). The improvements that we are making
    to our Shadow fleet will sufficiently address the most critical
    capability gaps in the BCTs. Some of these improvements include
    retrofit kits to increase endurance while adding reliability, laser
    designation capability and NSA Type I encryption. Our BCTs, Fires
    Brigades, Battlefield Surveillance Brigades and Special Forces
    formations will benefit from the additional capabilities funded in the
    fiscal year 2011 President's budget. This improvement effort will
    continue beyond fiscal year 2011 to provide full capability to our
    soldiers.
                            resiliency of the force
        Question. General Casey, does the fiscal year 2011 budget continue
    to fully support Army Resiliency initiatives? What other efforts are
    included in this year's budget which was not part of the fiscal year
    2010 program?
        Answer. Yes. Comprehensive Soldier Fitness is fully funded in
    fiscal year 2011 at $42.5 million. Future efforts include expanding the
    Master Resilience Trainers (MRT) program by establishing an MRT course
    at Fort Jackson, South Carolina; reaching out to family members through
    voluntary participation in the Global Assessment Tool; and increasing
    the online Comprehensive Resilience Modules.
                    brigade combat team (bct) modernization
        Question. General Casey, over $20 billion has been invested in
    technologies developed under the terminated Future Combat System
    program. The Army now plans to field some of these technologies to Army
    brigades under the Brigade Combat Team Modernization program. What
    systems or technologies are going to be fielded under this effort, and
    how have they performed in recent testing?
        Answer. Increment 1 of Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Modernization
    contains systems from the FCS program. It provides enhanced war fighter
    capabilities to the Current Force in two primary areas. First, it
    provides enhanced situational awareness, force protection and lethality
    through the use of unattended and attended sensors and munitions.
    Second, it provides a communications network backbone for Infantry BCT
    and Battalion Command Networks. Increment 1 capabilities consist of the
    following systems: Unattended Urban and Tactical Ground Sensors, Small
    Unmanned Ground Vehicle, Class I Block 0 Unmanned Air Vehicle, Non Line
    of Sight-Launch System, and Network Integration Kit (for the HMMWV).
        During the 2009 Limited User Test, Increment 1 capabilities met or
    partially met 14 of 15 Army test criteria. The systems did not meet
    reliability criteria. User tests revealed issues with equipment and
    software reliability, availability and maintainability. The program
    office, in coordination with the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation command
    and U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, is taking steps to correct
    these issues. To date, more than 94 percent of the hardware issues have
    been corrected and the program is continuing to integrate software
    changes and increased capability in preparation for the 2010 test
    cycle.
                mine resistant ambush protected (mrap) vehicles
        Question. General Casey, when Secretary Gates announced his
    adjustments to Defense acquisition programs last year, he terminated
    the manned ground vehicle portion of the Future Combat System. One of
    reasons cited for the termination was that the Army's current vehicle
    program did not include a role for the Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected
    vehicles which has received more than $30 billion of investment. What
    is the Army plan for incorporating Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected
    vehicles across your unit formations?
        Answer. The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) family of
    vehicles has performed well in theater and provides critical protection
    to soldiers against mines and improvised explosive devices. The Army
    plans to place over 15,000 MRAPs and M-ATVs in the force structure.
    Vehicles will be allocated to task organized sets, and deployed when
    MRAP levels of protection are required; used by units to fill existing
    capability gaps; and used in a robust training fleet to assist soldiers
    in maintaining proficiency.
        We will place 9,284 vehicles in the following task organized sets:
    11 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams; 6 Heavy Brigade Combat Teams, 3
    Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and a Multifunctional Support Brigade. The
    Army is currently analyzing set positioning options.
        The Army will place 3,631 vehicles on Transportation, Explosive
    Ordnance Disposal and echelon above brigade Medical unit MTOEs. We will
    also place 1,755 vehicles in training sets around the world and 495 in
    Sustainment Stocks and War Reserve. TRADOC will determine allocation of
    the additional 1,460 MRAP All Terrain Vehicles and 1,300 MRAPs placed
    on contract in February 2010.
                            reset of army equipment
        Question. General Casey, resetting or recapitalization of Army
    equipment used in operations the past 8 years is requiring
    unprecedented funding levels. It's pointed out in the prepared
    testimony that resetting Army equipment will need to continue an
    additional 2 to 3 years after major deployments end. How does the Army
    plan to maintain equipment reset funding levels and complete this
    necessary process considering the 5 year budget plan projects only 1
    percent annual real growth and an annual Overseas Contingency
    Operations budget that is more than $100 billion less than it is today?
        Answer. The Army will continue to request reset funding levels to
    meet the incremental costs of war in our Overseas Contingency
    Operations (OCO) budget. Since 2001, Congress has fully funded the
    reset of Army equipment returning from contingency operations and the
    Army used these funds to reset units for full spectrum operations.
    Reset funding for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 is adequate to
    complete the reset of 25 brigades this year, 31 brigades in fiscal year
    2011 and represents approximately $11 billion per year.
        Current funding ensures that equipment can be rapidly repaired or
    replaced to meet operational requirements. We will continue to use our
    Reset Cost Model to forecast future reset costs based on force
    structure and equipping scenarios. Enduring requirements that are no
    longer part of the OCO will transition to our base budgets. This
    approach, with corresponding budget request adjustments, will align
    with the 5-year budget plan projections and OCO budget.
        If OCO Reset needs are not resourced in the year required, it would
    cause either the deferral of requirements or impact other programs
    resulting in equipment not being reset (repaired or replaced). The net
    result would be less reliable equipment or equipment shortages that
    would impact readiness and potentially put soldiers at risk. Equipment
    Reset and the associated funding is essential to maintaining equipment
    readiness and restoring balance to the Army. In partnership with
    Congress, the Army will continue to identify equipping Reset
    requirements that are cost effective, timely, and ensure readiness for
    future operations.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
                              modernize the force
        Question. Tell me about the Army's plan to modernize the force and
    what this means for soldiers in the next 2-3 years, specifically
    regarding the ``spin-outs'' and the priority delivery plan for the Army
    Infantry Brigades and others. Were any specific ``spin-outs'' cut as a
    result of the changes to Future Combat Systems (FCS)?
        Answer. After cancellation of the Future Combat Systems (FCS)
    program, the Army transitioned to a Brigade Combat Team (BCT)
    Modernization Plan. The Army now refers to ``spin-outs'' as
    ``capability packages.'' This plan is supported by comprehensive
    lessons learned from more than 8 years of war, focuses on the evolving
    needs of our warfighters in a rapidly changing security environment and
    exploits the knowledge and technologies developed under the FCS
    program.
        The BCT Modernization Plan aligns the fielding of capabilities with
    the Army Force Generation Model, so that soldiers will have the right
    capabilities at the right time to accomplish their mission. In the next
    3 years, the Army plans to field the first increment to three Infantry
    Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). We anticipate fielding the first brigade
    set of Increment 1 equipment in 2011 and two additional sets in 2012.
        Rather than making one modernization decision and applying it over
    two or more decades (as typically done in the past), the BCT
    Modernization Plan recognizes that modernization decisions must be made
    incrementally to stay ahead of the demands of the security environment
    and the needs of our warfighters.
        After the program's cancellation, we reevaluated FCS systems in
    light of our evolving needs. This led to the cancellation of the Class
    IV Unmanned Air System, the Multifunction Utility/Logistics and
    Equipment Transport (MULE-T) and the MULE-Countermine (MULE-CM)
    unmanned ground vehicles. Our analysis concluded that the Class IV UAS
    was no longer a cost-effective solution because current UAS, with some
    improvements, can sufficiently meet most requirements. Likewise, the
    two large robots (MULE-T and MULE-CM) did not meet rapidly changing
    threats or address critical future mission needs.
        Question. What is the Army's plan to integrate the Guard into its
    modernization efforts with respect to a proportional and concurrent
    delivery of the equipment needed to modernize?
        Answer. Because the Army has operationalized the Reserve Components
    to support Combatant Commanders, the Active Component (AC) is no longer
    a major factor in determining the order in which we field modernized
    systems. The goal of this strategy, which is based on the Army Force
    Generation Model, is to provide units with the equipment they need to
    perform their next mission. The Army's equipping strategy provides the
    most modern, capable equipment to deploying units without regard to
    whether they are AC, Army National Guard (ARNG), or Army Reserve.
    Additionally, we remain committed to ensuring ARNG units are equipped
    to at least 80 percent of their critical dual use items (despite
    significant overseas contingency operations and reset requirements)
    with a goal of reaching 100 percent. This is designed to ensure ARNG
    preparedness to support civil support missions.
        Between September 2008 and September 2010, ARNG equipment on hand
    percentages will increase by approximately 6 percent, and ARNG
    equipment modernization levels will increase by approximately 4
    percent. Both of these increases surpass the ACs improvements over the
    same time period.
        The Army is continuing to invest in ARNG modernization by procuring
    equipment that will complete ARNG modernization in several key areas
    over the next year or two. For example, the Army will soon complete the
    ARNG fielding of Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below and the
    M777 howitzer system. We will also complete 96 percent of the ARNG
    Warfighter Information Network-Tactical systems.
        For ARNG aircraft, the Army is working toward modernizing the
    fleet. The Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) is a key element of this
    strategy. The Army will field 88 of 210 LUHs by fiscal year 2011. The
    ARNG has the first two HH-60M equipped Medical Evacuation companies in
    the Army, as well as the second UH-60M equipped assault battalion. The
    ongoing modernization of the UH-60A series aircraft (A-A-L) will
    continue to reduce the number of non-modernized Blackhawks fleetwide in
    all components. We have already modernized four of the eight ARNG
    attack battalions with AH-64D model Apaches and plan to convert the
    remaining four battalions in fiscal year 2013-14. The ARNG is receiving
    three CH-47F models for its training base, and will begin receiving CH-
    47Fs for their operational units in fiscal year 2011.
        Question. If the current rotary wing modernization plan for the
    Army Guard is any indication of how the effort is going, I am not
    hopeful. It is my understanding the President requested funding for
    only 2 upgraded Blackhawk ``M'' models for the Army Guard in fiscal
    year 2011? Is that enough?
        Answer. Yes, two aircraft are sufficient in fiscal year 2011. The
    two HH-60Ms MEDEVAC aircraft included for the Army Guard in the fiscal
    year 2011-base budget will be paired with 10 HH-60Ms procured in the
    fiscal year 2010 base. This will provide enough aircraft to equip one
    Army Guard 12-ship MEDEVAC Company. This MEDEVAC Company is to be
    fielded in fiscal year 2011-12 (1 year after the procurement funding),
    and will bring the ARNG total UH/HH-60Ms to 70 aircraft. The UH-60M is
    the standard configuration for the Assault and General Support units.
    The HH-60M is the Medical Evacuation configuration for the MEDEVAC
    units.
                             military construction
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 Army budget request for military
    construction increased by almost $300 million, so our Guard soldiers
    and their families thank you for that. I have voiced concern in the
    past that the military construction funding has not kept pace with the
    essential needs at Guard installations across the country for
    modernization and replacement of aging facilities. I applaud the
    increase in funding from $246 million to $374 million to replace the
    Guard's aging facilities. In your view, is this amount appropriate to
    support Army Guard training and readiness requirements?
        Funding spent on the renovation and creation of new armories across
    the country spurs economic growth and enhances the Guard's and the
    Reserves' ability to carry out their missions. The benefit of these
    construction projects are two-fold because they serve as both military
    readiness spaces and public locations for community gatherings. As you
    know, training, maintenance and readiness is hampered by inadequate,
    unsafe and unhealthy facilities. The high level of mission readiness
    required of Guard soldiers needs to be supported by functional
    facilities, so I thank you for your support.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 level of funding provides for 48
    projects nationwide. At this level of funding, the average age of an
    Army National Guard (ARNG) Readiness Center will increase from 41 to 49
    years over the next decade. The current level of funding provides for
    major renovation of ARNG facilities every 30 years. Accordingly, at
    this level of funding, the ARNG will continue to be challenged in
    meeting its readiness requirements.
           transients, trainees, holdees and students (tths) account
        Question. The Army National Guard is the only service component
    that doesn't have a Transients, Trainees, Holdees and Students (TTHS)
    Account. As such, units continue to witness taxing instances of
    personnel and equipment ``cross-leveling'' when they are mobilized.
    Would creating such an account decrease some of the pressure placed
    upon soldiers' dwell-time and help the force get ``back in balance?''
        Answer. Yes. In fact, the Army is creating an 8,000 slot TTHS
    account in the ARNG. Although this is a relatively small account, it is
    a significant step forward. It will allow the ARNG to place non-
    deployable soldiers in the TTHS account, thereby freeing spaces in
    units for trained, deployable personnel. The Army Training and Doctrine
    Command has worked extensively with the ARNG to increase the number of
    training seats available to Guard soldiers when recruits are available
    for training. The result has been a much smaller number of untrained
    soldiers occupying deployable unit positions.
        Question. Can a TTHS account be implemented without increasing Army
    Guard end-strength?
        Answer. Yes. Because of certain force design updates, the Army
    National Guard (ARNG) Force Structure Allowance is approximately
    350,000. The Congressionally mandated end strength of 358,200 personnel
    provides a deviation of approximately 8,000 soldiers. The ARNG can
    manage a small 8,000 soldier Trainees, Transients, Holdees and Students
    account (TTHS) with this deviation. This will allow the ARNG to remove
    non-deployable soldiers from operational units, as well as to reduce
    the untrained recruit population in mobilizing formations. Reducing
    force structure allowance any further, however, would destabilize the
    readiness of formations, increase the rate of unit rotations overseas,
    reduce the ARNG's accessibility to the Active Component and reduce its
    ability to function as an operational force.
        Question. Do Army leaders believe the end-strength is adequate in
    the ARNG?
        Answer. Yes, the Army Senior Leaders believe the end strength of
    the ARNG is adequate.
        Question. Is the ARNG experiencing commensurate, or
    ``proportionate'' troop growth as compared to the active-component?
        Answer. Since 2005, the Army National Guard (ARNG) has done a
    tremendous job of increasing its end strength within authorized levels.
    Over the past 3 years, the ARNG has met its accession mission 35 out of
    36 months (in September 2009 it achieved a 99.6 percent accession
    rate), and increased its total end strength by approximately 12,000
    (from an End Strength Mission of 346,165 in March 2007 to 358,200 in
    February 2010). During this period, the total ARNG End Strength
    remained between 100-103 percent of the End Strength Mission (only in
    August 2008, did the end strength reach 103.1 percent).
        In 2006, as part of the Grow the Army Initiative, the ARNG's end
    strength authorization grew by 8,200. The current temporary end
    strength increase in the Active Army will benefit the Army National
    Guard by allowing an increased dwell for all Army units.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. This subcommittee will reconvene on
    Wednesday, March 10, at 10:30. And at that time, we will
    consider health programs of DOD.
        And, with that, the subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, March 10.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:13 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Murray, and Cochran.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Medical Health Programs

    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL ADAM M. ROBINSON, JR.,
                SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. The hearing will come to order.
        This morning, we will review the Department of Defense's
    medical programs.
        And we'll have two panels. First, we'll hear from the
    Surgeon Generals of the services: General Schoomaker, Admiral
    Adam Robinson, Jr., and General Charles Green. Then we'll hear
    from the Chiefs of the Nurse's Corps, General Patricia Horoho,
    Admiral Karen Flaherty, and General Kimberly Siniscalchi.
        And I'd like to welcome all of you this morning, and I'd
    like to welcome back General Schoomaker, Admiral Robinson, and
    a special welcome to General Green, when he gets here.
        Welcome, sir.
        General Green. Thank you. My apologies.
        Chairman Inouye. This is your first hearing, and we look
    forward to working together.
        The subcommittee holds a special hearing each year for an
    opportunity to discuss the critically important issues related
    to healthcare, the well-being of our servicemembers and their
    families. As such, the Surgeons General and the Chiefs of the
    Nurse's Corps have been called upon to share their insight on
    areas that need improvement and areas that see continuing
    success and progress.
        Military medicine is a critical element in our defense
    strength and an essential component of the benefits provided to
    our servicemembers and their families. We must ensure that the
    most advanced treatment and technology is being used by
    expertly trained personnel, and, on the battlefield, at the
    same time, providing sufficient capacity to care for
    servicemembers and their families at home.
        Our ability to care for our wounded on the modern
    battlefields is a testament both to hard work and dedication of
    our men and women in uniform and to the application of new
    technology, which is a hallmark of the United States Armed
    Forces. It is also due to the dedicated men and women in our
    Medical Service Corps that are deploying with our soldiers,
    airmen, sailors, and marines.
        On average, over 50 percent of our current Active Duty
    Medical Service Corps have deployed at least once. Numerous
    specialties have had multiple deployments. This tempo is making
    it more challenging to recruit and to retain qualified medical
    personnel into the services, and is presenting new stress for
    our caregivers who move from treating injured servicemembers on
    the battlefield to treating them back at home.
        We are concerned about the number of deployments for all
    servicemembers, but today I'd like to take this opportunity to
    highlight the impact on our medical personnel.
        Our medical personnel rely on a small pool of resources for
    deployment. While the total medical workforce is over 255,000,
    many of these individuals are civilians or contractors, and do
    not deploy. Therefore, the total pool of deployable military
    medical personnel is only 177,000 plus. In 2009, 12,700 medical
    personnel were deployed, over 7 percent of the pool. These
    numbers present serious challenges to the men and women
    testifying before us. It falls on them to ensure a proper
    balance of care at home and treatment on the battlefield, all
    the while furthering our advances in training and technology,
    and providing care for our caregivers.
        To help meet these needs, our medical service personnel
    must be provided sufficient resources. The fiscal year 2011
    budget before us goes a long way in providing these resources.
    The Department has made substantial progress in moving programs
    into the base budget that were initially funded through
    supplementals.
        Determining that medical research and prevention for
    injuries such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), psychological
    health, prosthetic, eye injuries, and hearing loss, and so much
    more, our co-budget responsibility of the Department of Defense
    (DOD) is essential in addressing the numerous issues facing our
    families and members.
        In addition, we're aware that resources are required to
    achieve a world-class facility at the new Walter Reed National
    Military Medical Center. We also understand that more will be
    required as we continue to identify the long-term needs of both
    our wounded and our nonwounded servicemembers and their
    families.
        These are some of the issues we'll discuss this morning,
    and I look forward to your testimony and note that your full
    statements will be made part of the record.
        And may I call upon you, Admiral Robinson, for the opening
    statement.

            SUMMARY STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL ADAM M. ROBINSON, JR.

        Admiral Robinson. Thank you very much, sir.
        Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, Senator
    Murray, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I want to
    thank you for your unwavering support of Navy medicine--
    particularly as we continue to care for those who go in harm's
    way--their families, and all beneficiaries. I am honored to be
    with you today to provide an update on the state of Navy
    medicine, including some of our accomplishments, our challenges
    and our strategic priorities.
        Navy medicine: world-class care anytime, anywhere. This
    poignant phrase is arguably the most telling description of
    Navy medicine's accomplishments in 2009 and continues to drive
    our operational tempo and priorities for the coming years and
    beyond.
        Throughout the last year, we saw challenges and
    opportunities and, moving forward, I anticipate the pace of
    operations and demands will continue to increase. We have been
    stretched in our ability to meet our increasing operational and
    humanitarian assistance requirements, as well as maintain our
    commitment to provide care to a growing number of
    beneficiaries. However, I am proud to say that we are
    responding to this demand with more flexibility and agility
    than ever before.
        The foundation of Navy medicine is force health protection;
    it's what we do and why we exist. Nowhere is our commitment
    more evident than in Iraq and Afghanistan. During my October
    2009 trip to theater, I again saw the outstanding work of our
    medical personnel. The Navy medicine team is working side by
    side with Army and Air Force medical personnel and coalition
    forces to deliver outstanding healthcare to our troops and
    civilians alike.
        As our wounded warriors return from combat and begin the
    healing process, they deserve a seamless and comprehensive
    approach to their recovery. We want them to mend in body, mind,
    and spirit.
        Our patient and family centered approach brings together
    medical treatment providers, social workers, case managers,
    behavioral health providers, and chaplains. We are working
    closely with our line counterparts with the Marine Corps
    Wounded Warrior regiments and Navy's Safe Harbor, to support
    the full-spectrum recovery process for sailors, marines, and
    their families.
        We must act with a sense of urgency to continue to help
    build resiliency among our sailors and marines, as well as the
    caregivers who support them. We are aggressively working to
    reduce the stigma surrounding psychological health and
    operational stress concerns which can be a significant barrier
    to seeking mental health services.
        Programs such as Navy operational stress control, Marine
    Corps combat operational stress control, FOCUS--that is,
    families over coming under stress--caregiver occupational
    stress control, and our suicide prevention programs are in
    place and maturing to provide support to personnel and their
    families.
        An important focus area for all of us continues to be
    caring for our warriors suffering with traumatic brain injury.
    We are expanding TBI training to healthcare providers
    throughout the fleet and the Marine Corps. We are also
    implementing a new in-theater TBI Surveillance Program and
    conducting important research. We are also employing a strategy
    that is both collaborative and integrative by actively
    partnering with the other services, the Defense Center of
    Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury,
    the Department of Veterans Affairs, and leading academic
    medical and research centers, to make the best care available
    to our warriors.
        We must continue to recognize the occupational stress on
    our caregivers. They are subject to the psychological demands
    of exposure to trauma, loss, fatigue, and inner conflict. This
    is why our caregiver occupational stress control programs are
    so important to building and sustaining the resiliency of our
    providers.
        Mental health specialists are being placed in operational
    environments and forward deployed to provide services where and
    when they are needed. The Marine Corps is sending more mental
    health teams to the front lines, with the goal of better
    treating an emotionally strained force.
        Operational stress control and readiness teams, known as
    OSCAR, will soon be expanded to include the battalion level.
    This will put mental health support services much closer to
    combat troops.
        A mobile care team of Navy medicine mental health
    professionals is currently deployed to Afghanistan, conducting
    mental health surveillance, commander leadership consultation,
    and coordination of mental healthcare for sailors throughout
    the area of responsibility (AOR).
        As you know, an integral part of Navy medicine, or Navy's
    maritime strategy is humanitarian assistance and disaster
    relief. In support of Operation Unified Response, Haiti, Navy
    medicine answered the call. We deployed Comfort from her home
    port in Baltimore, within 77 hours of the order, and ahead of
    schedule. She was on station in Port-au-Prince, 5 days later.
    And from the beginning, the operational tempo onboard Comfort
    was high, and our personnel have been challenged, both
    professionally and personally. For many, this will, indeed, be
    a career-defining experience. And I spoke to the crew as they
    were preparing to get underway, and related just how important
    this mission is and why it is a vital part of Navy's maritime
    strategy.
        I am encouraged with our recruiting efforts within Navy
    medicine, and we are starting to see the results of new
    incentive programs. But, while overall manning levels for both
    officer and enlisted personnel are relatively high, ensuring we
    have the proper specialty mix continues to be a challenge in
    both the Active and Reserve components.
        Several wartime critical specialties, as well as advanced
    practice nursing and physicians assistants, are undermanned. We
    are facing shortfalls for general dentists, oral maxillofacial
    surgeons, and many of our mental health specialists, including
    clinical psychologists and social workers. We continue to work
    hard to meet this demand, but fulfilling the requirements among
    these specialties is expected to present a continuing
    challenge.
        Research and development is critical to Navy medicine's
    success and our ability to remain agile to meet the evolving
    needs of our warfighter. It is where we find solutions to our
    most challenging problems and, at the same time, provide some
    of medicine's most significant innovations and discoveries.
        Research efforts targeted at wound management, including
    enhanced wound repair and reconstruction, as well as extremity
    and internal hemorrhage control and phantom limb pain in
    amputees, present definitive benefits. These efforts support
    our emerging expeditionary medical operations and aid in
    support to our wounded warriors.
        Clearly, one of the most important priorities for
    leadership of all the services is the successful transition to
    the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on board the
    campus at the National Naval Medical Center. We are working
    diligently with the lead DOD organizations, the Joint Task
    Force National Capital Medical, to ensure that this significant
    and ambitious project is executed without any disruption to
    services to our sailors, marines, and their families, and all
    of our beneficiaries for whom we are privileged and honored to
    serve.
        In summary, I believe that we are at an important
    crossroads for military medicine. How we respond to the
    challenges facing us today will likely set the stage for
    decades to come. Commitment to our wounded warriors and their
    families must never waiver, and our programs of support and
    hope must be built and sustained for the long haul. And the
    long haul is the rest of this century, when the young wounded
    warriors of today mature into our aging heroes in the latter
    part of this century. They will need our care and support, as
    well as their families, for a lifetime.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        On behalf of the men and women of Navy medicine, I want to
    thank the subcommittee for their tremendous support, their
    confidence and their leadership. It has been my pleasure to
    testify today, and I look forward to your questions.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Adam M. Robinson, Jr.
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am honored to be with you today to provide an update on
    the state of Navy Medicine, including some of our accomplishments,
    challenges and strategic priorities. I want to thank the Committee
    Members for your unwavering support of Navy Medicine, particularly as
    we continue to care for those who go in harm's way, their families and
    all beneficiaries.
        Navy Medicine--World Class Care . . . Anytime, Anywhere. This
    poignant phrase is arguably the most telling description of Navy
    Medicine's accomplishments in 2009 and continues to drive our
    operational tempo and priorities for the coming year and beyond.
    Throughout the last year we saw challenges and opportunities; and
    moving forward, I anticipate the pace of operations and demands placed
    upon us will continue to increase. Make no mistake: We have been
    stretched in our ability to meet our increasing operational and
    humanitarian assistance requirements, as well as maintain our
    commitment to provide Patient and Family-Centered care to a growing
    number of beneficiaries. However, I am proud to say to that we are
    responding to this demand with more flexibility and agility than ever
    before. We are a vibrant, world-wide healthcare system fully engaged
    and integrated in carrying out the core capabilities of the Maritime
    Strategy around the globe. Regardless of the challenges ahead, I am
    confident that we are well-positioned for the future.
        Since becoming the Navy Surgeon General in 2007, I have invested
    heavily in our strategic planning process. How we accomplish our
    mission is rooted in sound planning, sharp execution and constructive
    self-assessment at all levels of our organization. I challenged our
    leadership to create momentum and establish a solid foundation of
    measurable progress. It's paying dividends. We are seeing improved and
    sustained performance in our strategic objectives. Just as importantly,
    our planning process supports alignment with the Department of Navy's
    Strategic Plan and Operations Guidance.
        Navy Medicine's commitment to Patient and Family-Centered Care is
    also reflected in our resourcing processes. An integral component of
    our Strategic Plan is providing performance incentives that promote
    quality and directly link back to workload and resources. We are
    evolving from a fiscal planning and execution process rooted in
    historical data, to a system which links requirements, resources and
    performance goals. This transformation properly aligns authority,
    accountability and financial responsibility with the delivery of
    quality, cost-effective healthcare.
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2011 adequately funds Navy
    Medicine to meet its medical mission for the Navy and Marine Corps. The
    budget also provides for the maintenance of our facilities. We are,
    however, closely assessing the resource impacts associated with
    Operation Unified Response, in Haiti. While seeking reimbursement as
    appropriate from U.S. Southern Command in accordance with DOD
    direction, we are working to mitigate any potential impacts--both in
    the short-term and long-term. We are cross-leveling personnel, meaning
    that we are assigning personnel within Navy Medicine to ensure
    effective use of existing resources, while leveraging support from the
    Navy Reserve, the other Services and our civilian network partners, as
    needed, and when conditions warrant.
                            force health protection
        The foundation of Navy Medicine is Force Health Protection. It's
    what we do and why we exist. In executing our Force Health Protection
    mission, the men and women of Navy Medicine are engaged in all aspects
    of expeditionary medical operations in support of our warfighters. The
    continuum of care we provide includes all dimensions of physical and
    psychological well-being. This is our center of gravity and we have and
    will continue to ensure our Sailors and Marines are medically and
    mentally prepared to meet their world-wide missions.
        Nowhere is our commitment to Force Health Protection more evident
    than in our active engagement in military operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. As these overseas contingency operations evolve, and in
    many respects become increasingly more dangerous, we are seeing
    burgeoning demand for expeditionary combat casualty care in support of
    joint operations. I recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan and I
    again saw the outstanding work of our medical personnel. The Navy
    Medicine team is working side-by-side with Army and Air Force medical
    personnel and coalition forces to deliver outstanding healthcare to our
    troops and civilians alike.
        We must continue to be innovative and responsive at the deckplates
    and on the battlefield. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom
    and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Marine Corps has fielded new combat
    casualty care capabilities which include: updated individual first aid
    kits with combat gauze, advanced tourniquets, use of Tactical Combat
    Casualty Care principles, troop training in Combat Lifesaver, and the
    use of Factor VII--a blood clotting agent used in trauma settings. In
    addition, Navy Fleet Hospital transformation has redesigned
    expeditionary medical facilities that are lighter, modular, more
    mobile, and interoperable with other Services' facilities.
        Our progress is also evident in the innovative work undertaken by a
    Shock Trauma Platoon (STP) 2 years ago in Afghanistan. This team,
    comprised of two physicians, two nurses, a physician assistant and 14
    corpsmen, essentially created a mobile emergency room--a seven-ton
    truck with a Conex container and welded steel plates--that went into
    combat to administer more expedient and effective care in austere
    settings. This prototype led to the creation of the Mobile Trauma Bay
    (MTB), a capability that both Marine Corps and Navy Medicine leadership
    immediately recognized as vital to the warfighter and an unquestionable
    life-saver on the battlefield. MTB use has already been incorporated
    into our Afghanistan shock trauma platoon operations, and they are
    already positively impacting forward resuscitative and stabilization
    care. We understand that the Marine Corps has fully embraced the MTB
    concept and is planning to add additional units in future POM
    submissions.
                 humanitarian assistance and disaster response
        An integral part of the Navy's Maritime Strategy is humanitarian
    assistance and disaster response. In the wake of the devastating
    earthquake in Haiti earlier this year, our Nation moved forward with
    one of the largest relief efforts in our history to save lives, deliver
    critically needed supplies and provide much-needed hope. The response
    was rapid, as Navy deployed ships and expeditionary forces, comprised
    of more than 10,000 personnel, to provide immediate relief and support
    for the Haitian people. In support of Operation Unified Response, Navy
    Medicine answered the call. We deployed USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) from her
    homeport in Baltimore within 77 hours and ahead of schedule--going from
    an industrial shipboard site to a ready afloat Naval hospital, fully
    staffed and equipped. She was on station in Port-au-Prince 5 days later
    and treating patients right away. From the beginning, the operational
    tempo onboard USNS Comfort has been high with a significant trauma and
    surgical caseload. Medical teams from the ship are also ashore to help
    in casualty evaluation, triage crush wounds, burn injuries and other
    health issues. Providing care around the clock, our personnel have been
    challenged both professionally and personally. For many, this will be a
    career-defining experience and certainly reflects the Navy's commitment
    as a ``Global Force for Good.'' I spoke to the crew as they were
    preparing to get underway, and personally related just how important
    this mission is and why it is a vital part of the Navy's Maritime
    Strategy.
        We train so we are mission ready and USNS Comfort was well-prepared
    for this challenging deployment as a result of her crew's participation
    in Continuing Promise (April-June 2009), a humanitarian and civic
    assistance mission, in partnership with nations of the Caribbean and
    Latin America, to provide medical, dental, veterinary, educational and
    engineering programs both ashore and afloat.
        We are continuing to respond to requirements from the Commander,
    U.S. Southern Command in order to put the proper supporting medical
    elements in the area of operations. Navy Medicine additional support
    includes the deployment of a Forward Deployed Preventive Medicine Unit
    (FDPMU) and augmented Casualty Receiving and Treatment Ship (CRTS)
    medical staff capabilities onboard U.S.S. Bataan (LHD 5). We also
    recognize the potential psychological health impact on our medical
    personnel involved in this humanitarian assistance mission and have
    ensured we have trained Caregiver Occupational Stress Control (CgOSC)
    staff onboard.
        Navy Medicine is inherently flexible and capable of meeting the
    call to support multiple missions. I am proud of the manner in which
    the men and women of Navy Medicine leaned forward in response to the
    call for help. In support of coordination efforts led by the Department
    of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and in
    collaboration with nongovernmental organizations, both domestic and
    international, our response demonstrated how the expeditionary
    character of our Naval and Marine forces is uniquely suited to provide
    assistance during interagency and multinational efforts.
                                concept of care
        Navy Medicine's Concept of Care is Patient and Family-Centered
    Care. It is at the epicenter of everything we do. This concept is
    elegant in its simplicity yet extraordinarily powerful. It identifies
    each patient as a participant in his or her own healthcare and
    recognizes the vital importance of the family, military culture and the
    military chain of command in supporting our patients. My goal is for
    this Concept of Care--this commitment to our patients and their
    families--to resonate throughout our system and guide all our actions.
    It is enabled by our primary mission to deliver force health protection
    and a fully ready force; mutually supported by the force multipliers of
    world class research and development, and medical education. It also
    leverages our emphasis on the health and wellness of our patients
    through an active focus on population health.
                             caring for our heroes
        When our Warriors go into harm's way, we in Navy Medicine go with
    them. At sea or on the ground, Sailors and Marines know that the men
    and women of Navy Medicine are by their side ready to care for them.
    There is a bond of trust that has been earned over years of service
    together, and make no mistake, today that bond is stronger than ever.
    Our mission is to care for our wounded, ill and injured, as well as
    their families. That's our job and it is our honor to have this
    opportunity.
        As our Wounded Warriors return from combat and begin the healing
    process, they deserve a seamless and comprehensive approach to their
    recovery. We want them to mend in body, mind and spirit. Our focus is
    multidisciplinary-based care, bringing together medical treatment
    providers, social workers, case managers, behavioral health providers
    and chaplains. We are working closely with our line counterparts with
    programs like the Marine Corps' Wounded Warrior Regiments and the
    Navy's Safe Harbor to support the full-spectrum recovery process for
    Sailors, Marines and their families.
        Based on the types of injuries that we see returning from war, Navy
    Medicine continues to adapt our capabilities to best treat these
    conditions. When we saw a need on the West Coast to provide expanded
    care for returning Wounded Warriors with amputations, we established
    the Comprehensive Combat and Complex Casualty Care (C\5\) Program at
    Naval Medical Center, San Diego, in 2007. C\5\ manages severely injured
    or ill patients from medical evacuation through inpatient care,
    outpatient rehabilitation, and their eventual return to active duty or
    transition from the military. We are now working to expand utilization
    of Project C.A.R.E--Comprehensive Aesthetic Recovery Effort. This
    initiative follows the C\5\ model by ensuring a multidisciplinary
    approach to care, yet focuses on providing state-of-the-art plastic and
    reconstructive surgery for our Wounded Warriors at both Naval Medical
    Center San Diego and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, with potential
    future opportunities at other treatment facilities.
        We have also significantly refocused our efforts in the important
    area of clinical case management at our military treatment facilities
    and major clinics serving Wounded Warriors to ensure appropriate case
    management services are available to all who need them. The Clinical
    Case Management Program assists patients and families with clinical and
    non-clinical needs, facilitating communication between patient, family
    and multi-disciplinary care team. Our clinical case managers
    collaborate with Navy and Marine Corps Recovery Care Coordinators,
    Federal Recovery Coordinators, Non-Medical Care Managers and other
    stakeholders to address Sailor and Marine issues in developing Recovery
    Care Plans. As of January 2010, 192 Clinical Case Managers are assigned
    to Military Treatment Facilities and ambulatory care clinics caring for
    over 2,900 Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen.
                 psychological health and post-traumatic stress
        We must act with a sense of urgency to help build resiliency among
    our Sailors and Marines, as well as the caregivers who support them. We
    recognize that operational tempo, including the number and length of
    deployments, has the potential to impact the psychological health of
    service members and their family members. We are aggressively working
    to reduce the stigma surrounding psychological health and operational
    stress concerns which can be a significant barrier to seeking mental
    health services for both military personnel and civilians. Programs
    such as Navy Operational Stress Control, Marine Corps Combat
    Operational Stress Control, FOCUS (Families Overcoming Under Stress),
    Caregiver Occupational Stress Control (CgOSC), and our suicide
    prevention programs (A-C-T Ask-Treat-Care) are in place and maturing to
    provide support to personnel and their families.
        The Navy Operational Stress Control program and Marine Corps Combat
    Operational Stress Control program are the cornerstones of the
    Department of the Navy's approach to early detection of stress injuries
    in Sailors and Marines and are comprised of:
      --Line led programs which focus on leadership's role in monitoring
            the health of their people.
      --Tools leaders may employ when Sailors and Marines are experiencing
            mild to moderate symptoms.
      --Multidisciplinary expertise (medical, chaplains and other support
            services) for more affected members.
        Decreasing the stigma associated with seeking psychological
    healthcare requires a culture change throughout the Navy and Marine
    Corps. Confronting an ingrained culture will take time and active
    leadership support. Stigma reducing interventions span three major
    fronts: (1) education and training for individual Sailors and Marines
    that normalizes mental healthcare; (2) leadership training to improve
    command climate support for seeking mental healthcare; and (3)
    encouragement of care outreach to individual Sailors, Marines, and
    their commands. This past year saw wide-spread dissemination of
    Operational Stress Control (OSC) doctrine as well as a Navy-wide
    education and training program that includes mandatory Navy Knowledge
    Online courses, instructor led and web-based training.
        Navy Medicine ensures a continuum of psychological healthcare is
    available to service members throughout the deployment cycle--pre-
    deployment, during deployment, and post-deployment. We are working to
    improve screening and surveillance using instruments such as the
    Behavior Health Needs Assessment Survey (BHNAS) and Post-Deployment
    Health Assessment (PDHA) and Post-Deployment Health Reassessment
    (PDHRA).
        Our mental health specialists are being placed in operational
    environments and forward deployed to provide services where and when
    they are needed. The Marine Corps is sending more mental health teams
    to the front lines with the goal of better treating an emotionally
    strained force. Operational Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR) teams
    will soon be expanded to include the battalion level, putting mental
    health support services much closer to combat troops. A Mobile Care
    Team (MCT) of Navy Medicine mental health professionals is currently
    deployed to Afghanistan to conduct mental health surveillance, command
    leadership consultation, and coordinate mental healthcare for Sailors
    throughout the AOR. In addition to collecting important near real-time
    surveillance data, the MCT is furthering our efforts to decrease stigma
    and build resilience.
        We are also making mental health services available to family
    members who may be affected by the psychological consequences of combat
    and deployment through our efforts with Project FOCUS, our military
    treatment facilities and our TRICARE network partners. Project FOCUS
    continues to be successful and we are encouraged that both the Army and
    Air Force are considering implementing this program. We also recognize
    the importance of the counseling and support services provided through
    the Fleet and Family Support Centers and Marine Corps Community
    Services.
        Beginning in 2007, Navy Medicine established Deployment Health
    Centers (DHCs) as non-stigmatizing portals of care for service members
    staffed with primary care and psychological health providers. We now
    have 17 DHCs operational. Our healthcare delivery model supports early
    recognition and treatment of deployment-related psychological health
    issues within the primary care setting. Psychological health services
    account for approximately 30 percent of all DHC encounters. We have
    also increased mental health training in primary care, and have
    actively partnered with Line leaders and the Chaplain Corps to develop
    combat and operational stress control training resources. Awareness and
    training are keys to our surveillance efforts. Over 4,000 Navy Medicine
    providers, mental health professionals, chaplains and support personnel
    have been trained to detect, screen and refer personnel who may be
    struggling with mental health issues.
        We must continue to recognize the occupational stress on our
    caregivers. They are subject to the psychological demands of exposure
    to trauma, loss, fatigue and inner conflict. This is why our Caregiver
    Occupational Stress Control programs are so important to building and
    sustaining the resiliency of our providers. We cannot overlook the
    impact on these professionals and I have directed Navy Medicine
    leadership to be particularly attuned to this issue within their
    commands.
                             traumatic brain injury
        While there are many significant injury patterns in theatre, an
    important focus area for all of us remains Traumatic Brain Injury
    (TBI). Blast is the signature injury of OEF and OIF--and from blast
    injury comes TBI. The majority of TBI injuries are categorized as mild,
    or in other words, a concussion. Yet, there is much we do not yet know
    about these injuries and their long-term impacts on the lives of our
    service members.
        The relative lack of knowledge about mild TBI amongst service
    members and healthcare personnel represents an important gap that Navy
    Medicine is seriously addressing. We are providing TBI training to
    healthcare providers from multiple disciplines throughout the fleet and
    the Marine Corps. This training is designed to educate personnel about
    TBI, introduce the Military Acute Concussion Exam (MACE) as a screening
    tool for mild TBI, inform providers about the Automated Neurocognitive
    Assessment Metric (ANAM) test, and identify a follow-up for assessment
    including use of a repeatable test battery for identification of
    cognitive status. We have recently established and are now expanding
    our TBI program office to manage the implementation of the ANAM as a
    pre-deployment test for service members in accordance with DOD policy.
    This office will further develop models of assessment and care as well
    as support research and evaluation programs.
        All the Services expect to begin implementation of a new in-theater
    TBI surveillance system which will be based upon incident event
    tracking. Promulgated guidelines will mandate medical evaluation for
    all service members exposed within a set radius of an explosive blast,
    with the goal to identify any service member with subtle cognitive
    deficits who may not be able to return to duty immediately.
        Navy Medicine has begun implementing the ANAM assessment at the
    DHCs and within deploying units as part of an Assistant Secretary of
    Defense (Health Affairs) mandate. We have also partnered with Line
    leadership, or operational commanders, to identify populations at risk
    for brain injury (e.g., front line units, SEAL units, and Navy
    Explosive Ordinance Disposal units). In addition, an in-theater
    clinical trial for the treatment of vestibular symptoms of blast-
    exposure/TBI was completed at the USMC mTBI Center in Al Taqqadum,
    Iraq.
        Both our Naval Health Research Center and Navy-Marine Corps Public
    Health Center are engaged with tracking TBI data through ongoing
    epidemiology programs. Goals this year include the establishment of a
    restoration center in-theatre to allow injured Sailors and Marines a
    chance to recover near their units and return to the fight.
        Additionally, the National Naval Medical Center's Traumatic Stress
    and Brain Injury Program provides care to all blast-exposed or head-
    injured casualties returning from theatre to include patients with an
    actual brain injury and traumatic stress. Navy Medicine currently has
    TBI clinics at San Diego, Portsmouth, Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune
    with plans for further expansion reflecting our commitment to the
    treatment of this increasingly prevalent injury.
        We are employing a strategy that is both collaborative and
    integrative by actively partnering with the other Services, Defense
    Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain
    Injury, the Veterans Administration, and leading academic medical and
    research centers to make the best care available to our Warriors
    afflicted with TBI.
                  excellence in research and development (r&d)
        Research and development is critical to Navy Medicine's success and
    our ability to remain agile to meet the evolving needs of our
    warfighters. It is where we find solutions to our most challenging
    problems and, at the same time, provide some of medicine's most
    significant innovations and discoveries. Our R&D programs are truly
    force-multipliers and enable us to provide world-class healthcare to
    our beneficiaries.
        The approach at our research centers and laboratories around the
    world is straightforward: Conduct health and medical research,
    development, testing, evaluation and surveillance to enhance deployment
    readiness. Each year, we see more accomplishments which have a direct
    impact on improving force health protection. The contributions are many
    and varied, ranging from our confirmatory work in the early stages of
    the H1N1 pandemic, to the exciting progress in the development of a
    malaria vaccine. Research efforts targeted at wound management,
    including enhanced wound repair and reconstruction as well as extremity
    and internal hemorrhage control, and phantom limb pain in amputees,
    present definitive benefits. These efforts also support our emerging
    expeditionary medical operations and aid in support to our Wounded
    Warriors.
                             the navy medicine team
        Navy Medicine is comprised of compassionate and talented
    professionals who continue to make significant contributions and
    personal sacrifices to our global community. Our team includes our
    officers, enlisted personnel, government civilian employees, contract
    workers and volunteers working together in a vibrant healthcare
    community. All have a vital role in the success of our enterprise. Our
    priority is to maintain the right workforce to deliver the required
    medical capabilities across the enterprise, while using the appropriate
    mix of accession, retention, education and training incentives.
        Overall, I am encouraged with our recruiting efforts within Navy
    Medicine and we are starting to see the results of new incentive
    programs. But while overall manning levels for both officer and
    enlisted personnel are relatively high, ensuring we have the proper
    specialty mix continues to be a challenge. Several wartime critical
    specialties including psychiatry, family medicine, general surgery,
    emergency medicine, critical care and perioperative nursing, as well as
    advanced practice nursing and physician assistants, are undermanned. We
    are also facing shortfalls for general dentists, oral maxillofacial
    surgeons, and many of our mental health specialists including clinical
    psychologists and social workers. We have increasing requirements for
    mental health professionals as well as for Reserve Component Medical
    Corps, Dental Corps, Medical Service Corps and Nurse Corps officers. We
    continue to work hard to meet this demand, but fulfilling the
    requirements among these specialties is expected to present a
    continuing challenge.
        I want to also reemphasize the priority we place on diversity. We
    are setting the standard for building a diverse, robust, innovative
    healthcare workforce, but we can do more in this important area. Navy
    Medicine is stronger and more effective as a result of our diversity at
    all levels. Our people are our most important resource, and their
    dignity and worth are maintained through an atmosphere of service,
    professionalism, trust and respect.
                         partnerships and collaboration
        Navy Medicine continues to focus on improving interoperability with
    the Army, Air Force, Veterans Administration (VA), as well other
    Federal and civilian partners to bring operational efficiencies,
    optimal technology and training together in support of our patients and
    their families, our missions, and the national interests. Never has
    this collaborative approach been more important, particularly as we
    improve our approaches to ensuring seamless transitions for our
    veterans.
        We remain committed to resource sharing agreements with the VA and
    our joint efforts in support of improving the Disability Evaluation
    System (DES) through the ongoing pilot program at several MTFs. The
    goal of this pilot is to improve the disability evaluation process for
    service members and help simplify their transitions. Together with the
    VA and the other Services, we are examining opportunities to expand
    this pilot to additional military treatment facilities. Additionally,
    in partnership with the VA, we will be opening the James A. Lovell
    Federal Health Care Center in Great Lakes, Illinois--a uniquely
    integrated Navy/VA medical facility.
        We also look forward to leveraging our inter-service education and
    training capabilities with the opening of the Medical Education and
    Training Campus (METC) in San Antonio in 2010. This new tri-service
    command will oversee the largest consolidation of service training in
    DOD history. I am committed to an inter-service education and training
    system that optimizes the assets and capabilities of all DOD healthcare
    practitioners yet maintains the unique skills and capabilities that our
    hospital corpsmen bring to the Navy and Marine Corps--in hospitals,
    clinics at sea and on the battlefield.
        Clearly one of the most important priorities for the leadership of
    all the Services is the successful transition to the Walter Reed
    National Military Medical Center onboard the campus of the National
    Naval Medical Center, Bethesda. We are working diligently with the lead
    DOD organization, Joint Task Force--National Capital Region Medical, to
    ensure that this significant and ambitious project is executed properly
    and without any disruption of services to our Sailors, Marines, their
    families, and all our beneficiaries for whom we are privileged to
    serve.
                                the way forward
        I believe we are at an important crossroads for military medicine.
    How we respond to the challenges facing us today will likely set the
    stage for decades to come. Commitment to our Wounded Warriors and their
    families must never waver and our programs of support and hope must be
    built and sustained for the long-haul--and the long-haul is the rest of
    this century when the young Wounded Warriors of today mature into our
    aging heroes in the years to come. They will need our care and support
    as will their families for a lifetime. Likewise, our missions of
    cooperative engagement, through humanitarian assistance and disaster
    response, bring opportunities for us, our military and the Nation. It
    is indeed a critical time in which to demonstrate that the United
    States Navy is truly a ``Global Force for Good.''
        Navy Medicine is a vibrant, world-wide healthcare system comprised
    of compassionate and talented professionals who are willing to make
    contributions and personal sacrifices. This team--our team--including
    officer, enlisted, civilians, contractors, and volunteers work together
    as a dynamic healthcare family. We are all essential to success.
        Navy Medicine will continue to meet the challenges ahead and
    perform our missions with outstanding skill and commitment. On behalf
    of the men and women of Navy Medicine, I want to thank the Committee
    for your tremendous support, confidence and leadership. It has been my
    pleasure to testify before you today and I look forward to your
    questions.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Admiral.
        Before we proceed, I must apologize to my vice chairman for
    overlooking his presence. May I call upon the vice chairman for
    his opening statement.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        It's a pleasure to join you in welcoming the leaders of our
    doctors and nurses who serve in the military forces. We
    appreciate their sacrifice and their service and their
    leadership in helping ensure that, here at home and around the
    world, our servicemen and women get the best medical care
    available. We look forward to working with you in the
    appropriations process to identify priorities, to make sure
    that we have money where the needs are, and living up to the
    commitment that we all feel toward our servicemembers and their
    families who sacrifice so much for the security interests of
    our country.
        Thank you very much for your service and for your presence
    here today.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I will pass on an opening
    statement.
        I just want to thank all of our witnesses today, and for
    having this important hearing.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        And I'd like to now call upon the Surgeon General of the
    Army, General Schoomaker.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ERIC B. SCHOOMAKER,
                M.D., Ph.D., SURGEON GENERAL; AND
                COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND,
                DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
        General Schoomaker. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran,
    Senator Murray, and other distinguished members of the Defense
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here to discuss the
    Defense Health Program and our respective service medical
    programs.
        Now, in my third congressional hearing cycle as the Army
    Surgeon General and the Commanding General of the Army Medical
    Command, I can tell you that these hearings are valuable
    opportunities for me to talk about the accomplishments and
    challenges of Army medicine, and to hear--for all of us to hear
    your collective perspectives regarding military health
    promotion and healthcare.
        You and your staff members ask some difficult questions,
    but these questions help keep us focused on those whom we
    serve: our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen,
    our family members, our retirees, and the American public at
    large.
        Sir, you earlier introduced her, but I wanted to take this
    opportunity to welcome and introduce my chief of the Army Nurse
    Corps, returning from a very successful command of the Western
    Regional Medical Command, headquartered at Fort Lewis,
    Washington, and covering the western third of the United
    States, including Alaska, Major General Patty Horoho. I'm
    pleased to say that she'll be joining me on my staff as our
    Deputy Surgeon General, as of the 1st of April, when David
    Rubenstein leaves a very successful tour to take command of the
    Army Medical Center and School in San Antonio, Texas.
        And so, Patty, welcome, and we're glad to have you on the
    staff.
        I'm pleased to tell you that the President's budget
    submission for fiscal year 2011 fully funds the Army Medical
    Department's needs. Your support of the President's proposed
    budget will be greatly appreciated.
        One particular area of special interest to this
    subcommittee is our comprehensive effort to improve warrior
    care from the point of injury through evacuation and inpatient
    treatment to rehabilitation and return to duty or to productive
    citizens' lives. We, in Army medicine, continue to focus our
    efforts on our ``warriors in transition,'' which is the term we
    apply to our wounded and injured soldiers. And I want to thank
    the Congress for its unwavering support of this effort.
        The support of this subcommittee has allowed us to hire
    additional providers to staff our warrior transition units, the
    units to which these warriors in transition are assigned, to
    conduct relevant medical research, and to build even healing
    campuses across the Army.
        I'm convinced the Army has made some lasting improvements
    there. The most important improvement may be the change of
    mindset from a focus on disability to an emphasis on ability
    and achievement. Each of these warriors has the opportunity and
    the resources to create their own future as soldiers or as
    productive private citizens. I should say, in this forum, sir,
    lessons which you, yourself, taught us following your own
    battle injuries in--in World War II, Mr. Chairman.
        In keeping with our focus on preventing injury and illness,
    Army leadership is currently engaged in an all-out effort to
    change the Department of Defense's culture regarding traumatic
    brain injury, or TBI, especially the milder form, which we call
    ``concussion.'' Our goal is nothing less than a cultural change
    in the management of soldiers after potential concussive
    events. Every warrior requires appropriate treatment to
    minimize concussive injury and to maximize recovery. To achieve
    this goal, we are educating the force so as to have trained and
    prepared soldiers, leaders, and medical personnel to provide
    early recognition, treatment, and tracking of concussive
    injuries, ultimately designed to protect warrior health.
        Traumatic brain injury is a disruption of brain function
    that results from a blow or a jolt to the head or a penetrating
    head injury. These occur in combat, they occur on our highways,
    on our training posts, and on sports fields across the Nation.
    It's not a phantom condition that is exhibited by a weak
    servicemember who's trying to get out of a deployment. A
    servicemember who's behaving badly or irregularly may be
    struggling and needs help, and we feel very strongly that we
    need to do everything we can to take care of these warriors who
    need help. Leaders at all levels must ensure that individuals
    are aware of, and are willing to take advantage of, available
    treatments and counseling options.
        Our concern is--and this has been documented in a number of
    studies that we've conducted, including those in the
    battlefield--that our soldiers and other servicemembers are not
    coming forward for treatment after the time of an incident.
    This results in delay in identification, and it compliments the
    treatment course back here in the United States. We know that
    early detection leads to early treatment and improved outcomes.
    However, undiagnosed concussion leads to symptoms affecting
    operational readiness on the battlefield and the risk of
    recurrent concussion during the healing period, which can then
    lead to more long-term permanent brain impairment.
        An overview of the education program that we've worked on
    here is included in this packet, ``Brain Injury Awareness
    Toolkit,'' which we have available for you and your staffs
    after the hearing.
        The Army is issuing very direct standards and protocols to
    Commanders and healthcare providers in the field, similar to
    actions taken after aviation incidents. We have automatic
    grounding and medical assessments which are required for any
    soldiers that meets specified criteria.
        The end state of these efforts is that every servicemember
    sustaining a potential concussion will receive early detection,
    state-of-the-art treatment, and return-to-duty evaluation, with
    long-term digital healthcare record tracking of their
    management.
        Treatment of mild traumatic brain injury, or concussion, is
    an emerging science. We feel strongly that the Army is leading
    the way in implementing these new treatment protocols for the
    Department of Defense, and that the Department of Defense and
    the military health system (MHS) is leading the Nation in this
    regard. I truly believe that this evidence-based directive
    approach to concussive management is going to change the
    military culture regarding head injuries and significantly
    impact the well-being of the force.
        In closing, I'm very optimistic about the next 2 years. We
    have weathered some very serious challenges to the trust that
    you all have in Army medicine. Logic would not predict that we
    would be doing as well as we are, and attracting and retaining
    and career-developing such a talented team of uniformed and
    civilian medical professionals. However, we continue to do so,
    year after year, a tribute to all of our Officer Corps and the
    leadership of our Noncommissioned Officer Corps and our
    military and civilian workforce. Their continued leadership and
    dedication are essential for Army medicine to remain strong,
    for the Army to remain healthy and resilient, and for the
    Nation to endure.
        I personally feel very privileged to serve with these men
    and women in Army medicine, as soldiers, as Americans, and as
    global citizens.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We thank you for holding this hearing and for your
    unwavering support of the military health system and of Army
    medicine, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, General.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Eric B. Schoomaker
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the Defense Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to discuss the
    Defense Health Program and our respective Service medical programs. Now
    in my third Congressional hearing cycle as the Army Surgeon General and
    Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM), I can tell you
    that these hearings are valuable opportunities for me to talk about the
    accomplishments and challenges of Army Medicine and to hear your
    collective perspectives regarding military healthcare. You and your
    staff members ask some difficult questions, but these questions help
    keep us focused on those we serve--the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines,
    Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, Family members, and Retirees as well as the
    American public. I hope you also find these hearings beneficial as you
    review the President's budget submission, which this year fully funds
    the Army Medical Department's needs, and determine priorities and
    funding levels for the next fiscal year.
        The U.S. Army Medical Department is a complex, globally-deployed,
    and world class team. My command element alone, the MEDCOM, is an $11
    billion international health improvement, health protection, emergency
    response and health services organization staffed by 70,000 dedicated
    Soldiers, civilians, and contractors. I am in awe at what these
    selfless servants have done over the past years--their accomplishments
    have been quietly, effectively, powerfully successful. While we have
    experienced our share of crises and even tragedies, despite 8 years of
    continuous armed conflict for which Army Medicine bears a heavy load,
    every day our Soldiers and their Families are kept from injuries,
    illnesses, and combat wounds through our health promotion and
    prevention efforts; are treated in cutting-edge fashion when prevention
    fails; and are supported by an extraordinarily talented medical force
    to include those who serve at the side of the Warrior on the
    battlefield. We mourn the loss of 26 teammates in the Fort Hood
    shootings--six dead and 20 wounded--but are inspired by the resolve
    shown by their units to continue their missions and the exemplary
    performance of the 467th and 1908th Medical Detachments serving in
    Afghanistan today.
        One particular area of special interest to this subcommittee is our
    comprehensive effort to improve warrior care from point of injury
    through evacuation and inpatient treatment to rehabilitation and return
    to duty. I am convinced the Army has made some lasting improvements,
    and I was recently heartened to read the comments of a transitioning
    Warrior that reinforced these perceptions. She commented:

        ``As I look back in the past I am able to see with a reflective eye
    . . . the people that have helped me fight this battle, mostly my chain
    of command, who have always stood beside me instead of in front of me.
    They have gone out of their way to do what was best for me and I cannot
    say I would be here still if I hadn't had such wonderful support . . .
    This is my story at the WTB and all in all, I just had to make aware to
    everyone that has helped that I am very grateful and I truly appreciate
    all of the work you have done for me.''

        There is nothing more gratifying than to care for these wounded,
    ill, and injured heroes. We in Army Medicine continue to focus our
    efforts on our Warriors in Transition and I want to thank Congress for
    your unwavering support. The support of this committee has allowed us
    to hire additional providers, staff our warrior transition units,
    conduct relevant medical research, and build healing campuses. In the
    remainder of my testimony today, I will discuss how we are providing
    optimal stewardship of the investment the American public and this
    Committee has made in Army Medicine.
        We lead and manage Army Medicine through the Kaplan & Norton
    Balanced Scorecard performance improvement framework that I introduced
    to you in last year's testimony. The Scorecard balances missions and
    resources across a broad array, while ensuring that near-term measures
    of success are aligned with longer-term, more strategic results. This
    balancing is depicted on the Scorecard's Strategy Map, which shows how
    we marshal our resources, train and develop our people, and focus our
    internal processes and efforts so as to balance competing goals.
    Ultimately our means, ways, and ends contribute toward accomplishing
    our mission and achieving our strategic vision. The five strategic
    themes that guide our daily efforts are: Maximize Value in Health
    Services, Provide Global Operational Forces, Build the Team, Balance
    Innovation with Standardization, and Optimize Communication and
    Knowledge Management. Although distinct themes, they inevitably overlap
    and weave themselves through everything we do in Army Medicine.
        The first strategic theme--Maximize Value in Health Services--is
    built on the belief that providing high quality, evidence-based
    services is not only the right for our Soldiers and Families; it
    results in the most efficient use of resources within the healthcare
    system, thus delivering value to not only our Patients, but indeed, the
    Nation. In fact, what we really want to do is move from a healthcare
    system to a system for health.
        We have resisted simply inventing a new process, inserting a new
    diagnostic test or therapeutic option in vacuo or adding more layers of
    bureaucracy but are truly adding value to the products we deliver, the
    care we provide, and the training of our people. This requires focusing
    on the clinical outcome for the patient and the community and
    maintaining or even reducing the overall resource expenditure needed to
    achieve this objective. It has occurred through adoption of evidence-
    based practices and reducing unwarranted practice variation--even
    ``unwarranted administrative practice variation'' for the transactional
    processes in our work. As one example of this, Army Medicine is
    expanding upon our Performance Based Budget model to link resources to
    clinical and quality outputs. The Healthcare Effectiveness and Data
    Information Set (HEDISR) is a tool used by more than 90 percent of
    America's health plans (>400 plans) to measure performance on important
    dimensions of care, namely, the prevention of disease and evidence-
    based treatments for some of the most common and onerous chronic
    illnesses. The measures are very specifically defined, thus permitting
    comparison across health plans. Since 2007, we have been providing
    financial incentives to our hospitals, clinics and clinicians for
    superior compliance in key HEDIS measures. Currently, we track nine
    measures and compare our performance to national benchmarks. Our
    performance has improved on each measure, in one case by 63 percent. We
    have demonstrated that these incentives work to change organizational
    behavior to achieve desired outcomes in our health system. Put quite
    simply, our beneficiaries, patients and communities are receiving not
    only better access to care but better care--objectively measured.
        As the DOD budget and health-/healthcare-related costs come under
    increasing scrutiny, this element of our strategy will be even more
    critical for us. As the United States struggles to address improvements
    in health and healthcare outcomes while stabilizing or reducing costs
    of our national system of care, we in Army Medicine and the Military
    Health System will surely keep the goal of maximizing value in our
    cross-hairs . . . or we will find our budgets tightening without a way
    to measure the effects on our patients' and our communities' health and
    well-being.
        All of these remarkable achievements would be without meaning or
    importance to our Soldiers, their Families and our patients if we do
    not provide access and continuity of care, especially within the direct
    care system of our medical centers, community hospitals, health
    centers, and clinics. I am looking carefully at my commanders'
    leadership and success in ensuring that their medical and dental
    treatment facilities provide timely access and optimize continuity of
    care. We have undertaken major initiatives to improve both access and
    continuity--this is one of the Army Chief of Staff's and my top
    priorities. After conducting thorough business case analyses, Army
    Medicine is expanding product lines in some markets and expanding
    clinical space in others. At 14 locations, we are establishing
    Community Based Primary Care Clinics by leasing and operating clinics
    located in off-post communities that are close to where active duty
    Families live, work, and go to school. These clinics will provide a
    patient-centered medical home for Families and will provide a range of
    benefits:
      --Improve the readiness of our Army and our Army Family;
      --Improve access to and continuity of care;
      --Reduce emergency room visits;
      --Improve patient satisfaction;
      --Implement Best Practices and standardization of services;
      --Increase physical space available in military treatment facilities
            (MTFs); and
      --Improve physical and psychological health promotion and prevention.
        Along with the rest of the Military Health System, Army Medicine is
    embracing the Patient-Centered Medical Home concept, which is a
    recommended practice of the National Committee for Quality Assurance
    and is endorsed by a number of medical associations, several large
    third-party payers, and many employers and health plans. The Patient-
    Centered Medical Home improves patient satisfaction through its
    emphasis on appropriate access, continuity and quality, and effective
    communication. The goal is simple: consult with one consistent primary
    care provider-nurse team for all your medical needs. The seven core
    features of the Medical Home are:
      --Personal Primary Care Provider (primary care manager/team);
      --Primary Care Provider Directed Medical Practice (the primary care
            manager is team leader);
      --Whole Person Orientation (patient centered, not disease or provider
            centered);
      --Care is Coordinated and/or Integrated (across all levels of care);
      --Quality and Safety (evidenced-based, safe medical care);
      --Enhanced Access (meets access standards from the patient
            perspective); and
      --Payment Reform (incentivizes the development and maintenance of the
            medical home).
        I look for 2010 to be the year Army Medicine achieves what we set
    out to improve 2 years ago in access and continuity, key elements of
    our covenant with the Army Family, led by our Chief of Staff and
    Secretary of the Army.
        Unlike civilian healthcare systems that can focus all of their
    energy and resources on providing access and continuity of care, the
    Military Health System has the equally important mission to Provide
    Global Operational Forces.
        The partnership between and among the medical and line leadership
    of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, Central Command, Army
    Forces Command, U.S. Army Reserve Command, National Guard Bureau, Army
    Medical Department Center and School, Medical Research and Materiel
    Command, Army G3/5/7, and others has resulted in a dynamic
    reconfiguration of the medical formations and tactics, techniques, and
    procedures required to support the deployed Army, joint and coalition
    force. Army Medicine has never missed movement and we continue to
    achieve the highest survivability rate in the history of warfare. Army
    Medicine leaders have never lost sight of the need to first and
    foremost make a difference on the battlefield.
        This will not change--it will even intensify in 2010 as the
    complexity of the missions in Afghanistan increases. And this is
    occurring even while the need to sustain an Army and joint force which
    is responsibly withdrawing from Iraq puts more pressure on those medics
    continuing to provide force health protection and care in Operation
    Iraqi Freedom. This pressure on our All-Volunteer Army is
    unprecedented. Healthcare providers, in particular, are subject to
    unique strains and stressors while serving in garrison as well as in
    deployed settings. The MEDCOM has initiated a defined program to
    address provider fatigue with current efforts focused on sustaining the
    healthy force and identifying and supporting higher risk groups. MEDCOM
    has a healthy healthcare workforce as demonstrated by statistically
    significant lower provider fatigue and burnout than: The Professional
    Quality of Life Scale (ProQol) norming sample of 1,187 respondents; and
    Sprang, Clark and White-Woosley's study of 222 civilian behavioral
    health (BH) providers. But as our Chief of Staff of the Army has told
    us: this is not an area where we just want to be a little better than
    the other guy--we want the healthiest and most resilient healthcare
    provider workforce possible.
        The Provider Resiliency Training (PRT) Program was originally
    designed in 2006, based on Mental Health Advisory Team findings. The
    U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School (AMEDDC&S) developed a
    military-specific model identifying ``provider fatigue'' as the
    military equivalent of compassion fatigue. In June of 2008, MEDCOM
    implemented a mandated PRT program to educate and train all MTF
    personnel to include support staff on the prevention and treatment of
    signs and symptoms of provider fatigue. The stated goal of PRT is to
    mitigate the negative effects of exposure to combat, to deployment, to
    secondary trauma from caring for the casualties of war as well as the
    unremitting demand for healthcare services and from burnout. All will
    ultimately improve organizational effectiveness. The AMEDDC&S currently
    offers three courses in support of the MEDCOM PRT: the Train the
    Trainer Course; the Professional Resiliency Resident Course; and the
    PRT Mobile Training.
        None of our goals and themes would be achievable without the right
    mix of talented professionals within Army Medicine and working with
    Army Medicine; what our Balanced Scorecard refers to as Build The Team:
    a larger, more inclusive joint medical team; an adaptive and responsive
    interagency team (VA, DHS, DHHS/NIH/NIAID, CDC, USDA, etc.); an
    effective coalition team; and a military-civilian/academic-operational
    team. The teams we build must be aligned with the Army, Defense, and
    National Military Strategy and long-term goals, not based solely on
    personalities and the arcane interests of a few. My Deputy Surgeon
    General, subordinate leaders, and others have been increasingly more
    deliberate and disciplined in how we form and sustain these critical
    partnerships.
        Effective joint, interagency and coalition team-building has been a
    serious challenge for some time now. I see the emphasis on our ability
    to craft these teams grow in 2010. The arrival of September 15, 2011--
    the deadline for the 2005 BRAC--will be one of the key milestones and
    tests of this skill. My regional commanding generals in San Antonio and
    Washington, DC have taken lead roles in this endeavor. Let there be no
    question among those who underestimate our collective commitment to
    working as a team and our shared vision to serve the Nation and protect
    and care for the Warriors and his or her Family--we are One Team!
        In addition to building external teams, we need to have the right
    mix and quality of personnel internal to Army Medicine. In fiscal year
    2010 and continuing into fiscal year 2011 the Army requested funding
    for programs to improve our ability to attract and retain the
    professional workforce necessary to care for our Army. Our use of
    civilian hiring incentives (Recruiting, Retention, and Relocation)
    increased in fiscal year 2010 by $90 million and should increase by an
    additional $30 million in fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2011,
    civilian hiring incentives will equate to 4.8 percent of total civilian
    pay. We have instituted and funded civilian recruiting programs at the
    MEDCOM, regional, and some local levels to seek qualified healthcare
    professionals. For our military workforce, we are continuing our
    successful special salary rates, civilian nurse loan repayment
    programs, and civilian education training programs. Additionally, our
    Health Professional Scholarship Program and loan repayments will
    increase in fiscal year 2010 by $26 million and continue into fiscal
    year 2011. This program supports 1,890 scholarships and 600
    participants in loan repayments--it is as healthy a program as it has
    ever been. Let me point out that our ability to educate and train from
    within the force--through physician, nursing, administrative, medic and
    other programs in professional education--is a vital capability which
    we cannot permit to be degraded or lost altogether. In addition to
    providing essential enculturation for a military healthcare provider,
    administrator and leader, these programs have proven to be critical for
    our retention of these professionals who are willing to remain in
    uniform, to deploy in harm's way and to assume many onerous duties and
    assignments in exchange for education in some of the Nation's best
    programs. Army and Military Graduate Medical, Dental, Nursing and other
    professional education has undoubtedly played a major role in our
    remaining a viable force this far into these difficult conflicts.
        The theme of evidence-based practice runs through everything we do
    in Army Medicine and is highlighted throughout our Balanced Scorecard.
    Evidence-based practices mean integrating individual clinical expertise
    with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic
    research. Typical examples of evidence-based practices include
    implementation of clinical practice guidelines and dissemination of
    best practices. I encourage my commanders and subordinate leaders to be
    innovative, but across Army Medicine we Balance Innovation with
    Standardization so that all of our patients are receiving the best care
    and treatment available. Standardization efforts include:
      --The MEDCOM AHLTA Provider Satisfaction (MAPS) initiative.
      --Care of combat casualties through the Joint Theater Trauma System
            (JTTS), enabled by the use of a Joint Theater Trauma Registry
            (JTTR)--both of which I will discuss further below--which
            examines every casualty's care and outcome of that care,
            including en route care during medical evacuation (MEDEVAC)
            with an eye toward standardizing care around the best
            practices.
      --The Virtual Behavioral Health Pilot (aka Comprehensive Behavioral
            Health Integration) being conducted at Schofield Barracks and
            Fort Richardson.
      --Our initiative to reduce Ventilator Associated Pneumonia events in
            our ICUs by adopting not only industry best practices, but
            sending out an expert team of MEDCOM professionals to evaluate
            our own best practices and barriers to success.
      --Our standardized events-driven identification and management of
            mild TBI/concussion on the battlefield coupled with early
            diagnosis and treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Reactions/
            Acute Stress Reactions as close in time and space to the events
            which lead to these reactions.
        Programs which are in the process of maturing into best practices
    for more widespread dissemination are:
      --The Confidential Alcohol Treatment & Education Pilot (CATEP).
      --The standardized and now automated Comprehensive Transition Plan
            for Warriors In Transition in our WTUs and CBWTUs.
      --A standardized program to ``build trust in Army Medicine'' through
            hospitality and patient/client/customer service in our medical,
            dental, and veterinary treatment facilities and throughout the
            MEDCOM.
      --Standardized support of our Active, National Guard, and Reserve
            forces engaged in the reiterative, cyclic process of the Army
            Force Generation Model (ARFORGEN) including but not restricted
            to preparation for combat medics and medical units, Soldier
            Readiness Processing of deploying units, ensuring full medical
            readiness of the force, restoration of dental and behavioral
            health upon redeployment, support of the total Army Family
            while Soldiers are deployed, and provision of healthcare for
            mobilized and demobilizing Reserve Component Soldiers and their
            Families.
        These and many other standardized efforts reflect a change in how
    we do the business of Army Medicine. We can no longer pride ourselves
    on engaging in a multiplicity of local ``science projects'' being
    conducted in a seemingly random manner by well-meaning and creative
    people but without a focus on added value, standard measures of
    improved outcomes, and sustainability of the product or process. Even
    the remarkably agile response to the behavioral health needs-assessment
    and ongoing requirements at Fort Hood following the tragic shooting
    were conducted in a very deliberate and effective fashion which
    emphasized unity of command and control, alignment of all efforts and
    marshalling of resources to meet a well-crafted and even exportable
    community behavioral health plan.
        The emphasis which Army Medicine leaders have placed on
    disciplining these innovative measures so as to harvest best practices,
    subject them to validation at other sites, and rapidly proliferate them
    across the MEDCOM and Army in a standard fashion has been remarkable.
    It is the essence of Optimizing Communication and Knowledge Management.
        Many of our goals, internal processes and enablers, and resource
    investments are focused on the knowledge hierarchy: collecting data;
    coalescing it into information over time and space; giving it context
    to transform it into knowledge; and applying that knowledge with
    careful outcome measures to achieve wisdom. This phenomenon of guiding
    clinical management by the emergence of new knowledge is perhaps best
    represented by Dr. Denis Cortese, former President and Chief Executive
    Officer of the Mayo Clinic. He laid out this schematic earlier this
    year after participating in a set of workshops which centered on
    healthcare reform. We participated to explore how the Federal system of
    care might contribute to these changes in health improvement and
    healthcare delivery.
        What Dr. Cortese depicted is a three-domain ideal representation of
    healthcare delivery and its drivers. We share this vision of how an
    ideal system should operate. His notion is that this system of care
    should focus on optimizing individual health and healthcare needs,
    leveraging the knowledge domain to drive optimal clinical practices.
    This transition from the knowledge domain to the care delivery domain
    now takes 17 years. The clinical practice domain then informs and
    drives the payer domain to remunerate for effective clinical outcomes.
    What occurs too often today is what I call ``widget-building'' or
    ``turnstile'' medical care which chases remuneration for these
    encounters--too often independent of whether it is the best treatment
    aimed at the optimal outcome. To transform from a healthcare system to
    a system for health, we need to change the social contract. No longer
    should we be paid for building widgets (number of clinic visits or
    procedures), rather, we should be paid for preventing illness and
    promoting healthy lifestyles. And when bad things happen to good
    people--which severe illness and injury and war continuously challenge
    us with--we should care for these illnesses, injuries and wounds by the
    most advanced evidence-based practices available, reducing unwarranted
    variation in practice whenever possible.
        Our Military Health System is subtly different in that we have two
    practice domains--garrison and battlefield. Increasingly, we leverage
    the clinical domain to provide feedback into the knowledge domain--with
    the help of the electronic health record--AHLTA--and specialized
    databases. We do this in real time and all under the umbrella of the
    regulatory domain which sets and enforces standards.
        The reengineering of combat trauma care borne of rapid turnaround
    of new-found, data-driven knowledge to new materiel and doctrinal
    solutions is one of the premier examples of this concept. The simplest
    example is our continuous re-evaluation of materials and devices
    available to Soldiers, combat life savers, combat medics and the trauma
    team at the point of injury and in initial trauma management and the
    intellectual framework for their application to rapidly improve
    outcomes from combat-injured Warriors.
        After making the first major change in 40 years to the field
    medical kit--the Improved First Aid Kit (IFAK)--we have modified the
    contents of the kit at least three times since May 2005 based upon
    ongoing reviews of the effectiveness of the materials and head-to-head
    comparisons to competing devices or protocols. In like fashion, we have
    modified protocols for trauma management through active in-theater and
    total systemic analyses of the clinical outcomes deriving from the use
    of materials and protocols.
        The specialized system in this endeavor is a joint and inter-agency
    trauma system which creates the equivalent of a trauma network
    available for a major metropolitan area or geographic region in the
    United States but spread across three continents, 8000 miles end-to-
    end--the Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS). Staffed and led by members
    of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, it is truly a joint
    process. It is centered on the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research
    in San Antonio, Texas. The specialized database in this effort and an
    essential element of the JTTS is the Joint Theater Trauma Registry
    (JTTR)--a near-comprehensive standardized database which has been
    developed for each casualty as soon as possible in the treatment
    evacuation chain--usually at level II or III healthcare in theater. One
    of the most important critical applications of the JTTS and JTTR at
    present is the ongoing analysis of MEDEVAC times and the casualties
    being managed during evacuation. This is our effort to minimize the
    evacuation time for casualty in a highly dispersed force which is
    subjected in Afghanistan to the ``tyranny of terrain and weather.''
        The decisions about where and how many trauma teams should be
    placed around the theater of operation as well as where to place
    MEDEVAC crews and aircraft is a delicate balancing act--one which
    balances the risk of putting care providers and MEDEVAC crews and
    helicopters at risk to the enemy and the elements with the risk of loss
    of life and limb to Warriors whose evacuation may be excessively
    prolonged. The only way to fully understand these competing risks is to
    know the outcomes of care and evacuation by injury type across a wide
    range of MEDEVAC missions. This analysis will help us understand if we
    still require a ``Golden Hour'' for every casualty between initial
    management at the point of injury and arrival at a trauma treatment
    site (like an Army Forward Surgical Team, the Marine Forward
    Resuscitative Surgical System or a Combat Support Hospital) or whether
    we now have a ``Platinum 15 Minutes'' at the point of injury which
    extends the Golden Hour.
        This methodology and these casualty data are being applied to the
    next higher level of inquiry: how do we prevent injury and death of our
    combatants from wounds and accidents at the point of potential injury?
    Can we design improved helmets, goggles, body armor, vehicles and
    aircraft to prevent serious injuries? These questions are answered not
    only through the analysis of wound data, both survivable and non-
    survivable, through the JTTS and data from the virtual autopsy program
    of the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, but also by
    integrating these data with information from the joint operational,
    intelligence, and materiel communities to enable the development of
    improved tactics, techniques, and procedures and materiel improvements
    to protective equipment worn by the Warriors or built into the vehicles
    or aircraft in which they were riding. This work is performed by the
    Joint Trauma Analysis and Prevention of Injury in Combat program, a
    component of the DOD Blast Injury Research Program directed by the
    National Defense Authorization Act for 2006. To date it has been an
    effective means of improving the protection of Warriors and preventing
    serious injury and death even as the enemy devises more lethal and
    adaptive weapons and battlefield tactics, techniques, and procedures.
        We in Army Medicine are applying these knowledge management tools
    and approaches to the improvement of health and the delivery of
    healthcare back home as well. We are coupling these knowledge
    management processes with a funding strategy which incentivizes our
    commanders and clinicians to balance productivity--providing episodes
    of care--with optimal outcome: the right kind of prevention and care.
        Among our greatest team achievements in 2009 was our effort to
    better understand how we communicate effectively with our internal and
    external stakeholders, patients, clients and customers. We adopted a
    formal plan to align our messages--ultimately all tied to Army goals
    and those on our Balanced Scorecard. Our creation of a Strategic
    Communications Directorate to ensure alignment of our key messages, to
    better understand and use social media, to expedite cross-talk and
    learning among such diverse groups as the Office of Congressional
    Liaison, Public Affairs, Protocol, Medical History, the Borden
    Institute, the AMEDD Regiment and others speaks directly to these
    efforts.
        While we are still in the ``advanced crawl/early walk'' phase of
    knowledge management, we know from examples such as the Joint Theater
    Trauma System and the Performance Based Budget Model that we can move
    best practices and newly found evidence-based approaches into common or
    widespread use if we aggressively coordinate and manage our efforts and
    promote transparency of data and information and the knowledge which
    derives from it. We have begun a formal process under the Strategy and
    Innovation Directorate to move the best ideas in both clinical and
    transactional processes into standard practices across the MEDCOM in a
    timely way. This will be achieved through a process to identify,
    validate, and transfer best practices. We endeavor to be more agile and
    adaptive in response to a rapidly changing terrain of U.S. and Federal
    healthcare and operational requirements for a Nation at war.
        In closing, I am very optimistic about the next 2 years. We have
    weathered some serious challenges to trust in Army Medicine. Logic
    would not predict that we would be doing as well as we are in
    attracting, retaining and career developing such a talented team of
    uniformed and civilian medical professionals. However, we continue to
    do so year after year--a tribute to all our Officer Corps, the
    leadership of our Non-Commissioned Officers, and our military and
    civilian workforce. The results of our latest Medical Corps Graduate
    Medical Education Selection Board and the Human Capital Distribution
    Plan show continued strength and even improvements over past years. The
    continued leadership and dedicated service of officers, non-
    commissioned officers, and civilian employees are essential for Army
    Medicine to remain strong, for the Army to remain healthy and strong,
    and for the Nation to endure. I feel very privileged to serve with the
    men and women of Army Medicine during this historic period as Army
    Medics, as Soldiers, as Americans and as global citizens.
        Thank you for holding this hearing and your unwavering support of
    the Military Health System and Army Medicine. I look forward to working
    with you and your staff and addressing any of your concerns or
    questions.

        Chairman Inouye. And now may I call upon General Green.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL (DR.) CHARLES B. GREEN,
                SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
                FORCE
        General Green. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran--
        Thank you, sir. I'm new at this, and please forgive me.
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, it's an honor and a privilege to
    appear before you representing the Air Force Medical Service. I
    look forward to working with you, and pledge to do all in my
    power to support the men and women of our Armed Forces and this
    great country. Thank you for your immeasurable contributions to
    the success of our mission.
        ``Trusted Care Anywhere'' is our vision for 2010 mission
    and beyond. Our nearly 60,000 total force medics contribute
    world-class medical capabilities to Air Force, joint, and
    coalition teams. Over 1,600 Air Force medics are currently
    deployed to 40 locations in 20 countries, delivering state-of-
    the-art preventive medicine, rapid lifesaving care, and
    critical-care air evacuation. At home, our healthcare teams
    assure patient-centered care to produce healthy and resilient
    airmen and provide families and retirees with full-spectrum
    healthcare.
        Our success on the battlefield underscores our ability to
    provide ``Trusted Care Anywhere.'' Since 2001, we have air-
    evacuated more than 70,000 patients from Afghanistan and Iraq.
    We have lost only four patients, and one dog. Joint and
    coalition medical teams have achieved a less than 10 percent
    died of wounds rate, the best survival rate in the history of
    war.
        In July, a British soldier sustained multiple gunshot
    wounds in Afghanistan. He was stabilized by medical teams on
    the ground, who replaced his blood more than 10 times and
    removed an injured lung. It took two airplanes, three aircrews
    to get the medical team and equipment in place, and another
    aircraft to fly the patient to Germany. Every member of the
    joint casualty care and air evacuation team selflessly gave
    their all to ensure this soldier received the critical care and
    compassionate support required. This was the first known
    successful air evacuation of a patient with a traumatic lung
    removal. The patient is doing well in Birmingham, England,
    today.
        In January 2010, a U.S. marine sustained dislocation of
    both knees, with loss of blood flow to his lower legs following
    an improvised explosive device (IED) attack in the Helmand
    Province. Casualty evacuation delivered the marine to our
    British partners at Camp Bastion, where surgeons restored blood
    flow to both legs, using temporary shunt procedures that our
    surgeons had shared in surgical journals. The marine was
    further evacuated to Craig Joint Theater Hospital at Bagram,
    where Air Force surgeons performed definitive vascular
    reconstruction. The marine is now recovering at National Naval
    Medical Center and is expected to have fully functional limbs.
        These success stories are possible only because of the
    tireless efforts of Air Force, Army, Navy, and coalition medics
    to continuously improve our care.
        Air Force medics are responding globally in humanitarian
    missions as well as on the battlefield. Over the last 6 months,
    we contributed significant support in Indonesia, to the
    treatment and evacuation of Haiti earthquake victims, and now
    have another expeditionary medical system (EMEDS) that should
    be arriving in Chile today.
        The Air Force Special Operations Command had 47 medics on
    the ground within 12 hours following the Haiti disaster,
    performing site assessments, preventive public health measures,
    and delivering lifesaving care. And Air Force EMEDS continues
    to coordinate care in Haiti today.
        At home, we're improving our patient and provider
    satisfaction through our patient-centered medical home,
    building strong partnerships between patients and their
    healthcare teams. We are seeing improved performance in
    healthcare continuity, in quality, access, and patient
    satisfaction, based on our medical-home efforts. We recognize
    the high OPSTEMPO and have identified high-risk groups to
    target interventions and training, improving both airmen and
    family resilience. Collaborative care, in the form of mental
    health providers embedded in our family health clinics is
    present at the majority of Air Force treatment facilities
    today.
        To achieve our vision of ``Trusted Care Anywhere,'' we
    require highly trained, current, and qualified providers. We
    are extremely grateful to this subcommittee for your many
    efforts to strengthen our recruiting and retention programs.
    Your support, in particular, for the Health Profession
    Scholarship Program, the Uniformed Services University, and
    other retention initiatives is making a huge difference.
        We are also indebted to private sector and Federal
    partners, who help us maximize resources, leverage new
    capabilities, and sustain clinical currency. Our research
    partners, with universities and private industry, ensure U.S.
    forces benefit from the latest medical technologies and
    clinical advancements, and research and regenerative medicine,
    directed energy, improved diabetes prevention and treatment,
    and state-of-the-art medical informatics shapes the future and
    allows Air Force medics to implementation innovative solutions.
        Our Centers for the Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness
    Skills at St. Louis University, University of Maryland,
    Baltimore Shock Trauma, and University of Cincinnati College of
    Medicine are all superb examples of what we can achieve through
    partnerships.
        We also actively partner with the VA to meet beneficiary
    needs, and now have five joint ventures, including Keesler Air
    Force Base, Mississippi, and soon will open our sixth, with the
    standup at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Air Force Medical Service is committed to the health
    and wellness of all entrusted to our care. We are, as our Chief
    says, all in to meet our Nation's call, and we will achieve our
    vision through determined, continuous improvement. We could not
    achieve our goals of better readiness, better health, better
    care, and best value for our heroes and their families without
    your support.
        Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Charles B. Green
        ``Trusted Care Anywhere'' is the Air Force Medical Service's vision
    for 2010 and beyond. In the domain of Air, Space and Cyberspace, our
    medics contribute to the Air Force, Joint, and coalition team with
    world class medical capabilities. Our 60,000 high performing Total
    Force medics around the globe are trained and ready for mission
    success. Over 1,600 Air Force medics are now deployed to 40 locations
    in 20 countries, building partnership capability and delivering state
    of the art preventive medicine, rapid life-saving care, and critical
    air evacuation. In all cases, these efforts are conducted with joint
    and coalition partners. At home, our healthcare teams assure patient-
    centered care to produce healthy and resilient Airmen, and provide our
    families and retirees with full spectrum healthcare.
        Today's focus is on world-class healthcare delivery systems across
    the full spectrum of our operations. From theater hospitals in Balad
    and Bagram, to the efforts of humanitarian assistance response teams,
    to the care of our families at home, we put patients first. We are
    transforming deployable capabilities, building patient-centered care
    platforms, and investing in our people, the foundation of our success.
    We are expanding collaboration with joint and coalition partners to
    collectively strengthen rapid response capabilities. Globally, Air
    Force medics are diligently working to balance the complex demands of
    multiple missions in current and expanding areas of operations.
        We are committed to advancing capabilities through education and
    training, research, and infrastructure recapitalization. Recent efforts
    in these areas have paid huge dividends, establishing new standards in
    virtually every major category of full spectrum care including
    humanitarian assistance. The strategic investments assure a trained,
    current, and deployable medical force today and tomorrow. They
    reinforce a culture of learning to quickly adapt medical systems and
    implement agile organizations to produce healthier outcomes in diverse
    mission areas.
        While we've earned our Nation's trust with our unique capabilities
    and the expertise of our people, we constantly seek to do better! I
    would like to highlight our areas of strategic focus and share some
    captivating examples of Air Force medics in action.
        transforming expeditionary medicine and aeromedical evacuation
                                  capabilities
        Our success on the battlefield underscores our ability to provide
    ``Trusted Care, Anywhere.'' The joint and coalition medical teams bring
    wounded warriors from the battlefield to an operating room within an
    unprecedented 20 to 40 minutes! This rapid transfer rate enables medics
    to achieve a less than 10 percent died-of-wounds rate, the best
    survival rate ever seen in war.
        In late July, a British soldier sustained multiple gunshot wounds
    in Afghanistan. After being stabilized by medical teams on the ground,
    who replaced his blood supply more than 10 times, doctors determined
    the patient had to be moved to higher levels of care in Germany. It
    took two airplanes to get the medical team and equipment in place,
    another aircraft to fly the patient to Germany, three aircrews and many
    more personnel coordinating on the ground to get this patient to the
    next level of care. Every member of the joint casualty care and
    aeromedical evacuation teams selflessly gave their all to ensure this
    soldier received the compassionate care he deserved. After landing
    safely at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the soldier was flown to
    further medical care at a university hospital by helicopter. This case
    highlights the dedication and compassion our personnel deliver in the
    complex but seamless care continuum. This tremendous effort contributes
    to our unprecedented survival rate.
        As evidenced in this story, our aeromedical evacuation system (AE)
    and critical care air transport teams (CCATT) are world-class. We
    mobilize specially trained flight crews and medical teams on a moment's
    notice to transport the most critical patients across oceans. Since
    November 2001, we have transported more than 70,000 patients from
    Afghanistan and Iraq.
        We are proud of our accomplishments to date, but strive for further
    innovation. As a result of battlefield lessons learned, we have
    recently implemented a device to improve spinal immobilization for AE
    patients that maximizes patient comfort and reduces skin pressure. We
    are working toward an improved detection mechanism for compartment
    syndrome in trauma patients. The early detection and prevention of
    excess compartment pressure could eliminate irreversible tissue damage
    for patients. In February 2010, a joint Air Force and Army team will
    begin testing equipment packages designed to improve ventilation,
    oxygen, fluid resuscitation, physiological monitoring, hemodynamic
    monitoring and intervention in critical care air transport.
                 information management/information technology
        Our Theater Medical Information Program Air Force (TMIP AF) is a
    software suite that automates and integrates clinical care
    documentation, medical supplies, equipment, and patient movement. It
    provides the unique capabilities for in-transit visibility and
    consolidated medical information to improve command and control and
    allow better preventive surveillance at all Air Force deployed
    locations. This is a historic first for the TMIP AF program.
        Critical information is gathered on every patient, then entered
    into the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) deployed system. Within 24
    hours, records are moved and safely stored at secure consolidated
    databases in the United States. During the first part of 2010, TMIP AF
    will be utilized in Aeromedical Evacuation and Air Force Special
    Operations areas.
               expeditionary medicine and humanitarian assistance
        We have also creatively developed our Humanitarian Assistance Rapid
    Response Team (HARRT), a Pacific Command (PACOM) initiative, to
    integrate expeditionary medical systems and support functions. The
    HARRT provides the PACOM Commander with a rapid response package that
    can deploy in less than 24 hours, requires only two C-17s for transport
    and can be fully operational within hours of arrival at the disaster
    site. This unique capability augments host nation efforts during the
    initial stages of rescue/recovery, thus saving lives, reducing
    suffering, and preventing the spread of disease. So far, HARRT
    successfully deployed on two occasions in the Pacific. Efforts are
    underway to incorporate this humanitarian assistance and disaster
    relief response capability into all AFMS Expeditionary Medical System
    (EMEDS) assets.
        Air Force medics contribute significant support to the treatment
    and evacuation of Haiti earthquake victims. The Air Force Special
    Operations Command sent 47 medics to support AFSOC troops on the ground
    within 12 hours following the disaster to perform site assessments,
    establish preventive public health measures, and deliver life-saving
    trauma care to include surgical and critical care support. This team
    was also instrumental in working with Southern Command and
    Transportation Command to establish a patient movement bridge
    evacuating individuals from Haiti via air transport.
        As part of the U.S. Air Force's total force effort, we sent our
    EMEDS platform into Haiti and rapidly established a 10-bed hospital to
    link the hospital ship to ground operations. The new EMEDS includes
    capabilities for pediatrics, OB/GYN and mental health. Personnel from
    five Air Force medical treatment facilities (MTFs) are supporting
    Operation Unified Response, as well as volunteers from the Air Reserve
    Forces.
     build patient-centered care and focus on prevention to optimize health
        We are committed to achieving the same high level of trust with our
    patients at home through our medical home concept. Medical home
    includes initiatives to personalize care, and to improve health and
    resilience. We are also working hard to optimize our operations, reduce
    costs and improve patient access. We partner with our Federal and
    civilian colleagues to continuously improve care to all our
    beneficiaries.
    Family Health Initiative
        To achieve better health outcomes for our patients, we implemented
    the Family Health Initiative (FHI). FHI mirrors the American Academy of
    Family Physicians' ``Patient Centered Medical Home'' concept and is
    built on the team-approach for effective care delivery. The partnership
    between our patients and their healthcare teams is critical to create
    better health and better care via improved continuity, and reduce per
    capita cost.
        Our providers are given full clinical oversight of their care teams
    and are expected to practice to the full scope of their training. We
    believe the results will be high quality care and improved professional
    satisfaction. Two of our pilot sites, Edwards AFB, CA, and Ellsworth
    AFB, SD, have dramatically improved their national standings in
    continuity, quality, access to care, and patient satisfaction. Eleven
    other bases are implementing Medical Home, with an additional 20 bases
    scheduled to come on-line in 2010.
        We are particularly encouraged by the results of our patient
    continuity data in Medical Home. Previous metrics showed our patients
    only saw their assigned provider approximately 50 percent of the time.
    At Edwards and Ellsworth AFBs, provider continuity is now in the 80-90
    percent range.
        We still have work to do, such as developing improved decision
    support tools, case management support, and improved training.
    Implementing change of this size and scope requires broad commitment.
    The Air Force Medical Service has the commitment and is confident that
    by focusing on patient-centered care through Medical Home, we will
    deliver exceptional care in the years ahead.
        The Military Health System's Quadruple Aim of medical readiness,
    population health, experience of care and per capita cost serves us
    well. Patient safety remains central to everything we do. By focusing
    on lessons learned and sharing information, we continually strive to
    enhance the safety and quality of our care. We share our clinical
    lessons learned with the Department of Defense (DOD) Patient Safety
    Center and sister Services. We integrate clinical scenarios and lessons
    learned into our simulation training. We securely share de-identified
    patient safety information across the Services through DOD's web-based
    Patient Safety Learning Center to continuously improve safety.
    Improving Resilience and Safeguarding the Mental Health of Our Airmen
        Trusted care for our beneficiaries includes improving resilience
    and safeguarding their mental health and well-being. We are engaged in
    several initiatives to optimize mental health access and support.
        Air Force post-deployment health assessment (PDHA) and post-
    deployment health re-assessment (PDHRA) data indicates a relatively low
    level of self-reported stress. However, about 20-30 percent of service
    members returning from OIF/OEF deployments report some form of
    psychological distress. The number of personnel referred for further
    evaluation or treatment has increased from 25 percent to 50 percent
    over the past 4 years, possibly reflecting success in reducing stigma
    of seeking mental health support. We have identified our high-risk
    groups and can now provide targeted intervention and training.
        We recently unveiled ``Defenders Edge,'' which is tailored to
    security forces Airmen who are deploying to the most hostile
    environments. This training is intended to improve Airmen mental
    resiliency to combat-related stressors. Unlike conventional techniques,
    which adopt a one-on-one approach focusing on emotional vulnerability,
    ``DEFED'' brings the mental health professional into the group
    environment, assimilating them into the security forces culture as
    skills are taught.
        Airmen who are at higher risk for post traumatic stress are closely
    screened and monitored for psychological concerns post-deployment. If
    treatment is required, these individuals receive referrals to the
    appropriate providers. In addition to standard treatment protocols for
    post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Air Force mental health
    professionals are capitalizing on state-of-the-art treatment options
    using Virtual Reality. The use of a computer-generated virtual Iraq in
    combination with goggles, headphones, and a scent machine allow service
    members to receive enhanced prolonged exposure therapy in a safe
    setting. In January 2009, 32 Air Force Medical Service therapists
    received Tri-Service training in collaboration with the Defense Center
    of Excellence at Madigan Army Medical Center. The system was deployed
    to eight Air Force sites in February 2009 and is assisting service
    members in the treatment of PTSD.
        Future applications of technology employing avatars and virtual
    worlds may have multiple applications. Service member and family
    resiliency will be enhanced by providing pre- and post-deployment
    education; new parent support programs may offer virtual parent
    training; and family advocacy and addiction treatment programs may
    provide anger management, social skills training, and emotional and
    behavioral regulation.
    Rebuilding Our Capabilities by Recapturing Care and Reducing Costs
        Our patients appropriately expect AFMS facilities and equipment
    will be state-of-the art and our medical teams clinically current. They
    trust we will give them the best care possible. We are upgrading our
    medical facilities and rebuilding our capabilities to give patients
    more choice and increase provider satisfaction with a more complex case
    load. In our larger facilities, we launched the Surgical Optimization
    Initiative, which includes process improvement evaluations to improve
    operating room efficiency, enhance surgical teamwork, and eliminate
    waste and redundancy. This initiative resulted in a 30 percent increase
    in operative cases at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, and 118 percent increase
    in neurosurgery at Travis AFB, California.
        We are engaged in an extensive modernization of Wright-Patterson
    Air Force Base Medical Center in Ohio with particular focus on surgical
    care and mental health services. We are continuing investment in a
    state-of-the-art new medical campus for SAMMC at Lackland AFB, TX. Our
    ambulatory care center at Andrews AFB, MD, will provide a key
    capability for the delivery of world-class healthcare in the National
    Capital Region's multi-service market.
        By increasing volume, complexity and diversity of care provided in
    Air Force hospitals, we make more care available to our patients; and
    we provide our clinicians with a robust clinical practice to ensure
    they are prepared for deployed operations, humanitarian assistance, and
    disaster response.
    Partnering With Our Private Sector and Federal Partners
        Now more than ever, collaboration and cooperation with our private
    sector and Federal partners is key to maximizing resources, leveraging
    capabilities and sustaining clinical currency. Initiatives to build
    strong academic partnerships with St. Louis University, Wright State
    University (Ohio); University of Maryland; University of Mississippi;
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln; University of California-Davis and
    University of Texas-San Antonio, among others, bolster research and
    training platforms and ultimately, ensures a pipeline of current,
    deployable medics to sustain Air Force medicine.
        Our long history of collaborating with the Veterans Administration
    (VA) also enhances clinical currency for our providers, saves valuable
    resources, and provides a more seamless transition for our Airmen as
    they move from active duty to veteran status. The Air Force currently
    has five joint ventures with the VA, including the most recent at
    Keesler AFB, MS. Additional efforts are underway for Buckley AFB, CO,
    to share space with the Denver VA Medical Center, which is now under
    construction.
        The new joint Department of Defense-Veterans Affairs disability
    evaluation system pilot started at Malcolm Grow Medical Center at
    Andrews AFB, MD in November 2007. It was expanded to include Elmendorf
    AFB, AK; Travis AFB, CA and Vance AFB, OK; and MacDill AFB, FL, in May
    2009. Lessons learned are streamlining and expediting disability
    recovery and processing, and creating improved treatment, evaluation
    and delivery of compensation and benefits. The introduction of a single
    comprehensive medical examination and single-sourced disability rating
    was instrumental to improving the process and increasing the
    transparency. Services now allow members to see proposed VA disability
    ratings before separation.
        We continue to work toward advances in the interoperability of the
    electronic health record. Recent updates allow near real-time data
    sharing between DOD and Veterans Affairs providers. Malcolm Grow
    Medical Center, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, and David Grant
    Medical Center are now using this technology, with 12 additional Air
    Force military treatment facilities slated to come online. New system
    updates will enhance capabilities to share images, assessment reports,
    and data. All updates are geared toward producing a virtual lifetime
    electronic record and a nationwide health information network.
                          year of the air force family
        This is the ``Year of the Air Force Family,'' and we are working
    hand in hand with Air Force personnel and force management to ensure
    our Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) beneficiaries receive the
    assistance they need.
        In September 2009, the Air Force sponsored an Autism Summit where
    educational, medical, and community support personnel discussed
    challenges and best practices. In December 2009, the Air Force Medical
    Service provided all Air Force treatment facilities with an autism tool
    kit. The kit provided educational information to providers on diagnosis
    and treatment. Also, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH is partnering with
    Children's Hospital of Ohio in a research project to develop a
    comprehensive registry for autism spectrum disorders, behavioral
    therapies, and gene mapping.
        The Air Force actively collaborates with sister Services and the
    Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic
    Brain injury (DCoE) to offer a variety of programs and services to meet
    the needs of children of wounded warriors. One recent initiative was
    the ``Family Connections'' website with ``Sesame Street''-themed
    resources to help children cope with deployments and injured parents.
    In addition, DOD-funded websites, such as afterdeployment.org,
    providing specific information and guidance for parents/caregivers to
    understand and help kids deal with issues related to deployment and its
    aftermath.
        Parents and caregivers also consult with their child's primary care
    manager, who can help identify issues and refer the child for care when
    necessary. Other resources available to families include counseling
    through Military OneSource, Airman and Family Readiness Centers,
    Chaplains, and Military Family Life Consultants--all of whom may refer
    the family to seek more formal mental health treatment through
    consultation with their primary care manager or by contacting a TRICARE
    mental health provider directly.
           investing in our people: education, training, and research
    Increased Focus on Recruiting and Retention Initiatives
        To gain and hold the trust of our patients, we must have highly
    trained, current, and qualified providers. To attract those high
    quality providers in the future, we have numerous efforts underway to
    improve recruiting and retention.
        We've changed our marketing efforts to better target recruits, such
    as providing Corps-specific DVDs to recruiters. The Health Profession
    Scholarship Program remains vital to attracting doctors and dentists,
    accounting for 75 percent of these two Corps' accessions. The Air Force
    International Health Specialist program is another successful program,
    providing Air Force Medical Service personnel with opportunities to
    leverage their foreign language and cultural knowledge to effectively
    execute and lead global health engagements, each designed to build
    international partnerships and sustainable capacity.
        The Nursing Enlisted Commissioning Program (NECP) is a terrific
    opportunity for Airmen. Several Airmen have been accepted to the NECP,
    completed degrees, and have been commissioned as Second Lieutenant
    within a year. To quote a recent graduate, 2nd Lt. April C. Barr, ``The
    NECP was an excellent way for me to finish my degree and gave me an
    opportunity to fulfill a goal I set as a young Airman . . . to be
    commissioned as an Air Force nurse.''
        For our enlisted personnel, targeted Selective Reenlistment
    Bonuses, combined with continued emphasis on quality of life, generous
    benefits, and job satisfaction have positively impacted enlisted
    recruiting and retention efforts.
    Increasing Synergy to Strengthen GME and Officer/Enlisted Training
        We foster excellence in clinical, operational, joint and coalition
    partner roles for all Air Force Medical Service personnel. We are
    increasing opportunities for advanced education in general dentistry
    and establishing more formalized, tiered approaches to Medical Corps
    faculty development. Senior officer and enlisted efforts in the
    National Capital Region and the San Antonio Military Medical Center are
    fostering Tri-Service collaboration, enlightening the Services to each
    others' capabilities and qualifications, and establishing opportunities
    to develop and hone readiness skills.
        The Medical Education and Training Campus (METC) at Fort Sam
    Houston, Texas, will have a monumental impact on the Department of
    Defense and all military services. We anticipate a smooth transition
    with our moves completed by summer 2011. METC will train future
    enlisted medics to take care of our service members and their families
    and will establish San Antonio as a medical training center of
    excellence.
        Our Centers for the Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills at
    St. Louis University, University of Maryland-Baltimore Shock Trauma and
    University of Cincinnati College of Medicine remain important and
    evolving training platforms for our doctors, nurses and medical
    technicians preparing to deploy. We recently expanded our St. Louis
    University training program to include pediatric trauma. Tragically,
    this training became necessary, as our deployed medics treat hundreds
    of children due to war-related violence.
        Partnerships with the University Hospital Cincinnati and
    Scottsdale, AZ, trauma hospitals allow the Air Force's nurse transition
    programs to provide newly graduated registered nurses 11 weeks of
    rotations in emergency care, cardiovascular intensive care, burn unit,
    endoscopy, same-day surgery, and respiratory therapy. These advanced
    clinical and deployment readiness skills prepare them for success in
    Air Force hospitals and deployed medical facilities, vital to the care
    of our patients and joint warfighters.
    Setting Clear Research Requirements and Integrating Technology
        Trusted care is not static. To sustain this trust, we must remain
    agile and adaptive, seeking innovative solutions to shape our future.
    Our ongoing research in procedures, technology, and equipment will
    ensure our patients and warfighters always benefit from the latest
    medical technologies and clinical advancements.
        Air Force Medical Service vascular surgeons, Lieutenant Colonels
    Todd Rasmussen and William ``Darrin'' Clouse, have completed 17
    research papers since 2005 and edited the vascular surgery handbook. On
    January 10, 2009 a U.S. Marine sustained bilateral posterior knee
    dislocations with subsequent loss of blood flow to his lower legs
    following an improvised explosive device attack in the Helmand
    Province. Casualty evacuation delivered the Marine to our British
    partners at Camp Bastion, a level II surgical unit within an hour. At
    Bastion, British surgeons applied knowledge gained from combat casualty
    care research and restored blood flow to both legs using temporary
    vascular shunts. Medical evacuation then delivered the casualty to the
    455th Expeditionary Medical Group at Bagram. Upon arrival, our surgeons
    at Bagram performed definitive vascular reconstruction and protected
    the fragile soft tissue with negative pressure wound therapy. The
    Marine is currently recovering at the National Military Medical Center
    in Bethesda and is expected to have functional limbs.
        In another example, a 21-year-old Airman underwent a rare
    pancreatic autotransplantation surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center (WRAMC) to salvage his body's ability to produce insulin. The
    airman was shot in the back three times by an insurgent at a remote
    outpost in Afghanistan. The patient underwent two procedures in
    Afghanistan to stop the bleeding, was flown to Germany, then to WRAMC.
    Army surgeons consulted with University of Miami's Miller School of
    Medicine researchers on transplantation experiments. The surgeons
    decided to attempt a rare autotransplantation surgery to save the
    remaining pancreas cells. WRAMC Surgeons removed his remaining pancreas
    cells and flew them over 1,000 miles to the University of Miami Miller
    School of Medicine. The University of Miami team worked through the
    night to isolate and preserve the islet cells. The cells were flown
    back to WRAMC the next day and successfully implanted in the patient.
    The surgery was a miraculous success, as the cells are producing
    insulin.
        These two cases best illustrate the outcome of our collaborations,
    culture of research, international teamwork, innovation, and
    excellence.
    Shaping the Future Today Through Partnerships and Training
        Under a new partnership with the University of Illinois at Chicago,
    we are researching directed energy force protection, which focuses on
    detection, diagnosis and treatment of directed energy devices. We are
    exploring the discovery of biomarkers related to laser eye injuries,
    development of films for laser eye protection and the development of a
    ``tricorder'' prototype capable of laser detection and biomarker
    assessment. Additional efforts focus on the use and safety of laser
    scalpels and the development of a hand-held battery operated laser tool
    to treat wounds on the battlefield.
        We continue our 7-year partnership with the University of
    Pittsburgh Medical Center to develop Type II diabetes prevention and
    treatment programs for rural and Air Force communities. Successful
    program efforts in the San Antonio area include the establishment of a
    Diabetes Center of Excellence, ``Diabetes Day'' outreach specialty
    care, and efforts to establish a National Diabetes Model for diabetic
    care.
        Another partnership, with the University of Maryland Medical Center
    and the Center for the Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-
    STARS) in Baltimore is developing advanced training for Air Force
    trauma teams. The project goal is to develop a multi-patient trauma
    simulation capability using high fidelity trauma simulators to
    challenge trauma teams in rapid assessment, task management, and
    critical skills necessary for the survival of our wounded warriors. A
    debriefing model is being developed to assist with after action reviews
    for trauma team members.
        Radio frequency technology is contributing to medical process
    improvements at Keesler AFB, MS. Currently, Keesler AFB is analyzing
    the use of automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) in AFMS
    business processes. The AIDC evaluation focuses on four main areas:
    patient tracking, medication administration, specimen tracking, and
    asset management. Further system evaluation and data collection is
    ongoing in 2010 with an expansion of AIDC use in tracking automated
    data processing equipment.
                                   conclusion
        As a unique health system, we are committed to success across the
    spectrum of military operations through rapid deployability and
    patient-centered care. We are partnering for better outcomes and
    increasing clinical capacity. We are strengthening our education and
    training platforms through partnerships and scanning the environment
    for new research and development opportunities to keep Air Force
    medicine on the cutting edge.
        We will enhance our facilities and the quality of healthcare to
    ensure health and wellness of all entrusted to our care. We do all this
    with a focus on patient safety and sound fiscal stewardship. We could
    not achieve our goals of better readiness, better health, better care
    and reduced cost without your support, and so again, I thank you.
        In closing, I share a quote from our Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen.
    Norton A. Schwartz, who said, ``I see evidence every day the Medical
    Service is `All In,' faithfully executing its mission in the heat of
    the fight, in direct support of the warfighter, and of families back
    home as well.'' I know you would agree that ``All in'' is the right
    place to be.

                       CRITICAL WARFIGHTING-SKILL BONUSES

        Chairman Inouye. I have many questions here. I'd like to
    submit most of them. But, I have a few.
        This morning, I received a call from a constituent, who
    said, ``I just saw an ad that provides a bonus of $350,000 to
    anyone volunteering to serve as a doctor.'' I have no idea what
    service or where the ad was, but, General, do you have any idea
    what this is all about?

                               RECRUITING BONUSES

        General Schoomaker. No, sir, but I'll be happy to look into
    it further. We have a variety of bonus programs to bring
    medical professionals of a variety of sources--physicians----
        Chairman Inouye. What is the bonus for, say, a surgeon?
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I'll have to look into the----
        Chairman Inouye. Oh.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Specifics of it. It's
    dependent upon whether we're looking at loan repayment from
    earlier training or multiyear signing bonuses by specialty.
    It's pretty much shared across the three services. Maybe--I'm
    sorry, I don't have the authority to do this--but maybe one of
    my colleagues would be able to answer.
        Admiral Robinson. Senator Inouye, Mr. Chairman, I think the
    critical warfighting-skill bonuses are in the, on the order of
    about $275,000 over a 4-year period. And I may not have all of
    the numbers right. And then, there are a variety of lesser
    bonuses that fit into place. So, there's variable incentive
    pay, there's board-certified pay. There is a list of them, and
    they're utilized in general surgery, orthopaedic surgery. And
    the things that are most critical that we are seeing now are
    mental health specialists, so psychiatrists will also benefit.
        There's another level of board--or of bonus pay for
    clinical psychologists, for social workers, and also for mental
    health nurse specialists. It's much less, but there are
    incentive bonuses that are being utilized. All three services
    are utilizing--we do it a little differently, but the amounts
    are approximately the same.
        So, I do not know anything about a $350,000 bonus. But,
    again, we can look into that.
        [The information follows:]

        No, there is not currently a $350,000 bonus for ``anyone
    volunteering to serve as a doctor.'' Navy currently offers a
    Critical Wartime Skills Accession Bonus (CWSAB) for specific
    physician and dental specialties. The accession bonus depends
    on the specialty being accessed. The bonuses range from
    $220,000 to $400,000. The Navy currently authorizes CWSAB to
    General Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Family Medicine,
    Emergency Medicine, Psychiatry, Pulmonology, Diagnostic
    Radiology, Anesthesiology, Preventive Medicine, Oral and
    Maxillofacial Surgeons, and Comprehensive Dentists.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        General----
        General Green. Senator, if I may add----
        Chairman Inouye. Yes.
        General Green. I'm sorry, sir.
        Under current authorities for the multiyear retention
    bonuses can go as high as $100,000 a year. Although I am not
    familiar with the ad that you bring to our attention; however,
    I will say that, as our personnel communities look at accession
    bonuses, one of the tools they have used is to build an
    accession bonus that basically gives a lump-sum payment, but
    then, they don't necessarily receive that particular multiyear
    retention pay. So, accession bonuses could go up, technically,
    by the authorities we have, as high as $400,000, but then they
    would not receive that same pay while they were on Active Duty.
    If that helps you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Oh, thank you.

                      REHABILITATION FOR WOUNDED WARRIORS

        General Schoomaker, on warriors in transition, is that a
    rehab program? Because I had the good fortune to be assigned to
    Percy Jones General Hospital during World War II, and there
    they had a 10-month program that included everything from how
    to use your prosthetic appliance, driving, carpentry,
    electrical work, plumbing, musical instruments, sports, sex,
    the whole works--dining. And I felt, when I left the hospital,
    prepared for the world. Do we have any sort of rehab program
    for our men and women?
        General Schoomaker. Yes, sir. I mean, the simple answer is,
    ``absolutely.'' In fact, I think, in prior conversations you
    and I have had, you shared with me the experience that you had.
    And I'm--I, frankly, have taken that on the road, frequently,
    to talk about rediscovering lessons from prior wars, what we
    had in World War II through the convalescent hospital that you
    recovered in at Battle Creek, our Valley Forge Convalescent
    Hospital during the Vietnam era. These were lessons, quite
    frankly, that, in the late 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, we
    forgot. And as we move toward a more strict definition, much
    like the civilian sector, of inpatient and outpatient medicine,
    this war and the injuries, both in battle and not, and the
    illnesses associated with it, have taught us the need to
    rediscover and to redesign intermediate rehabilitation.
        And this transition process that we have, that--most
    recently, my deputy commander--excuse me--my Assistant Surgeon
    General for Warrior Care and Transition, and the Commander of
    our Warrior Transition Command, Brigadier General Gary Cheek, a
    career artilleryman, has worked on--in association and
    collaboration with our colleagues in the Navy, the Marine
    Corps, and the Air Force, has developed a comprehensive
    transition plan--it's automated now across our 29 warrior
    transition units--and nine State-based, community-based warrior
    transition units. And it includes all of the things that you
    describe, from initial healing to longer-term recovery and
    rehabilitation, and includes the family, and is tailored to the
    individual. It has vocational elements to it, educational
    elements, and always wraps in there the family and the
    soldier's interest in either returning to duty or going out
    into productive citizenship. On average, right now, about 50
    percent of our warriors in transition actually return to duty,
    which is, I think, a substantial reinvestment of our people
    back into uniform.
        You know, I think, sir, that we have returned to duty over
    140 amputees, as an example of this, and we've sent about 40 of
    them into combat, 3 or 4 of whom have gone back into combat as
    amputees, having lost their limb not in combat, but in training
    accidents or in motor vehicle accidents. And so, we see this as
    a terrific success and a rediscovery and a recharging of the
    whole effort to transition these soldiers successfully.
        Chairman Inouye. Is this a standard program for all men and
    women in transition, or is it up to the hospital?

                  WALTER REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDICAL CENTER

        General Schoomaker. No, sir. There are criteria to get them
    into the program. We currently have approximately 9,000
    soldiers in them across these units I described; about 7,000 of
    them are within our hospitals and on campuses in our
    installations; about 2,000 are out in nine different States in
    these community-based organizations. We have some fairly good
    criteria to get them into the program, but, once into the
    program, the emphasis is in transition. It's a--an aspirational
    model that focuses on building abilities and rechanneling or
    redirecting their efforts and their interests if their former
    service and their former roles cannot be re-realized again. And
    it's in very close association with the Veterans Administration
    and other civilian rehabilitation efforts.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Admiral Robinson, I'd like to ask a few questions relating
    to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. The
    subcommittee has just a vague idea of what the additional
    budget will look like. We have no idea precisely as to how much
    military construction will be involved, when will it commence,
    and how much operation/maintenance will cost, how much new
    equipment. Can you give us some idea?
        Admiral Robinson. Yes, sir. I can't give you the complete
    answer that you're looking for, but I can give you a Navy
    answer, of sorts.
        The complete answer has to be contained in the JTF CAPMED
    comprehensive master plan for the facility. And then, when that
    occurs, we can have, I think, an understanding of what
    requirements will be necessary for the facilities--whatever
    increased additional cost there will be for facilities at the
    Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
        As I sit today, there is a very--I call, a nonrobust number
    of about, perhaps, $750 or $800 million that is being projected
    to be needed in order to finish that construction, but I think
    that we'll really need to wait, because that's not a very good
    requirements-based analysis, as I sit now.
        So, I think the first answer is the research--or, the
    comprehensive master plan.
        The second portion is, in terms of the building that is
    occurring now, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission
    (BRAC) has funded us completely for new construction, and
    that's been fine, and that's worked well. BRAC, as you know,
    did not fund any renovation. And the problems that have
    occurred have been that we're building a wonderful and state-
    of-the-art facility, but we're attaching it to a 1982
    constructed building. It's a very good building, it's a very
    fine building; but it's 2010, so it's a building from another
    era. The renovation that is going to occur was not part of the
    BRAC funding, so Navy has taken that up, and we are working
    hard and will fund the renovation.
        Sequencing it and getting it all done is the major element
    now, because we don't think that we will be able to get all of
    the renovation done by the opening date of September 2011 at
    the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. We do not
    feel that that will decrease the timeline on the opening of the
    new medical center, but we do think that there will be more
    work to be done on the renovation side of the building.
        And the third thing is, there are many definitions that are
    now running around regarding what makes the proper facilities
    commitment and what makes the proper ``world-class''--which is
    the word I'm getting to--there are many definitions of what
    that could be, and I'm not sure exactly what that means.
        In terms of quality of care, in terms of satisfaction with
    care, in terms of ability to give care comprehensively, we
    already feel that we are at a world-class level. If ``world-
    class'' is defined from a facilities point of view, that means
    square footage of operating rooms or square footage of single-
    family or single-patient rooms, then there will be more work
    that has to be done.
        I think that that definition of ``world-class'' needs to be
    placed in a very careful place, because ``world-class'' at the
    National Naval Medical Center or Walter Reed National Military
    Medical Center will automatically be translated to ``world-
    class'' in the military health system for Army, for Air Force,
    for Navy, and that will be CONUS and OCONUS facilities. So, I
    think that how we define ``world-class'' can't be defined just
    for one facility, it's going to need to be defined for the MHS.
    Keeping that in mind as we do this, I think, is important.
        Chairman Inouye. In terms of dollars, how much is involved?
        Admiral Robinson. Sir, at this point, the buildings--and,
    forgive me, I don't do this on a daily basis, but I think we're
    at the $1.5 billion level, in terms of facilities, but I think
    that the addition that will be needed is truly unclear at this
    moment. The additional funding that we--that is being talked
    about by the JTF CAPMED is in the $800 million range, but I
    don't think that that is a number that--I don't think that is
    the end number, and I don't think--I don't know the analysis
    behind that number. So, unfortunately, I'm not able to give you
    a very good answer regarding that.
        Chairman Inouye. May I request that, for the record, a
    detailed response be made?
        Admiral Robinson. Yes, sir, we'll do that.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Admiral Robinson. You're welcome.
        [The information follows:]

        To carry out the 2005 BRAC law, JTF CAPMED was established
    to oversee the realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical Center
    to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in
    Bethesda and Fort Belvoir Community Hospital. JTF CAPMED
    reports to the Secretary of Defense through the Deputy
    Secretary of Defense. Due to the alignment of JTF CAPMED as an
    independent DOD entity, Navy Medicine does not direct JTF
    CAPMED on construction or other priorities, nor are we planning
    for future operation and maintenance requirements, since that
    by definition belongs to JTF CAPMED. These emerging priorities
    and requirements are driven by many things, all of which are
    outside Navy Medicine's budget process. As part of our mission
    to ensure that our Wounded Warriors receive the care they need
    and deserve, Navy Medicine is in regular communication with JTF
    CAPMED and continues to provide support as necessary. Because
    of this regular communication Navy Medicine is aware of the
    unique challenges facing JTF CAPMED, to include the projected
    increase of financial requirements. However, specific details
    of these challenges or the financial requirements cannot be
    defined or defended by Navy Medicine.

        Chairman Inouye. And now, General Green, on the matter of
    recruiting and retaining, we have noted that, for example, in
    medical schools today, about one-half of the graduates are
    women, but, on an average throughout the services--in the
    Medical Corps, I think it's 72 percent men and 28 percent
    women. And it's the same thing in the Dental Corps; it's about
    75-25. Is a special effort being made to recruit women, or is
    that part of culture?
        General Green. Sir, we have looked at many avenues to try
    and increase our attractiveness to women graduating from
    medical school. Many times, it comes up to, as they look at
    life choices and raising a family, concerns over time away from
    that family, et cetera, play into this. And so, one of the
    things that we've been looking at is whether we could do
    something with the Reserves, which would allow people to come
    on Active Duty, basically pay back a portion of their
    commitment, and, as some life-changing event occurred, could
    there be a way to let them go into a Reserve commitment for a
    period of time, and then come back to us on Active Duty? These
    things have many implications regarding how a career is managed
    and whether or not they can be competitive with others, to make
    certain that we do not limit them in any way in their career
    planning.
        And so, we have done some research, actually gone out and
    talked with medical schools, looked at reasons why we have not
    been attractive. And, for the most part, it is not that our
    scholarships are not attractive to these folks, it's not that
    we don't have very successful scholarship programs, it has to
    do with concerns over lifestyle and the ability to adjust to
    things like childbirth, marriage, and changes in their own
    personal situation.
        And so, we'll continue to very actively try and attract
    those folks. We realize that more than 50 percent of medical
    school graduates now are women, and we very much want to bring
    them in; we simply have not yet found a way to make ourselves
    attractive and change those percentages that you have quoted to
    us, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. How would you rate our retention and
    recruiting? Excellent? Good? Fair?
        General Green. We have taken a different approach in the
    Air Force. As you know, we did not have a great deal of success
    in bringing in fully qualified, and so, we decided to move
    dollars from our recruiting into scholarship programs, and have
    significantly increased the scholarships that we are offering.
        We have done very well. We have three areas that we are
    having troubles right now; in particular, it's with
    psychologists, oral surgeons, and pharmacists. And so, we are
    hoping to offer some more scholarships in those lines.
        When we go after people who are interested in pursuing
    education, we find that we have always been able to fill nearly
    100 percent. We had one year where we were at 98 percent.
    Whereas, when we went after fully qualified, we frequently were
    not able to get even one-half of what we were trying to
    achieve.
        With our nurses this year, with the changes we've made in
    recruiting, we have seen a decrease in our ability to bring
    nurses in. Whereas, the other two services, in their
    recruiting, have brought in, I believe, very close to 100
    percent of their nurses that they need, this year we were only
    able to bring in about 81 percent.
        Now, our nurse manning statistics are good. We're sitting
    at about 90 percent. And our efforts have shifted again to try
    and use the enlisted to nursing, and we're going to be bringing
    in about 50 enlisted members per year, which we think will fill
    the gap.
        I will let General Siniscalchi talk a little bit as to some
    of the things that we're also doing to establish relationships
    with the nursing schools to show the benefits of an Air Force
    career.
        I don't think that we're falling behind, in terms of our
    changes in how we approach recruiting, but some of the efforts,
    in terms of the scholarships and things, have long tails. As
    you know, to graduate a physician--I'll use a family
    physician--4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency.
    And so, from the time they take the scholarship to the time we
    see them coming out is about 7 years. And so, we are very
    interested in maintaining our ability to bring in fully
    qualified. We are leveraging the special pays and authorities
    that you have given us, to make certain that we can bring in
    people who are interested in an Air Force career.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        General Schoomaker and Admiral Robinson, for the record,
    will you submit a paper on recruiting and retention?
        Admiral Robinson. Yes, sir.
        General Schoomaker. Absolutely, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        The Army Medical Department is experiencing shortages in certain
    specialties and in certain locations. However, despite the persistent
    deployment tempo, the national shortage of many healthcare disciplines,
    and the compensation gap between military and civilian providers, the
    Army is doing well recruiting and retaining healthcare providers.
    Recruiting and retention authorities and bonuses are working, but we
    need to maintain constant vigilance.
        The most difficult skill sets to recruit and retain are fully
    qualified physicians with surgical or primary care specialties,
    dentists (general and specialty), behavioral health professionals, and
    nurse anesthetists. According to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command
    (USAREC), one of the greatest challenges in the recruitment of health
    professionals is simply a lack of awareness of military medicine in
    general and Army Medicine in particular. In an attempt to alleviate
    this challenge, USAREC is adopting a strategy of increased marketing of
    the benefits of Army Medicine.
        Mission success within the active force continues to rely on
    recruitment into our student programs. The world-class training
    programs offered by the Army Medical Department are critical to
    recruiting and retaining providers. Graduates of Army medical training
    programs enjoy a first-time board pass rate well above the national
    average.
        The Critical Skills Accession Bonus granted by Congress has been
    fundamental in turning around recruitment into the Health Professions
    Scholarship Program. In fiscal year 2009, we were able to recruit 103
    percent of mission for dental students, 103 percent of Veterinary Corps
    recruiting missions, and 93 percent for medical students. These are
    significant increases from previous fiscal years and will be the
    building blocks for the future force.
        The Active Duty Health Professions Loan Repayment program has been
    very successful with 256 officers participating and receiving up to
    $44,000 annually. The average continuation rate of healthcare personnel
    (the percentage of personnel who, at their first opportunity to leave
    service, choose to remain) has averaged 92.5 percent over the last 5
    years, peaking at 93.7 percent in 2009. Health Professions Special Pays
    are a key element in the retention of health professions. The new
    Consolidated Special Authority authorized by Congress provides
    increased flexibility for which we are grateful. We must continue to
    make full use of the recruiting and retention authorities and bonuses
    provided by Congress if we are to maintain strong recruiting and
    retention. Our experience over the last decade has proven that
    incentives, bonuses, and special pays work.
        Recruiting for Navy Medical Department active duty is good to very
    good. Navy Medicine recruiting efforts have been successful the past
    few years in making overall goal for all Corps in fiscal year 2008 and
    fiscal year 2009. Active Duty recruiting is projected to meet or exceed
    fiscal year 2010 goals with fiscal year 2010 recruiting performance
    outpacing the fiscal year 2009 effort. There continues to be difficulty
    in directly accessing wartime specialties and medical specialties that
    are highly compensated in the civilian sector.
        Retention for Navy Medical Department active duty is fair to good.
    Retention has stabilized over the past years due to increased retention
    bonuses. The overall loss rate for the officer corps was approximately
    9 percent. The following provides a short synopsis of each of the
    Corps' issues.
    Medical Corps
        We continue to experience difficulty in recruiting mental health
    providers, possibly due to the increased demand in the civilian sector.
        Recruiting and retaining general surgeons, preventive medicine,
    occupational medicine, family medicine, and psychiatrists will remain a
    challenge over the next 5 years. Wartime demand, perceived inequities
    in pay comparability between military and civilian providers, and
    limited student pipelines are contributing factors.
    Dental Corps
        Dental Corps has difficulty directly accessing and retaining oral
    surgeons and general dentists because of the pay gap between military
    and civilian compensation. A general dentist pay package offering
    significant compensation increases is currently routing through DOD.
    Additionally, the DOD Health Professions Incentive Working Group will
    be recommending a $20,000 per year increase in incentive special pay
    for oral surgeons in fiscal year 2011.
    Medical Service Corps
        High operational commitments are affecting retention for physician
    assistants, clinical psychologists and social workers. The new
    accession and retention bonuses recently approved should have a
    positive impact on these specialties.
        Recruiting for clinical psychologists, podiatrists, and pharmacists
    is difficult because of the perceived inequities in pay comparability
    between military and civilian providers.
    Nurse Corps
        High operational commitments are affecting retention in all of
    Navy's nurse practitioner specialties.
        Current initiatives in place to retain these critically manned/high
    OPTEMPO communities include RN Incentive Special Pay, Health
    Professional Loan Repayment Program, and a progressive Duty Under
    Instruction (DUINS) program for which officers are eligible after the
    first permanent duty station.
    Hospital Corps
        The Hospital Corps has been very successful at both recruiting and
    retaining corpsman.

        General Schoomaker. If I could just make one comment----
        Chairman Inouye. Sure.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. From the earlier
    discussion about the recruiting bonuses.

                         RECRUITING CIVILIAN PROVIDERS

        Army medicine is 60 percent civilian. I--for people who
    might be listening or reading this account, I'd very much like
    to encourage people who are looking for a career as a civilian
    in the medical services of the uniformed services, to come and
    look at us, to include women who might be looking at--we're
    experimenting and looking at the potential for job-sharing
    around a single position, split between, you know, multiple
    civilian physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, and the
    like.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        General Green, I was noticing a newspaper report discussing
    a medical group at Keesler Air Force Base, in Biloxi,
    Mississippi, assembling to provide emergency medical service in
    Chile for the victims of the earthquake there. And the numbers
    of people who are being treated by this special unit that's
    flown from our State is in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 5,000
    people, and making available care from the Medical Support
    Squadron that was based in Biloxi, Mississippi.
        Have you had any recent report? This is a 2- or 3-day-old
    report from a newspaper at--the Biloxi Sun Herald in
    Mississippi.
        General Green. Sir, that team went to Wilford Hall. They
    aggregated with their equipment in San Antonio, and left, I
    believe, late yesterday, are expected to arrive in Chile today.
    They will be working very closely with the Chileans, in terms
    of trying to decompress healthcare issues that arise whenever
    the healthcare infrastructure has been damaged. We built our
    EMEDS-25, which is the unit that's gone down there, based on
    the number of patients that they can actually see. That
    particular unit that has gone to Chile is an EMEDS-25. I
    believe it's just over 65 medical folks, and another 20 to 30
    support people, that basically help with water and electricity
    and making sure the hospital has all of its needs met.
        The intent is for them to augment the Chilean system. We'll
    work hand-in-hand with the Chilean doctors. And they will
    probably, I would guess--before the end of their deployment,
    probably see in the neighborhood of between 3,000 and 10,000
    patients.
        We maintain a robust supply channel to get that to them.
    And you may wonder, How do you see so many patients with so
    few? And the answer is that, when you're working hand-in-hand
    with a host nation a lot is possible. As long as you have a
    good logistics chain and the ability to move patients back into
    the host-nation hospital, we find that we have tremendous
    capabilities. And these have been used both here in the States
    and overseas.
        Keesler did a superb job of mobilizing their people in less
    than 24 hours from the time they were notified. And a very
    excited group from Mississippi have gone to do this important
    work for our country.
        Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate that. And it's very
    impressive to contemplate the amount of work and effort that
    went into this, mobilizing the people, getting everything
    organized and--it's not just a drive to the neighborhood; it's
    a long way to Chile. And it's really remarkable, I think. And
    you're to be congratulated, I think, as a service; and the Air
    Force personnel who are at Keesler, and those who are
    volunteering to make this trip, really deserve our highest
    praise and commendation.
        General Green. Thank you, sir, I'll pass that to Brigadier
    General Dan Wyman, our Commander down there.
        Senator Cochran. Well, thank you.
        I wonder, just as a general proposition, the extent to
    which our services are able to recruit and retain qualified
    medical personnel to provide healthcare services. When I was in
    the Navy, we had one medical doctor aboard our ship, a heavy
    cruiser. And I was impressed, though, by the corpsmen, who
    really make up the bulk of the people who do the work and
    provide healthcare services at sea like that, when you're a
    long way from anywhere. They really do a marvelous job,
    sometimes with emergencies. I have to admit, I wasn't in a
    military conflict when I was in the Navy. Some of the ports we
    visited might have thought we were in a military conflict,
    but----
        Anyway, what is your assessment right now of our ability to
    retain and train competent people to do these very important
    jobs?
        General Schoomaker. Is that directed to me, sir?
        Senator Cochran. Yes, sir.
        General Schoomaker. To the Army?
        Senator Cochran. Right.

                             VALUE OF COMBAT MEDICS

        General Schoomaker. First of all, let me just make a
    comment, that I'm really pleased that you recognize. A lot of
    people don't recognize the central role that our enlisted
    medics play in this. The second largest military occupational
    specialist--the only larger population is that of infantrymen,
    11 Bravos--is the combat medic, the 68 Whiskey. In fact,
    yesterday, we held a ceremony down in San Antonio, where my
    headquarters is, with--attended by five of my predecessors,
    Surgeons General, including now--former Secretary Jim Peake,
    who was the Surgeon General of the Army before that, and who
    conceived of the need to better train our medics.
        We now have the 68 Whiskey program--very highly trained
    medics. And, frankly, much of what my colleagues and I have
    talked about, in terms of success on the battlefield, is owed
    to our medics. Whether they're Navy corpsmen, who are serving
    with marines, or our Air Force medics, these kids are just
    amazing human beings who have--who are truly heroic.
        So, I appreciate that you recognized that, and the role
    that they play.

                       RECRUITING AND RETAINING OFFICERS

        As far as recruiting and retaining other officer-level
    specialties, we're doing quite well, sir. We had--especially in
    the Nurse Corps and the Medical Corps, the physicians and
    nurses--some difficult years in the past, but last year,
    physician recruitment, through our Health Profession
    Scholarship Program, which is one of the centerpieces of that
    program, of bringing in kids interested in going to medical
    schools under scholarships from the military, has been very
    successful. That program is absolutely essential to us. It's--
    in the Army, it's well funded, both for the Active as well as
    the Reserve component of it. And we're seeing the products of
    it.
        Our graduate health education, and specifically physician
    graduate education programs, and our nurse graduate programs, I
    think are essential for retention of those high quality people.
    If we didn't have those programs, frankly, I don't think we
    would be doing as well as we do, because we recruit
    successfully through the scholarship programs or loan repayment
    programs, but we retain them through offering to them some of
    the very best training programs for physicians and nurses that
    exists anywhere in the country.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral Robinson, I didn't mean to
    overlook your opportunity of serving the Navy in the position
    you do. We appreciate your service. And I--what is your
    reaction to that same question?
        Admiral Robinson. Senator Cochran, thanks very much.
        First of all, the corpsmen are the backbone of Navy
    medicine. And you noted that--one doctor on your ship, but
    there were more--there were probably several corpsmen. Today,
    in our submarine force and surface force, independent-duty
    corpsmen very often are department heads for the medical
    departments. So, we actually count on these men and women to
    give first-rate medical care at sea to a large number of our
    forces. And they are qualified to do that, and they do a good
    job, and have been doing that for the last 50 years. So, it's
    not a new program; it's something that we've had in place, and
    we need to continue.
        The 8,404 corpsmen, who are corpsmen with the Marine Corps,
    do an outstanding job, both from integrating with the marines,
    but also from taking care of marines and people in harm's way.
    And, unfortunately, the largest number of casualties and
    mortalities that we have in Navy medicine over the course of
    the last many years actually is a result of the death of 8,404
    corpsmen, my corpsmen who are with the Marine Corps.
        So, the point is that the sacrifice and the bravery and the
    quality of the care that the men and women who are corpsmen and
    who are enlisted medics give is a testimony to the mortality/
    morbidity rates coming out of theater, out of the battlefield,
    and also testimony to en route care, to the surgical care, to
    the care that's received at Landstuhl, and the care that's
    received here. So, it's a continuum of care that starts with
    that combat medic, with that corpsman on the battlefield,
    that's able to reach out and actually do an effective job.
        And recruitment and retention--Navy medicine, I think I
    almost will parallel completely what General Schoomaker said.
    We've had some poor years, but recently we have had good
    recruiting and retention numbers on the Active component side
    of our physicians. We are down in family practice, general
    surgery, in terms of critical specialties that we need more of,
    and also psychiatry, mental health, but we are doing a great
    job, and I feel very happy that the Health Profession
    Scholarship Program and several of our other programs are back
    up and are actually producing quite well.
        On the Reserve side, there are some challenges that we're
    having, and I think that the challenges--we've looked at this,
    and I think the challenges in the medical recruiting portion
    may be related to how we changed the recruiting several years;
    instead of having an Active component and a Reserve component
    recruiter, we put the recruiters together. And I think that, at
    that point, as soon as the Active component member was
    obtained, as it were, I don't know if the emphasis was put on
    the Reserve component. We separated that out again, and we're
    going to look at this very hard, but I think we're going to see
    an uptick in the Reserve component recruiting that's occurring.
        That's something that's on my radar screen, but right now,
    recruitment and retention in medical is all right--and I don't
    want to overplay this--we're looking hard, but it's okay, and
    it's better than it's been in the last several years.
        Senator Cochran. Great. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        This hearing really does come at a critical time. We're in
    the seventh year in Iraq, and are increasing our operations in
    Afghanistan. And the Department of Defense continues to see our
    returning members come home with both visible and invisible
    wounds of war.
        I know that you've all made a lot of progress, but we know
    our job's not finished. We need to make sure that all of our
    members and their families have access to healthcare at all
    times, and we can't forget to--our wounded warriors, our
    reservists, National Guard and Active Duty servicemembers, as
    they transition back to civilian life, and make sure that we're
    meeting all their needs.
        To that end, I wanted to ask you specifically about the
    National Guard and Reserves. They've been called on a number of
    times to support us, and they're coming home to some real
    hardships, with the economy that is very difficult for all of
    us, but particularly for them. Some of them come home to no
    jobs when they're released from Active Duty, and healthcare
    becomes an issue for them, as well.
        In some cases, the returning National Guard and Reserve
    soldiers have to live off limited savings or their drill pay to
    support their families. And, you know, that contributes to
    greater mental health stress for them. So, I'm very worried
    about how we're dealing with this right now.
        And I wanted to ask all of you what kind of efforts are
    currently underway to improve access to mental healthcare
    during the dwell period for our National Guard and Reserve.
        Open it up to any of you who'd like to comment.

                    MENTAL HEALTHCARE FOR RESERVE COMPONENT

        General Schoomaker. First of all, ma'am, we share with you
    the concern about the strain on the Active--the Army National
    Guard and the Reserves. This period of transformation for the
    Army, as you know, has been a transition from the reliance on
    our Reserves as a strategic reserve poised to be mobilized in
    the event of a strategic threat to the Nation on a large scale,
    to one of an operational reserve, where they are very much
    involved in continuous operations and mobilization and
    deployment.
        Our first goal, across the board, in terms of health,
    dental, mental, and physical care, is at separation and
    demobilization, to fully explore what problems--and, in the
    case of dental health, to restore dental health; in the case of
    behavioral health problems, to comprehensively evaluate how the
    soldier is doing. And, I think, in the National Guard and
    Reserves, we still have a way to go with that.
        Our Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Chiarelli,
    last year, recognized that access to healthcare for the
    National Guard and Reserve, who tend to live in sites remote
    from our installations and in the heartland, often in rural
    areas, does not have the access to care, even under TRICARE,
    that we would like. And we have a--he chartered, through Army
    medicine, a task force, co-chaired by Major General Rich Stone,
    in the Army Reserves, and Major General Deborah Wheeling, in
    the National Guard, to bring together leaders in TRICARE,
    leaders in the managed-care support contracts across the
    country, and for all--from all the State's Guards and others,
    to identify our problems in getting access to care, and to
    improve that. And that's a work in progress, ma'am, but we
    share your concerns.
        Senator Murray. Well, particularly now. These Guard and
    Reserve members are coming home; many of them are living at or
    below the poverty line, including their drill pay, and they
    just--they don't have a job and they don't have health
    insurance. I know we take care of them prior to deployment. I
    think it's 6 months prior to deployment, they get healthcare.
    But, they come home, and they don't have anything during dwell
    time. You're going to call them up again, you know, in a year
    or two, and that becomes both a recruitment issue for you, but
    it's also a real hardship on their families. And what are we
    doing to look at that?
        General Schoomaker. I think the first thing that we've been
    working on with you all is an extended benefit through TRICARE
    Reserve Select and other forms of TRICARE coverage, to reduce
    the benefit--excuse me--reduce the premium load on National
    Guard and reservists----
        Senator Murray. During dwell time.
        General Schoomaker. Yes, ma'am--so that they can get access
    to care. There's no question that----
        Senator Murray. So, is it an issue of budget or is it an
    issue of policy? What is it that----
        General Schoomaker. I think it's a combination of things.
    It's focus from Commanders. We've got Reserve component
    National Guard and Reserve commanders now focusing more on
    their soldiers' comprehensive health benefits when they're in
    dwell, and putting emphasis on that. It's choices you've
    outlined, yourself, ma'am, that when a soldier has a limited
    budget, and part of that is even for a modest premium for a
    TRICARE benefit, they often choose not to do that. And,
    frankly, as you know, young people often kind of take risk that
    they're not going to run into health problems, and so, they
    forego health benefits, for that reason. And I think, more and
    more, we're emphasizing the importance and the need for them to
    retain their medical and dental readiness, even in dwell.

                          NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES

        Senator Murray. Well, I think it's a policy that we need to
    look at and really focus on. We're a long ways into the war in
    Iraq, and, with a lot of returning soldiers, we know that's
    going to go on for some time, particularly in Afghanistan, and
    I'm very concerned about that, so I hope we can explore that.
        Does anybody else have a comment on that issue?
        Admiral.
        Admiral Robinson. Senator Murray, I think that the TRICARE
    Reserve Select is part of the answer. And that benefit, if I'm
    not mistaken, has been extended to the Reserve forces, because,
    certainly, the beneficiary numbers in the TRICARE system have
    increased, and I think part of that increase is that.
        The second thing is that--and this is only for 180 days--
    it's only for 6 months, but the Active Duty, Reserve members
    that are coming off of Active Duty can still be covered, and
    their families can be covered with TRICARE for that 180-day
    period.
        So, marrying those two with the Reserve Select program and
    the 180 days can be of some benefit, in terms of getting the
    care that they need.
        In terms of the mental health coverage, on the Navy side
    the psychological--the Reserve Psychological Outreach Program
    and the Reserve Psychological Outreach Teams, which consists of
    about 24 to 25 social workers, are doing a good job of going to
    the Navy Operational Reserve Centers--the NOSCs are what
    they're called--and they have actually been reaching out to
    just under about 20,000 to 25,000 people. They have seen 1,700
    people and referred people to mental health coverage. It's a
    small part, but it's the increased focus on getting out into
    the heartland areas, the areas away from the medical centers,
    and also taking care of----
        Senator Murray. Yup.
        Admiral Robinson [continuing]. Those people, who aren't
    seen regularly.
        Senator Murray. Right. But, we've been talking about this
    for a long time, so I'm frustrated that we're not doing better
    than we are today.
        Admiral Robinson. We are doing better, but we're not doing
    all that we need to do. I would frame it in, in that direction.
        Senator Murray. And I agree. I think that's fair. But,
    we're--we still have a big problem out there.
        Admiral Robinson. Yes, ma'am, we do.
        Senator Murray. General.
        General Green. I think all the services share in their
    medical continuation, in terms of any problems that are
    identified from their deployments. We also all have the same
    survey systems that are applied, regardless--Active Duty,
    Reserve, or Guard--with the post-deployment surveys and the
    PDHRAs at about 6 months. We're looking for any problems that
    may have developed in the interim.
        The medical continuation is one of those things where any
    problem that looks like it's associated with deployment, that
    they need to remain on Active Duty, we try and get that
    resolved by extending their orders and keeping them there. And
    the TRICARE Reserve Select is available to them for 6 months
    post.
        We also have programs that haven't been mentioned here such
    as the Yellow Ribbon Program----
        Senator Murray. Right.
        General Green [continuing]. That are designed to try and
    help people find services and to ensure that they're getting
    some assistance. We're looking--the Army, in--particularly, is
    looking at some telemental-health, in terms of how we can also
    be of assistance that way. And all the services are looking at
    these things because we see some of the gaps that you see, and
    are trying to close those gaps as best we can.
        Senator Murray. Okay. General Schoomaker, I wanted to ask
    you about the issue of suicides.
        In January of this year, the Army released information that
    there were 160 suicides of Active Duty soldiers in 2009, 140 in
    2008. For Reserve soldiers, you reported 78 suicides; 2009, 57.
    That increase in military suicides is really disturbing to me.
    And I think we need to be doing everything we can to make sure
    that we identify and mitigate the issues that are leading up to
    these unfortunate incidences. I wanted to ask you, What
    measures or programs has the Department of Defense instituted
    to mitigate future suicides? And what are we doing out there?

                               SUICIDE PREVENTION

        General Schoomaker. Ma'am, I think all the services, but
    certainly the Army, shares with you the concern that we've had
    about suicides. We've seen an increase, over the last 5 or 6
    years, from a suicide rate within the Army that roughly was
    one-half of the benchmark, you know, age- and gender-adjusted
    statistics in the civilian sector, to one that now has risen to
    be almost in parallel with. It's hard to tell, in the civilian
    sector, because the civilian-sector numbers that are released
    by the Centers for Disease Control are 2 years after the fact,
    so we won't see 2009 statistics until 2011. But, this is a--
    this is an issue which the highest levels of the Army have
    taken responsibility for. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
    has chartered a task force. For the past year, they've looked
    very, very carefully at all factors across----
        Senator Murray. Is this the National Institutes of Health
    study?
        General Schoomaker. No, ma'am, that's actually an
    additional piece of this. The STARRS program--the acronym for
    which I just blocked--but, the STARRS program is a $50 million,
    5-year program that the Secretary of the Army chartered last
    year--with the National Institutes of Health, with University
    of Michigan, with Johns Hopkins--looking very carefully at all
    of the factors--what's been described as a Framingham Study
    that was done in Framingham, Massachusetts, beginning in the
    1940s, looking at the risk factors for heart disease, and has
    changed our whole approach, nationally, to public health
    measures around heart disease. The same methodology is now
    being applied to suicide and suicide prevention.
        But, within the Army itself, we're very actively looking at
    all of the factors that go into this rising suicide rate. There
    is no one single factor we can put our finger on. Roughly one-
    third of our suicides occur in people who have never deployed
    at all. Roughly one-third occur in soldiers who are downrange
    and deployed. And one-third are in those that have deployed
    once or twice within the last several years.
        And the one transcendent factor that we seem to have, if
    there's any one that's associated with it, is fractured
    relationships of some sort, either a broken marriage, a
    girlfriend/boyfriend, even a relationship that might have been
    forged with the Army itself, as a very tight association a
    soldier made may develop, and then maybe does something that
    gets him administratively punished or, you know, nonjudicial
    punishment, and they go out and kill themselves. And so, we're
    looking at all of those related factors--alcohol and drug abuse
    that may be associated with it--because this is an impulsive
    act, frequently lubricated by alcohol or drugs, and we are, as
    an Army, very, very focused on how we can improve it.
        At the Department level, there's a task force that has been
    chartered by the Secretary. In fact, Major General Phil Volpe,
    one of my physicians, is a co-chair of that task force, right
    now is looking at DOD-wide programs and how we can, in a
    unified way, take efforts to prevent suicide and better
    understand it.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would like to work with all
    of you and, you know, have a--get as much information as
    possible. If we need to be doing more, in terms of support
    services, outreach, whatever, I think we really need to focus
    on that issue.

                            MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS

        General Schoomaker. Yes, ma'am, we welcome it.
        Senator Murray. Air Force or Navy, either one of you want
    to comment on what your services are doing to promote mental
    health awareness or--are either of you doing studies, long
    term, on this?
        Admiral Robinson. Studies, I cannot answer. I can tell you
    that, in terms of the awareness and in terms of trying to do
    education and training, trying to make sure that we make this
    an imperative and a leadership imperative for all of our
    Commanders, making sure that we decrease the stigma of getting
    mental healthcare, which has been quite pervasive and is really
    a deterrent to people who need to get care, and also to the
    establishment in our operational stress programs, both in
    combat, but also--I'm talking--not in combat, now; I'm talking
    about operational stress--in noncombat situations, and also our
    caregivers' operational stress programs, because they often are
    under a great deal of stress--making sure that we have primary
    care members--and a great deal of the mental healthcare that is
    given to individuals, around the country, but certainly in the
    services, is given by family practitioners and primary health
    providers, and making sure that they have training and that
    they understand what is going on.
        The dependent--the Deployment Health Clinics, the 17 that
    we have in the Navy, about one-third of the people that are
    coming in are coming in for mental health issues. And the nice
    thing is, no one knows why you're going into that clinic, but
    we have embedded psychiatrists, psychologists, and primary care
    members in that clinic, so you can be referred immediately and
    talk to someone, and get the care that you need.
        I think, also, one additional thing, and that is the ACT
    Program, that we take to the deckplates, as we say; and that
    is, each man and woman, each person, each shipmate, can do the
    ACT. The ``Ask,'' ``Are you thinking about harming yourself?''
    The ``C'' is the ``Care,'' the care to say, ``I think you need
    some help. I think you need to see a chaplain. I think you need
    to go someplace.'' And then, the ``T'' part is the ``Treat,''
    and that is to actually make sure that people get to that
    level.
        The continuum of care that we try to give indicates that
    everyone--every person in the Navy, civilian and Active Duty,
    in war and out of war--is responsible for their shipmate and is
    responsible--we're responsible for one another.
        Senator Murray. General Green.
        General Green. The Air Force, since 1997, has had a very
    successful Suicide Prevention Program, basically focused on 11
    suicide prevention initiatives, most of that focused on very
    close focus by leadership, in terms of getting our wingman
    program out and making certain that everyone understands that
    this is not acceptable. With those 11 suicide prevention
    initiatives, we were actually able to decrease our rate below
    10, for probably 5 to 7 years--10 per 100,000. Over the last 3
    years, we have seen slight increases back to about our 1997
    rate. We are also trying to reinvigorate our program. Actually,
    we work very closely together across the services to do that.
        We do have one study that the Air Force has funded,
    different than the others, because we were very interested, in
    particular, with civilian suicides, because of some events that
    have been happening that have made the news out at Hill Air
    Force Base. And so, we had the RAND Corporation look at some of
    our initiatives out there to try and create a first-sergeant
    equivalent, people who could be there and be kind of initial
    capability to help civilians find assistance in an area that
    did not have all the mental health support that it needed. And
    then, we've also put, in our occupational clinics out there, a
    mental health social worker to try and assist with some of
    that.
        We did also identify that we have about three times the
    rate of the rest of the Air Force in two career fields, in
    security forces and in intel career fields. We are taking a
    very targeted approach with those career fields to try and do
    face-to-face interventions with much smaller groups, using some
    of our video vignettes, similar to that used in our computer-
    based training. We are also mandating those front-line
    supervisors will receive specific suicide training.
        Because our program's been in place since 1997, it is in
    our PME schools, it is in our basic training schools. And so, I
    think we'll continue to have success. Our rates are probably
    about--not quite one-half of what the other services are. But,
    we believe our programs are still valid, and we're just
    emphasizing and trying to focus them where we see problems.
        Senator Murray. Okay. I really appreciate all of your focus
    and attention on this. I think it's extremely important.
        And I know I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, and you've been
    generous.
        I do want to submit some questions for the record.
        One, in particular, that I want to hear back from all of
    you on is what we're doing for children of servicemembers
    today. We have a lot of families out there who have sacrificed
    a heck of a lot in a very tough economic climate, and I know
    who bears the brunt often is the kids of those families, and
    I'd like to hear back from each one of you what you are doing
    uniquely with our families and what we, as Congress, ought to
    be doing, or can be doing, to better support the children of
    the members of our services.

                        SUPPORTING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

        General Schoomaker. Yes, ma'am. We would love the--to
    participate in that. As you know, one of the centers of this is
    in your State, at Madigan Army Medical Center. It's one of our
    centers for outreach for children.
        Ma'am, if I might, real quickly, append the record just to
    say, before I get hate mail from my colleagues at Uniformed
    Services University of the Health Sciences, one of the pivotal
    players in this landmark study on suicide, the 5-year, $50
    million study with the National Institutes of Mental Health is
    the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Dr. Bob
    Ursano, who is really heading up this project.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Look forward to hearing much from
    that.
        Admiral.
        Admiral Robinson. Senator Murray, for your children--and
    this isn't a complete answer, but a short one, because it
    actually came from this hearing, 2 years ago, but the FOCUS
    Program--Families Over Coming Under Stress--which was
    originally started with Navy in very small groups of mainly
    Special Ops families who had had such an intense OPTEMPO. And
    we have now seen some really excellent results with that
    program, in terms of marriage, counseling. I can't say that all
    the marriages are successful, but there's been a reduced rate
    of divorce, there's been a reduced rate of children involved in
    drugs and in other acting-out behaviors. It's a program that's
    focused on spouse and children, and it's been very successful.
    And it's being incorporated, now, into not only Navy, but also
    Army and Air Force.
        Senator Murray. I'd like to get a briefing on that, if you
    could tell me what you're doing and how it's working----
        Admiral Robinson. Certainly.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. And what some of your
    statistics are. That would be great.
        Admiral Robinson. I'll be happy to do that.
        [The information follows:]
    Project FOCUS (Families Over Coming Under Stress) Outcome Metrics
        FOCUS has demonstrated that a family-centered targeted prevention
    program is feasible and effective for military families. Utilizing
    national and local partnerships, community outreach, and flexible and
    family friendly skills-based approach, FOCUS has successfully initiated
    a resiliency training program in collaboration with the military
    community. FOCUS has demonstrated that a strength-based approach to
    building child and family resiliency skills is well received by service
    members and their family members reflected in high satisfaction
    ratings. Notably, program participation has resulted in significant
    increases in family and child positive coping and significant
    reductions in parent and child distress over time, suggesting longer-
    term benefits for military family wellness. Standardization in program
    implementation provides the foundation for FOCUS program implementation
    and sustainability to support larger scale dissemination.
    Current Service Metrics
        Total all FOCUS Services to date at all sites: 92,000.
      --Navy: 40,000 (services began March 2008).
      --Marine Corps: 50,000 (services began March 2008).
      --Army: 2,000 (services began November 2009).
      --Air Force: 600 (services began November 2009).
        Specific outcomes of program interventions as measured by validated
    and standard metrics used in psychological health surveys are:
      --Pre- and post-intervention levels of overall psychosocial
            functioning of program participants (both adults and children),
            suggest a significant improvement. The statistical level of
            significance is p < .001 level.
      --Pre- and post-intervention levels of general emotional stress
            suggest a significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and
            somatic complaints on the part of adult care givers. The
            statistical level of significance is p < .01.
      --Change scores on 6 dimensions of family functioning were found to
            be highly significant at the p < .0001 level of statistical
            significance. This suggests a marked level of improvement
            across areas such as behavior control, problem solving,
            communication, affective involvement and responsiveness, and
            general level of family functioning.
        Project FOCUS surveyed both parents and child participants and
    found a high level of overall satisfaction with FOCUS services. The
    average of all respondents on levels of satisfaction is reported below.
    A rating of 7 was the highest possible rating: 6.54 for ``program was
    very helpful''; 6.59 for consumers being ``very satisfied''; and 6.73
    for consumers who would ``recommended the program to others''.
        In summary, since Project FOCUS has been in operation, ongoing and
    multiple assessments of program effectiveness have repeatedly shown
    that the program is worthy of being viewed as a model program for
    military families.

        Senator Murray. Very good.
        Admiral Robinson. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        General Schoomaker, Admiral Robinson, and General Green, I
    thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. And we'll now listen to the second panel,
    a very important one.
        I'd like to welcome back Major General Patricia Horoho,
    Chief of the U.S. Army Nurse's Corps; and Major General
    Kimberly Siniscalchi, Assistant Air Force Surgeon General for
    Nursing Services; and I'd also like to extend a special welcome
    and congratulations to the newly appointed Director of the Navy
    Nurse Corps, Rear Admiral Karen Flaherty.
        I'd like to also extend my congratulations to General
    Horoho for being selected to serve as U.S. Army Deputy Surgeon
    General and also as the Nurse Corps Chief.
        As all of you know, I did have the privilege of serving in
    the Army, and spent about 20 months in various hospitals. And
    at that time, I saw the doctor about once a week, and the
    nurses 24 hours, 7 days a week. And, as a result, I looked upon
    them as special angels, in my case. They helped prepare me to
    get back into life.
        Today, you have patients with problems that did not exist
    in World War II. For example, in my regiment, with all the
    casualties, there wasn't a single survivor of double
    amputation, no survivor of brain injuries. But, these are
    becoming commonplace now, because--for example, in my case, it
    took 9 hours to evacuate me by stretcher. Today, if it were in
    Afghanistan or Iraq, I'd be evacuated in about 30 minutes by
    helicopter. And so, the survival rate is extremely high.
        And added to this, you have cell phones, daily telephone
    calls between husbands and wives, and CNN telling you what's
    happening out there.
        And so, the stress is not only limited to soldiers, airmen,
    and marines, but also the family.
        Do you think that nurses are adequately prepared and
    trained to serve men and women with problems that didn't exist
    during my time?
        General Horoho.
        General Horoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        Chairman Inouye. Your statements have been made part of the
    record, so----
        General Horoho. I'm sorry, sir?
        Chairman Inouye. Your full statements are part of the
    record now.
        General Horoho. Okay.
        [The statements follow:]
             Prepared Statement of Major General Patricia D. Horoho
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is an
    honor and a great privilege to speak before you today on behalf of the
    nearly 40,000 Active component, Reserve component and National Guard
    officers, non-commissioned officers, enlisted and civilians that
    represent Army Nursing. It has been your continued tremendous support
    that has enabled Army Nursing, in support of Army Medicine, to provide
    the highest quality care for those who are entrusted to our care.
        Last year I promised you an update on the Army Nurse Corps Campaign
    Plan that we began in October 2008. It became evident that our efforts
    to transform Army Nursing mirrored the desire of national nursing
    organizations and their leaders to improve nursing practice in support
    of the healthcare reform initiative. Today I will share with you some
    of Army Nursing's accomplishments that are leading national nursing
    initiatives as well as some of the challenges that we will face in the
    years ahead.
                      leader development: build our bench
        The first priority for Army Nursing is to develop full spectrum
    Army nurse leaders. Considering our Nation's continuous engagement in
    overseas contingency operations and the complex clinical challenges our
    nurse officers face both home and abroad, I challenged my senior
    leaders to develop training platforms that will prepare our nurses to
    succeed in any contingency-based operation around the world.
        Identifying the need for a clinical transition program for new
    graduate Army Nurses, the Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) formally
    fielded the BG (R) Anna Mae Hayes Clinical Transition Program (CTP),
    named in honor of our 13th Corps Chief, across nine medical centers
    beginning in October 2008. During fiscal year 2009, 364 new graduate
    Army Nurses completed this program. Throughout the year, the program
    was standardized to decrease the variance among the nine program sites.
    Thus far in fiscal year 2010, over 270 nurses have graduated from the
    program. Their enthusiastic endorsement of the program usually ends
    with the question ``when can I deploy?''
        Our nurses take great pride in wearing the cloth of our nation.
    After graduating from the Officer Basic Leader Course, the new nurse
    officer enters the Leader Academy via the CTP. This program is based on
    the Army leader development strategy that articulates the
    characteristics we desire in our Army leaders as they progress through
    their careers. The CTP is a 25.5 week program designed to bridge the
    baccalaureate education and professional practice of the New Graduate
    Army Nurse (NGAN). It consists of three formal phases (orientation,
    preceptorship, and clinical immersion) developed to foster critical
    thinking, communication, and deployment skills. Incorporated into the
    phases are a 5-hour monthly didactic seminar, journal club, and
    research review with a focus on leadership, professional role
    development, and improvement of patient outcomes. The CTP is congruent
    with the National College of State Boards of Nursing's intent to
    require residency programs for new nurses.
        Initial review of survey data collected during fiscal year 2009
    reveals NGAN positive responses to the following domains of new
    graduate nurse satisfaction: intent to stay, confidence levels in
    individual practice, and enthusiasm for the practice of nursing. The
    responses of the NGANs were similar to the published survey results
    from civilian clinical nurse transition programs. With the key elements
    of this program standardized, outcome variables related to risk
    management (such as medication errors, patient falls, and failure to
    rescue) can now be evaluated in fiscal year 2010.
        The first course that we realigned in support of the Campaign Plan
    was the Head Nurse Course. It has been renamed the Clinical OIC and
    NCOIC Clinical Leader Development Course. The renaming is a result of
    acknowledgement of the critical relationship that exists between the
    Clinical Nurse, OIC (Officer in Charge) and their clinical right arm--
    the NCOIC (Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge). As an integrated
    training platform, this course has had very positive results. It
    provides our mid-level managers the opportunity to learn the critical
    skills needed for working as a team, and to master those skills in a
    simulated environment. This allows participants the opportunity to hone
    tactics and to learn techniques and procedures and decision-making
    skills that are used in the clinical environment. The training received
    in this course promotes cognitive competency and teamwork, and metrics
    are being developed to examine the program's impact on patient
    outcomes. Twelve clinical NCOICs from across Army Medicine attended the
    Head Nurse Leader Development Course as a pilot test October 2009. Due
    to the success of this pilot test, full attendance of Clinical NCOICs
    at this course is in the approval process. Both the CTP and the
    clinical leader development course are designed to prepare clinical
    leaders to be experts at navigating the complexities of care delivery
    in any environment.
        Through the past year we have leveraged the experience and
    expertise of our clinical Sergeants Major, as the senior enlisted
    advisors and subject matter experts on NCO and enlisted issues. They
    are our primary advisors on policies and regulatory guidance. Their
    voice and ideals have brought us a ``results-based leadership'' that
    has allowed us to excel in our imperatives and adopt a ``new
    paradigm,'' or view of the world. These NCOs could not accomplish their
    mission without the hard work and dedication of the men and women of
    the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Enlisted Corps. It's through their
    unrelenting compassion to save and heal, despite hardships and dangers
    to life and limb that makes them ``angels on the battlefield.''
        We are committed to the growth and development of our NCOs and
    Soldiers. Therefore, starting in fiscal year 2011 we will fund two
    senior NCOs to obtain their Masters in Healthcare Administration which
    will ensure a continuous capability to meet the needs of the 21st
    Century. In addition, we are developing an Intensive Care Unit course
    for our Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN); this additional capability
    will allow commanders the flexibility to use LPNs for transport of
    critical patients, improve patient outcomes, and expand practice
    opportunities.
        Finally, the Leader Academy facilitates enhanced career-long
    development of adaptive full spectrum Army Nurse Corps leaders through
    the level of Regional Nurse Executive (RNE). We adopted the American
    Organization of Nurse Executive competencies that include skills such
    as healthcare economics, and healthcare policy management as well as
    abilities in outcomes measurement and change management in order to
    ensure the RNEs have the knowledge, skills and behaviors to help manage
    the regions system of health. We leveraged George Mason University's
    ``Nursing Administrative Leadership Academy'' into our own leader
    academy as a training platform for our RNEs. We are sending three of
    our RNEs to the program this summer. We are also selectively using
    AMEDD courses such as the Interagency Federal Executive and the
    Executive Skills Course to hone and refine the RNE's abilities as
    influencers of the delivery of health. We believe the Army Nursing
    Leader Academy is setting the standard nationally for how nurse leaders
    are prepared to have an active and influential voice in healthcare,
    AMEDD, and national nursing policy.
                          warrior care: back to basics
        Our second strategic imperative is to standardize nursing care
    delivery systems in order to perfect nursing care at the bedside. We
    created a Patient and Family centered System of Nursing Care (SOC) that
    has as its cornerstone standardized nursing practice. This SOC will not
    only enable the Surgeon General's intent to improve and standardize
    care from the point of injury through evaluation and inpatient
    treatment and then return to duty, but will also enable, for the first
    time, comprehensive measurement and subsequent improvement of nurse-
    sensitive patient outcomes.
        We piloted elements of this SOC at Blanchfield Army Community
    Hospital, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in January 2009. After 6 months of
    monitoring we identified notable improvements in care such that nurse
    sensitive errors declined, while compliance with quality initiatives
    increased. During the 6 month pilot period, we found a 44 percent
    decrease in nursing medication errors and a 100 percent decrease in
    risk management events. Additionally, patient pain reassessment
    improved from 90 percent to 99 percent and reporting of critical
    laboratory values improved from 92 percent to 100 percent. We realized
    several ``quick wins'' such as the marked improvement in how nursing
    staff communicate with patients and physicians. Unexpectedly, we noted
    improvement in nurse retention metrics including a 24 percent increase
    in nurses' opinions that they are rewarded for a job well done, and a
    23 percent increase in nurses' opinions that nurses are seen as
    important leaders in their organizations. Overall, nurses reported that
    they believed that they were being heard, and their opinions valued.
    One nurse at Blanchfield said ``Now I feel like I have a voice in the
    organization.''
        Using the data from the Blanchfield pilot, we fully conceptualized
    the SOC as a three-sided pyramid with one side delineating clinical
    practice elements, another professional practice elements, and another
    business practice elements. The pyramid is anchored by the Army nursing
    triad; Army nurses, NCOs, and enlisted and civilians comprise its base.
    Next month, select elements of care are being implemented at three
    medical centers: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC;
    Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; and Madigan Army
    Medical Center, Fort Lewis, Washington. For one element of the
    professional practice side of the pyramid, we are implementing an Army
    nursing creed--it is our nursing ethos and codifies who we are as
    nurses by articulating what we believe in and value as nurses; it is
    the heart of nursing practice. It includes Army values and the American
    Nurses Association Standards of Practice that allow us to define a
    standard level of nursing care common to all nurses and a standard
    level of behavior in the professional role.
        In April, at the same three hospitals, we are implementing nursing
    peer review that aligns a business strategy with clinical practice.
    Peer review is a best clinical business practice that enables us to
    retain the very best nurses who provide quality care as measured
    against our professional standards of practice. Peer review is a talent
    management tool that provides real time, constructive feedback to
    clinicians to assist with their professional growth which leads to good
    patient outcomes.
        In May, we will implement the Army Nurse Corps Practice Council
    along with unit-specific governance councils to support the clinical
    practice side of the pyramid. Governance councils will facilitate
    decentralized joint decisionmaking by nursing leaders and staff nurses
    at the frontline of care--the patient/nurse interface. These unit
    councils will collaborate with the Army Nurse Corps Practice Council to
    identify best practices relative to nursing tactics, techniques, and
    process, and then codify these practices for standard use across Army
    Nursing. Army Nursing identified two best practices that were
    incorporated into the SOC. At Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC),
    nurses modified environmental and staff behavior factors to tailor
    inpatient care to provide ``Healing Hours.'' The restorative importance
    of sleep is well documented, but hospitalized patients report many
    factors including noise, pain anxiety, light, and interruptions by
    hospital staff as sleep disruptors. To validate the most common sleep
    disruptors, TAMC nurses requested input from 227 patients over a 6 week
    period and received 135 responses. 71 percent of patients reported
    averaging less than 4 hours of sleep a night during their
    hospitalization. 62 percent reported their sleep being interrupted by a
    nurse or provider. With the information gathered, TAMC initiated the
    Healing Hours concept. Healing Hours are individualized based on
    diagnosis and requirement for hands-on care. The overall purpose of
    Healing Hours is to promote rest through consolidation of patient care
    activities. Ancillary services aligned their services to support this
    initiative. Pharmacy adjusted routine medication times to coincide with
    established rest hours. Routine laboratory service rounds do not begin
    before 0600 hours. Signs are posted on each patient's door to remind
    all staff of requested Healing Hours. Patients are provided information
    during pre-admission activities to encourage them to bring comfort
    items from home; i.e. earplugs, earphones, and eye masks.
        At Walter Reed Army Medical Center, senior nursing leadership
    examined hourly nursing rounds as a measure to improve patient and
    staff outcomes. A total of 11 intensive, medical, surgical, and same
    day surgery units participated in the project, where we simultaneously
    measured outcomes such as patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction,
    falls, medication errors, and call light use. We compared pre and post
    intervention efficacy of hourly nursing rounds and found that within 4
    months of the implementation of hourly rounds, patient outcomes, such
    as the use of call lights and patient falls decreased while patient
    satisfaction increased.
        In order to ensure implementation of innovative ways to deliver
    care to the inpatient, outpatient, and deployed environment, we are
    also moving forward with implementing team nursing, comprised of RN,
    LPN, and medics. This aspect of the SOC aligns with The Surgeon
    General's (TSG) ``Come Home to Army Medicine'' campaign. This community
    based primary care will bring healthcare closer to home, standardize
    business practices, and develop the model for patient centered medical
    home.
        As we begin implementation of the SOC, our nurse researchers have
    begun the transformation of a geographically disparate one to three
    person research cells into the Offices of Nursing Science and Clinical
    Inquiry (NSCI). The NSCI will combine the resources of Research Ph.D.
    Scientists, Nurse Methods Analysts, Clinical Nurse Specialists, and the
    new DNP (Doctorate of Nursing Practice) with a robust mission that will
    provide decision support, evidence-based practice, and research. These
    NSCIs at each regional medical center will promote a shared vision
    across Army nursing using shared and capitalizing on shared resources
    and infrastructure. This change will shift emphasis in focus to
    capitalize on integration of evidence-based research into practice,
    improve warrior care, enable leader development and maximize human
    capital while addressing Army nursing priorities. This fundamental
    shift will transform Army nursing from an expert based practice to
    system based care and will provide the impetus to move toward a culture
    and workforce with the ability to develop research agendas and
    translate evidence into practice at the bedside. Currently the Army
    Nurse Corps has an inventory of 33 ANC Research Scientists and two
    civilian nurse scientists with doctoral degrees. Twenty-one of these
    are actively working in research assignments.
        In 2008, we initiated a comprehensive review of all Army nurse
    business and clinical processes and associated training and education.
    The gap analysis revealed a requirement for more advanced degree
    experienced nurses at patients' bedsides to influence nursing care;
    specifically, to direct nursing care within a systems-based care
    delivery model that decreased nursing care variance across the Army
    Medical Department in order to measure and improve patient outcomes. To
    that end, we expanded our review to examine the new Doctor of Nursing
    Practice (DNP) role as a modality for closing the gap. After this
    review was completed, we recognized the value of placing select DNP's
    within our NSCIs and the ANC is in the process of making this
    infrastructure change. This will provide clinical leadership, create a
    partnership with nurse Ph.D.'s and Nurse Method Analysts, and
    facilitate practical application of evidence-based research at the
    patient bedside to ensure evidence-based nursing care.
        According to the American Nursing Association (ANA), one of the
    most significant shifts in health policy is represented in a measure to
    expand the involvement and authority of advance practice nurses. Army
    Nursing is also working closely with national nursing organizations
    such as the American Academy of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) in leading
    national efforts to conceptualize a value-add role for DNPs as well as
    the new innovative clinical nurse leader role.
        The Army nursing SOC will require new capabilities while allowing
    us to better leverage current nursing capabilities. For example,
    nursing case management is increasingly being recognized as an
    essential component of healthcare delivery. Case managers provide added
    value to the multidisciplinary healthcare team. Case managers in
    Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) are providing care to over 9,000
    Soldiers and have facilitated the transfer of over 8,500 Soldiers back
    to duty or on to become productive Veterans. Warrior satisfaction with
    case management services has remained at or above 92 percent throughout
    the year.
        The Army Nurse Case Management Course was fielded in December 2008.
    This course was designed to better prepare case managers in their role,
    facilitate the successful completion of national certification, and
    standardize case management services across WTUs, to ensure case
    managers are effectively trained to perform their mission. Over 300
    nurse case managers participated in this web-based program that
    utilizes adult learning principles that enhance the Army NCM's
    understanding of case management theory. Students learn about best
    practices across military and civilian settings, thus gaining knowledge
    of principles and tools utilized in case management.
        Army nursing case management is improving care in primary care
    settings as well as in our WTUs. Nurses across the country espouse
    success stories where case management has had a positive impact on
    patient care. In Alaska, NCMs were working with a 28 year old infantry
    Soldier undergoing the Medical Evaluation Board process for moderate
    Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). During one of their sessions
    they talked about his mother who died at age 34 with colon cancer.
    Because the case managers had developed a good rapport with the
    Soldier, he felt comfortable mentioning that he had some rectal
    bleeding. He was immediately evaluated, determined to have metastatic
    colon cancer, and underwent a colectomy. The operation saved his life.
    Subsequently, he was able to medically retire as a healthy, productive
    veteran.
        The strategic end state of this SOC is optimized nursing care
    delivery systems that wrap capability around AMEDD goals and priorities
    to achieve the best patient outcomes possible. This capability and
    functional structure is designed to leverage proliferation of evidence-
    based care and best practices to support TSG's strategic objectives.
                 evidence-based practice: optimize performance
        Our third strategic imperative is to optimize Army Nursing
    performance using evidence-based management and evidence-based clinical
    practice. Evidence-based clinical practice aims to merge best practices
    from both clinical care and business practices to produce optimal
    outcomes. These goals are achieved through scientific analysis, data
    management, and system redesign to support the everyday performance of
    all our nurses. For example, the Workload Management System for Nursing
    (WMSN) is a tool that ANC has been using for accurately measuring
    patient acuity in order to establish manpower requirements in our
    inpatient care settings. This past year, we initiated the most dramatic
    update to our WMSN since 1985. Led by talented Army Nurses, the WMSN
    Refresh and Optimization project will enable us to upgrade our WMSN
    operating system, integrate and migrate all previously separate
    servers, update the clinical classification and acuity measures, and
    develop a software interface for real time reporting tools. This
    milestone business process improvement will afford our nursing
    leadership the necessary data to support current and future resourcing
    decisions.
        Another example is the Clinical Information System (CIS) that was
    developed with input from our clinical and nursing informatics experts
    that has played a major role in modernizing our electronic health
    record. This past year included tremendous expansion of the CIS
    inpatient health record throughout the MEDCOM. The CIS is designed to
    help nurses and other healthcare personnel collect, record, store and
    access patient data, as well as data from medical instrumentation and
    physiologic monitors from a centralized computer system. The impact of
    a standardized inpatient nursing documentation system cannot be
    minimized as it not only provides standardized documentation of the
    patient's history, but allows, through its requirement to enter data
    fields, standardization of how nurses practice.
        Another evidence-based initiative is our collaboration with the
    Veteran's Health Administration (VHA) on Clinical Terminology
    Standardization that has resulted in the development of over 2,236
    standardized clinical terms. The development of Systematized
    Nomenclature of Medicine--Clinical Terms and Logical Observation
    Identifiers Names and Codes will allow for intra-operable standardized
    clinical vocabulary to assist both the providers, and the clinical
    researchers. Future collaboration will allow for a seamless process to
    add, review, and map new terminology and integrate this into DOD
    inpatient documentation systems.
        Given the magnitude of investment and the substantial military
    healthcare renovation and construction projects in the National Capital
    Region (NCR), it is important to examine the relationship between
    environmental evidence-based design (EBD) features and patient and
    staff outcomes. COL Petra Goodman, an Army Nurse (AN), has collaborated
    with investigators from numerous agencies, to include our sister
    services, military treatment facilities in the NCR and the DOD Patient
    Safety Center, to develop research protocols in EBD principles and
    their specific outcomes, including falls, work-related injuries, and
    hospital acquired infections. There series of studies will provide
    critical baseline information for future research in EBD.
        Implementing 2005 BRAC Law, Army Nurses have been involved from
    ``Day One'' in creating the new 1.23 million square foot Fort Belvoir
    Community Hospital ensuring that the project delivers on its mission to
    create a World Class Military Health Care facility. DeWitt Army
    Community Hospital (DACH) nurses, both uniformed and civilian, have
    provided critical input in the design, development, and implementation
    phases of this project which includes numerous EBD features such as
    single bed rooms with family zones, maximized use of natural light,
    healing gardens and positive distractions, increased HEPA filtration,
    ceiling mounted patient lifts, walled rather than cubicle spaces, and
    the use of reduced noise sources and sound absorbing materials. MAJ
    LaShanda Cobbs, AN, serving as Transition Director for the hospital
    project until July 2009, provided key leadership in coordinating design
    concept of operations workgroups, guiding utilization of EBD
    principles, and developing manning determinations for this state-of-
    the-art inpatient and ambulatory care center. Looking to the future,
    DACH nurses will continue to play pivotal roles in implementing
    integrated bedside IT solutions, the Vocera hands-free nurse call
    system, creating patient controlled environments utilizing Smart Room
    Technology, and myriad other operational solutions to maximize EBD
    features to minimize hospital acquired infections and increase patient
    safety.
        Never before have we relied so heavily on nursing research to
    infuse nursing practice with evidence-based science. In February 2009,
    the Triservice Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) invited nurse
    scientists from all services to meet in order to determine new
    priorities for TSNRP. Not surprisingly, Force Health Protection was
    recognized as the number one priority. Deployment research is designed
    to ask critical questions that cannot be answered other than on the
    battlefield providing medical care for our service members. Army nurses
    have led the way with deployment research relative to their strong
    presence in field environments. There have been 34 nursing led
    protocols, 27 of those are from ANC researchers and one joint Army/Air
    Force protocol. A breakdown of these protocols includes a total of 20
    protocols on warrior care, including five on Soldier Health, three on
    Trauma care, and one on Behavioral Health and a total of 14 protocols
    to study the impact of compassion fatigue and stress on nursing and
    healthcare professionals. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a
    focal point for many of the studies. COL Kathy Gaylord at the Army's
    Institute of Surgical Research is conducting three studies to evaluate
    alternative therapies for treatment of PTSD or PTSD symptoms in burn
    patients. ``Gradual Virtual Reality exposure therapy and D-Cycloserine
    (a learning enhancer pill) treatment for combat-related PTSD'' is a
    pilot study to determine the effectiveness of virtual reality therapy
    for service members who have sustained a burn injury requiring multiple
    dressing changes as a distraction to reduce their pain during these
    dressing changes. ``Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (CES) on PTSD
    Symptoms in Burned Outpatients'' is a double-blind randomized control
    research study is to determine if CES given to service members who have
    sustained a burn injury and meet PTSD criteria will be effective to
    reduce their PTSD symptoms and other deployment-related symptoms. ANC
    research scientists also continue to collaborate with the other DOD
    agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and universities in
    support of the congressionally funded studies for research. In the
    Pacific region, Army nurses established a clinical-academic research
    partnership between Pacific Regional Medical Command (PRMC) and the
    University of Hawaii. This first formal academic-clinical nursing
    research partnership between Tripler Army Medical Center and the
    University of Hawaii creates a joint vision for the future of nursing
    and healthcare. This partnership provides the resources and structure
    that will allow Pacific Regional Medical Command (PRMC)-based nurses
    and University of Hawaii (UH)-based nurses to ask and answer the
    clinically relevant military healthcare questions.
        Army Nurses, like MAJ Rebecca Terwilliger, are leading the way with
    an innovative best clinical practice pilot to improve nursing care. She
    won a $17,532 grant from the March of Dimes to establish a Centering
    Pregnancy Program for antepartum patients. Participants enroll into a
    stable group that begins meeting at 16 weeks followed by monthly
    meetings until 32 weeks, then every other week for the remainder of the
    pregnancy. The group meets for 2 hours each session and is led by a
    certified nurse midwife. Benefits of the program include the
    development of a socialization and support network system while
    providing 2 hours of education on topics related to pregnancy,
    childbirth and newborn care. Evidence has shown that the program
    increases patient satisfaction, increases continuity with a provider
    and decreases preterm birth rate; for those that deliver prematurely,
    delivery occurs in gestation and the newborn is at a higher birth
    weight.
        Research is also supporting evidence-based business practices. For
    example, we used data to evaluate our accession portals and make timely
    changes on how we recruit, retain, and incentivize nursing personnel to
    remain a part of our nursing team. The Army Nurse Corps was very
    successful in recruiting and retaining Army Nurses in 2009. Research,
    like that being done by LTC Breckenridge-Sproat, AN, titled ``Factors
    Associated with Retention of Army, Air Force, and Navy Nurses'' will
    survey Active Duty Army, Navy and Air Force nurses to explore factors
    influencing decisions to maintain their active duty status. In the
    history of military nursing research, there has never been a retention
    survey using a validated instrument conducted across all three
    services. Considering the changing market for registered nurses in the
    United States and the complex factors that influence decisions to
    remain on active duty, it is important to obtain data to support
    appropriate strategies to retain military nurses in the Army, Navy and
    Air Force. The results of this multi-service study will provide the
    Corps Chiefs from the Army, Navy, and Air Force with a better
    understanding of factors impacting nurses' intent to stay in the
    military. The findings should allow administrators to capitalize on
    specific factors that positively influence nurses to stay in the
    military and implement changes to ameliorate factors that are
    influencing nurses to leave the military.
        Research is also helping us develop new recruiting strategies,
    called precision recruiting, whereby we are recruiting experienced
    medical-surgical and specialty trained nurses. This strategy will
    provide us with a balanced force of new nurse graduates with more
    experienced clinical nurses. Leveraging data allowed us to determine
    the need for precision recruiting, i.e., targeted recruiting of
    critical low densities. As a result, we increased our recruitment of
    Nurse Anesthetists, Behavioral Health Nurse Practitioners, Family
    Health Nurse Practitioners, and critical skills such as Emergency Room
    and Critical Care trained nursing personnel. These skills are
    especially in high demand with our nation's continued involvement in
    overseas contingency operations. Working closely with Accessions
    Command, we are formulating a recruitment strategy that ensures a
    consistent pipeline of ROTC, Army Enlisted Commissioning Program
    (AECP), and Federal Nurse Commissioning Program graduates, balanced
    with direct accessions of experienced nursing personnel.
        Evidence-based processes also allow us to look at who, when, and
    where we have the greatest attrition and how attrition is impacting the
    care we provide for our beneficiaries. Incentives, such as Incentive
    Special Pay, critical skills bonuses, and hiring bonuses have not only
    allowed us to conduct precision hiring of civilian nurses, but also
    allowed us to compete with the recruitment market for experienced and
    well qualified nursing personnel. I want to thank the committee for
    supporting these initiatives in the past and look forward to your
    continuing support in the future. In addition we raised and then
    codified minimum standards for entry into the AECP based on the quality
    of the nurses this program produces. In the past we have had as high as
    14 percent non-completions in the AECP. Data analysis revealed an
    antiquated admission criteria resulting in candidates who were not
    adequately prepared to sustain the rigors of the Bachelor's of Science
    program. The change in admission standards has vastly improved the
    quality of candidates in the program and will ultimately impact the
    quality of care we will provide to our warriors and their families.
                       human capital: portfolio of talent
        People are our organizations' most valuable asset and remain one of
    my top priorities. Success toward our strategic initiatives has been
    possible only because of the commitment and extraordinary work by the
    triad of nursing; Active and Reserve component officers, non-
    commissioned officers, and civilians. Our efforts over the past year in
    both recruitment and retention of active duty and civilian nurses have
    positively impacted Army Nursing. Investing in human capital requires a
    strategic approach to managing the recruited and retained talent so
    patient outcomes are optimized throughout the organization.
    Subsequently, our fourth imperative is optimizing human capital talent
    through talent management and succession management planning. One of
    the ways we are managing talent is by leveraging nursing capability in
    new ways. A great example of this is the ``curbside nursing'' concept
    that clinical nurse midwives implemented at Fort Campbell, KY. In 2009,
    it became strategically imperative that some type of new Soldiers'
    health initiative for women's gynecological intervention and engagement
    was needed to address the backlog of gynecologic appointments. Several
    Certified Nurse Midwives (CNM) services have actively engaged in
    leaving the confines of the hospitals and entered what normally has
    been recognized as a Soldier's clinic. This medical model approach to
    women's wellness has received laudatory comments noted in Army Provider
    Level Satisfaction Survey reports across several installations.
        To support TSG's strategic priority of implementing a comprehensive
    behavioral health system of care, BG Steve Jones, Commander, Pacific
    Regional Medical Command, and I worked together to implement a program
    to assess the effectiveness of connecting behavioral health resources
    with soldiers in a virtual encounter. Nursing resources were engaged in
    validation of the assessment tool as well as serving as a force
    multiplier through the integration of NCM and 68X, Mental Health
    Technicians, in the virtual program. Partnered with behavioral health
    (BH) providers, NCM screen for ``at risk'' Soldiers face-to-face and
    virtually with the intent to provide access to BH in remote or isolated
    locations. Many Soldiers returning from deployment do not need the
    complex services of the Warrior Transition Unit (WTU), but they do have
    significant concerns that could impact successful reintegration with
    families and non-combat environments. Coordinating care and support
    through the NCM, Soldiers and families are guided to financial,
    emotional, and physical care to support reintegration. The NCM effort
    in this Comprehensive Behavioral Health System, led by Amy Earle, RN,
    mitigates stressors to the Soldier and family by connecting them to
    services within the community.
        At Europe Regional Medical Command, the Maternal Child Nursing
    section uses a Perinatal Clinical Nurse Specialist to track high risk
    patients, which resulted in significantly increasing the number of
    infants that were immunized against Hepatitis-B at birth or prior to
    discharge as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control. In 2009,
    LTC Sherri Franklin, Chief of Nurse Midwifery, started a new midwifery
    program with 3 active duty CNMs at Fort Benning, Georgia. Due to the
    increased demand for low risk obstetrical care and the size of the post
    increasing, this planned service will be stabilized at Benning. Planned
    for 2011, an additional 6 new CNM graduates from accredited mastered
    prepared programs across the United States will be welcomed as new
    clinicians.
        This year, for the first time in our history, two of the deployed
    Combat Support Hospitals will be commanded by Army Nurse Corps
    officers. In 2009, 333 active duty Army Nurses were deployed in support
    of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This
    represented a total of 70,589 deployed man days. In 2009, the 6 month
    (180 days) PROFIS deployment policy was successfully implemented,
    considerably reducing the adverse affects of long deployments on our
    nursing personnel. Through the expert coordination of our nursing
    leaders, nursing staff were rotated at 6 month intervals with no
    adverse impacts in patient care. However, our low density nurse
    specialists, to include nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners,
    critical care, perioperative and emergency nursing are still
    experiencing frequent deployments with some nurses completing their
    second and third deployments. We are conducting an in-depth force
    structure analysis to determine our objective force structure for the
    future years.
        Our Budgeted End Strength is projected to increase from 3,515 in
    fiscal year 2010 to 3,580 in fiscal year 2011. In addition, 80 Army
    Nurse Corps officer authorizations are projected as a part of the Grow
    the Army strategy. We are modeling for the optimal number of critical
    care nurses, emergency room nurses and behavioral health nurses needed
    to ensure sufficient staffing in our CONUS based medical treatment
    facilities and to continue the theater support that has supported the
    93 percent survival rate of our service members injured in our combat
    theaters. We recognized that many of our specialty nurses transition to
    advanced practice roles as nurse anesthetists or nurse practitioners
    but their ``loss'' from the specialty role was not included in our
    previous models. Using innovative analytical processes we have
    identified shortfalls in our training requirements that, when
    corrected, will increase the available strength of these critical low
    density nurse specialists. With increased numbers, the adverse impact
    of frequent repeat deployments will be mitigated. The Army Nurse Corps
    has always been committed to advanced education as an essential element
    of quality healthcare. As we face the continuing behavioral health
    challenges, we are increasing our number of nurses selected for
    behavioral health nurse practitioner programs. Of note, only the
    Psychiatrist and the Behavioral Health Nurse Practitioner has
    prescriptive authority as Behavioral Health providers. We have
    recognized that this level of Behavioral Health providers is critical
    in both garrison and deployed settings to facilitate optimal behavioral
    healthcare. This year, we will select 5 nurses for attendance in the
    Psychiatric/Mental health NP program at Uniformed Services University
    (USU) to start in 2011. In addition, as we transition our advanced
    practice nurse roles to the future DNP, we will be sending one nurse
    for a DNP program as a Psychiatric/Mental Health NP.
        We rely on the USU Graduate School of Nursing as the strongest
    educational platform to develop critical talent to provide nursing
    capability across Army Medicine. A good example of how USU is helping
    us build new nursing capabilities is the perioperative nursing program.
    COL (R) Wanzer and LCDR Conrardy, USU nursing faculty, developed a
    perioperative CNS program marketing brochure and designed a marketing
    poster for presentation at the 11th Annual Tri-Service Perioperative
    Symposium in Chicago in March 2009, and along with her fellow
    researchers Cole Hawker and D. Moultrie, were awarded the 2009
    Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses National Research
    Excellence Award for their research titled: ``Factors Associated with
    Multidrug Resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter Transmission Occurring in
    Traumatic War Injuries''. COL (R) Wanzer was also invited to address
    Congress during hearings on healthcare reform and presented ``The Role
    of Clinical Nurse Specialist in Health Care Delivery: Today and in the
    Future.'' The Psychiatric Mental Health-Nurse Practitioner (PMH-NP)
    Program was evaluated for its academic content, testing, and overall
    effectiveness. Changes have been made to the course structure in order
    to ensure students integrate and apply their knowledge in context of
    the goals of the program. In addition the Graduate School has signed
    eleven new memorandums of understandings with new clinical sites. In
    October 2008, USU chartered a task force to examine implementation of a
    DNP curriculum to be in line with the American Association of Colleges
    of Nursing decision to move the current level of preparation necessary
    for advanced practice nursing from the master's to doctoral level by
    the year 2015. The results of 8 months of study revealed that USU
    should take the steps necessary to implement a USU DNP program. This
    further expands USU's strength as an education platform for Army
    Nursing so that we can apply a practical application of evidence-based
    research at the patient bedside to ensure evidence-based nursing care.
        Over 60 percent of our organization is our civilian workforce, so
    our retention efforts continue to be focused on this group. We continue
    to have unprecedented success in our civilian nurse loan repayment
    program, with over 41 percent of total Army student loan repayments
    going to nurses. For fiscal year 2010, 314 applicants were selected to
    participate in the nurse loan repayment program, the largest number
    since the program started in 2006. We also recognize that our talented
    civilian healthcare professionals have unique issues and challenges. To
    provide support to our civilian nurse workforce, the Civilian Nurse
    Task Force was chartered in March 2009 to provide a forum for specific
    discussion on issues related to recruitment, retention, and career
    progression. This group's hard work resulted in the adoption of a
    civilian RN career pathway that remains in a working phase today. From
    this task force, a Nurse Consortium was established, in November 2009,
    and each medical treatment facility has a civilian nurse
    representative. This consortium works on key issues affecting
    satisfaction of the civilian nurse workforce. Current working issues
    include improving the relationship between civilian and military
    nurses, recruitment of civilian new graduate nurses, and civilian
    nurses in senior leadership positions in medical treatment facilities.
    Our first step to leverage civilian nurse talent at the senior
    executive level was the selection of Dr. Patricia Wilhem as a member of
    the Army Nurse Corps Executive Board of Directors. In addition, the
    ``Civilian Connection'' link was established on our new, innovative ANC
    website and is used to post links and information pertaining to
    civilian nurses. It facilitates a sharing of information not only
    between civilian nurses but also between civilian and military nurses
    to enhance professional relationships.
        Finally we continue to leverage our retired ANC officers to serve
    as nurse role models, mentors and subject matter experts and
    ambassadors for the ANC. COL (R) Jeri Graham, president of the Army
    Nurse Corps Association (ANCA) in partnership with the ANC conducted
    the pilot Veteran's Resiliency Program in May 2009. There were sixteen
    participants with eleven active component combat veteran nurses and
    five Vietnam veteran nurses. The program was designed to address the
    issues that returning warrior nurses have after deployment that impact
    retention. The program was received favorably and with many positive
    comments to sustain the program in the future.
                                   conclusion
        There has been great momentum since I introduced the Army Nurse
    Corps Campaign Plan to you last year. Our success has been the result
    of compassion, commitment, and dedication from all members of the triad
    of nursing. They have inspired me with their pride, enthusiasm, and
    openness to change. We continue to experience amazing progress in each
    of our strategic imperatives and we are ensuring that the ANC remains
    relevant and a force multiplier for Army Medicine.
        I continue to envision an Army Nurse Corps in 2012 that will leave
    its mark on military nursing and will be a leader of nursing practice
    reform at the national level. The implementation of the standardized
    Patient & Family Centered System of Care is revolutionizing nursing
    care in the ANC and ensures that we optimize patient outcomes at every
    point of care delivery, both home and abroad. It reminds us that our
    priorities remain the patients and their families. Our common purpose
    is to support and maintain a system of health. In order to achieve this
    common purpose, we will let nothing hinder those who wear the cloth of
    our Nation or those who took an oath to forever save, protect, care,
    and heal.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Karen A. Flaherty
                                  introduction
        Good Morning. Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I am Rear Admiral Karen Flaherty, the 22nd
    Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank you for the opportunity to
    speak to you today. I also want to express my sincere thanks and
    appreciation for the hard work and dedication of Rear Admiral Christine
    Bruzek-Kohler, the 21st Director of the Navy Nurse Corps during this
    past year.
        In his 2009-2010 Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Guidance, Admiral
    Mullen declared the ``Health of the Force'' as one of his three
    strategic initiatives, stating, ``Our core responsibility is to win
    wars while caring for our people and their families. They are the heart
    and soul of our formations, our fleets, and our air expeditionary
    wings, and our incredible fighting spirit. As a Nation, we have a
    solemn obligation to fully support, across the spectrum of need, our
    service men and women, standing and fallen, and their families.''
        Today, I will highlight the accomplishments and opportunities
    facing the Navy Nurse Corps in 2010 as we care for the Health of the
    Force. The total Navy Nurse Corps, comprised of Active, Reserve and
    Federal Civilian nurses, number more than 5,500 strong. Working
    together, we are clinicians and advocates for our patients, we are
    mentors and leaders for our colleagues, and we are the face of caring
    and compassion to those affected by armed conflict and natural
    disasters. My strategy as Director has been focused in three areas:
    People, Practice and Leadership. It is within these three areas that I
    would like to highlight our successes and address our current and
    future efforts.
                                   our people
    Recruitment
        Today's Navy Nurse Corps Active Component (AC) is manned at 91.2
    percent with 2,837 nurses currently serving around the world. We have
    already achieved Navy Nursing's Active Component recruiting goal for
    2010, for the fourth consecutive year. Reserve Component (RC)
    recruiting is currently at 16.4 percent of the fiscal year 2010 mission
    and requires our continued focus. I attribute our recruiting successes
    to the continued funding support for our accession programs, the local
    recruiting activities of Navy Recruiters and Navy Nurses, and the
    continued positive public perception of Service to our Country.
        The top three direct accession programs that are favorably
    impacting our recruiting efforts include the Nurse Accession Bonus
    (NAB), the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP), and the
    Nurse Candidate Program (NCP). The NAB continues to offer a $20,000
    sign-on bonus for a 3-year commitment and $30,000 for a 4-year
    commitment; the HPLRP repays student loans up to $40,000 for a 2-year
    consecutive obligated service, and NCP, tailored for students who need
    financial assistance while attending school, provides a $10,000 sign-on
    bonus and $1,000 monthly stipend.
        In 2008, Navy Medicine created a recruiting team aimed at
    increasing the visibility and focus on Navy Nursing recruiting
    initiatives. This effort provides a Navy Nursing presence at local and
    national professional nursing conferences and collegiate recruiting
    events. In collaboration with the Navy Medicine Office of Diversity,
    our Nurse Corps Recruitment Liaison Officer coordinates with local
    Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) to have diverse Navy personnel
    attend national conferences and recruiting, increasing Navy's
    visibility among minority populations. This has allowed us to broaden
    our reach, and participate in and recruit across a broad range of
    national nursing conferences. Further, recognizing that America's youth
    contemplate career choices at a young age, Navy Nurses travel to local
    community schools and serve as guest speakers and ambassadors for our
    Corps, the Navy and the nursing profession.
        Leveraging current technology, the Nurse Corps Recruitment Liaison
    Officer uses a combination of social networking media tools, including
    Facebook and Twitter, and online discussion forums (e.g., BLOGs), to
    reach students at colleges and high schools, encouraging them to
    consider a career in Navy nursing. Through these media tools, students
    ask candid questions and can obtain instant feedback in a mode of
    communication with which they are comfortable. Additionally, students
    provide feedback of what is and is not working in the recruiting
    process. Using this information, we have implemented process
    improvement strategies to correct any gaps in the recruiting process.
    One improvement we are implementing in 2010 is an early mentorship
    program for those entering the Navy Nurse Corps through one of our
    accession programs. Junior nurses will serve as mentors to guide new
    accessions from school to their first duty station, providing
    information on pay, travel, duty stations and transition to ``Navy
    Life.'' We know that the first impression of the Navy and the Navy
    Nurse Corps are an important part of subsequent career decisions.
        Today, the Reserve Component is 83.6 percent manned with 1,112
    nurses in inventory. Last year, the Navy Nurse Corps Reserve Component
    (RC) met 87 percent of their recruiting goal. Over 48 percent of the
    accessions were Navy Veterans (NAVETS--nurses coming to the RC from
    active duty) with the remainder joining the Navy Reserve as direct
    accessions. Success in recruiting NAVETS is related to the initiation
    of an affiliation bonus of $10,000 and a policy that guarantees these
    individuals a 2-year deferment from deployment. Additionally, the
    establishment of the Career Transition Office (CTO) at Navy Personnel
    Command has been very successful in identifying those members desiring
    to move from the active component to the reserve component. The CTO,
    working in concert with the Reserve Affairs Officer (RAO) and
    Centralized Credentialing and Privileging Department (CCPD),
    implemented practices that facilitate a smooth transition with regards
    to billet assignment, pay and establishment of credentials.
        Our reserve recruiting goal for fiscal year 2010 is 165 nurses. A
    recruiting initiative targeting direct accessions will offer entry
    grade credit for advanced education and work experience among the
    critical wartime specialties of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists
    (CRNAs), psychiatric/mental health, emergency room, and perioperative
    nursing. These initiatives will be expanded to include medical-surgical
    nurses and critical care nurses as well.
    Retention
        Retaining Navy Nurses is one of my top priorities. We remain
    committed to providing a Total Force of Navy Nurses, balanced in terms
    of seniority, experience, and skills, to provide the very best care to
    Sailors, Marines and their families. Key efforts have positively
    impacted retention, including the Registered Nurse Incentive Specialty
    Pay, a targeted bonus program for undermanned clinical nursing
    specialties and highly deployed Nurse Practitioners. Our nurses are
    enriched by being able to practice in both deployed and garrison care
    settings.
        It is our responsibility as Nurse Corps leaders to fully understand
    all retention issues. We commissioned the Center for Naval Analyses
    (CNA) in 2009 to conduct a survey and hold focus groups to help us
    understand the factors that influence career satisfaction and
    dissatisfaction in the Nurse Corps. We have found that support for
    families, childcare availability, healthcare, and other benefits such
    as the Post 9/11 GI Bill play an important role in nurse retention.
        Navy Nurses told us they wanted a clinical career ladder. Junior
    nurses felt they had to leave clinical nursing in order to advance in
    their careers. They also told us that deployments were fulfilling and
    had a positive affect on retention. The factors affecting retention are
    described more as a ``pull'' away from the military versus a ``push''
    out of the military.
        To increase promotion opportunities for senior level positions, we
    converted a portion of vacant Lieutenant billets to Captain and Ensign
    billets. These actions also improved the alignment of billets with the
    number of junior officers being accessed each year. This right-sizing
    is also occurring for the Reserve Component led by Rear Admiral Cindy
    Dullea, my Reserve Component Deputy Director. The RC is challenged with
    personnel gaps in the junior ranks and a larger senior officer force.
    These initiatives will ensure we maintain an appropriate balance of
    highly-skilled experienced nurses with promotion opportunities.
        My goal for this year is to increase retention by 50 percent in the
    AC for those with less than 10 years of service, and to retain the
    appropriate numbers in each officer rank in the RC. To achieve this
    goal, we are increasing communication and mentoring across all ranks,
    developing a clinical leadership model, and creating a user-friendly
    job-assignments process focused on clinical specialty development. Most
    importantly, I have asked each Nurse Corps officer to be part of this
    strategy; people stay in organizations because of the positive
    influence of their peers and immediate supervisors.
                                  our practice
    Clinical Excellence
        Clinical Excellence is one of the main tenets of the Nurse Corps
    Clinical Leadership Model. Our strategy prepares every nurse to
    practice safe, competent care in any clinical setting, whether in a
    hospital or clinic, onboard ship or in forward deployed settings.
    Clinical Excellence is an expectation of the patients we care for and
    is an integral part of the interdisciplinary healthcare team of Navy
    Medicine. In 2009, we developed and implemented standardized
    orientation and nursing competencies across all of our nursing
    specialties. This creates portability, efficiency and consistency of
    care across all environments. Our goal is to deploy an electronic
    standardized procedure manual in 2010 for all facilities to have real
    time access to state-of-the-art updates to clinical care.
        Over the past several years, the Nurse Corps identified eight
    critical wartime specialties, and developed our manning, training and
    bonus structures to incentivize nurses to practice within these
    specialties. Additionally, each Nursing Specialty has an assigned
    Specialty Leader, a Clinical Subject Matter Expert who understands the
    nursing practice within each community. These Specialty Leaders are key
    in the sourcing process for deployment missions, and have been
    empowered to implement improvement strategies for their specialty
    communities.
        Understanding deployments and the type of care needed by our
    patients is essential when developing our nurses. For example, the
    critical care patient in Afghanistan may be required to stay on the
    ground longer given the environmental challenges impacting medical
    airlift evacuation. Our staff needs to understand this and add to their
    portfolio of skills in both acute and chronic critical care nursing
    competencies. To accomplish this goal, our Specialty Leaders worked
    with Senior Nurse Leaders at MTFs to create partnerships with local
    civilian hospitals and military nurses cross-train in local Emergency
    Departments and Intensive Care Units (ICUs). All Navy Nurses deploying
    in a critical care role cross-train in an ICU and attend the Essentials
    of Critical Care Orientation Course, the industry standard for critical
    care orientation. We are also piloting a ``closed-loop'' detailing
    process where nurses who desire to practice in the critical care
    specialty for their careers, have the ability to be transferred to
    hospitals that provide critical care nursing. Our goal is to keep these
    highly-trained critical care nurses working in critical care.
        To support the behavioral health needs of our Warriors and their
    families, the Nurse Corps has increased its inventory of psychiatric/
    mental health clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners. This
    growth will support the projected growth of the Marine Corps, Blue in
    Support of Green (BISOG) and the increase in the number of Operational
    Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR) teams. We have successfully
    employed Psychiatric-Mental Health Clinical Nurse Specialists and
    Mental Health Nurse Practitioners to meet the operational demands of
    the Psychiatric-Mental health caseload. Looking ahead, we will align
    our core privileging with our civilian counterparts, deploy mental
    health nursing assets where needed, and increase the education pipeline
    to meet this requirement.
        Senior Nurses empower their staffs to innovate in hospital, clinic
    and operational settings, ensuring a culture of clinical excellence is
    infused at all levels. An example of these innovations is a job sharing
    initiative in USNH Guam, where two nurses can gain leadership
    experience, while continuing to excel as clinicians. A Family Nurse
    Practitioner in Okinawa, created efficiencies, eliminated patient visit
    backlogs, and increased family satisfaction while maintaining family-
    centered care. He established a Fast-Track clinic that resulted in a 25
    percent decrease in non-urgent care provided by the Emergency
    Department. Through Clinical Excellence in Practice, our nurses gain
    the confidence and competencies to ensure that Navy Medicine remains a
    leader in healthcare.
    Nursing Education
        I am a fervent supporter of graduate nursing education, research
    and professional growth of my officers, and am committed to the
    sustainment and growth of the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program
    (TSNRP). Each year, approximately 73 officers are selected for Duty
    Under Instruction, the Nurse Corps' graduate education program.
    Additionally, nurses are selected to participate in the Johnson and
    Johnson Wharton Fellow's Program in Management at the University of
    Pennsylvania, and several Navy-sponsored leadership courses. Clinical
    specialization matched with leadership experience is key to developing
    the clinical leader.
        The American Association of Colleges of Nursing made the decision
    to move the current level of preparation necessary for advanced nursing
    practice from the master's degree to the doctorate-level by 2015 based
    upon shifting patient demographics, health needs, and changing health
    system expectations. The Navy Nurse Corps supports a phased approach
    toward adopting the Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) as the
    recommended terminal degree for Advanced Practice Nurses, and will
    utilize a combination of short- and long-term action steps to
    incorporate the DNP degree option as part of its education strategy.
    Using existing funding, three nurses will graduate with a DNP in 2012
    and the DNP degree will be incorporated into the Nurse Corps Training
    Plan. As we make the transition to a greater number of DNPs, we will
    conduct careful reviews of future education funding requirements.
        To expand this clinical leadership model to Federal Civilian
    Registered Nurses, we launched the Navy Graduate Program for Federal
    Civilian Registered Nurses, the first of its kind in the Uniformed
    Services, and funded five competitively selected Federal civilian
    registered nurses to pursue their Master of Science in Nursing degrees.
    These selected candidates agreed to work a compressed work schedule
    during the time they are in graduate school and incur a 2-year
    continued service agreement. This program has been fully funded in
    2010, and we are currently receiving applications to select our next
    class of candidates for Fall 2010. We expect that this new program will
    retain our current civilian nurses, incentivize new nurses to consider
    entry into Federal service, sustain Military Treatment Facilities with
    subject matter experts when military nurses are deployed, and offer new
    educational growth for our civilian colleagues.
        Every military nurse joins the Service with a Baccalaureate degree
    or higher, thus our Nurse Corps education strategy is focused on
    Graduate Nursing Education. I thank you for your support of this
    critical strategy.
    Nursing Research
        Navy Nurse Researchers assigned to Medical Centers educate nurses,
    physician residents, faculty, and staff about research design,
    implementation and evaluation. They facilitate the research process
    though collaboration with the Nursing Research team, Clinical
    Investigations and local, national and international academic
    institutions. More than 15 formal studies are in progress to promote
    the health and wellness of our Warriors and their families.
    Additionally, several evidence-based practice projects underway
    synthesize research literature to create individual evidence-based
    nursing practice guidelines and ensure practice effectiveness. The
    ``Back-to-Basics Bundle of Care Project'' at Naval Medical Center San
    Diego and the ``Electronic Ticket-to-Ride, a Standardized Hand-off
    Program'' at National Naval Medical Center are just two examples of
    research projects that will increase patient safety and satisfaction,
    increase efficiency, decrease healthcare costs, and promote positive
    health outcomes during inpatient stays.
        Navy Nurses are accomplished authors, presenters and leaders not
    only in the field of Nursing, but also in healthcare and medicine. Many
    have contributed to military, national and international forums as
    keynote speakers and subject matter experts. Captains Linnea Axman, NC,
    USN and Patricia Kelley, NC, USN were members of the planning committee
    for the 2009 Botswana Conference. This conference, co-sponsored by Navy
    Medicine and Uniformed Services University, identified opportunities
    for the development of collaborative international research proposals
    and advancement of the concepts of integrity in research. Commander
    Michele Kane, NC, USN was the first Nurse Corps officer to provide the
    keynote address at the 2009 World Congress on Military Medicine. The
    research conducted by these outstanding nurses is a testament to their
    expertise, scholarship and commitment to advancing scientific knowledge
    in the field of medicine.
        Among the many nationally recognized award winners for Navy Nurses,
    Lieutenant Colleen Mahon, NC, USN was recognized as the National
    Association of Women's Health Obstetric and Neonatal Nursing's Navy
    Nurse of the Year, and Commander John Maye, NC, USN was selected as the
    American Academy of Nurse Anesthetists' Researcher of the Year.
    Outreach and Partnerships
        Navy Nurses, at our MTFs in the United States and abroad,
    passionately support the professional development of America's future
    nursing workforce by serving as preceptors, teachers and mentors for
    local colleges and universities, as well as entire health systems.
    During Continuing Promise 2009, Navy Nurse Corps officers from the USNS
    Comfort served as subject matter experts providing training in Advanced
    Cardiac Life Support, Basic Life Support, IV insertion, basic first
    aid, trauma care, EKG interpretation and basic nutrition to 35,000 host
    nation medical personnel. Although a U.S. Navy mission, Nurses worked
    with partners from the Active Component, Reserve Component, Army, Air
    Force, U.S. Public Health Service, and over 90 nurse volunteers from
    Project Hope, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and Operation Smile.
    Additionally, over 40 military nurses from Canada, El Salvador,
    Netherlands, and France worked side-by-side with us in providing care
    to over 100,000 patients. Today, the USNS Comfort is deployed staffed
    by caring colleagues providing humanitarian assistance to the people of
    Haiti.
        Navy Nurses deployed to Afghanistan in embedded training teams are
    teaching culturally and linguistically appropriate public health
    measures. In response to news of H1N1 outbreaks throughout the world,
    nurses prepared emergency response plans and training for the local
    Forward Operating Base (FOB) and Regional Hospital in eastern
    Afghanistan, well in advance of cases appearing in-theater, and
    deployed critical counterinsurgency tactics by performing village
    medical outreaches to the local community members in eastern
    Afghanistan. These missions improved relationships, increased trust and
    fostered cooperation with U.S. and coalition forces among the local
    population.
                                 our leadership
        I believe that leadership at all organizational levels is
    responsible for ensuring the personnel under their charge are healthy
    and productive. This is echoed by Admiral Mullen, ``As leaders, we must
    ensure that all receive the care, counseling, training and financial
    support to become self-sufficient and lead productive and fulfilling
    lives'' (CJCS Guidance, December 2009). My nursing leaders have
    developed and are implementing an interactive career planning guide
    useful for mentoring seniors and subordinates at every stage of their
    careers. This mentoring tool asks pointed self-assessment questions to
    the officer and the nurse leader to assist both in making the best
    professional career decisions balanced with professional and personal
    goals. It guides the nurse leader in assessing the strengths and needs
    of the officer and balancing them with organizational goals. Blending
    our officers' clinical excellence, operational experience and
    leadership develops the highest caliber leaders for Navy Medicine today
    and in the future. Each nurse is a leader, whether caring for a
    population of patients, leading a Command, or being the Nursing voice
    for our Fleet or our Marines. Each day, we have an opportunity to
    impact the health and well-being of others.
        A key role of a leader is to know their people and help them
    develop the resiliency to be able to handle stressors and life events.
    Navy Medicine's Operational Stress Control and Care for the Caregiver
    programs have a direct impact on the health and well-being of the
    force, deployment readiness and retention. By developing and providing
    education and training opportunities throughout the service member's
    career, Operational Stress Control builds resilience and increases
    effective responses to stress and stress-related injuries and
    illnesses. We know that caring for service members and their families
    and experiencing the trauma and stress that they experience can impact
    our medical staff. Strengthening the resilience of our Navy Nurses will
    assure they are better equipped to meet the day-to-day challenges of
    both naval service and their profession.
                                closing remarks
        Thank you for providing me this opportunity to share with you the
    remarkable accomplishments of the Navy's Nurse Corps and our continuing
    efforts to meet Navy Medicine's mission. On behalf of the outstanding
    men and women of the Navy Nurse Corps, and their families who
    faithfully support them, I want to extent my sincere appreciation for
    your unwavering support.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Major General Kimberly A. Siniscalchi
        The Total Nursing Force (TNF) is comprised of our officer and
    enlisted nursing personnel including the Active Duty (AD), Air National
    Guard (ANG), and Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) components. It is a
    pleasure to lead and serve alongside my senior advisors, Brigadier
    General Catherine Lutz of the ANG and Colonel Anne Manly of the AFRC.
    Together, we command a total force team delivering evidence-based,
    patient-centered care and support to meet Global Operations. Our
    nursing service personnel confront the challenges of increasing
    commitments and deployments with distinction and professionalism. They
    support the top priorities of the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of
    the Air Force to: (1) Continue to Strengthen the Air Force Nuclear
    Enterprise, (2) Partner with the Joint and Coalition Team to Win
    Today's Fight, (3) Develop and Care for Airmen and their Families, (4)
    Modernize our Aging Air & Space Inventories, Organizations & Training,
    and (5) Recapture Acquisition Excellence. This testimony will reflect
    how Air Force Nurses, lead, partner, and care every time and
    everywhere.
                             expeditionary nursing
        Operational capability, the foundation and moral fiber of Air Force
    nursing, is instrumental in driving remarkable achievements. Air Force
    nurses and medical technicians at Craig Joint Theater Hospital (CJTH)
    at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan provided outstanding nursing care for
    the highest number of casualties in OEF. CJTH is the only total U.S.
    staffed Level III military treatment facility in Afghanistan, and
    offers the most advanced medical capability in the country. CJTH nurses
    functioned as preceptors for nine Afghan nurses embedded as part of an
    Afghan Trauma Mentorship program. The Afghan nurses worked side-by-side
    with Air Force nurses and medical technicians, gaining valuable
    clinical experience, which they are excited to share with their co-
    workers to create positive change for the Afghan healthcare system for
    years to come.
        The summer and fall of 2009 at CJTH is summarized through excerpts
    written by Dr. Zeriold, the ``trauma czar'', of his time in
    Afghanistan. ``A conflict that had become known as `The Forgotten War'
    was suddenly remembered as we entered the Afghan theater. We found a
    hospital and system in existence for several years that had seen a
    moderate number of patients. We brought only ourselves; it was a team
    from all over the United States from all branches of the military. No
    extra equipment, no new technology, no more medications, gear, or
    personnel. We were the standard deployment team for this theater.
    However, the pattern of this war changed. Over the next 6 months, we
    took care of more than 1,000 trauma admissions and countless medical
    admissions. The acuity was very high, and injuries were horrendous. A
    new pattern of war trauma had emerged for this hospital, a pattern that
    rivals and even surpasses a 500 bed, university based, Level I trauma
    center. We safely returned to the states 550 injured U.S. service
    members. We returned them to their families, children, and spouses. We
    changed the devastated lives of 450 Afghan nationals and won their
    hearts. I will never forget the bonds we formed with so many. And the
    kids--my God, I will never forget the kids; reaching out their little
    hands, with a smile, at the time of discharge as if to say thank you,
    `I'll be okay, and can I go home now?' As a result of your dedication
    and work, this hospital and this team set the theater standard, and
    broke theater records for caseload, admissions, transfers, and
    outcomes. We transformed this time, mid to late 2009, into an era never
    to be forgotten.''
        CJTH also functions as the primary theater Aeromedical Evacuation
    (AE) hub, for out of country casualty transport. The Contingency
    Aeromedical Staging Facility at Bagram facilitated an average of 500
    patient movements per month, starting July 2009. ``They are the `Angels
    of the Battlefield'--medics dedicated to transporting wounded U.S. and
    coalition service members, as well as locals, to the medical care they
    need. It's our job to take care of these wounded warriors,'' said Maj.
    Dawn Rice, an Air Force Reserve flight nurse and medical crew director
    assigned to the 451st Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron (AES). ``We take
    great pride in getting people the top-notch care they deserve. Our
    country and our military will do whatever it takes to get people to the
    appropriate medical facilities. We want people to know this,'' she
    added. ``Hopefully, it will give them some comfort when they are
    outside the wire fighting the enemy.''
        Air evacuation is a detailed process with the aircrew acting as the
    most visible link in the chain. The process typically begins at a local
    level. ``The primary mission at smaller field hospitals is simply
    stabilizing the patient,'' said Chief Master Sergeant John Trujillo,
    451st AES superintendent. ``Once the patient is stabilized and can be
    moved to another more capable hospital, then it's our job to get them
    there.''
        While caring for wounded service members is the crew's primary
    mission, they provide the same level of dedication to all. The squadron
    recently flew a 9 year-old Afghan girl and her 13 year-old brother from
    a major hospital at Bagram Airfield to a base in Southern Afghanistan.
    She had been at the hospital at Bagram for 2 months recovering from
    injuries received during a mortar attack on her village. Prior to the
    United States stepping in, her brother had been tasked with her care,
    replacing bandages on her legs and overseeing her well-being. As she
    was brought aboard the aircraft for her flight, nurses from Bagram said
    their tearful goodbyes while crewmembers gave the children gifts and
    treats, bringing out their smiles. Looking at the children, the Major
    spoke about this moment and how it transcended geographical borders and
    political differences. It was truly a moment of human compassion. The
    care being given was not just between Americans and Afghans, or adults
    and children, but between human beings taking care of each other.
    ``This is why we do what we do,'' said Major Rice softly. ``These are
    the moments we live for,'' she added with a smile.
        Nursing Services are integral to the support of global and home
    base operations. Day after day, we take the best care of our Nation's
    heroes at home and abroad. AE continues to be one of the greatest
    successes in the war on terror, and is the vital link to saving lives.
    Another example of our AE teams' heroic efforts occurred when a skilled
    team of medical personnel worked tirelessly to keep a badly burned 23-
    year old civilian alive. Having already died and been brought back to
    life by a shot of adrenalin and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, he was
    carried by litter onto a C-17 medical evacuation flight from Balad,
    Iraq to Germany. Lieutenant Colonel Belinda Warren tucked a blanket
    around the patient and inserted numerous tubes to provide vital fluids
    to his body. ``You have to make sure the burn victims don't get cold,
    replace all the fluids leaking from their burns, and make sure they
    don't go into hypothermia or get their blood clotting factors out of
    whack,'' she said. As an Air Force Reserve Critical Care Air Transport
    Team (CCATT) nurse, her goal was to make the patient as comfortable as
    possible. On a return flight to Germany later that month, she learned
    that he had about a 20 percent chance of survival, a higher rate than
    usual, and is doing better than expected, given the severity of his
    injuries.
        These critical missions sustain world-class care across the
    continuum, ensuring our warriors are able to return to the fight with
    continued healthcare and family support. Since overseas contingency
    operations began in 2001, over 70,000 patients have been aeromedically
    evacuated. Year 2009 proved to be a robust one for patient movement. We
    moved 21,500 patients globally including over 9,000 from the war fronts
    in Iraq and Afghanistan. Men and women of the 32 Total Force
    Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) Squadrons were augmented by CCATTs
    delivering hands-on care in the air. These units are currently staffed
    at approximately 90 percent, but as the troops in the Area of
    Responsibility (AOR) increase, additional crews will be needed and are
    being built to support them.
        One of our challenges in developing new AE crews is the training
    pipeline. It currently takes approximately 6 to 9 months to train each
    new crewmember. The initial phase of this training takes place at our
    School of Aerospace Medicine and is standardized for the Total Force.
    Once the didactic portion of AE is completed, flight nurses and
    technicians return to their units. The time required for nurses and
    technicians to be qualified on an aircraft can take an additional 2 to
    6 months. The Total Force is pursuing a single standardized Flight
    Training Unit (FTU) similar to that being used by our pilots. This FTU
    will standardize the upgrade training process across the Total Force by
    creating a single level of qualification and will, most importantly,
    shorten the pipeline to approximately four weeks, creating parity among
    all AE crews.
        Captain Jac Solghan and his Aeromedical Evacuation Liaison Team's
    (AELT) actions provide a great example of what individuals and teams
    bring to the fight when put to the test. Within 12 hours of landing at
    Bastion Joint Operating Base, an improvised explosive device (IED)
    explosion/multi-collision incident injured 5 Afghan National Army
    personnel and 12 local nationals. After their initial medical
    assessments and treatments, Capt. Solghan's AELT responded by providing
    Afghan patient movement requests for rotary wing airlift. Within 40
    minutes, the patients were ready for transport to Kandahar Air Base.
        Additionally, Capt. Solghan and his team successfully coordinated
    with the United Kingdom (UK) Aeromedical Evacuation Control Center
    (AECC) for the transport of a UK solider that suffered a blast injury
    that left him with only one functioning lung. Capitalizing on the
    capabilities of the USAF Lung Team stationed at Ramstein Air Base,
    Germany, and the technology of a Nova artificial lung, this UK service
    member was transported in the U.S. Aeromedical Evacuation System to
    Germany for critical treatment, and then finally to the Birmingham
    Military Hospital, UK, where he is now doing well. This success story
    demonstrated a multinational effort of over 1,000 aircrew, ground, and
    medical personnel.
        Capt. Solghan and his team significantly improved the Afghan
    patient movement system, integrating United States airlift capability
    with International Security Assistance Force and Afghan hospital
    networks. They executed the first-ever United States airlift transport
    of an Afghan patient to an Afghan hospital and enabled eight new
    casualty transport routes, increasing inpatient turnover by 70 percent
    and influencing new joint theater policy. They also initiated joint
    operations with the Afghan National Army Air Corps, enabling more than
    43 patient evacuations with indigenous air assets thus fostering
    national military airlift capability.
        Major Louis Gallo, another Air Force nurse, elevated the level of
    care delivered to our wounded warriors, by leading the first
    Contingency Aeromedical Staging Facility at Bagram Air Base,
    Afghanistan. His team set up tents to stage patients as they waited for
    flights to Germany. He coordinated the procurement of essential
    communication equipment and support services needed to sustain
    operations. Knowing that injured patients needed more than medical
    care, he contacted the United Service Organization, whose volunteers
    set up a morale tent within days with supportive and recreational
    services to aid those awaiting transportation.
                                  humanitarian
        As a result of the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12,
    2010, the Special Operations Surgical Teams and Special Operations
    Critical Care Evacuation Teams, assigned to the 1st Special Operations
    Wing, Hurlburt Field, Florida, deployed with the initial response
    aircraft and were the first military medical teams on the ground. The
    intense training and combat experience gained in Operation Iraqi
    Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) prepared the teams
    for extremely difficult conditions. They worked around the clock to
    provide emergency life-saving care to countless American citizens and
    Haitian Nationals. The teams established treatment areas at the Port-
    au-Prince Airport and the American Embassy. The Critical Care Nurses
    provided casualty evacuation of patients both in and out of country as
    well as pre- and post-operative intensive care unit management. The
    Nurse Anesthetists assisted in lifesaving surgeries including several
    amputations, and augmented the ICU.
        Our Air Force Nurse Corps mission is ``we lead, we partner, we
    care.'' These words have never been more relevant as when the nurses
    and medical technicians of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst repatriated
    our fellow Americans who survived the horrific earthquake in Haiti.
    ``Over a 4 day period, around the clock, plane after plane, those three
    words, `lead, partner, and care,' defined every aspect of the mission
    we found ourselves involved in,'' stated Major Robert Groves, Deputy
    Chief Nurse and Education and Training Flight Commander. He summarized
    his team's experiences using the Air Force Nurse Corps mission as a
    backdrop:
      --We lead.--Every shift had an assigned Nurse Corps officer and
            Senior Non-Commissioned Officer, an Aerospace Medicine Services
            Technician, to organize healthcare, mentor colleagues who had
            never participated in such an operation, and, of course, to
            provide care to earthquake survivors. Among the major tasks
            were organizing the treatment areas in the evacuation
            operations center, inventorying and obtaining supplies, meeting
            planes, triaging patients, and assisting with patient transport
            to higher echelons of care.
      --We partner.--When operational tasks did not involve direct care,
            one could find nurses and technicians supporting the endeavors
            of our other Air Force colleagues. We allowed survivors to
            share their experiences, played soccer with children in the
            fitness center gym, assisted them to find appropriate clothing
            at the donation center, helped them pack new suitcases for
            their trip to families, and provided the use of personal cell
            phones to call loved ones to let them know they were okay. For
            some, these were the first words heard from loved ones in the
            four days following the earthquake.
      --We care.--Direct patient care came easily and naturally to our
            nurses and aeromedical technicians. But, it was more than that.
            From the beginning of operations it was decided that no
            survivor would be alone while on the ground in our area. While
            few evacuees required transfer to higher echelons of care, when
            they did, there was a member of our team assigned to accompany
            them throughout the process. Many evacuees had not navigated
            the American healthcare system. To prevent them from being
            overwhelmed and lost in an unfamiliar system, one of our team
            remained with them until they boarded flights to their
            families. Sometimes it involved overnight stays at local
            hospitals so they had a familiar, encouraging face during their
            treatment. In the end, we processed 579 evacuees, with 70
            needing more extensive medical care and six requiring transport
            to community medical partners. But, the knowledge, skills and
            cooperation with each other and our Joint Base mission partners
            will be a long-lasting experience and will carry fond memories
            of our military service long into the future. These four days
            are what our readiness training had adequately prepared us to
            do. This is what our service is all about.
                            recruiting and retention
        A robust recruiting program is essential to keep the Nurse Corps
    healthy and ready to meet the complex challenges in healthcare and
    national security. While we have executed incentive programs to address
    the nursing shortage, shortfalls continue to be an enormous challenge.
    Today's nursing shortage is expected to deepen as nursing faculty ages.
    The capacity for nursing schools to educate sufficient numbers of
    registered nurses (RN) to meet the future demand is stressed, largely
    due to the limited number of nursing faculty. On July 2, 2009, the U.S.
    Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the healthcare sector of the
    economy is continuing to grow, despite the recession, with more nursing
    jobs expected to be created in the next decade than in any other single
    profession. RNs will be in high demand to fill the majority of these
    positions, as they are the largest component of the healthcare
    workforce. The BLS projects that nearly 600,000 new RN jobs will be
    created by 2018. Quality of life and career opportunities, coupled with
    bonuses, special pays, and other incentives, are critical recruiting
    tools for Air Force Nursing.
        Recruiting fully qualified nurses continues to be one of our
    largest challenges and our historical and present statistics tell us
    this will be an issue for years to come. In fiscal year 2009, we
    accessed 284 nurses against our total accession goal of 350 (81
    percent), down 12 percent from what I reported the previous year.
    National competition to access nurses will continue as many
    professional employment opportunities exist.
        Our Nurse Enlisted Commissioning Program continues to be a superb
    resource as we continue to grow our own from our valuable enlisted
    medics. In fiscal year 2009, of 69 applicants, 40 qualified candidates
    were selected. In fiscal year 2010, we will meet our steady state goal
    of 50 quotas per year. The graduates from this program are commissioned
    as Second Lieutenants and will continue to be valuable assets.
        As we strive to meet our recruiting goals, NC retention remains
    challenging. In fiscal year 2009, 267 (almost 10 percent) nurses
    separated or retired from the Air Force, with 73 percent having 20
    years or less time in service and 58 percent being Lieutenants and
    Captains. With an Incentive Special Pay (ISP) budget increase of $3.3
    million compared to last year, our NC ISP is currently in its second
    year of execution. Seventy-eight percent of our nurses exercised single
    or multi-year contracts. This year's focus was to increase retention by
    recognizing advanced academic preparation, certification and
    experience. In addition, we expanded the number of nurses eligible for
    ISP by adding additional Air Force Specialty Codes and clinical
    settings. While the ISP was not a retention bonus out right, we look
    forward to seeing a positive impact on retention as a result of this
    initiative.
        A number of societal, scientific, and professional developments
    have stimulated a major paradigm change in graduate nursing education.
    One major impetus for this change was the American Association of
    Colleges of Nursing's (AACN) decision in 2004 to endorse the Position
    Statement on the Doctorate in Nursing Practice (DNP). This decision
    moves the current level of preparation necessary for advanced nursing
    practice from the master's degree to the doctorate-level by the year
    2015. The U.S. Air Force Surgeon General fully supports AACN's
    decision, and in response, the Air Force Nurse Corps has researched
    current practice issues within the Nurse Corps and has developed an
    implementation proposal for achieving the AACN goals by 2015.
    Currently, all Air Force Nurse Practitioners are trained through a
    master's degree program. The Air Force NC recommends a phased
    implementation approach to meet the AACN intent. Starting in calendar
    year 2010, the Air Force Nurse Corps proposes a small pool of Nurse
    Corps candidates to be selected to attend Doctor of Nursing Practice
    (DNP) programs and by 2015, all students entering the nurse
    practitioner (NP) career path will graduate with a DNP. In addition, by
    2015, all new Air Force NP candidates accessed through the Health
    Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) will be prepared at the
    doctorate level. Recruitment of fully qualified NPs has been a
    challenge and will likely become more difficult with the increased
    educational requirements. The Nurse Corps must pursue additional
    incentives to entice DNPs to enter the Air Force.
                              operational currency
        Education and training is the foundation of the Nurse Corps
    competencies and one of our priorities is to ensure currency platforms
    meet emerging clinical and operational requirements. The Nurse
    Transition Program (NTP) continues to be one of our many successes with
    10 military and two civilian locations. We graduated 158 NTP nurses in
    fiscal year 2009. Last year; I reported a civilian partnership with the
    Scottsdale Healthcare System, in Scottsdale, Arizona was on the
    horizon. I was honored to deliver the commencement address for the
    second class in December, where we graduated 15 students. We have
    partnered with an outstanding Magnet status organization and our new
    Air Force nurses are getting unprecedented clinical opportunities. At
    just 6 months, the Scottsdale program is already proving to be a
    cornerstone in the success of a strong military partnership between
    Scottsdale Healthcare and Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, located 35
    miles east of Scottsdale. From October to December, nurses trained on
    inpatient units at two Magnet-recognized facilities where they gained
    hands-on clinical experience and competence in direct patient care
    under the supervision of nurse preceptors. Their training was further
    enriched with rotations in peri-operative services, wound care,
    infusion services, laboratory, pediatrics and the Maricopa County burn
    unit. The privilege of training in Magnet-recognized facilities is an
    experience that will prepare our nurses to meet the demands in our
    stateside facilities as well as in deployed settings around the globe.
    I am proud of the exceptional work the course supervisors, Majors
    Deedra Zabokrtsky and Nancy Johnson, have achieved in such a short
    period of time. The Scottsdale program will begin a steady state of 20
    to 25 nurses per class in 2010, making it the largest nurse transition-
    training site.
        The 882nd Training Group at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, is
    instrumental in establishing the largest joint armed services medical
    education and training center that the world has ever seen. To date,
    the 882 Training Group spent more than 11,000 hours working side by
    side with their Army and Navy counterparts to consolidate 15 military
    enlisted medical technical training courses. These collaborative
    efforts have allowed the three services to incorporate best practices
    and build state-of-the-art training platforms that will prepare the
    next generation of medics for the military's diverse missions. The 882
    Training Group began transitioning key and essential personnel in the
    fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009 and will continue staging instructor
    staff and equipment to the Medical Education and Training Campus (METC)
    at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio through the last quarter of fiscal
    year 2011 when all courses are projected to be operational. The first
    METC Senior Enlisted Advisor is Chief Master Sergeant Kevin Lambing, an
    Air Force Senior Aerospace Medical Technician.
        Our enlisted medical technicians, led by Chief Master Sergeant
    Joseph Potts, are vital to the achievements of the TNF. One of many
    outstanding Airmen is Staff Sergeant Christopher Brown, a medical
    technician deployed from the 88th Medical Group for 192 days to Kabul,
    Afghanistan, where he was assigned to Joint Task Force Phoenix VII.
    SSgt. Brown received a Meritorious Service Medal in recognition of his
    superior performance as a medical technician while supporting
    humanitarian missions, conducting medical evacuations, training
    Afghanistan medics, participating in military convoys, and setting up
    an Afghanistan medical clinic. He was the sole medic for a 12-person
    police mentoring team traveling to various remote areas surrounding
    Kabul to train Afghan police. Assigned to the Afghan Evaluation
    Transition Team, he was given 14 Afghan medics to train and prepare to
    treat patients at a bare base. He participated in the longest convoy in
    OEF history to move the Afghan Kadack to the bare base in western
    Afghanistan. SSgt. Brown is a fine example of the many committed Airmen
    who continue to make our Air Force proud.
        In an effort to increase advanced life support capability at bases,
    we have trained several of our Aerospace Medical Service Technicians to
    the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic level.
    The inaugural class launched last fall graduated 19 students. This
    initiative helps reduce the number of contract services in our
    emergency response platforms by growing our own paramedics from our
    enlisted force. This will also provide a marketable career path outside
    the military when these individuals retire. We are expecting an annual
    growth rate of 50 per year with the vision of providing relief for a
    stressed career field.
        Another force multiplier is our Independent Duty Medical
    Technicians (IDMT). We continue to see a steady increase in our IDMTs
    as we balance the end strength of our medical technicians. They play an
    integral role within our Air Force Medical Service as our physician
    extenders. They are designed to function in a small footprint providing
    patient care, as well as fourteen other ancillary support functions.
    The continued efforts to recruit IDMTs have garnered our highest
    ``true'' volunteer candidates equaling 24 in the past 10 years. The
    remainder of our IDMT candidates are gained through the Noncommissioned
    Officer Retraining Program designed to right size undermanned career
    fields across the Air Force. Additionally, continuation of the
    selective reenlistment bonus has aided the recruitment and retention of
    these valuable assets. Information technology has further enhanced our
    IDMTs' capabilities. We supply each IDMT with a hand-held Hewlett-
    Packard iPAQ that is fully loaded with reference materials, thereby
    increasing access to the most up-to-date medical information without
    adversely affecting space and weight limitations of their medical bags.
                               skills sustainment
        For nearly a decade, the Air Force Medical Service has partnered
    with high volume civilian trauma centers to prepare doctors, nurses,
    and technicians to care for combat casualties. Maintaining readiness to
    care for the complex traumatic injuries seen in war is challenging as
    most military treatment facilities care for lower acuity patients. To
    bridge this gap, three Centers for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness
    Skills (C-STARS) platforms were established at the R Adams Cowley Shock
    Trauma Center in Baltimore, at University Hospital Cincinnati, and at
    Saint Louis University Hospital. C-STARS Baltimore has a surgical and
    emergency care focus. C-STARS Cincinnati is designed specifically for
    the clinical sustainment of Critical Care Air Transport Teams. C-STARS
    St. Louis serves a range of medical and surgical specialties. In 2009,
    817 doctors, nurses, and technicians completed vital training at one of
    these three centers. Since inception, these partnerships have enabled
    4,336 Total Force medical Airmen to maintain clinical currency. During
    their 2 to 3 week tours, participants complete 90 to 100 percent of
    required readiness skills through hands-on patient care, supplemented
    by didactics, cadaver labs, training with patient simulations, and
    field exercises.
        In addition to the immersion experience obtained at C-STARS, a
    complementary initiative was started in 2009 called STARS-P, the
    Sustainment of Trauma and Resuscitation Skills Program. Personnel
    assigned to designated STARS-P military treatment facilities at Wright-
    Patterson AFB, Ohio; Luke AFB, Arizona; Nellis AFB, Nevada; Travis AFB,
    California; and Wilford Hall Medical Center, Texas, rotate through
    local civilian Level I trauma centers as part of their normal duty
    time. For example, medical personnel assigned to Luke AFB, routinely
    rotate to nearby Scottsdale Healthcare. As a new initiative, we
    continue to define processes that best match the needs of the military
    treatment facility and the host civilian institution; however, STARS-P
    holds great promise as another approach to honing war-readiness skills.
    These partnerships with civilian medical facilities have proven to be
    invaluable to maintaining a high state of readiness to deliver quality
    care to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, their families and
    coalition partners.
        Another valuable skills sustainment program is the Critical Care/
    Emergency Nursing (CC/EN) Fellowship. The three fellowship sites,
    Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, St. Louis Hospital,
    St. Louis, Missouri, and the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,
    Maryland, continue to produce superbly trained nurse clinicians. Many
    graduates have already employed their new skills at deployed locations
    in Afghanistan or Iraq, and several stationed at the 59th Medical Wing
    have returned to one or both AORs for more than one tour. Forty-three
    percent of the San Antonio Military Medical Center graduates have
    obtained advanced certification as Critical Care Registered Nurses. As
    of March 2009, 99 of 313 critical care nurses are Critical Care
    Registered Nurses. Graduates of these benchmark programs are phenomenal
    and often light years ahead of their peers. Nurse leaders repeatedly
    report from the deployed environment that our graduates are the best,
    ``Put into any situation and they simply shine.'' They have developed
    critical thinking skills that often exceed those of more experienced
    critical care nurses.
        We received updates from two of our June 2009 graduates, Captain
    Matthew Howard and Captain Lindsay Erickson, both currently serving at
    Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. Their comments clearly highlight their
    enhanced level of clinical and critical thinking skills. Capt Howard
    stated, ``I in-serviced the staff on ventriculostomies the very first
    shift I worked. We set a record last month for the most traumas since
    the war started here, and if we keep going, we will exceed it this
    month. More importantly, the survival rate is up 3 percent and at a
    record high.''
        Capt Erickson stated, ``By the end of my second week, a mass
    casualty situation arose. The unit was full with 16 patients. We moved
    three non-vented patients to the ward, and quickly acquired six new
    trauma/burn patients. I started the day with a three-patient assignment
    and ended up taking one of the new traumas on top of that. It was
    challenging but I felt very well prepared and took the assignment on
    without hesitation. No doubt my Critical Care fellowship training
    prepared me well. One of the burn patients required bladder pressure
    monitoring. Many of the nurses here aren't too familiar with this, so I
    volunteered to teach.''
        The CC/EN Fellowships have set the standard. Our graduates provide
    the highest quality care, both stateside and in the deployed
    environment, positively impacting lives on a daily basis. In the area
    of responsibility, the impact is palpable with a sustained 95 percent
    survival rate for OIF, and 96 percent survival rate for OEF.
                            organizational structure
        The Air Force Medical Operations Agency (AFMOA) in San Antonio,
    Texas is a single support agency that stood up in September 2008 under
    the command of Brigadier General Mark A. Ediger. Nearly 18 months
    later, AFMOA has progressed as a robust centralized reach-out, reach-
    back clinical support hub, collaborating with the major commands to
    standardize business practices across the Air Force Medical Service in
    pursuit of ``Excellent Healthcare, Clinical Currency.'' To that end,
    the AFMOA Surgeon General Nursing Directorate, comprised of three
    divisions and led by Colonel Leslie Claravall, has concentrated efforts
    toward developing currency platforms to sustain clinical skills for
    deployed operations. For example, the Provision of Nursing Care
    Division, led by Colonel Doug Howard, participated in an ``Emergency
    Department Analysis and Process Improvement Project'' in November 2009
    and is partnering with emergency services leadership of nine military
    treatment facilities to employ efficient evidence-based processes.
    Ultimately, the goal is to increase throughput leading to enhanced
    patient safety and satisfaction, while providing more experience and
    opportunity for medics to sustain clinical currency. Other clinical
    arenas, to include inpatient care and specialty care clinics, will be
    targeted in the same manner.
        Additionally, AFMOA Surgeon General Nursing is contributing to
    efficient healthcare and clinical currency by building tools to enhance
    mentoring and information sharing. To illustrate, the Education and
    Training Division, led by Colonel Lilly Chrisman, was key in
    facilitating ``Mosby on line'' as an Air Force Medical Service
    enterprise-wide reference tool. Modernizing access to the most current
    edition of a sound clinical reference allows our medics to obtain
    guidance anytime from any computer, while saving countless dollars by
    averting the distribution of new hard copies to replace outdated ones
    across the Air Force Medical Service
        AFMOA Nursing Service Resourcing Division, led by Colonel Robert
    Hontz, was the last division to stand up this summer. This division
    analyzed nurse resources across the major commands making
    recommendations to support Air Force initiatives such as the Medical
    Home Model for patient-centered care, a new Special Needs Coordination
    Cell to improve continuity of care for special needs family members,
    and the plus up of mental health nurses to support increasing
    deployment demands on a stressed career field. The Mental Health Nurse
    (46P3) and the Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (46Y3P) Air Force
    Specialty Code (AFSC) is currently staffed at 77 percent for 46P3 and
    100 percent for the 46Y3P. The high mobility tempo of this specialty
    makes it difficult to retain these critically manned mental health
    nurses. Currently, there are 30 psychiatric nurses in deployment unit
    type codes increasing to 40 in fiscal year 2010 to meet the career
    field's rigorous mobility requirements. The entire Air Force Medical
    Service mental healthcareer field is in the Band ``D'' Battle Rhythm
    which requires a 1:2 deployment: dwell time. Seven to eight psychiatric
    nurses are deployed worldwide in support of OIF and OEF each cycle.
        The Air Force Medical Service is taking steps to alleviate the
    stressors on the mental health nursing career field, and plans are
    under way to build a formal training program at the David Grant Medical
    Center at Travis AFB, California. This course will train clinical
    nurses to become mental health nurses. Additionally, we are pursuing an
    increase in mental health nurse and mental health nurse practitioner
    authorizations. Our goal is to place 10 additional mental health nurses
    in our bedded military treatment facilities to augment the staff caring
    for our wounded warriors and other beneficiaries. The advanced clinical
    capability of our mental health nurse practitioners has been lauded by
    patients as well as other provider staff. The Air Force Medical Service
    has ``grown our own'' through the Air Force Institute of Technology
    program, with 14 of our 15 nurse practitioners having come from our
    mental health nurse career field.
                                    research
        Air Force nurse researchers are integral to the joint research
    conducted in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The Joint
    Combat Casualty Care Research Team (JC2RT) consists of six Army and
    three Air Force members with the mission of fostering and facilitating
    medical research, performance improvement, and evidence-based practice
    initiatives for the United States Central Command Joint Operations
    Area: Multi-National Corps--Iraq Theater, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and
    Kuwait. In March 2009, the Department of Defense medical research
    program was initiated in Afghanistan under the direction of Colonel
    Elizabeth Bridges, an Air Force Reserve Ph.D. prepared nurse.
    Simultaneously, Lieutenant Colonel Teresa Ryan, also an Air Force
    Reserve Ph.D. prepared nurse from Keesler AFB, Mississippi was the
    senior Deployed Combat Casualty Research Team (DC2RT) researcher at
    Balad, Iraq.
        Colonel Bridges laid the groundwork for the arrival of a team of
    six researchers (physicians, nurses, a nutritionist, and a
    physiologist) who arrived in September to Bagram. Currently, Major
    Candy Wilson, a Ph.D. prepared nurse, from the 59th Clinical Research
    Squadron at Lackland AFB, Texas is at Bagram. In August 2009, the JC2RT
    Headquarters office moved from Ibn Sina, Iraq to Bagram, Afghanistan.
    In October 2009, Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Bohan from the Graduate
    School of Nursing, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
    along with SGT Andrew Coggins, a Army laboratory services NCO,
    established an office in Kandahar to expand the research program. The
    nurse researchers assigned to the DC2RT identified the following major
    areas for research: mild traumatic brain injury, management of complex
    orthopedic trauma, pain management across the continuum of care, and
    integration of information from the Level II medical facilities and the
    en-route phase of care, both medical evacuation and aeromedical
    evacuation.
        The teams provide guidance and review for all research conducted in
    Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait. The Ph.D. prepared nurses provide
    leadership and guidance on scientific merit, design and methodology of
    research. Each team member is involved in collecting data for a variety
    of research protocols focusing on combat casualty care. Over 150
    research studies have been conducted or are being planned as a result
    of the JC2RT's efforts. More than 20,000 subjects have been enrolled in
    research studies. Areas of research conducted by the U.S. military in
    Afghanistan and Iraq have led to advancements in combat casualty
    medical care and therapies to include tourniquet application, combat
    gauze, life saving interventions, en-route care, resuscitation, blood
    product administration, burns, wound care, post traumatic stress
    disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and infectious diseases.
        Colonel Bridges, as the first research nurse in Bagram,
    Afghanistan, from April to August 2009, received Tri-Service Nursing
    Research Program (TSNRP) funding for a functional hemo-dynamic study in
    Afghanistan. Since 2006, 34 nursing research protocols have been
    approved with U.S. Air Force nurse researchers being principal
    investigators in five of those studies. The overall nursing research
    themes include warrior care, healthcare delivery, trauma, behavioral
    health, and nursing/healthcare professional issues. Nursing principal
    investigators have investigated pain management, functional hemo-
    dynamics, and StO2 monitor for occult hypo-perfusion, carbon monoxide
    exposure, women's health, sleep disturbances in soldiers, oral care in
    the critically ill, retention, recruitment, PTSD, burnout, compassion
    fatigue, and moral distress in nursing personnel. To date, three Air
    Force led nursing research protocols are in the final stages of
    approval by the institutional review board, which researchers by law
    must submit their research proposal to receive approval before
    beginning a research study.
        As a member of the Joint Combat Casualty Research Team, Major
    Wilson augmented the Combined Joint Special Operation Forces to provide
    healthcare for local men, women, children and the Afghanistan National
    Army. During visits to the villages, Maj. Wilson, a nurse practitioner,
    along with other healthcare professionals, provided medical care for
    over 10,000 patients during a 6-day period. The rugged and austere
    healthcare delivery conditions required medical diagnoses to be made
    based on patient presentation, without the aid of laboratory or
    radiology analyses. In addition to the direct benefits of the care
    provided, valuable and actionable intelligence was gathered on these
    missions that resulted in improved situational awareness by U.S. forces
    and directly resulted in saving lives of service members.
        The TSNRP Executive Director position transitioned to Colonel Marla
    DeJong in 2009, the second Air Force nurse researcher to hold this
    position. The TSNRP is the only program with the primary mission of
    funding military unique and military relevant nursing research. Colonel
    DeJong is responsible for facilitating tri-service nursing research to
    optimize the health of military members and their beneficiaries. The
    goal of military nursing research is to produce knowledge that further
    enhances clinical practice, the delivery of healthcare, nursing
    education, and nursing management. Since its inception in 1992, the
    TSNRP has funded more than 300 military nursing research studies and
    several evidenced-based practice projects. Ultimately, application of
    this new knowledge improves the quality and delivery of nursing
    practice, promotes the best possible outcomes for patients and
    families, and informs healthcare policy decisionmakers. With the
    support of TSNRP funding, the pocket guide, Battlefield and Disaster
    Nursing Pocket Guide, which I shared during last year's testimony, has
    been distributed to 15,000 Air Force military nurses and medics to
    augment readiness preparation.
        During 2009, military nurse leaders, researchers, and stakeholders
    of the TSNRP revised the mission and research priorities to ensure the
    funding clearly reflects the mission and research vision of military
    nurses. The current TSNRP research priorities are (1) force health
    protection, (2) nursing competencies and practice, and (3) leadership,
    ethics, and mentoring. The TSNRP sponsors Grant Writing Workshops for
    novice and experienced researchers to learn how to design studies and
    write high-quality applications that will be competitive for funding.
    Annually, the TSNRP conducts a Post-Award Management Workshop to inform
    grant recipients of Federal, Department of Defense, and TSNRP
    management policies and guidance on grant execution.
        Results from TSNRP-funded research impacts nursing clinical
    practice in deployment resilience, retention, methods to reduce
    ventilator-associated pneumonia, health disparities, and women's health
    during deployments. For example, Major Jennifer Hatzfeld who defended
    her dissertation in 2009, ``Assessing Health Disparities in the Air
    Force'' documented the prevalence of health disparities according to
    race or ethnicity for chronic diseases such as hypertension, high
    cholesterol, and diabetes among adult Active Duty Air Force members;
    however, she found no evidence of disparities in the treatment outcomes
    of patients with these conditions, indicating patients received
    appropriate medical care.
        Numerous mission-relevant studies are in progress. Colonel Bridges'
    study is designed to evaluate new methods of monitoring patients after
    hemorrhage on the battlefield. Colonel Penny Pierce, a retired Air
    Force nurse reservist, and her colleagues have systematically collected
    comprehensive survey data from deploying troops beginning with the
    Persian Gulf War and continuing through OEF and OIF. The initial
    studies focused primarily on military women due to the sociopolitical
    concerns raised by deployment of large numbers of women, reservists,
    and mothers of dependent children. Later studies included men and women
    from the Air Force and Army, enabling researchers to compare findings
    by gender, military service, and deployed locations. Data collection
    pertained to physical, mental, and gender-specific health issues.
    Junior enlisted women and families experiencing economic hardships were
    particularly vulnerable to work-family conflict. Further, individuals
    with work-family conflict were at high risk to develop post-traumatic
    stress disorder. Stressors such as family conflict and organizational
    issues influenced the physical and mental health of military members
    and impacted retention. Importantly, these stressors are potentially
    modifiable. Work is underway to identify interventions that will
    benefit individuals, families, and the uniformed services.
        TSNRP-funded researchers continue to disseminate the results of
    their studies through peer-reviewed publications and numerous
    presentations at nursing and medical conferences. The TSNRP co-
    sponsored the Karen A. Rieder Nursing Research Poster Session at the
    115th annual meeting of the Association of Military Surgeons of the
    United States. Air Force nurses presented 29 of the 90 posters which
    summarized the results of recent studies, evidence-based practice
    projects, and process improvement activities. Colonel Bridges, for
    example, recommended interventions to prevent complications during en-
    route care of casualties transported by Critical Care Air Transport
    Team during OEF and OIF.
        In addition to her duties as TSNRP program director, Colonel DeJong
    is assigned to the DOD Blast Injury Research Program Coordinating
    Office. She organized and hosted an international, state-of-the-science
    meeting on blast-related mild traumatic brain injury. The meeting
    resulted in a thorough assessment of knowledge about TBI and identified
    the gaps necessary to shape future research. Colonel DeJong also co-
    chaired the Joint Program Committee for Battle Injury Prevention
    Research and helped execute the $247 million Battle Casualty and
    Psychological Health Research Program.
        Colonel Karen Weis, another one of our Ph.D.-prepared nurses, co-
    authored Psychosocial Adaptation to Pregnancy: Seven Dimensions of
    Maternal Role Development. Colonel Weis also authored a nurse-physician
    communication assessment tool used in several military treatment
    facilities, as well as the Methodist health system in Houston, Texas.
    The instrument assesses perceived barriers to physician-nurse
    communication enabling focused attention for improved staffing
    effectiveness.
        Colonel John Murray just completed a chapter entitled, ``The U.S.
    military health system: Meeting healthcare needs in wartime and
    peacetime'', to be included in Policy & Politics in Nursing and Health
    Care. As the Director of Education, Training & Research, Joint Task
    Force, National Capital Region--Medical, he developed Joint-level DOD
    Assurance and Issuing authority for research within the National
    Capital Region. Colonel Murray is a member of the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) National Research Advisory Council and the VA
    workgroup for Research on Educational Interventions for Health
    Professionals.
        Lieutenant Colonels Patricia Bradshaw and Karen O'Connell, and
    Majors Susan Dukes, Brenda Morgan, and Antoinette Shin are near
    completion of their Ph.D. program. These nurses will be deliberately
    placed as the Nurse Corps builds research specific locations or
    ``cells''.
        We recently developed a nursing research fellowship and the first
    candidate will begin this spring. This 1-year pre-doctoral research
    fellowship will focus on clinical and operational sustainment
    platforms. The intent of this program is for the fellow to develop a
    foundation in nursing research and ultimately pursue a Ph.D.
        The desire for evidence-based nursing care is at the forefront of
    the nursing staff at the 59th Medical Wing, Wilford Hall Medical
    Center, San Antonio, Texas. Newly hired nurses are oriented to the
    benefits of nursing research and evidence-based practice during nursing
    orientation. The deliberate promotion of nursing research has resulted
    in three nurses developing protocols for funding from TSNRP.
        Nursing staff from the 88th Medical Group, Wright-Patterson AFB,
    Ohio, have submitted three research grants this year and are
    participating in two nursing studies. Major Bonnie Stiffler, the
    primary investigator for the study, ``Barriers to Screening Mammography
    for Medical Treatment Facility Enrolled Beneficiaries,'' is conducting
    telephone interviews to identify barriers to obtaining provider
    recommended mammography. The goal is to identify barriers to care and
    then develop methods to minimize or eliminate the barriers. Colonel
    Robie Hughes is the primary investigator for a funded multi-site study
    titled, ``Air Force Nurse Transition Program Student Quantitative
    Medical Simulation Performance''. This study will be the first formal
    study conducted at the nine Nurse Transition Program sites during a
    simulated medical scenario evaluating nurse performance from this
    established 11-week training program.
                           strategies for the future
        I am proud to report that we have created a Master's Degree in
    Flight Nursing with an Adult Clinical Nurse Specialist focus and
    concentration in Disaster Preparedness. This program, the first of its
    kind in the country, was designed and ready for students in just 3
    months. We partnered with Wright State University-Miami Valley College
    of Nursing, Dayton, Ohio and the Health and National Center for Medical
    Readiness Tactical Laboratory at Calamityville. Graduates from this
    program will gain expertise in Flight Nursing as well as emergency and
    disaster preparedness from military and civilian perspectives. Our
    first candidate will begin in the spring. The unique and diverse
    curriculum will meet Homeland Security Presidential Directive #21 and
    include advanced clinical courses in acute and chronic health issues
    for the adult population with an emphasis in flight and disaster
    nursing. The Flight Nursing component will address symptom management
    and stabilization during air transport. In addition to the classroom
    training, students will be connected with a preceptor in an active
    flight nursing setting with both fixed and rotary aircraft at the
    375th, Scott AFB, Illinois and Care Flight at Miami Valley Hospital,
    Dayton, Ohio. Students will be exposed to tragic scenarios to
    illustrate the impact disasters place on the health and safety of
    individuals and families. A former 54-acre cement plant in Ohio is
    being developed into an all-hazards disaster and training facility.
    This site will be incorporated into joint civilian and military
    training programs to provide a realistic venue to simulate natural and
    man-made disasters. Upon completion of this rigorous program, graduates
    will be eligible to take the Adult Health CNS and American Nurse
    Credentialing Center certification exams.
        The Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University
    Health Sciences (USUHS) continues to provide cutting-edge academic
    programs to prepare nurses with military unique clinical and research
    skills in support of delivery of patient care during peace, war,
    disaster, and other contingencies. As they move toward their vision of
    being a nationally recognized academic leader, while on the forefront
    of a nurse and nurse educator shortage, the Graduate School of Nursing
    was asked to collaborate with the Federal Nursing Service Chiefs to
    increase the cadre of baccalaureate-prepared military nurses, through
    creative partnerships with existing schools of nursing. One of
    Uniformed Services University Health Sciences' top initiatives is to
    work with civilian nursing institutions to address the military nursing
    shortage and assist the Department of Defense to identify strategies to
    encourage and incentivize potential applicants to enroll in
    baccalaureate nursing programs. USUHS plans to develop and deploy a
    comprehensive survey to assess the willingness of potential student
    populations to consider accepting an undergraduate nursing education in
    return for a commission as a Nurse Corps officer in the Armed Forces
    with a subsequent service obligation. The targeted populations will
    include students in nursing school programs, qualified applicants who
    are not accepted for admission to nursing school due to space
    limitations, associate-degreed registered nurses, second career nurses,
    and enlisted service members with a desire to be commissioned as a
    nurse corps officer. Data from these surveys will be analyzed to
    identify and quantify perceptions of potential nurse applicants towards
    military service.
        As I reported last year, we developed Master Clinician roles to
    afford our most clinically experienced senior nurses with advanced
    academic preparation to remain at the bedside without sacrificing
    promotion opportunities. We have 20 Colonel positions identified across
    our military treatment facilities and are diligently working to fill
    these authorizations in fiscal year 2010.
                                   way ahead
        Nursing, the essential healthcare profession, is highly valued for
    providing skilled, evidence-based quality care to Airmen and their
    families. We continue to arm our nursing service personnel with the
    necessary skill sets through education, training, and research to meet
    the challenges of operating in the ever changing global environments.
        Nurse recruitment and retention continues to be our focus as we
    develop academic partnerships, sustain our accession programs, reward
    clinical practice through incentive specialty pay, and enhance nursing
    capabilities through advanced academic preparation such as the Masters
    Degree in Flight Nursing and our DNP implementation plan.
        We look forward to the future. By being actively engaged in nursing
    research, we are generating the knowledge necessary to guide Air Force
    and Joint nursing operations. Through the synergy of our AD, ANG, AFRC,
    civilian, and contract forces, coupled with the collaborative
    relationships of our sister Services and civilian partners, we are
    prepared to meet emerging challenges with strength and confidence. Air
    Force Nursing stands ready today to embrace the challenges of tomorrow
    as we lead, partner, and care, every time, everywhere.
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, it is
    my honor to be here with you today representing a dedicated, strong
    Total Nursing Force of nearly 18,000 men and women. We sincerely thank
    you for your tremendous support for Air Force Nursing.

                      CARING FOR WOUNDED, ILL AND INJURED

        General Horoho. Sir, I absolutely believe Army nurses are
    prepared for those types of injuries. But, it has proven a
    challenge. You know, years ago, if you asked whether or not
    Army nursing provided rehabilitative nursing, we didn't. Post-
    9/11, absolutely. That's one of our core competencies. And
    we've worked hand in hand--when we talk about Army nursing, we
    talk about our Active component, our Reserve component, our
    National Guard, our medics, and our civilians. All three of
    those are critical to ensuring that we're being able to meet
    the needs of our patients on the battlefield in--both in our
    stateside facilities.
        So, when you talk about whether you have the capabilities,
    every single one of our medics are highly trained, and that's
    where we've got that life-sustaining care that's given at the
    point of injury, and then they're immediately evacuated back
    either for our forward surgical teams or back to our combat
    support hospitals. And then, in 36 hours, those critically
    injured patients will be seen at Landstuhl Regional Medical
    Command, and then further evacuated to our major--our nine
    other major medical centers.
        And so, we've spent the very first year, in 2008, of really
    looking at every single competency needed to be able to support
    an expeditionary force, and then we've spent this past year
    changing the way that we leader-develop, changing our
    competencies, and actually changing how we assign our nurses.
    So, instead of assigning based on authorizations, we actually
    assign based on capabilities, so we know where the needs are,
    what type of capabilities are needed, and then we make those
    assignments across the Army Nurse Corps.
        Chairman Inouye. Admiral.
        Admiral Flaherty. Yes, sir.
        The Navy Nurse Corps has added a number of programs to keep
    our staff well trained. As the war began, we saw new injuries
    and new types of injuries that perhaps we had not cared for
    before.
        We also have a workforce that had been deployed and had
    been at war, and come back with significant skills. So they are
    part of the training pipeline. They are training each other
    about what they saw, what they've been able to care for, and
    what now is needed.
        We've partnered with our civilian organizations to get our
    nurses to some intensive intensive care unit (ICU) care and
    also some emergency medicine care, because we know they--the
    corpsmen on the battlefield--are the ones who are providing
    that wonderful support for that young marine or that young
    sailor or that young soldier.
        So, do we have all the answers? No, sir. Are we well
    prepared and well positioned to go forward with the future of
    what we see in the injuries? Yes, sir. We have training
    dollars, we have people in the pipeline for master's programs,
    and we are doing all that we can to make sure that that's
    shaped appropriately.
        Chairman Inouye. General.
        General Siniscalchi. Senator Inouye, thank you for your
    question.
        Sir, our focus has been on lifelong training, starting from
    novice through expert. Our nurse transition programs provide us
    an opportunity to take nurses, right from their bachelor of
    science degree program, into a transition program that focuses
    on building clinical competency. And as they progress
    throughout the professional continuum, we have very robust
    programs for skill sustainment, for just-in-time training.
    We've partnered with our sister services on developing critical
    care, trauma, and emergency room fellowships. It's a 12-year--
    or, a 12-month fellowship that prepares our critical-care
    nurses to go into intensive-care settings in the deployed--in
    deployed operations, and have the advanced skills that they
    need to take care of our wounded who have traumatic injuries.
        We're focusing on mental health specialties. We are in the
    process of developing a Mental Health Training Program, at
    Travis Air Force Base in California, which will help us to grow
    our own. As we recognize the increased need for behavioral
    health, we can take our clinical nurses and put them through
    this educational program, at Travis, which will help to grow
    mental-health nurses. USUHS has developed a Mental Health Nurse
    Practitioner Program, and they have a unique focus in preparing
    mental-health nurse practitioners with the skill set they need
    to meet the challenges with our wounded warriors and their
    families.
        Our critical care educational programs, our Nurse
    Anesthetist Program, our nurse practitioner programs, are very,
    very robust, and our focus has been on developing partnerships
    with civilian universities and with USUHS so that, throughout
    the continuum, we can allow our nurses--afford our nurses the
    opportunity for advanced clinical preparation and training. I
    had testified last year that we had started a new role for
    master clinicians, and this role allows us to grow clinical
    experts with advanced experience and advanced academic
    preparation, and allow them to continue to compete for
    promotion and function at the bedside as true clinical leaders
    and clinical experts.
        We realize the increased challenges our flight nurses face
    with critical-care--movement of critical-care patients. And so,
    we've recently partnered with Wright State University, in
    Dayton, Ohio, to establish the first of its kind master's
    program in flight nursing, with a focus on adult health
    clinical specialists and homeland defense and disaster
    preparedness. And we are proud to say that our first student
    begins this fall.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        All of you heard Senator Murray set forth a few numbers.
    The suicide rate among service personnel is the highest in 28
    years--about 35 percent higher than the general population of
    the United States. And, surprisingly, over one-third have never
    been deployed. It was assumed that they were afraid of combat,
    but over one-third, never been deployed.
        As I pointed out, nurses spend more time with their
    patients than doctors because of the nature of their work, but
    do you believe that our program to attack this problem is
    adequate? Suicides.

                               SUICIDE PREVENTION

        General Horoho. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        One of the things that, when we've looked at the
    psychological health in suicide prevention is, we really looked
    at it through the lenses of each member of the team, because
    each healthcare provider and ancillary support provides a
    critical skill set when they're interacting with our patients;
    and not just our patients, but also with their family members.
        We've taken the focus of looking at a holistic, kind of,
    comprehensive view. The Army has been very much engaged, over
    this past year, of looking at a behavioral health system of
    care that looks at taking that capability and, How do we surge
    that across Army medicine, push that into theater by using the
    electronic virtual behavioral health, so that we establish that
    relationship while your warriors are deployed?
        We also have very robust behavioral health and
    psychological support for the family members. One of the
    examples that we're doing right now is with the family members
    of 5-2 that are deployed. In preparation for them redeploying
    back, we have already partnered with TriWest, as well as with
    the local civilian communities and our military health
    providers, to start providing that support with the
    reintegration process now, in dealing with issues now, before
    waiting for those families to reintegrate together.
        So, it's really looking at a comprehensive piece of all of
    our clinical assets, to be able to impact patient outcomes. We
    have a long way to go, but I believe with the partnering that
    we've established with our civilian community leaders in
    healthcare, as well as with our sister services, so that we
    ensure that we are looking at this from a comprehensive
    perspective.
        Chairman Inouye. Admiral.
        Admiral Flaherty. Thank you. As we look at suicides, we
    look at both the Navy and Marine Corps numbers, and Navy
    medicine and Navy nursing are playing a key supporting role to
    our line colleagues. The line runs our program, and we are
    there in a supporting role. And as our Surgeon General talked
    about, often it's relationship--fractured-relationship issues
    that happen either at home or with a girlfriend, a boyfriend,
    et cetera--or partners.
        So, we need to pay attention to that, and we believe the
    core component of our programs really rests on resiliency. And
    how do we build internal resiliency for young men and women
    who, quite honestly, are quite strong, the military families
    are very resilient, but it's the stresses of the deployments
    that often can cause that fracture--so, how do we have our eyes
    on that? How do we care for each other? And it is, as the SG
    talked about, it is that shipmate. And I see you today, and I
    know that you're not the same as you were yesterday; you're not
    as funny as you were yesterday, perhaps. What's going on? That
    should be the first red flag to ask the question, ``How are you
    doing?''
        When people are uncomfortable about asking specific
    intrusive questions, you can ask, ``How are you sleeping?''
    Because someone's sleep patterns and their sleep behavior often
    is a predictor of stress. So, getting our arms around the
    stress and understanding that.
        I believe we don't need a specialist to have that
    conversation. I believe the Navy nurse has every single skill
    that they need to have those conversations with people to talk
    about how well they're doing. What are their relationships? How
    are they feeling? And that is the backbone of some of the
    programs that we've put in place.
        So, it's resiliency, sir. It's operational stress control.
    For the Navy, we talk about ``staying in the green.'' We travel
    into--we look at a stoplight; green, yellow, orange, and red.
    Red means that I'm fractured and I need, probably, some
    intervention and support. I want to stay in the green; I want
    to be healthy, I want to eat right, I want to feel well, and I
    want to be able to do all the things that matter or are
    important. And we, as Navy support colleagues, try to help
    people stay in the green.
        If you get to the yellow, we can get you back to the green.
    If you get to the orange, we can still get you back to the
    green. We want to keep you there, so that you stay well and
    healthy.
        Chairman Inouye. General.
        General Siniscalchi. Sir, prevention of suicide begins with
    building a strong wingman culture. Resiliency is key to
    prevention of suicide. And in February, our Air Force senior
    leadership supported Lieutenant General Green's plans for
    providing targeted, tiered, resiliency training for our high-
    risk groups.
        And as we look at the tiered resiliency training, the focus
    is on instilling resiliency and building that wingman culture
    throughout an entire career. It begins with foundational
    training and it continues throughout a career, focusing on
    groups that are identified as high risk. And as we identify
    groups that are high risk for risk of suicide, then we
    implement face-to-face training, increased interaction from the
    Commander, from the front line supervisor, so that we are doing
    training and instilling resiliency and building that wingman
    culture in building that team.
        Our focus for suicide prevention is on our total force.
    We're looking across our Active Duty, our Guard, our Reserve,
    and our civilian force for suicide prevention.
        Chairman Inouye. To close this hearing, may I call upon the
    nurses, if they so feel, to make their statements.
        General Horoho.
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PATRICIA HOROHO, CHIEF, ARMY
                NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
        General Horoho. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, it is an honor and a great privilege to speak
    before you today on behalf of the nearly 40,000 Active
    component, Reserve component, National Guard officers,
    noncommissioned officers, enlisted, and civilians that are Army
    nursing.
        It has been your continued tremendous support that has
    enabled Army nursing, in support of Army medicine, to provide
    the highest quality of care to those that are entrusted to our
    care.
        Last year, I promised you an update on the Army Nurse Corps
    campaign plan that we began in October 2008. Leader development
    has always been one of the Army Nurse Corps' foundations, but
    as we move the Corps forward, we realize the need to develop a
    strategy to provide overarching, longitudinal training programs
    to ensure that we are building leaders for the future. A major
    initiative is the Leader Academy, a virtual construct designed
    to facilitate and enhance adaptive, full-spectrum Army Nurse
    Corps leaders.
        We also determined that there were nurses that needed a
    standardized clinical transition program to ensure success as
    they move from academics to nursing practice. In October 2008,
    the Army Medical Command formally fielded the Brigadier General
    Retired Anna Mae Hay Clinical Transition Program, named in
    honor of our 13th Corps Chief and the first female officer in
    the Army across nine medical centers. During fiscal year 2009,
    364 new graduate Army nurses completed the program, and so far
    this year over 270 have completed this program.
        The program is designed to ensure that we develop and
    foster critical thinking, communication, multidisciplinary
    teambuilding, and deployment skills. The first training and
    educational platform that we realigned to support our
    transformation was a head nurse course, and we named it the
    Clinical Nurse OIC and NCOIC Leader Development Course, as a
    result of recognizing the critical relationship that exists
    between the clinical nurse, the officer in charge, and the
    noncommissioned officer (NCO) in charge. The course provides
    our mid-level managers the opportunity to learn the essential
    skills to execute sound clinical and business practices.
        We are equally committed to the growth and the development
    of our NCOs and soldiers. In fiscal year 2011, we'll fund two
    senior NCOs to obtain their master's in healthcare
    administration, to ensure that we continue to meet the needs of
    the 21st century.
        We are also developing an intensive care course for our
    licensed practical nurses that will give Commanders the
    flexibility to use LPNs for transport of critical patients,
    standardized knowledge, and expand practice opportunities.
        Finally, the Leader Academy facilitates enhanced, care-long
    development through the level of our regional nurse executives.
    We adopted the American Organization of Nurse Executive
    Competencies to ensure the RNE has the knowledge, skills, and
    expertise to help manage their region's system of health. We're
    transforming Army nursing through the development of a nursing
    care delivery system, in order to perfect nursing care at the
    bedside. The patient and the family centered system of care
    has, at its cornerstone, standardized nursing practice. The
    standardized system of care will enable us to increase quality
    of care, reduce resources, and ensure standardization and
    stability of providing quality patient care. This is in
    support, and will allow the surgeon general's intent to improve
    healthcare delivery through standardization from the point of
    injury through evaluation and return to duty.
        The system of care will not only standardize nursing
    practice, but will also enable, for the first time,
    comprehensive measurements and improvement of nurse-sensitive
    patient outcomes, while leveraging evidence-based care and
    practices. Our efforts to transform Army nursing mirror the
    national initiatives to improve nursing practice in support of
    healthcare reform.
        In January 2009, we piloted elements of the system of care
    at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital at Fort Campbell,
    Kentucky. After 6 months of monitoring this program, the
    outcome measures showed an increase in nurse and patient
    satisfaction, an increase in critical lab reporting and pain
    reassessment, a decrease in nurse turnover, and a decrease in
    patients that left without being seen in our emergency room, as
    well as decreases in medication errors and risk management
    events.
        Select elements of the system of care are initially being
    implemented at three of our medical centers. For example,
    Tripler Army Medical Center has been using healing hours as a
    goal to promote rest and increase healing through consolidation
    of patient-care activities and then tailoring the provision of
    care for each of our individual patients.
        The Army Nurse Corps is aligned with our seven other Corps
    within the Army in support of Army medicine to foster evidence-
    based practice. At every patient touch-point, we're ensuring
    that evidence-based practice is the foundation that supports
    the delivery of care. We're aggressively realigning expert
    clinical capability to surge as a bridge between research and
    clinical practice.
        In February 2009, the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program
    (TSNRP) invited nurse scientists from all services to meet and
    to determine new priorities for TSNRP. Not surprisingly, force
    health protection was recognized as the number one priority.
        Deployment research is designed to ask critical questions
    that cannot be answered other than on the battlefield, and Army
    nurses are leading the way. There have been 34 nursing-led
    protocols; 27 of those are from Army Nurse Corps researchers
    and one joint Army-Air Force protocol. The focus has been on
    warrior care, soldier health, trauma care, and behavioral
    health.
        We also rely on the Uniform Services University Graduate
    School of Nursing as the strongest educational platform to
    develop clinical talent.
        There has been great momentum since I've had the honor of
    introducing the Army Nurse Corps campaign plan to you last
    year. Our collective success has been the result of compassion,
    commitment, and dedication. I'm inspired by the pride,
    enthusiasm, and openness to change that I see across the Army
    Nurse Corps.
        We continue to experience amazing progress in each one of
    our strategic imperatives, and we're ensuring that the Army
    Nurse Corps remains relevant and a force multiplier for the
    Army medicine, the Army, Department of Defense, and our Nation.
        I continue to envision an Army Nurse Corps in 2012 that
    will leave its mark on military nursing and will be a leader of
    nursing practice reform at the national level. Our priority
    remains the patients and their families, and our common purpose
    is to support and maintain a system of health. In order to
    achieve this common purpose, we will let nothing hinder those
    who wear the cloth of our Nation, and those who took the oath
    to forever save, protect, and heal.
        The Army Nurse Corps is committed to embracing the past,
    engaging the present, and collectively, continuing to work to
    envision our future.
        On behalf of the entire Army Nurse Corps serving both home
    and abroad, I would like to thank you for your unwavering
    support and the entire subcommittee's unwavering support, and I
    look forward to continuing to work with you.
        Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General Horoho.
        Now may I call upon Admiral Flaherty.
    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL KAREN FLAHERTY, DIRECTOR,
                NAVY NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
        Admiral Flaherty. Yes, sir. Thank you Chairman Inouye.
        And thank you for the opportunity today to highlight the
    accomplishments and opportunities facing the Navy Nurse Corps
    in 2010 as we care for the health of our force.
        Our Navy Nurse Corps, comprised of Active, Reserve, and
    Federal civilian nurses--many are here today in the room--are
    5,500 strong. My priorities, as Director, have been focused in
    three areas: people, practice, and leadership.
        Our Active component is manned at 91 percent, with 2,837
    nurses currently serving around the world, and we have already
    achieved our recruiting goal for 2010. The top three direct
    accession influences that are favorably impacting our
    recruiting efforts include the nurse accession bonus, Health
    Professions Loan Repayment Program, and the Nurse Candidate
    Program.
        Today, the Reserve component is 83 percent manned, with
    1,112 nurses. Last year, the Navy Nurse Corps Reserve component
    met 87 percent of their goal. Over 48 percent of those
    accessions were nurses coming to the Reserve component from
    Active Duty.
        We are continuing to focus closely on all the many pathways
    to achieve this goal. Leveraging current technology, the Nurse
    Corps recruitment liaison officer offers a combination of
    social networking media tools, including Facebook and Twitter
    and online discussion forums, to reach students at colleges and
    high schools, encouraging them to consider a career in Navy
    nursing. We have found that students have many thoughts, they
    have questions, and starting this discussion early is
    essential.
        Retaining Navy nurses is my top priority. Key efforts have
    positively impacted retention, including the registered nurse
    incentive specialty pay, a targeted bonus program for
    undermanned clinical and nursing specialties and our highly
    deployed nurse practitioners. My goal for this year is to
    increase retention by 50 percent in the Active Duty component
    for those with less than 10 years of service, and to retain the
    appropriate number in each officer rank in the Reserve
    component. We want our nurses to accept orders to a second and
    a third duty station, and begin early planning for their long
    career.
        I believe it is our responsibility, as Nurse Corps leaders,
    to fully understand all of the retention issues. In 2009, we
    commissioned the Center for Naval Analysis to conduct a survey
    and hold focus groups to help us understand factors that
    influence career satisfaction and dissatisfaction within our
    Nurse Corps. Our nurses told us they wanted us to be more
    understanding of family needs, career moves, and clinical
    advancement. We also learned that deployments were
    professionally fulfilling. We will do all that we can to make
    the required changes to impact this retention.
        Clinical excellence is one of the main tenets of the Nurse
    Corps clinical leadership model. In 2009, we developed and
    implemented standardized orientation in nursing competencies
    across all of our nursing specialties. Over the past several
    years, the Nurse Corps identified eight critical wartime
    specialties and developed our manning, training, and bonus
    structures to incentivize nurses to practice within those
    specialties. Each nursing specialty has an assigned specialty
    leader who is a clinical expert and understands the nursing
    practice within each community. We work closely together to
    embrace practice trends and future requirements.
        Understanding the deployments and type of care needed by
    our patients was essential when developing our nurses. To
    accomplish this goal, the specialty leaders work with senior
    nurse leaders at the military treatment facilities to create,
    again, the partnerships with our local civilian hospitals. Our
    military nurses are cross-trained in local emergency
    departments, as I mentioned, and in intensive care units. This
    is just one example of what is possible.
        We know that the wars have created both visible and
    invisible wounds, and our warriors and our families have
    experienced stress. To support the behavioral health needs of
    our warriors and their families, the Nurse Corps has increased
    its inventory of psychiatric and mental health clinical nurse
    specialists and nurse practitioners. This growth will also
    support the projected expansion of our Marine Corps. I believe
    that every nurse, as I've stated, has the ability to understand
    the unique needs of their patients, and offer support and
    guidance at every encounter.
        I am a fervent supporter of graduate nursing education,
    research, and professional growth of my nurses, and am
    committed to the sustainment and growth of the Tri-Service
    Nursing Research Program. Each year, approximately 73 Nurse
    Corps officers are selected for duty under instruction or
    graduate education program. Fields of study include behavioral
    health, anesthesia, family practice, research, and critical
    care.
        The American Association of Colleges of Nursing has made
    the decision to move the current level of preparation necessary
    for advanced nursing practice from the master's degree to the
    doctoral level by 2015. The Navy Nurse Corps supports a phased
    approach toward adopting the doctorate nursing practice (DNP),
    and will utilize a combination of short- and long-term steps to
    incorporate this degree at options part of our education
    strategy.
        Using existing funds, three nurses will graduate with a DNP
    in 2012, and the DNP degree will be incorporated into the Nurse
    Corps training plan. As we make the transition to a greater
    number of DNPs, additional education funding will be required.
        To expand this clinical leadership model that we have so
    well achieved over the last number of years to our Federal
    civilian registered nurses, we launched the Navy Graduate
    Program for Federal Civilian Registered Nurses, the first of
    its kind in the uniformed services. We expect that this new
    program will retain our current civilian nurses, incentivize
    new nurses to consider entry into Federal service, and sustain
    military treatment facilities with clinical experts, when our
    military nurses are deployed.
        We have funded five competitively selected Federal civilian
    registered nurses to pursue their master's of science in
    nursing. We are currently receiving applications to select our
    next class of candidates for the fall 2010.
        Navy nurses at our military treatment facilities in the
    United States and abroad passionately support the professional
    development of America's future nursing workforce by serving as
    preceptors, teachers, mentors for local colleges and
    universities, as well as entire health systems.
        Navy nurses deployed to Afghanistan in embedded training
    teams are teaching culturally and linguistically appropriate
    public health measures. In response to the news of H1N1
    outbreaks throughout the world, those nurses prepared emergency
    response plans and training for local forward operating bases
    and regional hospitals in eastern Afghanistan, well in advance
    of the cases appearing in theater. And they deployed critical
    counterinsurgency tactics by performing village medical
    outreaches to the local community members in Afghanistan.
        I believe that leadership at all organizational levels is
    responsible for ensuring that personnel under their charge are
    healthy and productive. My nursing leaders have developed and
    are implementing an interactive career-planning guide, useful
    for mentoring seniors and subordinates at every stage of their
    careers, because we do ask people to change and move into
    different jobs.
        A key role of these leaders is to know their people and
    help them develop the resiliency to be able to handle stressors
    and life events. Navy medicine's Operational Stress Control and
    Care for the Caregiver Programs have a direct impact on the
    health and well-being of the force, deployment readiness, and
    our retention. We know that caring for service members and
    their families and experiencing their trauma and stress can
    impact our medical staff. We must be prepared to care for
    ourselves, to be able to care for others.
        Chairman Inouye, thank you. Thank you, again, for the
    opportunity--providing me this opportunity to share with you
    the remarkable accomplishments of our Navy Nurse Corps and our
    continuing efforts to meet Navy medicine's mission.
        On behalf of the outstanding men and women of the Navy
    Nurse Corps and their families who so faithfully support them,
    I want to extend my sincere appreciation for your unwavering
    support.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Admiral.
        Admiral Flaherty. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. And now, may I call upon General
    Siniscalchi.
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL KIMBERLY SINISCALCHI,
                ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL FOR NURSING
                SERVICES, AIR FORCE NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT
                OF THE AIR FORCE
        General Siniscalchi. Chairman Inouye and distinguished
    members, it is an honor to represent the Air Force Nurse Corps.
        Our total nursing force is comprised of Active Duty, Air
    National Guard, and Air Force Reserve officer and enlisted
    nursing personnel.
        It is a pleasure to serve alongside my senior advisors:
    Brigadier General Catherine Lutz, Air National Guard; Colonel
    Ann Manley, Air Force Reserve; and Chief Master Sergeant Joseph
    Potts, our Active Duty enlisted career field manager. Together,
    we lead a total force team delivering evidence-based, patient-
    centered care to meet global operations.
        On behalf of our total nursing force, sir, thank you for
    your outstanding support. Your unwavering commitment to our
    Tri-Service Nursing Research Program, and your continued
    support of our Nurse Corps Incentive Special Pay Program is
    genuinely appreciated.
        Nursing is integral to the support of global operations.
    Day after day, our nurses and technicians provide care to our
    Nation's heroes at home and abroad. Operational capability is
    the foundation and moral fiber of Air Force nursing.
        As an example, Lieutenant Colonel Zierold, from Salt Lake
    City, Utah, led a trauma team at Bagram, Afghanistan. In his
    words, ``Over a period of 6 months, we took care of more than
    1,000 traumas and countless medical admissions. The acuity was
    high and the injuries were horrendous, but we safely returned
    550 injured U.S. servicemembers to their families, children,
    and spouses. We forever changed the lives of 450 devastated
    Afghan nationals, and we won their hearts. And the kids; we
    will never forget the kids. At the time of their discharge,
    they reached out their little hands and smiled, as if to say,
    `Thank you. I'll be okay.' ''
        On this side of the globe, no one could have anticipated
    the total devastation that took place on January 12, when our
    Haitian neighbors experienced the massive earthquake. Special
    Operations surgical teams and critical-care evacuation teams
    deployed with the initial response aircraft, and were the first
    military medical teams on the ground. Our critical-care nurses
    worked around the clock, providing casualty evacuation of
    patients in and out of theater, as well as pre- and
    postoperative surgical and intensive care. Our anesthetists
    assisted in lifesaving surgeries and augmented the surgical and
    critical care teams.
        The vital link, sir, to saving lives, is our aeromedical
    evacuation capability. These critical missions sustain world-
    class care across the continuum. Since operations began in
    2001, over 197,000 patients have been air-evac'd. In 2009
    alone, we moved 21,500 patients globally. Our superb flight
    nurses, technicians in critical care air transports teams have
    rightfully earned the title, ``Angels of the Battlefield.'' One
    such Battlefield Angel, Captain Jack Solgen, of Ballston Spa,
    New York, and his team successfully coordinated with the United
    Kingdom Aeromedical Evacuation Control Center for the transport
    of the British soldier with a traumatic pneumonectomy that
    Lieutenant General Green had mentioned.
        Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to personally meet the
    lung team based at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. They
    passionately shared their experience of the emergency use of
    cutting-edge lung-support technology in saving the British
    soldier's life. This success story demonstrates a multinational
    effort of over 1,000 aircrew, ground, and medical personnel.
        The flexibility and responsiveness of today's aeromedical
    evacuation system demands educated and experienced flight
    nurses with enhanced clinical capability and disaster
    management expertise. I am proud to report that we created a
    master's degree in flight nursing with adult clinical nurse
    specialist focused in concentration in disaster management.
    This program--first of its kind--was designed and ready for
    students in less than 6 months. We partnered with Wright State
    University, in Dayton, Ohio, to strategically develop this
    program, and, as I mentioned earlier, our first student will
    begin this fall.
        We continue our commitment to provide the best care
    possible to our men and women in harm's way. It's imperative to
    advance operational medicine through research. Doctorally
    prepared nurses are integral to advancing multidisciplinary
    research. In March 2009, the Department of Defense Medical
    Research Program was initiated in Afghanistan, under the
    direction of Colonel Elizabeth Bridges, Air Force Reserve,
    Seattle, Washington, while Lieutenant Colonel Teresa Ryan, Air
    Reserve, Biloxi, Mississippi, was a senior nurse researcher in
    Iraq. Research conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to
    important advancements in combat casualty medical care and
    therapies. Our nurse researchers provide leadership and
    guidance on scientific merit, design, and methodology.
        I am pleased to report that we developed a nursing research
    fellowship. Our first candidate will begin this spring. This 1-
    year predoctoral fellowship focuses on clinical and operational
    research.
        One of our valuable skill sustainment programs is the
    Critical Care Emergency Nursing Fellowship. Our graduates
    provide the highest quality of care, both stateside and in the
    deployed environment, saving lives on a daily basis.
        To mitigate the increased demands on mental health nurses,
    we continue to recruit, educate, and train internally.
    Currently, 93 percent of our mental health nurse practitioners
    are Air Force Institute of Technology graduates. A formal
    mental health nurse training program is being developed at
    David Grant Medical Center, at Travis Air Force Base in
    California, to help train clinical nurses to become mental
    health nurses.
        Increasing our advanced life-support footprint, we have
    started several--we have started training several of our
    aerospace medical service technicians at the National Registry
    of Emergency Medical Technician Paramedic level. The inaugural
    class started and graduated 19 students, and we are programming
    for 50 students annually.
        A robust recruiting program is essential to keep our Nurse
    Corps healthy and ready to meet future challenges. While we
    have executed incentive programs to address the nursing
    shortage, we still have shortfalls. In 2009, we assessed 284
    nurses against our total accession goal of 350, for an overall
    81 percent.
        Our Nurse Enlisted Commissioning Program continues to be a
    reliable platform to assess nurses. In 2009, fully--40
    qualified candidates were selected. In 2010, we will meet our
    steady-state goal of 50 quotas annually. Assessing fully
    qualified nurses continues to be challenging. While the
    recruitment of novice nurses is going well, the limiting factor
    is their depth of clinical expertise. Our Nurse Transition
    Program advances the clinical skills of these new nurses
    through direct patient care under the supervision of seasoned
    nurse preceptors. The transition program continues to be one of
    our many successes, with eight military and two civilian
    locations. We graduated 158 nurses in 2009.
        Last year, I reported that a civilian partnership with
    Scottsdale Healthcare System in Arizona was on the horizon.
    This past December, I had the honor to deliver the commencement
    address for the second graduating class. Air Force nurses are
    gaining unprecedented clinical opportunities as a result of our
    transition programs.
        As we strive to meet our recruiting goals, we continue to
    focus on the retention of our experienced nurses. In its second
    year of execution, the Incentive Special Pay Program is
    positively impacting retention. Seventy-eight percent of our
    nurses accepted a single- or multiyear contract. With a $3.3
    million increase, this year's focus is to improve retention by
    recognizing advanced academic preparation certification and
    experience.
        Through the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program, my
    colleagues and I commissioned the first-of-its-kind joint
    research study designed to quantify factors impacting
    recruitment and retention. An associate investigator for each
    service will ensure service-specific and across-service
    initiatives are identified and validated for use in shaping
    future strategies.
        A number of scientific, societal, and professional
    developments stimulated a major change in requirements for
    licensed practitioners. The American Association of Colleges of
    Nursing endorsed the position statement on the doctorate in
    nursing practice. This decision moves the level of preparation
    for advanced practice from the master's degree to the doctorate
    level by 2015.
        With Lieutenant General Green's full support, we developed
    a phased implementation plan, starting in 2010. As I reported
    last year, we developed master clinician roles to afford our
    most clinically experienced senior nurses with advanced
    academic preparation, to remain at the bedside, without
    sacrificing promotion. We are diligently working to retain and
    field these authorizations.
        As we reflect, sir, on the achievements of the past, and
    the challenges of the present, we look forward to the future.
    By being actively engaged in education, training, and research,
    we are generating new knowledge and advancing evidence-based
    care necessary to enhance interoperability in nursing
    operations across our services.
        Through the synergy of our Active, Guard, Reserve,
    civilian, and contract forces, coupled with the collaborative
    relationships with our sister services and civilian colleagues,
    we are prepared to meet emerging challenges with strength and
    confidence.
        Air Force nursing stands ready today to embrace the
    challenges of tomorrow, as we lead, partner, and care, every
    time, everywhere.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, it is my honor to
    be here with you today, representing a dedicated, strong, total
    nursing force of nearly 18,000 men and women.
        Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, General.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        General Horoho, Admiral Flaherty, and General Siniscalchi,
    on behalf of the subcommittee, thank you very much for your
    testimony, and especially for your service to our Nation. And,
    through you, the subcommittee wishes to thank those under your
    command for their unselfish service.
        Thank you very much.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
           Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Adam M. Robinson, Jr.
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                        o-7 and o-8 nurse corps billets
        Question. RADM Robinson, what mechanisms are in place to ensure the
    continuation of both an O-7 and O-8 billet for the Navy Nurse Corps?
        Answer. Currently Navy Medicine has two designated billets for Navy
    Nurse Corps, one for an O-7 (Rear Admiral Lower Half) and one for an O-
    8 (Rear Admiral Upper Half). Our practice has been to have both of
    these billets manned. Currently, Rear Admiral (lower half) Elizabeth
    Niemeyer holds the O-7 billet and Rear Admiral (upper half) Christine
    Bruzek-Kohler holds the O-8 billet. RADM Bruzek-Kohler has plans to
    retire in the Fall of 2010. At the time of the 2010 DOD Congressional
    Testimony, results of the fiscal year 2010 O-8 Selection Board have not
    yet been released.
                                      cboc
        Question. Admiral Robinson, the Army is planning to open 22
    Community Based Primary Care Clinics in 14 different market areas to
    provide better access for the thousands of beneficiaries who live off
    post. Have you looked into a similar concept for the Navy and do you
    plan to promote the Army clinics to Navy personnel and their families
    serving near them?
        Answer. A number of primary care practice models, including those
    from the Federal and private healthcare sectors, were evaluated as Navy
    Medicine developed the Navy Primary Care Model called Medical HomePort.
    Navy Medicine is launching a phased implementation of Medical HomePort
    across the enterprise as the practice standard for primary care. The
    initial phase will include NNMC Bethesda, NMC Portsmouth, NMC San
    Diego, NH Bremerton, NH Jacksonville, NH Lejeune, NH Pendleton and NH
    Pensacola. NHC Quantico will also be part of the first phase during
    fiscal year 2010.
        Medical HomePort utilizes a dedicated team of medical providers and
    support staff designed to increase access to care. The increased access
    aims to provide continuity for beneficiaries with their provider team,
    and we expect will improve the health of enrolled patients through
    preventive health practices, integrated mental healthcare and chronic
    disease management. We plan to closely monitor the Healthcare
    Effectiveness and Data Information Set (HEDIS) outcomes for the sites
    selected for implementation.
        In addition, this program will allow enrolled patients to access to
    their healthcare team 24/7 through secure messaging, schedule
    appointments through patient-preferred modes, and tailored education to
    their learning style.
        Navy personnel and their family members who reside within the
    catchment areas for the Army Community Based Primary Care Clinics would
    be notified of their enrollment options for those facilities via the
    Tricare Managed Care Support Contractor (if a Navy medical facility is
    not available within the area).
                 dcoe chain of command for installation repairs
        Question. Admiral Robinson, I am very interested in the growing
    number of medically focused centers of excellence in the military and
    how the Department intends to ensure the appropriate level of attention
    and allocation of resources are devoted to the issues we are faced with
    today and also those we might encounter in the future. The current
    centers are focused around known critical areas of concern that impact
    both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veteran's Affairs:
    hearing loss, vision, extremity injury, traumatic brain injury and
    psychological health. Some of these centers will be located on the
    Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Campus. What will be the
    chain of command for responding to each Center's needs like fixing
    medical equipment or fixing a leaky roof? Will it be the medical
    center's responsibility or Naval Installation Command?
        Answer. Any Center of Excellence located on the Walter Reed
    National Military Medical Center Campus will fall under the control of
    the Medical Center Commanding Officer and his or her chain of command.
    Center of Excellence facility repairs will be the responsibility of the
    Medical Center Commanding Officer and will be resourced through the
    Defense Health Program (DHP).
                   navy medicine interaction with safe harbor
        Question. Admiral Robinson, a tremendous amount of attention has
    been devoted to the care of our wounded warriors. The two main Navy
    programs designed to meet the needs of wounded service members are the
    Navy's Safe Harbor and the Marine Corps' Wounded Warrior Regiment. Navy
    Medicine works cooperatively with these programs to develop
    comprehensive recovery plans. How are the Services interacting with
    private sector care providers to ensure they have the necessary
    information on those Service programs relevant to their patients?
        Answer. Navy's Safe Harbor and the Marine Corps' Wounded Warrior
    Regiment were designed to take care of the non-medical needs of our
    wounded Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen. Their role is to provide
    information and assist with access to the resources necessary to
    support the non-medical needs of our wounded warriors as they recover,
    rehabilitate, and reintegrate. Coordination of care when individuals
    transition from military treatment facilities to civilian care is
    accomplished through the Medical Care Case Managers (MCCMs) and the
    clinicians caring for the patients. Exchange of medical information
    occurs through provider to provider communication. Assistance in
    transition of medical care to the private sector is provided by the
    MCCM who remains engaged with the patient until they successfully
    establish a new care provider. Understanding the unique needs of the
    Reserve Component with regards to transition of care, especially
    transition of mental healthcare, Navy Medicine established the
    Psychological Health Outreach Program. This program is specifically
    designed to provide an additional layer of support to Reservists making
    their transition to private sector or VA care.
                         funding a world class facility
        Question. Admiral Robinson, there is a tremendous amount of focus
    on the establishment of the new Walter Reed National Military Medical
    Center at Bethesda. One of the latest developments is the effort to
    make it a ``World Class'' Facility and to produce a master plan for the
    campus to accommodate those changes. While Congress anxiously awaits
    the delivery of the master plan later this month, I am very concerned
    over the expected price tag for these additional projects that haven't
    been budgeted. As I understand it, this could cost upwards of $800
    million from operation and maintenance and millions more in military
    construction. As these projects are being evaluated by the Department,
    are they also determining how these projects will be funded and by
    which Service?
        Answer. To carry out the 2005 BRAC law, JTF CAPMED was established
    to oversee the realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical Center to the
    new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda and Fort
    Belvoir Community Hospital. JTF CAPMED reports to the Secretary of
    Defense through the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Due to the alignment
    of JTF CAPMED as an independent DOD entity, Navy Medicine does not
    direct JTF CAPMED on construction or other priorities, nor are we
    planning for future operation and maintenance requirements, since that
    by definition belongs to JTF CAPMED. These emerging priorities and
    requirements are driven by many things, all of which are outside Navy
    Medicine's budget process. As part of our mission to ensure that our
    Wounded Warriors receive the care they need and deserve, Navy Medicine
    is in regular communication with JTF CAPMED and continues to provide
    support as necessary. Because of this regular communication Navy
    Medicine is aware of the unique challenges facing JTF CAPMED, to
    include the projected increase of financial requirements. However,
    specific details of these challenges or the financial requirements
    cannot be defined or defended by Navy Medicine.
                          recruiting for the reserves
        Question. Admiral Robinson, each Service faces unique medical
    personnel recruiting challenges but it appears all are having
    significant difficulties in the reserve component. Could you explain
    what this is attributable to and what efforts are underway to improve
    recruitment and retention for the reserves?
        Answer. Length and frequency of mobilizations are main reasons
    given for recruiting challenges.
        The financial and professional implications of being absent from a
    medical/dental practice, individual or group, for a period of time, are
    significant. Loss of patient base, medical staff, and support staff all
    contribute to these difficulties. The benefits and compensation for
    service do not adequately compensate for these losses.
        Initiatives currently underway are specific to Corps and specialty.
        Medical Corps.--Recruiting is focused on Critical Wartime
    Specialties (CWS) that are currently manned below 80 percent. In
    addition to a Loan Repayment Program and stipend, physicians who meet
    the CWS criteria are offered a bonus of $25,000 per year, for a maximum
    of 3 years. Prior service physicians who do not meet the CWS criteria
    may receive a $10,000 lump sum bonus for a 3 year drill obligation.
    However, this has not attracted enough applicants to alleviate
    shortfalls. We're currently considering establishing an accession bonus
    for Non-CWS Direct Commissioned Officers which could potentially
    attract eligible candidates.
        Dental Corps.--Reserve Dental Corps has a $10,000 lump sum
    affiliation bonus for prior service General Dentists for a 3 year drill
    obligation. Overall manning in this community is at 100 percent;
    however, oral surgeons are in high demand and are manned at only 43
    percent. Dentists who are interested in serving in the Navy as maxillo-
    facial surgeons can qualify for a Loan Repayment Program, stipend, and
    a CWS bonus of $25,000 per year, for a maximum of 3 years. However,
    this has not attracted enough applicants to alleviate shortfalls. We're
    currently considering establishing an accession bonus for Non-CWS
    Direct Commissioned Officers which could potentially attract eligible
    candidates.
        Medical Service Corps.--Current recruiting incentives for clinical
    psychologists, physician assistants, and environmental health officers
    include the Loan Repayment Program, stipend, and a CWS bonus. Navy
    veterans (NAVETS) may be eligible for an affiliation bonus of $10,000.
        Nurse Corps.--Current recruiting incentives for Nurse Corps
    officers in CWS include stipend, Loan Repayment Programs, or CWS
    bonuses for the following communities: Psychiatric Care, Perioperative,
    Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists and Mental Health Nurse
    Practitioners. An affiliation bonus of $10,000 is available to Navy
    veterans for all sub specialty programs. In February 2010, we began
    offering a $10,000 accession bonus for direct commission officers for
    medical-surgical, maternal infant, critical care, and neonatal
    intensive care unit nurses.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                                nurse recruiting
        Question. Nurses significantly contribute to the healthcare of our
    service members and their families. It is important that we maintain
    appropriate levels of highly trained nurses capable of performing a
    wide range of healthcare functions.
        a. With the maintained high operations tempo of combat in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, and the increasing requirements for healthcare for the
    service member and their families, are you able to maintain the
    required level of nurses?
        b. Are there enough nurses entering the military to ensure quality
    of care for the service members and to maintain the legacy of superb
    leadership in the future?
        c. What are you doing to prepare nurses for senior leadership roles
    and responsibilities?
        Answer. a. Retaining Navy Nurses is one of my top priorities. We
    remain committed to providing a total force of Navy Nurses, balanced in
    terms of seniority, experience, and skills, to provide the very best
    care to Sailors, Marines and their families. Key efforts have
    positively impacted retention, including the Registered Nurse Incentive
    Specialty Pay, a targeted bonus program for undermanned clinical
    nursing specialties and highly deployed Nurse Practitioners. Our nurses
    are enriched by being able to practice in both deployed and garrison
    care settings. My goal for this year is to increase retention by 50
    percent in the Active Component (AC) for those with less than 10 years
    of service, and to retain the appropriate numbers in each officer rank
    in the Reserve Component (RC).
        b. Nurse Corps AC manning is 91 percent, with 2,837 nurses in
    inventory. We have already achieved the Nurse Corps AC recruiting goal
    for fiscal year 2010, marking the fourth consecutive year we have met
    our accession goal. Nurse Corps RC manning is 83.6 percent, with 1,112
    nurses in inventory. As of late March 2010, we have met 25 percent of
    the RC fiscal year 2010 mission of 165 nurses, and we remain focused on
    this area. I attribute our recruiting successes to the continued
    funding support for our accession programs, the local recruiting
    activities of Navy Recruiters and Navy Nurses, and the continued
    positive public perception of service to our country. A recruiting
    initiative targeting direct accessions will offer entry grade credit
    for advanced education and work experience among the critical wartime
    specialties of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs),
    psychiatric/mental health, emergency room, and perioperative nursing.
    These initiatives will be expanded to include medical-surgical nurses
    and critical care nurses as well.
        c. In addition to sequential assignments to clinical and
    administrative leadership roles with increasing scope and
    responsibility, Navy Nurses are eligible and encouraged to pursue
    leadership training at all stages of their career. Leadership education
    starts with a 5-week long Basic Officer Development School (ODS) at
    Newport, Rhode Island before the officer receives their first military
    assignment. At the mid-grade career level, nurses are encouraged to
    complete the Basic Medical Department Officer Course (BMDOC), followed
    by the Advanced Medical Department Officer Course (AMDOC). Subsequent
    to completing these two courses, Nurse Corps officers are highly
    competitive for nominative assignments to the Interagency Institute for
    Federal Health Care Executives, MedXellence, and Capstone Courses.
    Nurse Corps officers interested in senior leadership and executive
    medicine positions are encouraged to obtain their Executive Medicine
    Additional Qualification Designation (AQD) through the Joint Medical
    Executive Skills Institute (JMESI). Mid and senior-level Nurse Corps
    officers compete for opportunities to attend the Navy War College
    through distance learning programs or residence assignments.
                            mental health awareness
        Question. The Army has partnered with the National Institute of
    Mental Health (NIMH) to conduct a long-term study of risk and
    protective factors to inform health promotion and suicide prevention
    efforts in late 2008.
        What is the Navy doing to promote mental health awareness?
        Answer. The Navy Operational Stress Control (OSC) program and USMC
    Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC) programs are working together
    to provide Sailors, Marines and their families increased education and
    awareness to early recognition of those in distress, to mitigate the
    stigma associated with seeking psychological care and to promote a
    culture of psychological wellness/health (vice the old paradigm of
    focusing on mental illness). These programs are Line-led and owned
    programs, supported by Navy Medicine, designed to provide leaders with
    tools they can use to recognize and act on early indicators of stress
    and to understand and use appropriate support resources, including
    medical and mental health treatment. The end state is a more resilient
    force. Navy Medicine has developed the Caregiver Occupational Stress
    Control (CgOSC) program to specifically address our caregivers who are
    often more prone to adhering to a ``code of silence'' pertaining to
    acknowledging personal stress-related issues. A multimedia (print,
    digital and social media) marketing campaign is underway to further
    mitigate stigma and increase awareness to resources. Additional mental
    health awareness initiatives include Project Focus--Family's Overcoming
    Under Stress; Combat and Operational Stress First Aid (COSFA); BUMED/
    Navy Chaplain Corps annual Professional Development Training Seminar's
    on Combat and Operational Stress Control for deploying Sailors/Marines
    as well as a family-focused seminar; and Navy Returning Warrior
    Workshop's.
        Question. Is the Navy conducting long-term studies similar to that
    of the Army and NIMH?
        Answer. Navy Medicine is conducting a number of studies to
    investigate the longitudinal health experience of deployed military
    personnel. The Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) in San Diego,
    California, is the lead agency for the Millennium Cohort Study, which
    is the largest prospective health project in military history. It is
    designed to evaluate the long-term health effects of military service,
    including deployments. The study, which was launched in 2001, currently
    includes almost 150,000 participants and has already documented a
    number of risk factors for PTSD and depression following deployments.
    Other studies are focused on specific Navy and Marine Corps subgroups.
    For example, the Marine Resiliency Study is a collaboration between
    NHRC, the San Diego VA, Headquarters Marine Corps, and the National
    Center for PTSD, is collecting psychological and physiological data on
    Marine Corps Infantry personnel before and after combat deployments to
    identify both subtle and overt indices of combat stress. The Marine
    Resiliency Study documents the incidence of combat-related
    psychological disorders as well as risk factors for disorders. NHRC is
    also collecting longitudinal data on Navy and Marine Corps personnel
    before and after separation from military service. The goal of this
    effort is to identify factors associated with successful readjustment
    of Veterans to civilian life. In another effort, the Behavioral Health
    Needs Assessment Survey (BHNAS) is an ongoing series of surveys and
    focus groups conducted with Sailors in combat zones to identify rates
    and causes of psychological problems.
                 mental health assets and services for families
        Question. Family Readiness and support is crucial for the health of
    the services. The health, mental health, and welfare of military
    families, especially the children has been a concern of mine for many
    years. This also includes education, living conditions, and available
    healthcare.
        Are you meeting the increased demand for healthcare and mental
    health professionals to support these families? If not, where are the
    shortfalls?
        What improvements have been made with respect to the children of
    soldiers and meeting their special requirements? What programs have you
    implemented to assist the children with coping with frequent
    deployments, re-integration, and other stresses of military families?
        Answer. Since the beginning of Overseas Contingency Operations,
    Navy Medicine has increased mental health assets across the enterprise
    to meet the increasing needs of service members and their families.
        To meet the specific needs of families, we have implemented several
    programs targeted at the types of challenges families face as a result
    of deployments and injuries to the service member.
        Examples of these programs include:
      --FOCUS (Families Over Coming Under Stress) is a family-centered
            resiliency training program based on evidenced-based
            interventions that enhance understanding, psychological health
            and developmental outcomes for highly stressed children and
            families. FOCUS has been adapted for military families facing
            multiple deployments, combat operational stress and physical
            injuries in a family member. FOCUS has demonstrated that a
            strength-based approach to building child and family resiliency
            skills is well received by service members and their family
            members reflected in high satisfaction ratings. Notably,
            program participation has resulted in statistically significant
            increases in family and child positive coping and significant
            reductions in parent and child distress over time, suggesting
            longer-term benefits for military family wellness. In June
            2009, the Office of the Secretary of Defense Child and Family
            Policy determined FOCUS as a best practice program and
            requested the support of BUMED to expand to select Army and Air
            Force sites for services. To date over 97,000 service members,
            spouses, children and community providers have received
            services on FOCUS.
      --Navy Fleet and Family Support Centers (FFSCs) offer a wide-range of
            services to families to include pre- and post-deployment
            programs.
      --Ombudsmen/Navy Regional Family Support Liaison; Navy Expeditionary
            Combat Readiness Center's (ECRC) Individual Augmentee (IA)
            Family Readiness Program.
      --The Reserve Psychological Health Outreach creates a Psychological
            health ``safety net'' for Navy and Marine Corps Reservists and
            their families. It improves the overall Psychological Health
            and resiliency of Reservists and their families, and identifies
            long-term strategies to improve Psychological Health support
            services. In addition, Psychological health Outreach Teams have
            been in place at Navy Reserve Component Commands since fiscal
            year 2008.
      --Returning Warrior Workshops provides 2 day workshops designed to
            support reintegration of deployed Reservists and their family
            using a weekend-formatted program that includes assisting
            families in identifying issues during post-deployment,
            providing resources for issues resolution, sharing common
            experiences in a comfortable setting, honoring sacrifices
            endured, and engaging family members and service members with
            process improvement.
                    transition of wounded warriors to the va
        Question. In the recently released Department of Defense budget
    guidance, it states that ``caring for our wounded warriors is our
    highest priority: through improving health benefits, establishing
    centers of excellence, and wounded warrior initiatives.''
        What system do you have to ensure the transition of wounded
    warriors from Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans
    Affairs is completed without any unnecessary problems?
        Answer. To ensure the transition of Wounded Warriors from
    Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs is
    completed without any unnecessary problems, Navy Case Management (both
    medical and non-medical) work collaboratively with Federal agencies
    including the VA. This collaboration includes multi-disciplinary team
    meetings with Navy and USMC Recovery Care Coordinators, Federal
    Recovery Coordinators, Non-Medical Care Managers, Medical Care Managers
    and VA Liaisons, patients and their families in developing Recovery
    Care Plans.
        Question. What do you consider a successful transition and do you
    follow-up with the service members to ensure there are no problems even
    after they have been released from Active Duty?
        Answer. A successful transition is one that results in the service
    member and his/her family's needs being met to their satisfaction. Navy
    Medicine Medical Care Managers provide a warm hand off of the medical
    case management of an individual to VA Medical Care Managers when an
    individual transitions from Active Duty to Veteran status. This hand
    off ensures smooth transition of the medical needs of the Sailor/
    Marine. Navy Safe Harbor and Wounded Warrior Regiment Recovery Care
    Coordinators and the Federal Recovery Coordinators assigned to these
    wounded warriors, provide a lifetime of individually tailored
    assistance designed to optimize the success of the injured service
    member's recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration activities. Their
    involvement with the individual continues through and beyond the
    transition period.
                              mental health stigma
        Question. General Casey recently stated that the number of Army
    soldiers who feel there is a stigma for seeking mental healthcare has
    been reduced from 80 to 50 percent. This is a significant improvement,
    but there is much more work to be done.
        Despite the reduced number of soldiers who feel there is a stigma,
    are more service members coming forward to seek treatment?
        Answer. Yes, Navy Medicine has experienced a 30 percent increase in
    outpatient mental health encounters for Sailors and Marines over the
    past 2 years. Greater data analysis is required in order to correlate
    the impact of reduced stigma and increases in demand.
        Question. What actions are the services taking to continue to
    reduce the stigma and encourage service members to seek treatment?
        Answer. Prior Navy Medicine ``innovations'' that have now become
    the norm include operationally embedded mental health providers,
    integration of Mental Health Care into primary care, Psychological
    Health Outreach Coordinators and use of our Deployment Health Centers
    as destigmatizing portals of care. Navy Medicine has also developed the
    Caregiver Occupational Stress Control (CgOSC) program to specifically
    address our caregivers who are often more prone to adhere to a ``code
    of silence'' pertaining to acknowledging personal stress-related
    issues. Another innovative program is the multidisciplinary team
    assessment of every patient that is medically evacuated from theater to
    identify potential cognitive and psychological health issues. Access is
    increased in a non-stigmatizing manner by providing this assessment to
    all patients without need for consult or self-referral. Follow on care
    is provided as indicated utilizing all members of the multidisciplinary
    team. The Navy Operational Stress Control (OSC) program and USMC Combat
    Operational Stress Control (COSC) programs are working together to
    provide Sailors, Marines and their families increased education and
    awareness to facilitate early recognition of those in distress and to
    help combat the stigma associated with seeking psychological care. A
    multimedia (print, digital and social media) marketing campaign is also
    underway to further mitigate stigma and increase awareness to
    resources.
        Question. Does your plan include the mental health of families, and
    if so what is that plan?
        Answer. Yes, Navy medical care is ``patient and family centered
    care''. The psychological health of our families is crucial in
    maintaining a health fighting force. Navy Operational Stress Control
    (OSC) is developing specific Family OSC curriculum in collaboration
    with our life educators from Fleet and Family Support Centers. Project
    FOCUS (Families Over Coming Under Stress) is a family-centered
    resiliency training program based on evidenced-based interventions that
    enhance understanding, psychological health and developmental outcomes
    for highly stressed children and families. Navy Medicine has partnered
    with the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center and USMC COSC to
    develop and pilot a Family component to the USMC Operational Stress
    Control and Readiness (OSCAR) program.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                         navy medicine use of software
        Question. DOD renewed its contract with a Vermont medical firm,
    Problem-Knowledge Couplers (PKC), last fall. DOD licenses 95 standard
    PKC tools and six custom tools used for deployment and readiness
    medical processes. PKC is presently including the six custom tools into
    a single ``CHART'' smart-questionnaire, migrating these tools from a
    Windows to a web-based interface, and preparing a set of web-based
    medical history questionnaires for patients to complete online prior to
    the medical encounter.
        DOD has not yet issued a Department-wide policy on how the Services
    are to employ the CHART tool. How does your Service plan to use CHART?
    Will you issue a policy directing how it is to be used, since employing
    it will substantially change the workflows of Service medical
    practitioners?
        As for the medical history questionnaires, the use of this tool by
    the Services will put DOD in the very forefront of medical information
    technology innovation. Can each of you describe how your Service will
    direct the use of these questionnaires, educate your medical
    professionals about their existence and value, and track and oversee
    their full integration into patient contact processes?
        Answer. PKC couplers in their current configuration are in use at a
    limited number of locations for routine screenings such as the annual
    Periodic Health Screening. The current version of the tool does not
    represent an ideal configuration for efficient use with our current
    systems.
        CHART is currently undergoing testing for use with our current
    systems. Once the testing is complete the tool can be examined for
    routine use as a screening tool by both clinical and technical experts.
    Once the technical examination is complete, Navy Medicine will consider
    how CHART can be best utilized.
        Once Navy Medicine decides how CHART may be used, web based
    training as well as live training at our individual treatment
    facilities can be utilized to train the healthcare team.
                         defense centers of excellence
        Question. Would you each describe the relationship of your Services
    to the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and
    Traumatic Brain Injury? How do you share and receive information and
    support from these Centers? How timely are they in responding to
    requests from support from your Services?
        What is the relationship between your Services and the centers of
    excellence directed by the 2008 and 2009 National Defense Authorization
    Acts related to hearing loss and auditory system injuries, military eye
    injuries, and traumatic extremity injuries and amputations? How mature
    are these organizations, at what level are they staffed, and do you
    find that those staffing levels are sufficient to support the needs of
    your Service in each medical area?
        Answer. Navy Medicine works collaboratively with the Defense
    Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain
    Injury and its component centers: Defense and Veterans Brain Injury
    Center (DVBIC); Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress (CSTS); Center
    for Deployment Psychology (CDP); Deployment Health Clinical Center
    (DHCC); National Center for Telehealth and Technology (T\2\); and the
    National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE). Navy Medicine provides
    staffing to the DCoE, but also has been working to ensure that Navy
    Medicine professionals--clinicians, researchers, educators and program
    managers--are working collaboratively with the DCoE staff to improve
    their important research, education and outreach efforts. We are
    encouraged by the work of the DCoE and look forward to working with ASD
    (HA) and the other services to determine the best organizational
    structure and way forward. Preliminary work is underway in support of
    the ASD (HA) plan to designate each of the Services with lead
    operational support responsibilities for one of these Centers: Navy--
    Vision Center of Excellence; Army--Center of Excellence for Traumatic
    Extremities and Amputations; and Air Force--Hearing Center of
    Excellence. ASD (HA), along with the Services' Surgeons General, are in
    the process of evaluating organizational models to best support the
    DCoE mission.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                          mental health professionals
        Question. DOD has a critical shortage of mental healthcare
    professionals. During review of the Fort Hood incident where the
    alleged gunman, Major Hasad, U.S. Army psychologist, is charged with
    the deaths of 13 victims, reports show discrepancies in documentation
    and counseling as it related to his professional abilities and
    behavior. Suggestions were made that he was kept on active duty with no
    negative reprimands because he had diversity as a Muslim to our
    nation's service despite his failure to perform. What is DOD doing to
    recruit more mental health workers and to ensure they are quality
    healthcare professionals?
        What are the roadblocks to meeting the shortage of mental health
    professional?
        Answer. Navy Medicine has been successful in hiring civilian and
    contract mental health providers. The difficulty is the long training
    pipelines required to access and train our military mental health
    providers. The majority of our military mental providers are either
    trained in-house, through student pipelines or both. For example a
    Psychiatrist training pipeline includes 4 years of medical school, 1
    year of internship and a 3 year Psychiatry residency. These long
    training timelines impact our ability to replace and increase our
    inventory of military Psychiatrists with any expediency. Clinical
    Psychologists and Social Workers were recently approved by Navy for
    accession bonuses beginning in February 2010. We believe these new
    bonuses will impact direct accession of fully trained Clinical
    Psychologists and Social Workers.
        Question. What is being done to reduce the stigma and provide
    enough care givers so soldier and their families do not suffer in
    silence?
        Answer. Navy Medicine has focused much attention on reducing stigma
    and ensuring that an adequate number of mental health professionals are
    available to care for our beneficiaries. Mental health providers are
    routinely embedded with our operational units, both ashore and afloat.
    Seventeen Deployment Health Centers (DHCs) were established in fiscal
    year 2006 as non-stigmatizing portals of care in high Fleet and Marine
    Corps concentration areas. The DHCs augment existing MTF resources with
    an additional 170 multi-disciplinary contract positions, including
    psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, and provide a robust
    capability to screen, evaluate, and treat Service members for
    deployment related health concerns. In a major initiative, efforts are
    underway to integrate mental health providers into our Primary Care
    Clinics, further improving access and reducing stigma. Additional
    mental health providers have been hired in recent years to support a
    host of other programs, including psychological health outreach and
    family support and counseling. The Navy Operational Stress Control
    (OSC) program and USMC Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC)
    programs are working together to provide Sailors, Marines and their
    families increased education and awareness to facilitate early
    recognition of those in distress and to help combat the stigma
    associated with seeking psychological care. Navy Medicine has developed
    the Caregiver Occupational Stress Control (CgOSC) program to
    specifically address stress in our caregivers.
        Question. How is Navy Medicine integrated into the suicide
    prevention programs to ensure mental health services are getting to
    those who need it before it is too late?
        Answer. Navy Medicine personnel (military and civilian) are
    required to receive annual awareness training to improve ability to
    recognize risk factors, warning signs, and protective factors related
    to suicide and know how to assist someone in need to get care. Medical
    facilities and all Navy commands must have written crisis response
    plans with consideration of safely reaching, engaging and transporting
    an individual in acute risk to care. Navy suicide prevention is part of
    a comprehensive effort in the Navy to educate Sailors, families, and
    leaders to recognize and act on early indicators of stress and to
    understand and use appropriate support resources, including medical and
    mental health treatment.
                        women's health: cervical cancer
        Question. Cervical Cancer is preventable. In 2009 over 11,000
    American women were expected to be diagnosed with cervical cancer and
    over 4,000 women were expected to die from the disease. More than one-
    half of women who die from cervical cancer have never been screened or
    have not been screened in the past 5 years.
        Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing is an approved and widely
    accepted test to search for cells that have the potential of turning
    cancerous. Research has proven that when performed together with
    cytology screening, it increases detection of abnormal cell changes by
    30 percent. National medical organizations and insurance companies have
    determined screening of HPV testing and cytology screening at the same
    time as the standard of care, however Tricare has deemed HPV testing
    authorized only after a negative cytology exam.
        What is Navy medicine doing to ensure its female patients are
    receiving the highest quality of cervical cancer screening available?
        a. What is the percentage of female patients who receive current
    standards of screening within the required timeframes?
        b. Is HPV tests available at all Navy MTFs?
        c. What is Navy medicine doing to increase prevention efforts of
    their female patients from developing cervical cancer?
        Answer. Navy Medicine is dedicated to ensuring that all patients
    receive the highest quality of care. All female patients who present
    for care have the opportunity to be screened for cervical cancer,
    following the guidelines of the USPSTF (United States Preventive
    Services Task Force).
        (a) The percentage of female patients who are screened is 85.9
    percent (December 2009--the most current data from the Population
    Health Navigator). To put this figure into context, the civilian HEDIS
    Benchmark for 75th percentile is 84.6 percent and for 90th percentile
    is 87.8 percent, so we fit in with national norms. Our true measure for
    cervical cancer screening is actually a little higher, as our current
    data systems are not able to exclude women who have had a hysterectomy
    and no longer need to be screened. All active duty patients are
    screened according to guidelines; however, for our family members and
    other non-active duty beneficiaries, we can screen only those who
    present for care.
        (b) Yes. HPV testing and vaccinations are available through all
    Navy MTFs.
        (c) Navy Medicine is very proactive in providing patient education
    regarding cervical cancer through both patient/physician discussions
    and community public health outreach efforts via various media formats.
    The HPV vaccine is available for all beneficiaries in accordance with
    recommended guidelines.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                             va sharing agreements
        Question. Admiral Robinson, the Department of Defense and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs are establishing joint ventures in
    hospitals that are co-located around the country, in hopes to achieve
    efficiencies with combined personnel and shared resources, thus
    eliminating duplication. Currently, as you know, the Navy and the VA
    are working on a joint venture in North Chicago, where the plan is to
    operate the facility with a single civilian staff under the VA,
    operating out of one combined facility.
        The Air Force and the VA are also working toward a joint-venture
    between Keesler and Biloxi, but have adopted a different model than the
    North Chicago model. I understand the Air Force has stated that not
    every joint venture will be applicable to every location, and thus the
    Air Force is not inclined to follow the North Chicago model. One of
    these reasons might be due to the different mission focus between the
    two locales. For example, the North Chicago facility supports mostly
    non-deployable personnel (Navy recruits) and serves as a schoolhouse
    for medical trainees. In Keesler, many of the medical Airmen deploy in
    their respective Air Expeditionary Force rotations (AEF) and for
    humanitarian missions, as needed.
        Admiral, what are your thoughts regarding the joint venture in
    North Chicago? In your opinion, is total consolidation between the Navy
    and the VA the best answer for meeting the Navy mission at Great Lakes?
        Finally, do you believe this is the model of the future for other
    Navy-VA joint ventures? Or will the Navy look at other models of
    implementation, depending upon the mission at that location?
        Answer. The total consolidation between the Navy and the VA in
    North Chicago will allow Navy Medicine to meet our mission in Great
    Lakes. The fully integrated joint venture in North Chicago is a model
    that has evolved over 10 years of expanding and developing extensive
    resource sharing between the two Departments.
        Prior to plans for consolidation in North Chicago, the Navy was
    moving forward with programmed replacement ambulatory care center to
    replace the aging Navy hospital. Simultaneously, discussions were
    taking place within the VA to close their North Chicago facility and
    reassign the workload to both Milwaukee and Chicago Veterans facility.
    A decision was made to explore a joint Federal solution to combine both
    the Navy-VA healthcare missions, which would provide a more cost
    effective solution to meet the healthcare needs of a wide array of
    active duty, veterans, and dependent beneficiary populations. This
    combined healthcare project is in its 10th year of evolving from
    planning to operational status with many of the integration challenges
    having been addressed such as the reconciliation process and the IT
    solutions for interoperability.
        The current demonstration project will commence October 1, 2010 and
    is expected to extend efficiencies gained through local consolidation
    and use of a single chain of command, as well as single systems for
    personnel, logistics, and financial management. The Department of
    Veterans Affairs, North Chicago will be the lead executive department.
    Following review of the financial and personnel systems, workload and
    patient satisfaction surveys, this fully integrated facility may become
    the model for future DOD and VA operations where appropriate. Navy
    Medicine, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
    Affairs are already establishing joint ventures with the goal of
    eliminating duplication.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
                                 chiropractors
        Question. I'm pleased that TRICARE has worked over the past few
    years to expand chiropractic care for service members. Indeed, I have
    heard one of the top complaints of returning soldiers has been the type
    of neck and back pain that chiropractic care would seemingly address.
    Given the strains placed upon our soldiers in theater, what
    consideration (if any) has been given to commissioning chiropractors,
    such that they can be deployed and provide care for our soldiers
    abroad? Are there any obstacles currently in place that would prevent
    you from doing so?
        Answer. Approximately 25 percent of entrants to the Navy Medical
    Corps currently have the Doctor of Osteopathy degree. The manipulation
    skill set is available in this group of physicians who are widely
    deployed in support of theater operations. More importantly, these
    physicians along with orthopedic surgeons and sports medicine
    physicians are more versatile in their use in theater and at home.
        Additionally, physical therapists, now doctorally prepared, also
    have the skill set necessary to address neck and back pain as well as
    the full spectrum of other musculoskeletal complaints widely
    experienced by deploying service members. Physical therapists are
    deploying with service members, and there is a desire to expand this
    availability.
        The Navy Medical Department prefers to use full spectrum physicians
    and physical therapists rather than limited spectrum providers to meet
    the needs of its beneficiaries.
                             chiropractors at mtfs
        Question. In fiscal year 2009, Congress required that 11 new
    Military Treatment Facilities be staffed with chiropractors by the end
    of last fiscal year. I have listed the specific locations of those
    positions that were announced below. To my knowledge only 4 have opened
    up--what is the status of each of those 11 new positions?
    Air Force
        1st Special Operations Medical Group, Hurlburt Field, Florida.
    Army
        Irwin Army Community Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas.
        Lyster Army Health Clinic, Fort Rucker, Alabama.
        Bayne-Jones Army Community Hospital, Fort Polk, Louisiana.
        Bassett Army Community Hospital, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
        Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany.
        Grafenwoehr Army Health Clinic, Germany.
    Navy
        Naval Health Clinic Quantico, Virginia.
        Naval Branch Health Clinic Groton, Connecticut.
        Naval Hospital Lemoore, California.
        U.S. Naval Hospital, Okinawa, Japan.
        Answer. Navy Medicine currently has contract chiropractors at NHC
    Quantico, NBHC Groton, and NH Lemoore. NH Okinawa presently does not
    have a chiropractor. Additionally Navy Medicine has contract
    chiropractors at NH 29 Palms, NH Beaufort, NH Bremerton, NH Camp
    Lejeune, NH Camp Pendleton, NH Pensacola, NHC Cherry Point, NHC Great
    Lakes, NHC Hawaii, NMC Portsmouth, NMC San Diego and NNMC Bethesda.
                                     ______

          Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Eric B. Schoomaker
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
        Question. My staff has made repeated requests for this report. In
    response I have received a letter acknowledging my request, and
    repeated assurances that the review is in process.
        Does the Department of Defense intend to complete a review of
    TRICARE standards for residential treatment centers, including the 24
    hour nursing requirement? When will the report be complete?
        Answer. Yes, the review has been completed and TRICARE is working
    to modify certain requirements related to the certification of
    residential treatment centers, including those setting standards for
    overnight medical care in such settings. However, to fulfill the
    requirements of the report, the Department must change our regulation
    on standards. The timeline for the report is predicated on how soon the
    regulation can be changed. As soon as the report is completed, it will
    be sent to all the appropriate Committees.
        Question. On March 17, 2009, the Federal Register published a final
    rule on the inclusion of the TRICARE retail pharmacy program as part of
    the DOD for the purpose of the procurement of pharmaceuticals by
    Federal agencies. This program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to
    provide, at minimum, a 24 percent discount on prescription drugs. The
    final rule estimated the resulting savings to the Department of Defense
    would be over $12 billion in fiscal years 2010-2015.
        Is DOD on track to obtain the estimated savings? Are all drug
    manufacturers complying with the requirements? If not, what steps are
    being undertaken to ensure that the Federal pricing is obtained?
        Answer. Yes, the Department is on track to obtain savings on
    prescription drugs. However, the initial Independent Government Cost
    Estimate (IGCE) done in 2008, relied on 2007 data from Pharmacy Data
    Transaction Service. The IGCE also based several significant
    assumptions on data published by CBO that was from 2002 and 2003, a
    period which experienced higher inflation and price changes than what
    was seen in 2006 and going forward. Therefore, the IGCE based on these
    assumptions and data available at that time and calculated a initial
    savings rate of 35 percent. This calculation of 35 percent was proved
    incorrect due to the inaccurate data used.
        In order to have an accurate calculation of the savings, in
    February 2010, the Pharmacy Operations Directorate (POD) provided
    information to OMB Budget Officials concerning differences between the
    projected savings of the Federal Ceiling Price (FCP) program and our
    recalculations of projected savings based on actual refund data to
    date. The corrected calculations, provided by the POD in February 2010
    using actual data, yielded a rate of 28 percent. It is anticipated that
    our FCP refund estimates will continue to be refined as we have more
    experience with the program, receive additional quarters worth of
    refunds, and develop more precise methodologies for determining future
    refunds. As of August 27, 2010, fiscal year 2010 total collections
    (DHP/Non-DOD/MERHCF) for pharmacy rebates were $664 million.
        Yes, almost all manufacturers have opted in for all of their drugs
    for purposes of preserving preferred uniform formulary status and no
    manufacturer has opted out of the program. If that were to occur, the
    most likely outcome would be to switch to another drug in the drug
    class. In the unlikely event that this would not be medically
    sufficient, DOD could use the preauthorization, transition, and waiver/
    compromise processes under the Final Rule to ensure that patient needs
    are met.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Charles B. Green
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                      community based primary care clinics
        Question. General Green, over the years the Air Force has
    transformed its medical care more toward clinic based rather than large
    military treatment facilities. Are there lessons learned from your
    experience providing care in a clinic setting that the Army would find
    beneficial as they plan to open 22 Community Based Primary Care
    Clinics?
        Answer. A solid business plan is required to ensure long term
    viability of the clinic. Enrollment based clinics drive different
    practice than a fee for service clinic that requires many procedures to
    cover the operating costs. Most medical care is provided in the
    outpatient arena, which meets the majority of our beneficiaries' needs.
    We have learned the importance, particularly in free-standing
    outpatient clinics, of providing patients a Medical Home with good
    access to their provider, continuity of care and a relationship with a
    Family Health Team. Family Health providers require specialty care
    resources to complete the spectrum of healthcare delivered for patients
    with disease and injury. Specialty consultation can sometimes result in
    fractionated care, particularly when it requires referral outside the
    medical treatment facility. The central tenet of the Air Force Medical
    Service's Medical Home is a focus on referral management, disease
    management, and a team approach to healthcare to ensure coordinated
    care that anticipates each patient's needs over time. We are also
    working to expedite the flow of relevant research information from the
    medical journals to our providers' desktops to improve medical
    management.
        Another important effort is that the Air Force has hired 32 full-
    time behavioral health providers to embed in our primary care clinics
    to facilitate mental health treatment in the primary care setting.
    Research shows that over 70 percent of physical complaints have a
    psychological component and the vast majority of psychotropics are
    prescribed in primary care. Via this program, mental health providers
    are embedded in Primary Cares to provide consultation and brief
    intervention to our beneficiaries, who often do not seek or follow
    through with specialty care. This program streamlines the process for
    beneficiaries, providing brief mental health intervention when and
    where needed.
                          hearing center of excellence
        Question. General Green, I am very interested in the growing number
    of medically focused centers of excellence in the military and how the
    Department intends to ensure the appropriate level of attention and
    allocation of resources are devoted to the issues we are faced with
    today and also those we might encounter in the future. The current
    centers are focused around known critical areas of concern that impact
    both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs:
    hearing loss, vision, extremity injury, traumatic brain injury and
    psychological health. Since the Air Force will likely be the executive
    agent for the Hearing Center of Excellence, can you detail the role you
    believe the Air Force should play in developing the operational and
    research requirements as well as resourcing the Center to meet those
    needs?
        Answer. The establishment of a Hearing Center of Excellence is well
    underway. The Hearing Center of Excellence is positioned to roll out
    the necessary programs to connect, coordinate and focus the Department
    of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) tracking, clinical care and
    research efforts for each injured military member and our expanding
    population of auditory disabled veterans.
        In October 2009, the Air Force was designated as the lead component
    and is standing up the Hearing Center of Excellence in partnership with
    the VA, Navy, and Army. The Executive hub will be located in San
    Antonio at Wilford Hall Medical Center within the 59th Medical Wing.
        The Hearing Center of Excellence office will be comprised of a lean
    cadre of staff working as an administrative hub leveraging technology
    to create and sustain a network of regional treatment facilities. This
    network will provide coordinated research and treatment. The Center
    staff will include a cadre of otolaryngology, speech and audiology
    professionals from within DOD, VA, and civilian settings. Wilford Hall
    Medical Center is an ideal site for the Hearing Center of Excellence
    hub. With ten Air Force, and five Army otolaryngologists and nine
    audiologists, Wilford Hall is the most robust clinical otolaryngology
    and audiology department in the DOD and VA systems.
        Wilford Hall is integrated with Brooke Army Medical Center in
    Graduate Medical Education in otolaryngology and audiology. The Wilford
    Hall/Brooke Army Medical Center partnership provides support for the
    Audie Murphy and Central Texas VA hospitals, and provides didactic and
    surgical training support for the University of Texas at San Antonio
    Medical School. This local support underpinning the Hearing Center of
    Excellence hub will ensure success as links with regional DOD and VA
    facilities are developed. The BRAC-directed coalescence to the San
    Antonio Military Medical Center construct will provide convenient, top-
    quality platforms that are critical for focused clinical and research
    activities.
        The Wilford Hall otolaryngology department has a strong legacy and
    understanding of deployment medicine supporting special operations,
    aeromedical evacuation, and humanitarian roles and is keenly aware of
    the ongoing dichotomy faced by our troops between hearing protection
    and the essential need for optimal situational awareness and
    communication. Wilford Hall audiology has a solid deployment and
    research foundation and a working relationship with the Army medical
    facilities, the VA system, and the Institute for Surgical Research.
    They have established collaborative teaching and research ties with the
    Navy, acclaimed universities, and national and international industry
    leaders. The San Antonio military medical community supports Fort Hood,
    the Army's largest armored post, the Center for the Intrepid, all Air
    Force entry-level enlisted training and the new Medical Education and
    Training Campus on Fort Sam Houston.
        Since the designation of the Air Force as lead component for the
    Hearing Center of Excellence, the Interim Director has worked with the
    tri-service/VA working group to draft the concept of operations and to
    direct and define the functional needs for the hearing loss and
    auditory injury registry. The lead component structure is supporting
    cross-talk between the DOD Centers of Excellence and will lead to well
    coordinated efficiency of operations by sharing many functions.
                              wilford hall closure
        Question. General Green, you are dealing with the closure of
    Wilford Hall in San Antonio, Texas resulting in a combined medical
    facility with the Army. Please detail for the subcommittee how each
    Service is integrating and coordinating the various approaches to
    military medicine and serving their unique populations?
        Answer. The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Law, Business
    Plan 172, states that we are to ``realign [not close] Lackland Air
    Force Base, Texas, by relocating the inpatient medical function of the
    59th Medical Wing to the Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston,
    establishing it as the San Antonio Military Medical Center and
    converting Wilford Hall Medical Center to an Ambulatory Care Clinic.''
    With your support, we are on track to meet the BRAC deadline to
    transition all inpatient care to the Brooke Army Medical Center and
    establish a combined San Antonio Military Medical Center. The 59th
    Medical Wing's Ambulatory Care Clinic is also a critical component of
    this integrated military health system in San Antonio. To ensure we
    appropriately realign and integrate clinical operations, the Military
    Health System is modernizing these key facilities. The result will be
    the efficient and effective provision of world-class military medicine
    within the greater San Antonio area.
        We are capitalizing on prior collaboration and expanding new
    agreements. To ensure integration manner we are mixing resources at the
    market level to provide best value military healthcare for San Antonio.
    Examples are integration of graduate medical education under the San
    Antonio Uniformed Services Healthcare Education Consortium; fully
    integrated department leaders; collaborative basic and clinical
    biomedical research; and a San Antonio Healthcare Advisory Group to
    facilitate privileging, clinical business operations, healthcare
    management, and strategic planning. Efforts are ongoing with regard to
    governance structure, but our vision is a Service lead of the joint
    hospital and the joint ambulatory surgery facility, each staffed by
    both Army and Air Force personnel, similar to the Landstuhl Regional
    Medical Center model.
        The Army and the Air Force have worked diligently to integrate
    operations and improve military medicine delivery, while meeting the
    needs of each Service's beneficiary population and sustaining the
    readiness skills and focus of the military's medical force.
                     health professions scholarship program
        Question. General Green, the Health Professions Scholarship Program
    is one of the best mechanisms to recruit medical personnel into the
    Services. This program provides 4 years of tuition, books, and a
    monthly stipend, yet only 25 percent of all graduates of this program
    stay in the Service after the initial 4 year commitment. After spending
    hundreds of thousands of dollars training these medical professionals,
    how can we do a better job of retaining them in either the Active
    component or in the Reserves?
        Answer. Retaining healthcare professionals beyond completion of
    their initial Health Professions Scholarship Program obligation is both
    multi-faceted and complex. Although the current economic climate may
    assist in some regards to some specialties, data from ``exit surveys''
    consistently indicates that the prolonged war efforts in Afghanistan
    and Iraq and the associated requirement for more frequent and/or
    extended deployments plays a significant role in influencing whether a
    service member will remain in uniform beyond his/her initial service
    commitment. We continue to seek mechanisms to create more pay equity
    with private sector salaries. New authorities for special pays are
    helping.
        To assist in retention of personnel, we also perform active
    mentorship with the Developmental Team of each Corps. Considering the
    member's professional experience, clinical expertise, and preferences
    for education/training and future assignments, the Corps leadership is
    able to evaluate their potential as leaders and clinicians and to guide
    them to future success as a valued Air Force officer and skilled member
    of the medical team.
                             nurse corps promotions
        Question. LTG Green, what are the potential adverse effects of the
    Nurse Corps Chief's non-sequential promotion from O-6 to O-8? What
    actions have been considered to mitigate these effects on the Chief of
    the Nurse Corps? Has any consideration been given to the possibility of
    allocating an O-7 billet to the Nurse Corps to ensure that the Corps
    Chief is afforded the opportunity to properly transition to the rank of
    Major General?
        Answer. Force developing our colonels and considering only those
    colonels with 26-29 years of service provides a more seasoned senior
    officer and decreases the potential for transition challenges. However,
    we would certainly welcome the opportunity for another pinnacle
    position for Nurse Corps force development and transition to the second
    star.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                   recruitment of mental health professionals
        Question. DOD has a critical shortage of mental healthcare
    professionals. During review of the Fort Hood incident where the
    alleged gunman, Major Hasad, U.S. Army psychologist, is charged with
    the deaths of 13 victims, reports show discrepancies in documentation
    and counseling as it related to his professional abilities and
    behavior. Suggestions were made that he was kept on active duty with no
    negative reprimands because he had diversity as a Muslim to our
    nation's service despite his failure to perform.
        What is DOD doing to recruit more mental health workers and to
    ensure they are quality healthcare professionals? What are the
    roadblocks to meeting the shortage of mental health professional?
        Answer. We are currently assessing new and emerging mental health
    requirements and determining the best mix and number of mental health
    providers required to meet future needs. As recruiting fully qualified
    psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health nurses remains
    challenging, the Air Force has focused on developing our own pool of
    mental health professionals. In addition to highly regarded social
    worker, psychology and psychiatry residencies, we are proposing to
    establish a mental health nurse training program at Travis Air Force
    Base, California. Additionally, the Air Force has consolidated our
    special pay programs to optimize accession and retention incentives.
        Question. What is being done to reduce the stigma and provide
    enough care givers so Airmen and their families do not suffer in
    silence?
        Answer. The effort to reduce stigma has been part of the suicide
    prevention program since the program's inception in 1997. We have
    shown, and spread the word, that 95 percent of patients self-referring
    to mental health treatment experience no adverse impact on career or
    military status such as occupational restrictions or discharge actions
    based on fitness for duty or security concerns. The numbers of mental
    health visits have increased steadily over the last 5 years, suggesting
    a greater willingness for individuals to seek care.
        In addition, the Air Force has leveraged several resources for non-
    medical counseling in order to decrease stigma and ease an Airman's
    access into less formal counseling settings. Examples include:
      --Airman and Family Readiness Centers across the Air Force use
            Military Family Life Counselors, who can see individuals or
            couples with ``mild'' problems without the need to document or
            come in to a clinic.
      --TRICARE Assistance Program is a pilot project of online counseling
            available to adult family members and Airmen.
      --Military OneSource counselors are available for non-medical
            counseling by self-referral through a toll-free number, also
            without medical documentation.
      --In a growing number of Air Force Medical Treatment Facilities,
            mental health providers are available in primary care to see
            patients who may not otherwise seek mental healthcare or for
            those with minor problems such as sleep difficulties which may
            not require formal mental healthcare.
        Question. How is Air Force medicine integrated into the suicide
    prevention programs to ensure mental health services are getting to
    those who need it before it's too late?
        Answer. The Air Force Suicide Prevention Program Manager falls
    under the Surgeon General's office ensuring full engagement of the
    medical resources in preventing suicide within the service.
        The Air Force has integrated behavioral health providers within our
    primary care clinics, allowing our members to access initial mental
    health services without a separate appointment in a mental health
    clinic. For many Airmen these initial behavioral health interventions
    within primary care may be sufficient to address their needs. For
    others who may require more sustained treatment, initial contacts
    within primary care serve to ease their concerns and facilitate the
    transition to traditional mental healthcare.
        When a suicide does occur, medical providers review all care
    provided to the individual to look for potential improvements in the
    Air Force medical system that may prevent similar incidents in the
    future.
        Within our primary care system our Airmen complete annual personal
    health assessments, in addition to health assessments triggered by
    deployments. The assessments provide an opportunity for our medical
    providers to identify possible mental health concerns and risk for
    suicide and refer to mental health services as necessary.
                                cervical cancer
        Question. Cervical Cancer is preventable. In 2009 over 11,000
    American women were expected to be diagnosed with cervical cancer and
    over 4,000 women were expected to die from the disease. More than one-
    half of women who die from cervical cancer have never been screened or
    have not been screened in the past 5 years.
        Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing is an approved and widely
    accepted test to search for cells that have the potential of turning
    cancerous. Research has proven that when performed together with
    cytology screening, it increases detection of abnormal cell changes by
    30 percent. National medical organizations and insurance companies have
    determined screening of HPV testing and cytology screening at the same
    time as the standard of care, however TRICARE has deemed HPV testing
    authorized only after a negative cytology exam.
        What is Air Force medicine doing to ensure its female patients are
    receiving the highest quality of cervical cancer screening available?
        What is the percentage of female patients who receive current
    standards of screening within the required timeframes?
        Are HPV tests available at all Air Force military treatment
    facilities?
        What is Air Force medicine doing to increase prevention efforts of
    their female patients from developing cervical cancer?
        Answers: Just to clarify TRICARE does cover the assessment of women
    with Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance cells
    detected upon initial pap smear (Source: ``Tricare Policy Manual
    Pathology and Laboratory Chapter 6 Section 1.1. E. Human Papillomavirus
    testing'' (CPT1 procedure codes 87620-87622)). TRICARE states that
    human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is authorized after a positive
    cytology exam.
        As of December 2009, 81.99 percent of women 24-64 years old
    (continuously enrolled in a military treatment facility (MTF)) have
    completed cervical cancer screening in accordance with Healthcare
    Effectiveness Data and Information Set methodology and the minimum
    screening recommendations from the American Academy of Family
    Physicians and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The National
    Committee for Quality Assurance median score is 82 percent. The U.S.
    Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is
    insufficient to recommend for or against the routine use of HPV testing
    as a primary screening test for cervical cancer. Rationale: The USPSTF
    found poor evidence to determine the benefits and potential harms of
    HPV screening as an adjunct or alternative to regular pap smear
    screening. Trials are underway that should soon clarify the role of HPV
    testing in cervical cancer screening.
        Cervical cancer screening is available at all Air Force medical
    treatment facilities and all Air Force medical facilities send
    specimens to Wilford Hall for routine screening. HPV testing
    capabilities includes Reflex HPV testing for specimens showing atypical
    cells, i.e., ``ASCUS PAP,'' and direct HPV testing of specimens when
    ordered by a provider.
        The Air Force Medical Service utilizes a multi-pronged approach for
    cervical cancer prevention. HPV vaccination is available to all
    eligible patients according to Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
    Health risk assessments (Web HA) are completed as part of the
    Preventive Health Assessment for Active Duty personnel. The tool
    identifies individuals at potential risk for sexually transmitted
    infections (e.g., HPV) and provides risk-reduction messaging ``alerts''
    to patients and healthcare teams. Education and questionnaires on risk
    factors are addressed during routine clinical visits for all patients.
    Cervical cancer screening is a focus metric of Air Force Surgeon
    General Executive Global Look. Cervical cancer screening surveillance/
    outreach is provided with use of the Military Health System Population
    Health Portal and provides MTFs provider level reports for cervical
    cancer screening rates and women overdue. MTFs are able to use this
    data to encourage patients to remain current on screening guidelines.
    Cervical cancer screening with availability of HPV testing is available
    at all MTFs.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                            mental health awareness
        Question. The Army has partnered with the National Institutes of
    Mental Health (NIMH) to conduct long-term study of risk and protective
    factors to inform health promotion and suicide prevention efforts in
    late 2008.
        What is the Air Force doing to promote mental health awareness?
        Answer. The Air Force has implemented wide-ranging efforts to
    promote mental health awareness and decrease stigma in our service.
    Many of these efforts have roots in our suicide prevention program,
    which was launched in 1996. At this time, we marshaled the capabilities
    of all our helping agencies, mental health, family advocacy, chaplains,
    family support centers and others within what we called an Integrated
    Delivery System (IDS). The goal continues to be to provide
    comprehensive efforts at the base level to meet the needs of our
    communities. Our suicide prevention program created a way for these IDS
    members to get into our units and talk about issues that stress the
    force. By bringing these discussions to the units and focusing
    community efforts in reducing stressors we enhanced awareness of these
    issues. We integrated suicide prevention within our professional
    military education to help leaders understand the mental health factors
    that may contribute and leaders' roles in addressing these. We have
    continued to build on these efforts with our personal health
    assessments, which regularly ask our Airmen about potential mental
    health needs, and we review responses that indicate risk and make
    appropriate referrals for care as necessary.
        The Air Force has published a Leaders' Guide for Managing Personnel
    in Distress, which provides straightforward guidance to supervisors and
    other leaders how to assist their subordinates in accessing the
    appropriate services. This tool helps leaders see their role in helping
    to manage the personal needs of their subordinates, and to discuss
    these issues in a productive manner.
        We have also developed specific programs for Airmen throughout
    their careers. The Air Force Landing Gear Program was designed to help
    Airmen cope with the stressors of deployment and redeployment. This
    program, which is currently being revised to encompass enhancing
    resilience for all our Airmen, has been complemented by the creation of
    Deployment Transition Programs to facilitate the smooth reintegration
    of our Airmen who have experienced the most stressful deployment
    experiences. Air Force leadership continues to explore new ways to
    ensure our Airmen understand that their mental health is as vital to
    the success of our mission as their physical health.
        Question. Is the Air Force conducting long-term studies similar to
    that of the Army and NIMH?
        Answer. The Air Force has been conducting research on suicide
    prevention for many years. When the Air Force initiated its
    comprehensive suicide prevention program in 1996, we partnered with the
    University of Rochester and Dr. Kerry Knox to carry out research on the
    effectiveness of these efforts. The first findings of this project were
    published in the British Medical Journal in 2003 and showed the
    effectiveness of our suicide prevention initiatives. The results
    demonstrated that our broad community-based efforts were not only
    associated with a 33 percent decrease in suicides, but also with
    decreases in a wide range of other problematic behaviors such as
    domestic violence, accidental death and homicide. This research led to
    the AF program being included in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Services Administration's list of the only 10 Evidence Based Practices
    for the prevention of suicide.
        The Air Force suicide prevention program has continued this
    partnership with Dr. Knox, who has another study in press that will
    show continued compliance with the Air Force suicide prevention
    program, is associated with continued lower rates of suicide.
        The Air Force Suicide Prevention Program is also engaged in a
    number of other studies with researchers at the Uniformed Services
    University of the Health Sciences to examine case data on past
    suicides, including data collected through our Suicide Event
    Surveillance System, and the Department of Defense Suicide Event Report
    and Personal Health Assessment data to look for factors that may allow
    us to better identify those at risk for suicide. Recent efforts in this
    area have allowed us to identify career fields that appear to be at
    greater risk for suicide, allowing leadership to target additional
    prevention efforts at these groups.
        The Air Force has also been collecting data on new recruits
    entering the Air Force regarding their past behavioral history. This
    appears to show promise in allowing us to identify, from a recruit's
    earliest days in the Air Force, those Airmen who may be at higher risk
    for a variety of problems. The Air Force is now exploring ways to reach
    out to these Airmen to improve their ability to cope with the rigors of
    military life.
        Finally, the Air Force is in discussion with the Army and National
    Institutes of Mental Health to see how the Air Force may be able
    participate in this important study as it moves forward.
                          family readiness and support
        Question. Family Readiness and support is crucial for the health of
    the Services. The health, mental health, and welfare of military
    families, especially the children, has been a concern on mine for many
    years. This also includes education, living conditions, and available
    healthcare.
        Are you meeting the increased demand for healthcare and mental
    health professionals to support these families? If not, where are the
    shortfalls?
        Answer. The Air Force has had an increase in utilization of mental
    health services over the past 5 years both at the military treatment
    facilities and through the TRICARE network. In response to this growing
    use of mental health services, Military and Family Life Consultants
    were added at the Airmen and Family Readiness Centers to provide
    additional non-medical counseling resources for Airmen and their
    families to address issues such as stress management and relationship
    issues. In addition, the Air Force added 97 clinical mental health
    billets to perform clinical duties under the Director of Psychological
    Health. The Air Force also has hired 32 full time Behavioral Health
    providers to embed in primary care clinics to facilitate mental health
    treatment in the primary care setting.
        Question. What improvements have been made with respect to the
    children of Airmen and meeting their special requirements?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2009, 1,926 Air Force families received
    Family Advocacy Strength-Based Therapy Service (FAST Service). FAST is
    a family maltreatment prevention service for families who do not have a
    maltreatment incident but have risk factors for domestic/child
    maltreatment. Also, the New Parent Support Program (NPSP) services
    focus on providing education and support to military families related
    to pregnancy, infant/toddler care, growth and development, and safety.
    Guidance in the areas of parenting, couple communication and conflict
    management are provided. Emphasis is placed on assisting families with
    young children to deal with military lifestyle challenges, with
    particular emphasis on support before, during and after deployment. The
    Air Force NPSP screened 13,766 military families for risk of child and/
    or partner maltreatment in fiscal year 2009. During fiscal year 2008,
    13,561 families were screened. During 2009, 18,608 home visits by
    Registered Nurses and Medical Social Workers were provided to NPSP
    families, an increase from the 17,470 home visits provided during
    fiscal year 2008. Services are provided with the goal of preventing
    child and partner maltreatment. In 2009, 97 percent of families who
    were at high risk for family maltreatment and received home visitation
    services did not have a substantiated child maltreatment case in the
    year following closure.
        The Air Force Medical Operations Agency is in the process of
    standing up a cell to coordinate medical support to families with
    special needs across the Air Force. The Special Needs Cell will track
    families with special needs and focus on their medical support during
    permanent change of station moves.
        Question. What programs have you implemented to assist the children
    with coping with frequent deployments, re-integration, and other
    stresses of military families?
        Answer. Air Force Family Readiness Centers provide assistance to
    families before, during and after deployments. The programs include
    advice for parents on talking to their children about deployment and
    anticipating the concerns of children during deployment. The centers
    also provide video communication with deployed family members and other
    support services. The three Services have established the Uniformed
    Services Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Their
    website contains an entire section devoted to support of military
    families. The AAP Military Youth Deployment Support Website has been
    designed to support military youth, families, and the youth-serving
    professionals caring for this population (http://www.aap.org/sections/
    uniformedservices/deployment/index.html). Videos, patient handouts,
    provider information, blogging website and many more resources are
    devoted to this area. There are many additional websites and services
    helpful to military families. A short list is provided below.
        Resources for Parents include the following Web Sites: Military
    OneSource, National Military Family Association, Military Homefront,
    Military Child Education Coalition, Zero to Three Organization,
    Hooh4Health, USA4militaryfamilies.org, and Stompproject.org.
                              wounded warrior care
        Question. In the recently released Department of Defense budget
    guidance, it states that ``caring for our wounded warriors is our
    highest priority: through improving health benefits, establishing
    centers of excellence, and wounded warrior initiatives.''
        What systems do you have to ensure the transition of wounded
    warriors from Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans
    Affairs is completed without unnecessary problems?
        Answer. The Air Force has created the Warrior and Survivor Care
    office which oversees the Air Force Survivor Assistance Program, the
    Air Force Recovery Coordination Program, and the Air Force Wounded
    Warrior program in order to maintain continual contact with the
    wounded, ill or injured Airman and his or her family throughout the
    entire recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration process.
    Professional staff from these programs provides oversight during the
    member's transition to ensure the recovering service member receives
    all military and external agencies' benefits and entitlements. The Air
    Force Survivor Assistance Program (AFSAP) is designed to marshal all
    available resources in support of family needs when an Airman becomes
    seriously wounded, ill or injured, or when an Airman dies while on
    active duty.
        At the same time, the AFSAP also provides a systematic structure
    through which offers of assistance, information and support are made
    available on the family's terms. The Recovery Coordination Program was
    designed to address reforms to existing processes within the Department
    of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It improves the
    uniformity and effectiveness of care, management and transition across
    the Military Departments, as well as transfers to VA Medical Centers,
    Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers and civilian providers, through the
    use of standardized policies, processes, personnel programs and tools.
        The Air Force Wounded Warrior Program, through the base-level
    Airman and Family Readiness Centers, provide enhanced transition
    assistance services that include one-on-one pre-separation counseling,
    one-on-one VA benefits and Disabled Transition Assistance Program, and
    personal assistance in completing and submitting a VA disability claim.
    Approximately 70 percent of our Air Force Wounded Warrior Program
    participants suffer from post traumatic stress disorder or other mental
    health conditions. Many of them also have residual physical problems.
    We provide ongoing needs assessments pre and post separation to ensure
    they receive the benefits, entitlements and care they earned. An
    Information Sharing Initiative is being designed for the sole purpose
    of ensuring flawless transition and exchange of data between DOD
    entities and the VA. The DOD-mandated working group is in the early
    stages of requirements development, and will provide a significant
    improvement to the Air Forces tracking of wounded, ill, and injured
    service members. This will result in a refined and simplified
    transition with uninterrupted medical and non-medical care and support
    to our Airmen and their families.
        Question. What do you consider a successful transition and do you
    follow-up with the Service members to ensure there are no problems even
    after they have been released from Active Duty?
        Answer. We consider a successful transition when several factors
    converge to stabilize the wounded, ill or injured Airman and his or her
    family. This includes continuum of medical care for the member, with no
    interruptions in care, including continuation of medication;
    stabilization of family finances, to include receipt of Department of
    Veterans Affairs disability compensation, military retired pay if
    retired, or accurate severance pay, if separated. Awareness of benefits
    and entitlements, and timely and accurate receipt of those benefits
    plays a big role in the psychological health and perception of the
    member and his or her family.
        Transition is also considered successful when the member and family
    receive and act on the information provided to meet their personal
    goals, whether it is to continue working or pursue higher education. We
    believe that the most successful transitions start at the beginning of
    the Medical Evaluation Board process and continue through the
    transition process. The key factor is to keep the member and family
    informed of what to expect and to normalize their experiences as much
    as possible. Family integration into the transition process is an
    important ingredient for a successful transition.
        The Air Force Wounded Warrior Program staff is in continual contact
    with Airmen and their families during the entire process. During the
    transition process, the wounded warrior counselors coordinate all
    transition actions between the Air Force and the Department of Veterans
    Affairs, including disability compensation. Ongoing contacts with the
    member and family provide the counselors with needs reassessments to
    ensure all benefits and entitlements are on track even after discharge.
                               reserve components
        Question. The Reserves and particularly the National Guard have
    unique concerns while deployed. It would seem as though there are no
    near term plans to discontinue the use of our Reserve Component in Iraq
    and Afghanistan.
        How are you determining budget requirements to accommodate the
    Reserve Component as they need Department of Defense healthcare well
    into the future?
        Answer. Medical care for deployed personnel, to include Reserve
    Component members, is a joint effort, and the Total Force receives the
    full spectrum of care to ensure members remain healthy and resilient.
    As a part of the Joint Team, the Air Force contributes comprehensive
    medical capabilities at both home station and in the deployed
    environment. Defense Health Program budget requirements for the Air
    Force Medical Service are coordinated with and resourced by the TRICARE
    Management Activity. Key drivers for resourcing include population
    projections and expected workload. Healthcare workload attributed to
    Reserve Component members and dependents is accounted for by the Air
    Force Medical Service. In addition, the fiscal year 2010 President's
    budget and fiscal year 2011 President's budget requests provided
    additional resources for wounded, ill, and injured and other enduring
    healthcare requirements resulting from Overseas Contingency Operations.
                               mental health care
        Question. General Casey recently stated the number of Army soldiers
    who feel there is a stigma for seeking mental healthcare has been
    reduced from 80 to 50 percent. This is a significant improvement, but
    there is more work to be done.
        Despite the reduced number of those who feel there is a stigma, are
    more service members coming forward to seek treatment?
        Answer. The Air Force believes that we have seen some success in
    efforts to decrease the stigma of seeking mental health services.
    Despite a slight decrease in the strength of our force since 2003 the
    Air Force has seen a steady increase in the utilization of our of
    uniformed mental health services. Since 2003 the number of active duty
    visits to our mental health clinics has increased from 226,000 visits
    to over 300,000 visits annually. While some of these visits may be
    associated with screenings for activities such as deployments and
    security or special duty clearances, the overall trend indicates a
    greater willingness in our Airmen to seek mental healthcare within our
    system.
        Question. What actions are the Services taking to continue to
    reduce the stigma and encourage Service members to seek treatment?
        Answer. Major steps the Air Force has taken include:
        Actively working to decrease stigma through statements from senior
    leaders encouraging all Airmen to seek help when needed and through
    efforts to counter myths related to mental health treatment within the
    Air Force. As part of the annual suicide prevention training, Airmen
    are presented with data showing that the vast majority of those who
    self-refer to mental health experience no adverse outcome and their
    confidentiality is maintained. This is presented to encourage Airmen to
    seek help early before stress or mental health problems increase to the
    point that a command directed referral maybe necessary.
        Conducting an annual ``Wingman Day'' at each base. These activities
    focus on the role all Airmen play in being a Wingman, that is, caring
    for their fellow Airmen. Wingman day is an opportunity to review the
    importance of teamwork and helping fellow Airmen perform their best.
    This includes helping Airmen realize when they may need help and
    facilitating access to that care.
        Integrating behavioral health providers within our primary care
    clinics, allowing our members to access initial mental health services
    without a separate appointment in a mental health clinic. For many
    Airmen, these initial behavioral health interventions within primary
    care may be sufficient to address their needs. For others who may
    require more sustained treatment, initial contacts within primary care
    serve to ease their concerns and facilitate the transition to
    traditional mental healthcare.
        Publishing a Leaders' Guide for Managing Personnel in Distress
    provides straightforward guidance to supervisors and other leaders on
    how to assist their subordinates in accessing the appropriate services.
        Establishing Directors of Psychological Health at each base to
    serve as a consultant to leaders at the base level in addressing the
    mental health needs present in the community.
        Establishing policy to provide greater confidentiality to those
    Airmen under investigation who are also at risk for suicide. This
    limited privilege suicide prevention program ensures Airmen under
    investigation and deemed to be at risk for suicide are protected from
    information shared in the context of their mental health treatment
    being used against them in court or in the characterization of
    discharge.
        Question. Does your plan include the mental health of families, and
    if so what is that plan?
        Answer. The mental health of families is of significant concern to
    the Air Force as family support is essential for effective functioning
    of our service members. In response to this need for family services,
    the Air Force added Military and Family Life Consultants at the Airmen
    and Family Readiness Centers to provide additional non-medical
    counseling resources for Airmen and their families to address issues
    such as stress management and relationship issues.
        In addition, the Air Force added 97 clinical mental health billets
    to perform clinical duties under the Director of Psychological Health
    allowing increased access to care services at the military treatment
    facilities. The Air Force has also hired 32 full-time behavioral health
    providers to embed in primary care clinics to facilitate mental health
    treatment in the primary care setting. In addition to traditional
    mental health clinic services, the Air Force Family Advocacy program
    offers Family Advocacy Strength-Based Therapy Service (FAST Service).
    FAST is a family maltreatment prevention service for families who do
    not have a maltreatment incident but have risk factors for domestic/
    child maltreatment. Also in Family Advocacy, the New Parent Support
    Program services focus on providing education and support to military
    families related to pregnancy, infant/toddler care, growth and
    development, and safety.
        Guidance is provided in the areas of parenting, couple
    communication and conflict management. Emphasis is placed on assisting
    families with young children to deal with military life-style
    challenges, with particular emphasis on support before, during and
    after deployment. Military One Source and the Web-based TRICARE
    Assistance Program are also available for families to utilize for
    support.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                  joint venture keesler-biloxi medical system
        Question. General Green, the Department of Defense and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs are establishing joint ventures in
    hospitals that are co-located around the country, in hopes to achieve
    efficiencies with combined personnel and shared resources, thus
    eliminating duplication. Currently, as you know, the Navy and the VA
    are working on a joint venture in North Chicago, where the plan is to
    operate the facility with a single civilian staff under the VA,
    operating out of one combined facility.
        The Air Force and the VA are also working toward a joint-venture
    between Keesler and Biloxi, but have adopted a different model than the
    North Chicago model. I understand the Air Force has stated that not
    every joint venture will be applicable to every location, and thus the
    Air Force is not inclined to follow the North Chicago model. One of
    these reasons might be due to the different mission focus between the
    two locales. For example, the North Chicago facility supports mostly
    non-deployable personnel (Navy recruits) and serves as a schoolhouse
    for medical trainees. In Keesler, many of the medical Airmen deploy in
    their respective Air Expeditionary Force rotations (AEF) and for
    humanitarian missions, as needed.
        General, can you please give your thoughts on the other reasons as
    to why the current model at Keesler-Biloxi has been so successful and
    why it is the best model for the Gulf Coast region? Also, are there
    other Air Force-VA joint venture locations where you think this model
    is more applicable to improve treatment efficiency and provide quality
    care?
        Answer. The joint venture between the 81st Medical Group, Keesler
    AFB, Mississippi, and the Gulf Coast Veteran Affairs Health Care
    System, Biloxi, Mississippi, is relatively new and not yet complete, so
    assessing their successes at this time is difficult. However, despite
    the fact they are still in the process of integrating and moving some
    services, their centers of excellence model is already showing signs of
    success. Success for this joint venture, as well as any other joint
    venture model, is largely based on a willingness to work together to
    ensure the organization keeps the patient's needs as priority one.
    Communication and commitment to success is essential at all levels of
    the organization, especially with senior leadership. This commitment is
    very obvious at the Keesler/Biloxi joint venture as the leaders from
    both sites are very involved in the operation of the joint venture.
    Another key factor to success is a commitment to provide services for
    the other partner that they need for their patient population in the
    facility vice sending them out to the network--this is true for all
    partners in the joint venture. An excellent example is the Department
    of Veterans Affairs providing inpatient mental health services for
    Department of Defense beneficiaries, and Department of Defense
    providing women's health services for Department of Veterans Affairs'
    beneficiaries.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
                               chiropractic care
        Question. I'm pleased that TRICARE has worked over the past few
    years to expand chiropractic care for service members. Indeed, I have
    heard one of the top complaints of returning soldiers has been the type
    of neck and back pain chiropractic care would seemingly address.
    Unfortunately, our servicemen and women from Utah (particularly Hill
    AFB) are not able to receive this beneficial service that they have
    been promised because of the lack of approved providers.
        Shouldn't all soldiers have an opportunity to receive promised
    care? What alternatives for chiropractic care are available to airmen
    and soldiers, such as allowing them to receive private care, the cost
    of which would be reimbursed for those who are not within 50 miles of
    such a center, or are unable to be seen within 30 days?
        Answer. The Chiropractic Health Care Program is available to Active
    Duty service members (including activated National Guard and Reserve
    members) at designated military treatment facilities (MTFs) throughout
    the United States. This program is currently offered at 60 designated
    MTFs throughout the United States. There is currently no expansion set
    for 2010. The Department of Defense considers this program fully
    implemented, however, if directed to expand by Congress, the Air Force
    would certainly consider places such as Hill AFB, Utah.
        Alternatives to chiropractic care are non-chiropractic healthcare
    services in the Military Health System (e.g., physical therapy or
    orthopedics), referred care when care not available in a timely fashion
    at the MTF, or to seek chiropractic care in the local community at
    their own expense. Chiropractic care received outside of the designated
    locations is not covered under the Chiropractic Health Care Program.
    Major Air Force locations offering chiropractic care are listed below:

    Andrews Air Force Base
    Barksdale Air Force Base
    Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
    Eglin Air Force Base
    Elmendorf Air Force Base
    Hurlburt Field
    Keesler Air Force Base
    Kirtland Air Force Base
    Lackland Air Force Base
    Langley Air Force Base
    Luke Air Force Base
    MacDill Air Force Base
    Maxwell Air Force Base
    McGuire Air Force Base
    Offutt Air Force Base
    Scott Air Force Base
    Tinker Air Force Base
    Travis Air Force Base
    U.S. Air Force Academy
    Wright Patterson Air Force Base
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to Rear Admiral Karen Flaherty
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                          behavioral health providers
        Question. Admiral Flaherty, what innovative, multidisciplinary
    efforts has the Navy implemented to increase access to behavioral
    health providers?
        Answer. Increasing access to care for Behavioral Health remains a
    top priority for Navy Medicine. Prior ``innovations'' that have now
    become the norm include operationally embedded mental health providers,
    integration of Mental Health Care into primary care, Psychological
    Health Outreach Coordinators and use of our Deployment Health Centers
    as destigmatizing portals of care. Current innovation efforts are
    focusing on the use of intensive, outpatient, multidisciplinary group
    sessions for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and
    combat related mental health issues. One example of this type of
    innovative program is the ``Back on Track'' program at Naval Hospital
    Camp Lejeune. This 2 week program is built on the foundation of our
    Operational Stress Control (OSC) curriculum and outcome measures from
    the program are demonstrating statistically significant decreases in
    depression symptoms. Another innovative program is the
    multidisciplinary team assessment of every patient that is medically
    evacuated from theater to identify potential cognitive and mental
    health issues. Access is increased in a non-stigmatizing manner by
    providing this assessment to all patients without need for consult or
    self-referral. Follow on care is provided as indicated utilizing all
    members of the multidisciplinary team.
                    department-wide nurse residency program
        Question. Admiral Flaherty, I understand that the civilian nursing
    community has established nurse residency programs in order to better
    prepare new graduates and novice nurses to care for more complex
    patients. I am also aware that each military service has implemented
    similar nurse intern and transition programs. Has there been any
    consideration on the development of a Department wide Nurse Residency
    Program?
        Answer. The Navy Nurse Corps has Nurse Intern Programs designed to
    mentor and train new graduates at our three largest medical centers
    (Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Naval Medical Center San Diego, and
    the National Naval Medical Center) and at Naval Hospital Jacksonville.
    These programs are designed to orient recent graduate and registered
    nurses with limited clinical experience to the role of professional
    nursing. Training consists of classroom lectures, simulation lab,
    seminars, and hands on clinical experience. Classroom subject matter
    includes physical assessment, pathophysiology, diagnosis, nursing
    interventions, and general military training. Participants have direct
    patient care contact in the hospital setting. As medical treatment
    facilities within DOD merge, I think it is wise for the services to
    compare core curriculum and outcomes of their programs and blend best
    practice into a standardized program across the Department of Defense,
    while allowing for local leeway of program specifics based on
    individual needs of the local facility.
                         navy nurse challenges at fhcc
        Question. Admiral Flaherty, what are the major challenges facing
    Navy nurses as we move to a joint medical facility with the VA in
    Chicago, Illinois and how are the two Departments coordinating efforts
    to eliminate them before this facility becomes operation in the fall of
    2010?
        Answer. The nursing leadership in both communities has held
    multiple joint meetings over the past 18 months to communicate
    information and ideas on issues surrounding the Veteran's
    Administration (VA)--Navy merge of the joint facility in Chicago,
    Illinois. Action items have focused on credentialing and privileging,
    the setting of nursing standards, and staff education and training. We
    are educating the VA about the skill set of Hospital Corpsman and have
    joined each other's Executive Committee of the Nursing Staff (ECONS),
    and are merging toward a joint committee. Last, we are merging the Plan
    for Provision of Nursing Care between the VA's plan while adding Navy
    specific components. We are excited about the future possibilities and
    look forward to sharing our success with others.
                        navy nurse recruiting mechanisms
        Question. Admiral Flaherty, what are some of the best mechanisms
    that the Navy has instituted for recruitment and retention that might
    be beneficial for all services?
        Answer. Retaining Navy Nurses is one of my top priorities. Key
    efforts that have positively impacted retention include the Registered
    Nurse Incentive Specialty Pay (RN-ISP), a targeted bonus program for
    undermanned clinical nursing specialties and highly deployed Nurse
    Practitioners, graduate education programs through Duty Under
    Instruction (DUINS), and the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program
    (HPLRP) for baccalaureate nursing education, which assists nurses in
    reducing their student loan debt.
        The Navy Nurse Corps includes both uniformed and civilian
    professionals. In recent years, we have implemented two very exciting
    programs to incentivize our civilian nurses to work and stay working as
    Navy Nurses. Civilian nurses are now allowed to attend the
    Perioperative Nurse Training Program which will train them for a new
    career as Operating Room Nurses. We also introduced the Graduate
    Program for Federal Civilian Registered Nurses. This program provides
    opportunities for civilian nurses to obtain a graduate degree in
    nursing while receiving full pay and benefits of their permanent
    nursing position. Nurses selected for this program must have served at
    least 3 years in the Federal civilian service at a Navy Medicine
    activity prior to applying. While in graduate school they work a
    compressed work schedule while participating in full-time graduate
    education. We are confident that these two innovative programs will
    work to both recruit and incentivize civilian nurses to stay employed
    as Navy Nurses.
                     navy nurse corps collaboration with va
        Question. Admiral Flaherty, has the Navy Nurse Corps engaged in any
    collaborative nursing research efforts with the Veteran's
    Administration?
        Answer. Yes, one of my Nurse Researchers, Captain Patricia Kelley,
    is the Principal Investigator on a study titled ``Clinical Knowledge
    Development: Continuity of Care for War Injured Service Member.'' The
    purpose of this research study is to gather first person accounts of
    how nurses learn to care for wounded service members along with service
    members' memories of their care. This study will obtain interviews from
    over 250 nurses and 50 injured service members at military hospitals
    and Veterans Administration Medical Centers. From this study we hope to
    expand the nurse's understanding of care for the wounded warrior. I am
    pleased to report that this study was funded by the TriService Nursing
    Research Program (TSNRP).
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                            resiliency in the force
        Question. Admiral Flaherty, the Navy is in the process of
    ``rebalancing'' the force to reduce battle fatigue from multiple
    deployments and give service members a chance to ``reset'' mentally and
    physically in a time of high operational tempo. Specific programs
    within the Navy include ``FIT'' for right-sizing the force and the
    Operational Stress Control Program.
        These programs require a great deal of support from medical units
    within each respective Service. The concern is that while implementing
    these programs, the high demand, low density medical career fields will
    remain stressed and unable to reset, as well.
        Admiral, can you please comment on if these programs have increased
    the demand on your nursing corps? Can you also comment on if these same
    programs are effective in helping medical personnel reset, also?
        Answer. The Navy's Operational Stress Control (OSC) program and the
    United States Marine Corps Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC)
    programs are line-owned and line-led programs. They focus on leader's
    responsibilities for building resilient Sailors, Marines, units, and
    facilities, mitigating the stigma association with seeking
    psychological healthcare, and promote early recognition of troublesome
    stress reactions before they develop into stress injuries or illness.
    Navy Medicine, to include the Navy Nurse Corps, plays a supporting
    role. Both programs are built on the time-proven leadership continuum
    and have formal curriculum being delivered at various points throughout
    a Sailor's or Marine's career. Navy Fleet and Family Support Centers
    and Marine Corps Community Services are contributing heavily to the
    Family OSC/COSC modules.
        Stress unique to our caregivers, such as compassion fatigue and
    burnout, requires a more dedicated approach. Navy Medicine has
    developed the Caregiver Occupational Stress Control (CgOSC) program
    with the core objectives of early recognition of caregivers in
    distress; breaking the code of silence related to occupational stress
    reactions and injuries, and engaging caregivers in early help as needed
    to maintain mission and personal readiness. The concept of
    ``caregiver'' in this context refers to medical personnel (from
    corpsmen to physicians), clinically and non-clinically trained
    chaplains, religious program specialists, and family service
    professionals working within Navy Medicine. The Navy OSC, COSC and
    CgOSC programs actually enhance Navy Nurses as clinical leaders by
    leveraging a common framework for recognizing and responding to
    operational and occupational stress injuries. The increased demand by
    these programs on the Navy Nurse Corps is negligible because of the
    foundation of patient and staff education that is a core competency for
    all Navy Nurses. Anecdotally, we have seen our mid-grade nurses and
    Hospital Corpsmen rapidly integrate the principles of stress first-aid
    into their cores skills in a way that enhances their ability to address
    patient, family, and peer psychological distress. Their increased
    competency and skill used when providing complex and challenging care
    contributes to compassion satisfaction which buffers the adverse
    effects of compassion, fatigue and burnout.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Major General Kimberly Siniscalchi
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                        o-7 air force nurse corps billet
        Question. Major General Siniscalchi, how would the addition of a O-
    7 billet benefit the Air Force Nurse Corps?
        Answer. It would provide an additional force development
    opportunity for the Air Force Nurse Corps. However, all five Corps
    within the Air Force Medical Service have general officer billets for
    force development. An added star for the Nurse Corps should not be at
    the expense of another Corps.
                                nurse resiliency
        Question. Major General Siniscalchi, as nurses continue to deploy
    in support of service members world-wide, what efforts has the Nurse
    Corps made to ensure that we are also caring for our caregivers and
    instilling resiliency in our nurses?
        Answer. The Air Force has continued to monitor the well-being of
    all Airmen through multiple measures. Among these measures are our
    Post-Deployment Health Assessments (PDHAs) and Post-Deployment Health
    Reassessments (PDHRAs) administered following a deployment. Medical
    career groups (including nurses) are among the top three career groups
    for self-reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress on PDHA/PDHRA. Air
    Force leadership supported Lt. Gen. Green's plans to provide targeted,
    tiered Resiliency Training for higher-risk career groups including the
    formation of a Deployment Transition Center (DTC) in United States Air
    Forces in Europe. The DTC is a 2-day resiliency training and
    decompression stop on a deploying Airman's way home. Included in the 2-
    day training are JET Airmen and other medics who participate in
    ``outside-the-wire'' missions. In addition to the DTC, plans are
    underway for enhanced pre and post deployment resiliency training for
    these groups and targeted interventions for high risk groups, with
    enhanced small group or face to face training. Finally, medics at both
    Bagram and Balad have a high exposure rate to injury and death, and
    plans are to implement a resiliency program based on the mortuary
    affairs model at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware integrating physical,
    spiritual, social, and psychological resiliency across their
    deployment.
                       civilian nurse transition programs
        Question. Major General Siniscalchi, I understand that the Air
    Force has established collaborative agreements with several civilian
    nurse transitions programs. Has any consideration been given to
    partnering with the Army or Navy Transition programs?
        Answer. Consideration has been given; however, we have not
    ``formally'' partnered with the Army or Navy nurse residency/transition
    programs. We have chartered a working group to evaluate our Air Force
    Nurse Transition Program platform and compare and contrast our program
    with the Army, Navy and civilian nurse residencies/transition programs.
    We have an ongoing study to evaluate the performance and effectiveness
    of our Nurse Transition Programs and to identify potential
    opportunities for Tri-Service nurse training consolidation efforts.
                             joint medical policies
        Question. Major General Siniscalchi, as the military moves toward
    more joint medical treatment facilities among the tri-services and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, do you see a future in merging Nurse
    Corps policies for governance, education, training, and the provision
    of nursing care?
        Answer. At those locations that have tri-service and Department of
    Veterans Affairs nursing, there are opportunities to establish tri-
    service/Veterans Affairs nursing teams to collaborate efforts for
    governance, policy development, education and training and the plan for
    the provision of nursing care. It is, as always, important to note that
    patient care and advocating for the patient and their family remain a
    key nursing focus in whatever uniform or setting. There are many
    similarities in providing nursing care and the emphasis the Services
    place on the use of Professional Organization policies, education/
    training and nursing care guidance is a key link to those similarities.
    Currently we have tri-service teams in Joint Task Force National
    Capital Region Medical which are working toward a collaborative
    approach in providing standardized orientation, education and training
    of our enlisted medics.
                             nurse corps retention
        Question. Major General Siniscalchi, despite well known shortages
    in the nursing profession, I see that all three corps expects to meet
    or exceed their recruiting goals this year. How does the Air Force plan
    to retain these nurses for follow on tours as the economy improves?
        Answer. For those nurses joining the Air Force due to the current
    economy, we are confident the reasons that made the Air Force an
    attractive option will also be the reasons they would continue to serve
    as the economy improves. Initial accessions for fiscal year 2010
    consistently speak in positive terms about the benefits of funded
    graduate education opportunities, professional and collegial
    relationships within the healthcare team, retirement pension, and
    continuity for seniority with assignment moves, opportunity for travel
    and the Air Force as great way of life for their families and children.
    As we look at retention of our current Air Force nurses, the number of
    nurses leaving the Air Force in 2009 was the lowest since 2002.
    Additionally, of the nurses who separate from the Air Force, over one-
    half are separating to retire after reaching retirement eligibility. In
    2009, 59 percent of the nurses who left active duty did so after
    serving at least 20 years in uniform. With special pay programs such as
    the Nurse Corps Incentive Special Pay started in fiscal year 2009 to
    recognize advanced clinical and educational preparation, we hope to see
    an added benefit of increased retention.
                     air force nursing research initiatives
        Question. Major General Siniscalchi, what are some of the Air Force
    Nursing Research Initiatives that focus on the specific needs of combat
    veterans?
        Answer. Areas of research conducted by the U.S. military in
    Afghanistan and Iraq have led to advancements in combat casualty
    medical care and therapies to include tourniquet application, combat
    gauze, life-saving interventions, en-route care, resuscitation, blood
    product administration, burns, wound care, post traumatic stress
    disorder, traumatic brain injury and infectious diseases.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                           nurse corps contributions
        Question. Nurses significantly contribute to the healthcare of our
    Service members and their families. It is important that we maintain
    appropriate levels of highly trained nurses capable of performing a
    wide range of healthcare functions.
        With the maintained high operations tempo of combat in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, and the increasing requirements for healthcare for the
    Service member and their families, are you able to maintain the
    required level of nurses?
        Answer. Recruiting fully qualified nurses continues to be a
    challenge. Historical and current statistics tell us this will be an
    issue for years to come. In fiscal year 2009, we accessed 284 nurses
    against our total accession goal of 350 (81 percent), down 12 percent
    from what I reported the previous year. Currently, the recruiting of
    novice nurses has been successful. At present our recruitment of novice
    nurses is at 166 percent of our projected fiscal year 2010 goal. While
    the recruitment of novice nurses is going well, the limiting factor is
    their depth of clinical experience. Our Nurse Transition Program
    advances the clinical skills of these new nurses through direct patient
    care under the supervision of seasoned nurse preceptors.
        Question. Are there enough nurses entering the military to ensure
    quality of care for the Service members and to maintain the legacy of
    superb leadership in the future?
        Answer. Recruiting fully qualified nurses continues to be a
    challenge. Historical and current statistics tell us this will be an
    issue for years to come. In fiscal year 2009, we accessed 284 nurses
    against our total accession goal of 350 (81 percent), down 12 percent
    from what I reported the previous year. Currently, the recruiting of
    novice nurses has been successful. At present our recruitment of novice
    nurses is at 166 percent of our projected fiscal year 2010 goal. While
    the recruitment of novice nurses is going well, the limiting factor is
    their depth of clinical experience. Our Nurse Transition Program
    advances the clinical skills of these new nurses through direct patient
    care under the supervision of seasoned nurse preceptors.
        Question. What are you doing to prepare nurses for senior
    leadership roles and responsibilities?
        Answer. We grow our future leaders through professional military
    education, encouraging certification in clinical specialties, advanced
    academic preparation and deliberate force development.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                            resiliency of the force
        Question. General Siniscalchi, the Air Force continues to
    ``rebalance'' the force to reduce battle fatigue from multiple
    deployments and give service members a chance to ``reset'' mentally and
    physically in a time of high operational tempo.
        The Air Force continues to work toward Total Force Integration
    (TFI) to provide the best support possible in a variety of missions
    world-wide. Multiple deployments, however, do increase the mental and
    physical stress on the Airman, and many programs have been created in a
    short time to address these concerns.
        However, these programs require a great deal of support from
    medical units within each respective Service. The concern is that while
    implementing these programs, the high demand, low density medical
    career fields will remain stressed and unable to reset, as well.
        General Siniscalchi, can you please comment on if these programs
    have increased the demand on your nursing corps? Can you also comment
    on if these same programs are effective in helping medical personnel
    reset, also?
        Answer. At this time we have not experienced an increased demand on
    the Air Force Nurse Corps as a result of current programs. However, we
    will continue to assess requirements as new initiatives such as
    Deployment Transition Centers come to fruition.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. Our next hearing of the Defense
    Appropriations Subcommittee will be on Wednesday, March 17, at
    10:30 a.m., and at that time we'll receive testimony from the
    Navy and Marine Corps.
        And we'll stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., Wednesday, March 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, March 17.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Navy

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. The hearing will come to order.
        The subcommittee meets this morning to receive testimony on
    the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the U.S. Navy and
    Marine Corps.
        And I'm pleased to welcome the Secretary of the Navy, Mr.
    Ray Mabus, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Gary
    Roughead, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James
    Conway. And I look forward to their testimony.
        The President's request includes $160.6 billion to pay for
    the personnel, operation and maintenance, and acquisition
    programs of the Navy and Marine Corps. The request also
    includes $18.5 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan in 2011, and $3.8 billion to cover the additional
    costs of the surge in Afghanistan this year. The subcommittee
    will hold a separate hearing on March 25 to examine the 2010
    surge supplemental request in more detail.
        The Navy and Marine Corps continue to be standard-bearers
    in this country's ability to project power and maintain
    regional stability. Today, sailors and marines are serving on
    the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every day, these men
    and women are working to support our troops in harm's way,
    train foreign security forces, and carry out dangerous combat
    missions.
        In addition, our forward presence in the Asia Pacific, the
    Middle East, and Caribbean and elsewhere, serves to assure our
    friends and our allies, as well as deter possible adversaries.
    Our forward bases and ships at sea keep trade routes secure,
    ease regional tensions, and respond to humanitarian
    emergencies.
        I particularly commend the lifesaving efforts of our
    military personnel after the devastating earthquake in Haiti.
        As the subcommittee reviews the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request, it is clear that the Navy and Marine Corps will
    continue to deal with a number of challenges, particularly with
    the expensive acquisition programs. Delays in programs like the
    Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the CH-53K helicopter, and the
    expeditionary fighting vehicle can force modernization funds to
    be used for sustaining older capabilities, in addition to the
    increased development and procurement costs. Congress will
    continue to exercise close oversight on balancing the
    investment in future capabilities with the demand to sustain
    current equipment.
        The subcommittee will also have important questions about
    the plans for shipbuilding. The Navy has initiated work on the
    next-generation ballistic missile submarine, which includes a
    major research and development program and a per-ship cost of
    approximately $7 billion. But, long-range estimates of the
    shipbuilding budget expect it to average $16 billion over the
    next 30 years. Many are concerned about the pressure the
    submarine will place on shipbuilding budgets beginning 10 years
    from now.
        Also in shipbuilding, the Navy is committed to a new
    acquisition strategy for the littoral combat ship (LCS) that
    emphasizes competition to bring down costs while providing the
    best capability. With all the recent criticism of earmarks in
    the newspapers, it is important to know that the Navy would not
    be able to pursue the new acquisition strategy this year if the
    Appropriations Committee had not added $60 million in
    unauthorized funds to last year's budget. I believe, when the
    history of this program is written, these additional funds by
    Congress will result in substantial savings to the U.S.
    taxpayer.
        Finally, I'd like to commend the witnesses on their
    commitment to supporting the needs of sailors and marines who
    serve our country. Both the Navy and Marine Corps are
    experiencing very strong rates of recruiting and retention, and
    I would hope that our witnesses will elaborate, in their
    opening statement, on the initiatives to take care of our men
    and our women in uniform.
        And the full statements of each of the witnesses will be
    made part of the official record.
        And now, I am pleased and honored to turn to the vice
    chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I'm pleased to join you in welcoming this distinguished
    panel of witnesses to discuss the budget request for the U.S.
    Navy and Marine Corps in the next fiscal year.
        It's particularly good to see my friend Secretary Ray
    Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, who is serving with distinction
    in that capacity and served as our Governor of Mississippi and
    is a good friend. We're glad to see him in this very important
    position.
        And we look forward to hearing your testimony and assure
    you that we want to do what we need to do here to provide the
    funding so that we maintain a strong, mobile, and effective
    Navy and Marine Corps team to protect the security interests of
    our great country.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Bond, would you care to read a
    statement?

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Cochran.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your concise description
    of how this subcommittee has provided vitally needed assistance
    to all branches of the service; and without it we'd have had
    many shortfalls.
        But, we welcome Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, General
    Conway, for appearing before this subcommittee today.
        I'm particularly interested in our Nation's carrier fleet,
    the backbone of our military's ability to project power and
    peace around the world. As we all know, the F/A-18 Hornets and
    Super Hornets are the backbone of the carrier-based strike
    fighter aviation fleet. These aircraft are providing support
    for our warfighters, to close air-support mission, to ground
    forces, with an unmatched deterrent capability. The F/A-18
    continues to be the Navy's only strike fighter with advanced
    air-to-ground and air-to-air operational capability; and the
    continued procurement of these aircraft is, I believe, very
    necessary to address the Navy shortfall.
        In other words, to apply Secretary Gates's statement, I
    think procuring F/A-18s is absolutely necessary. Secretary
    Gates said that he was ``advocating a shift away from 99
    percent exclusive service-centric platforms that are so costly
    and so complex that they take forever to build, and only then,
    in very limited quantities. With the pace of technological and
    geopolitical change and the range of possible contingencies, we
    must look more to the 80 percent solution, a multiservice
    solution that can be produced in time, on budget, and in
    significant numbers. As Stalin once said, `quantity has a
    quality all of its own' ''.
        I think Secretary Gates has hit it on the head. Keeping
    Americans, whether our troops fighting overseas or our families
    at home, safe from current and emerging threats is a difficult
    challenge in an uncertain and dangerous world. America must
    have the right tools to meet this challenge. And I believe
    having a Super Hornet in our arsenal is an important part of
    the strategy.
        I applaud the efforts of the Department of the Navy for
    considering a multiyear procurement. This prudent move would
    prevent the Navy from having empty carrier decks, save hundreds
    of millions of valuable taxpayer dollars, and maintain the
    strength of the United States industrial defense base, a very
    important objective for the Navy, for the marines, and for the
    peace and security that this Nation advocates and promotes,
    here and abroad.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief.
        I ask that my written statement be made part of the record.
        Chairman Inouye. Without----
        Senator Shelby. And, Secretary----
        Chairman Inouye [continuing]. Objection.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Secretary Mabus, General Conway, Admiral Roughead, we look
    forward to being with you this morning and hearing your
    testimony and also have a chance to question you on some very
    important issues.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Kohl. No statement.
        Chairman Inouye. Then I'll begin with the questioning, if I
    may.
        But, first, we'll call upon the Secretary.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS

        Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee, it's a real pleasure to be here with you today.
    The CNO, the Commandant, and I are particularly grateful to the
    commitment that the members of this subcommittee have shown to
    our men and women in uniform in the Navy and the Marine Corps.
    We're exceptionally proud to be representing the sailors,
    marines, civilians, and their families that are with the
    Department of the Navy.
        The Navy and the Marine Corps remain the most formidable
    expeditionary fighting force in the world, capable of global
    operations across the entire spectrum of warfare. Today, 40
    percent of our forces are deployed and over one-half of our
    fleet is at sea.
        In Helmand Province, Afghanistan, more the 16,000 marines
    are engaged in major combat, counterinsurgency, and engagement
    operations. They're supported there by naval aircraft flying
    close air support from Eisenhower and from our forward-deployed
    expeditionary aviation assets. A total of 12,000 sailors are on
    the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the greater Middle
    East, and another 9,000 sailors and marines are embarked on our
    ships at sea.
        Off the coast of Africa, our ships are protecting
    international commerce and operating as a partnership station
    with regional allies. Off the coast of South America, other
    ships are stemming the flow of illegal narcotics into the
    United States.
        Our ballistic missile defense forces are ready to defend
    against any threat to international peace in Europe, the Middle
    East, and the Pacific Rim. Our forward-deployed forces continue
    their role as a strategic buffer and deterrent against rogue
    regimes and potential competitors, alike. In Haiti, as the
    chairman mentioned, the Bataan and 1,000 marines from the 22d
    Marine Expeditionary Unit continue to provide humanitarian aid,
    medical assistance, and disaster relief.
        The Navy and Marine Corps are flexible, responsive, and
    everywhere our Nation's interests are at stake. Our global
    presence reduces instability, deters aggression, and allows us
    to rapidly respond to any crisis that borders the sea.
        I believe that the President's fiscal year 2011 budget for
    the Department of the Navy is a carefully considered request
    that gives us the resources we need to conduct effective
    operations and meet all the missions we have been assigned.
        Our shipbuilding and aviation requests concur with the
    findings of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and its
    objective of prevailing in today's wars, preventing conflict,
    preparing for future wars, and preserving the force. With this
    budget, the Navy and Marine Corps will continue to maintain the
    maritime superiority of our forces, sustain a strong American
    shipbuilding industrial base, and ensure our capacity for rapid
    global response.
        Across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), we've
    requested funds to build an average of 10 ships per year,
    including 1 carrier, 1 big deck amphibious ship, 10 Virginia-
    class submarines, and 17 littoral combat ships.
        We'll leverage the technologies captured from canceled
    programs like the CG(X) and the truncated DDG 1000 program into
    what will become our Flight III Burke-class DDGs. These
    technologies include SPY-3 and the air and missile defense
    radar. Through the submitted shipbuilding plan, we will
    increase the size of our fleet to approximately 320 ships by
    2024.
        In our shipbuilding program, I think we've made the most
    cost-effective decisions to achieve the most capable force, one
    that achieves equal flexibility to confront missions, across
    the spectrum of conflict, from the technologically complex,
    like ballistic missile defense and integrated air defense, to
    low-intensity humanitarian response and regional engagement.
        In aircraft procurement, we've requested just over 1,000
    aircraft across the FYDP, including both fixed and rotary wing.
        Over the next year, the Navy and Marine Corps will continue
    to move ahead with changes to our acquisitions process. In
    compliance with the Weapons Systems Acquisitions Reform Act, we
    are aggressively developing our acquisition strategies to
    ensure that on-time and on-budget is the standard for Navy and
    Marine Corps programs.
        I'm grateful for the support of this subcommittee for the
    decision to recompete the LCS Program when it failed to meet
    program standards. I assure you that we will not hesitate to
    recompete or cancel other programs whenever substandard
    performance demands change.
        Change is also required to address the way in which the
    Navy and Marine Corps use and produce energy. Energy reform is
    an issue of national security, and it's essential to
    maintaining our strategic advantage, warfighting readiness, and
    tactical edge. By 2020, I've committed the Navy to generate
    over one-half the energy we use from alternative sources. This
    is an ambitious goal, but one which can be met.
        Forty years ago, I stood watch on the deck of the U.S.S.
    Little Rock as a young junior officer. Today, I have the solemn
    privilege of standing watch on behalf of our Navy and Marine
    Corps in a time of war. I am honored by the trust the President
    and the Congress have placed in me, and fully recognize the
    solemn obligation I have to those who defend us.
        I, along with the CNO and the Commandant, look forward to
    hearing your thoughts and answering any questions you may have
    concerning this budget, any specific programs or policies.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I also look forward to working with you as we move forward
    to sustain the Navy and Marine Corps as the most formidable
    expeditionary fighting force in the world.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Hon. Ray Mabus
        Chairman Inouye and Senator Cochran, it is a pleasure to be here
    today with the House Armed Services Committee as the representative of
    the nearly 900,000 Sailors, Marines, and civilians that make up the
    Department of the Navy. The Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant
    of the Marine Corps and I are privileged to lead some of the best men
    and women in the country, who are selflessly serving the United States
    all around the world in support of our safety, our security, and our
    national interests.
        The Navy and Marine Corps remain the most formidable expeditionary
    fighting force in the world. We are America's ``Away Team''. The
    mission and experience of our team is well matched to the multiple and
    varied challenges that threaten our nation's security and global
    stability.
        Today the Navy and Marine Corps are conducting operations across
    the spectrum of military operations, from major combat and ballistic
    missile defense to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
        Fifteen thousand Marines are at the forefront of our nation's
    defense, serving in and around Helmand Province, Afghanistan. By spring
    this number will grow to almost 20,000. It is a testament to the
    responsiveness and combat capability of the Marine Corps that the first
    troops to depart for Afghanistan in the wake of the President's
    December 1 announcement were 1,500 Marines from Camp Lejuene, North
    Carolina. The new arrivals, who deployed before the end of last year,
    joined the Second Marine Expeditionary Brigade already in place.
    Together they are taking the fight to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in their
    sector and assisting the Afghan Provincial Government in reestablishing
    control. General Conway describes their capability as a ``two-fisted
    fighter,'' capable of simultaneously combating an adaptive and
    insidious insurgency among the Afghan civilians while maintaining the
    skill set to conduct major combat operations.
        The Navy in Afghanistan is contributing Special Operations Forces,
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams, Seabee civil engineering assets, all
    of the airborne expeditionary tactical Electronic Warfare capability,
    medical and intelligence professionals, and logistical support. From
    our carriers operating in the Indian Ocean, we are launching a
    significant percentage of the close air support that watches over our
    Marines and Soldiers on the ground. The Navy has over 12,000 Sailors on
    the ground in Central Command supporting joint and coalition efforts in
    both Iraq and Afghanistan and another 9,000 Sailors at sea supporting
    combat operations.
        The Navy and Marine Corps today are globally engaged in a host of
    other security and stability operations. In our cruisers and
    destroyers, the Navy has built a strong ballistic missile defense
    force. These multi-mission ships routinely deploy to the Mediterranean,
    the Arabian Gulf, and the Western Pacific and extend an umbrella of
    deterrence. Across the Future Years' Defense Program we will expand
    this mission and operationally implement the President's decision in
    September 2009 to focus on sea-based ballistic missile defense.
        That capability is complemented by the continued preeminence of the
    ballistic missile submarines in our strategic deterrent force, who
    operate quietly and stealthily on station every day of the year.
        In the Gulf of Aden and Western Indian Ocean, Combined Task Force
    151 is leading the international effort to combat piracy in the Gulf of
    Aden. They are coordinating their operations with forces from the
    European Union, NATO, and a total of 24 nations contributing ships,
    aircraft, and staff personnel as well as operational and intelligence
    support.
        Our ships and maritime patrol aircraft in the Caribbean and off
    South America are working with the Coast Guard-led Joint Interagency
    Task Force--South, which ties together information and forces from 13
    nations to stem the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States.
    In 2009 alone they contributed to the seizure or disruption of almost
    220,000 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of over $4 billion.
        Both the Navy and Marine Corps routinely conduct training exercises
    and multi-lateral operations with nations all around the world to
    solidify our relationships with traditional allies and forge
    partnerships with new friends. Global Partnership Stations in Africa,
    South America, and the Pacific are training hundreds of Sailors,
    Marines, and Coast Guardsmen from dozens of nations and are supporting
    regional diplomatic and humanitarian engagement efforts, like those of
    the hospital ship USNS Comfort and the Fleet Auxiliary USNS Richard E.
    Byrd in the summer of 2009. The two ships together treated over 110,000
    patients in the Caribbean, South America, and Oceania, and the USNS
    Comfort furthered an existing partnership with numerous civilian aid
    organizations.
        The Navy-Marine Corps team remains on the front-line of response to
    natural disasters. In 2009 we provided humanitarian assistance to
    Indonesia, the Philippines, and American Samoa, and delivered thousands
    of tons of food, water, and medical supplies to those affected by
    devastation. After the January 12 earthquake in Haiti, the Navy and
    Marine Corps responded immediately. Within a week of the earthquake, 11
    Navy ships, including the carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson, the big-deck
    amphibious ship U.S.S. Bataan, and the hospital ship USNS Comfort were
    on station off the coast of Haiti. These ships embarked 41 Navy and
    Marine Corps helicopters and approximately 2,000 Marines of the 22nd
    Marine Expeditionary Unit. On station, our units treated patients,
    provided helicopter lift capability, and delivered hundreds of tons of
    relief aid. Additional personnel and capabilities continued to flow in
    over the next weeks. Our mission there will continue as long as
    required.
        The Navy and Marine Corps are flexible, responsive, and everywhere
    that our nation's interests are at stake. The Navy and Marine Corps'
    global presence reduces instability, deters aggression, and allows for
    rapid response to a wide range of contingencies.
        In order to ensure our continued global mobility, the Department of
    the Navy strongly supports accession to the Law of the Sea Convention
    (UNCLOS). The United States must continue to take maximum advantage of
    the navigational rights contained in the Convention. Ratification would
    enhance stability for international maritime rules and ensure our
    access to critical air and sea lines of communication.
        I have now been the Secretary of the Navy for 9 months, and in that
    short period of time I have met thousands of our Sailors and Marines
    serving on the front lines at sea and ashore. I have been constantly
    inspired by the high morale, courage, and commitment to serving our
    country displayed by every one of them as they conduct our missions. In
    return, I have continually expressed to them the appreciation of the
    American people for the sacrifices they and their families are making
    every day.
        I have met our operational commanders and seen first-hand the
    warfighting readiness of our Fleet and our Marine Forces. I have
    inspected the facilities of our industry partners who are building the
    Navy and Marine Corps of tomorrow. With the advice and support of my
    leadership team, I have made some initial decisions to better prepare
    the Navy and Marine Corps for the challenges of the future. These
    observations and our initial actions have given me a good picture of
    the Navy and Marine Corps, and from this vantage I can report to
    Congress and the President the current state of the Services, the
    budgetary requirements we need to successfully perform our mission, and
    the future direction I believe we must take.
        The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2011 budget request
    reflects the President's priorities, Secretary Gates' strategic and
    fiscal guidance, and fundamentally aligns with the 2010 Quadrennial
    Defense Review (QDR) priorities: Prevailing in today's wars; preventing
    and deterring conflict; preparing for a wide range of future
    contingencies; and preserving and enhancing the All-Volunteer Force.
        This budget request of $160.7 billion will maintain across the
    Future Years' Defense Program our commitment to a strong industrial
    base. The fiscal year 2011 request of $18.5 billion for contingency
    operations includes incremental costs to sustain operations, manpower,
    equipment and infrastructure repair as well as equipment replacement to
    support our focus on increasing threats in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
        In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, we have included funds for
    9 ships, including 2 additional Virginia class submarines, 2 destroyers
    in the restarted Arleigh Burke line, a lower-cost commercial variant of
    the Mobile Landing Platform, the multi-role Landing Helicopter Assault
    Replacement, a Joint High Speed Vessel and 2 Littoral Combat Ships,
    which will be constructed under the terms of the down-select we will
    conduct this fiscal year. In aviation, we have requested 206 aircraft
    in fiscal year 2011, including 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for both
    the Navy and Marine Corps, 24 MH-60R and 7 P-8As to begin replacing our
    aging ASW and maritime patrol squadrons, 18 MH-60S for logistics
    support, 28 H-1 variant helicopters and 30 MV-22 for the Marine Corps,
    22 F/A-18E/F and 12 F/A-18G to continue replacing the EA-6B. For Marine
    Corps ground operations, we have requested funding for an additional
    564 LVSR and HMMWV tactical vehicles. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    request also contains development funding for the Navy Unmanned Combat
    Aerial System and continues development of the Broad Area Maritime
    Surveillance UAV. And we have continued our support of the Naval
    Expeditionary Combat Command, including funding for a fourth Riverine
    Squadron.
        The Department's long-range shipbuilding and aviation intentions
    are designed to sustain our naval superiority and they achieve a
    balance of capability and affordability that both wins today's wars
    even while preparing for the challenges of the future.
        There are four strategic, tactical, and personnel management
    imperatives I believe the Department of the Navy must also address to
    maintain preeminence as a fighting force and successfully address
    whatever comes in the future. These four areas reinforce the strategic
    framework of the QDR and address the areas of risk it identifies. They
    are: Taking care of our Sailors, Marines, Civilians, and their
    Families; treating energy in the Department of the Navy as an issue of
    national security; creating acquisitions excellence; and optimizing
    unmanned systems.
        They underpin the development of our fiscal year 2011 budget
    request, execute Presidential policy, and comply with and respond to
    Congressional direction.
         taking care of sailors, marines, civilians, and their families
        Sailors and Marines are the fundamental source of our success. They
    are our most important asset, and they must always come first in our
    minds and in our actions. One of my most important responsibilities as
    Secretary is to ensure adequate compensation, medical care, and family
    support services are provided to our Sailors, Marines, civilians, and
    their families.
        The Navy and Marine Corps will continue to recruit and retain the
    same high quality individuals we brought into and kept in the service
    in 2009. We remain committed to providing a competitive pay and
    benefits package to aid recruiting. The package includes not only basic
    pay and housing allowances, but also provides incentives for critical
    specialties in healthcare, explosive ordnance disposal, and nuclear
    propulsion.
        Beyond compensation, we recognize that quality of life programs are
    crucial to retention and the military mission. We are providing
    expanded career opportunities, opportunities for life-long learning,
    and a continuum of care and family support. The Department continues to
    support a wide array of readiness programs, including deployment
    support services, morale and welfare services, and child and teen
    programs. Our innovative personnel management and human resource
    programs were in fact recognized by civilian experts as among the best
    in the country when, in October 2009, the Navy was named by Workforce
    Management Magazine as the winner of the Optimas Award for General
    Excellence.
        Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, over 10,000 Marines and
    Sailors have been wounded in action. Their service has been exemplary
    and unselfish, and in their sacrifice they have given so much of
    themselves for our country. The Department of the Navy, through the
    Wounded Warrior Regiment and the Navy Safe Harbor Program, provides
    support and assistance to our wounded, ill, and injured service members
    and their families throughout recovery, rehabilitation, and
    reintegration. And we continue to provide encouragement and support for
    wounded Sailors and Marines, in partnership with the Department of
    Veterans Affairs, long after they have left the Service.
        Our medical community has continued to strive for excellence in the
    care of our Sailors and Marines. Navy Medicine has reached out to its
    civilian colleagues, and we have established partnerships with civilian
    hospitals to improve our understanding and care for those affected by
    traumatic brain injuries, mental health issues, amputation, and
    disfiguring injuries. I had the opportunity last fall to see this
    first-hand, when I witnessed groundbreaking pro-bono work in
    reconstructive surgery on behalf of Wounded Warriors at the UCLA
    Medical Center.
        We will continue to aggressively address the issues of sexual
    assault prevention and response. Sexual assault is a criminal act that
    is corrosive to the readiness and morale of a professional military
    organization. In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, we have requested
    funds to support a reinvigorated program under the supervision of a new
    Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, which I created
    within the Secretariat to focus attention on the issue, develop
    effective training, and coordinate prevention and response programs
    across the Navy and Marine Corps.
        In 2010, the Department will move forward on expanding the
    opportunities for women in the Navy. We will establish a process to
    integrate women into the submarine force, beginning with nuclear-
    trained and Supply Corps officers on our ballistic and guided missile
    submarines.
        After 8 years of continuous combat operations, the Navy and Marine
    Corps' people remain strong, and the CNO, CMC, and I are very focused
    on maintaining the overall health of the force. The fiscal year 2011
    budget request reinforces these goals and is designed to provide the
    fiscal support necessary to sustain the force. The visible support of
    Congress to our personnel programs is deeply appreciated and has been
    vital in maintaining overall readiness.
                                 energy reform
        The way in which we use and produce energy is an issue of national
    security and is essential to maintaining our warfighting capabilities.
    At present, we simply rely too much on fossil fuels, which are
    susceptible to both price and supply shocks caused by events in
    volatile areas of the world largely outside the scope of our control.
    Those potential shocks have, in turn, strategic, operational, and
    tactical effects upon our forces. In addition, fossil fuel emissions
    are the root cause of many of the impending security challenges of
    tomorrow, and the QDR has correctly identified that climate change and
    its effects: rising sea levels, pressure on natural resources, and
    changes to the polar regions, will increasingly affect our force
    structure and the global security environment as the 21st century
    progresses. In order to improve our long-term strategic and fiscal
    position, I have set the Navy and Marine Corps on a path to change the
    way in which we use and produce energy.
        In October 2009, I issued five energy targets. They are ambitious
    in their scope, but I firmly believe that little will be accomplished
    without bold, innovative, and timely action. The most important of the
    targets commits the Navy and Marine Corps to generating half of all the
    energy we use, including that used by the operational fleet, from
    alternative sources by 2020. I have also committed the Navy and Marine
    Corps to consider energy as a mandatory evaluation factor in
    contracting, and to consider as an additional factor in our business
    dealings, the energy footprint of the companies that sell to the Navy
    and Marine Corps.
        America is a world leader precisely because of our willingness to
    not just embrace change, but to create it. The U.S. Navy has always
    been a technological leader. We moved from wind to coal in the 19th
    century, coal to oil early in the 20th century, and to nuclear power in
    mid-century. In every transition there were opponents to change, but in
    every case the strategic and tactical position of naval forces
    improved. In this century, I have asked the Navy to lead again by
    pioneering technological change through use of alternative energy. But
    I want to reiterate that every action and program we undertake must and
    will have as an effect improved warfighting capability. And we will
    strive in every case to improve energy efficiency and reach cost-
    neutrality over the life of the program.
        Many of our initiatives are already doing this. We conducted a
    ground test of an F/A-18 Hornet jet engine this fall running on a
    biofuel blend and we intend to conduct an airborne test of the ``Green
    Hornet'' later this year. In late 2010, the Navy will also conduct
    tests of a more efficient F/A-18 engine, which will increase the
    aircraft's range. Afloat, the U.S.S. Makin Island, the first ship
    constructed with a hybrid-electric drive that dramatically lowers fuel
    consumption at lower speeds, saved approximately $2 million in a single
    transit to her new homeport in San Diego. Over the life of the ship, we
    estimate the savings will be up to $250 million using today's fuel
    prices. Writ large across the Navy, as we begin to retrofit our DDG
    fleet with similar propulsion systems, the potential fuel savings will
    only grow.
        In addition to these tactical applications, we have implemented a
    number of energy projects at our facilities ashore, and numerous other
    efficiency initiatives throughout the Fleet. As the President clearly
    stated in Copenhagen, changing the way we use and produce energy is a
    national security imperative.
                             acquisition excellence
        The ships and aircraft of the Navy and Marine Corps are unmatched
    at sea and over land. Our precision munitions, networked targeting
    systems, armored vehicles, stealth technology, and unmanned vehicles
    are advanced systems that define the leading edge of warfare in all
    domains.
        These truths have been brought home to me during my visits with the
    defense industry. I have had the opportunity to visit shipyards,
    aircraft manufacturers, factories, and depots; and I applaud the hard
    work and dedication of this country's skilled workforce--Americans who
    take as much pride in their patriotism as they do in their
    craftsmanship.
        The issue before us all, however, is affordability. Acquisition
    costs are rising faster than our budget's top-line, and without
    deliberate, sustained action to reverse this trend, we put the size and
    capability of the future force at risk. In accordance with the Weapons
    System Acquisition Reform Act passed by Congress in 2009, the Navy and
    Marine Corps will aggressively pursue additional ways to make the
    acquisitions process more rigorous; we will prudently safeguard the
    resources entrusted to us by the American taxpayer, and we will fully
    meet the obligation we hold to our Sailors and Marines.
        This requires close examination of the way we do business in our
    policies, practices, priorities, and organization, with a clear focus
    on controlling cost. The Navy and Marine Corps will continue
    initiatives to raise standards, to improve processes, to instill
    discipline in procurement, and to strengthen the professional corps
    that manages our major defense acquisition programs.
        We are pressing forward with key initiatives that promise to
    improve our ability to affordably deliver combat capability to the
    fleet.
        We are improving the quality of our cost estimates, which underpin
    our investment decisions. We are strengthening our cost estimating
    group, requiring independent cost estimates, and incorporating
    Departmental best practices in the formulation of our Service Cost
    Position for all major programs. We are using these realistic cost and
    schedule estimates to drive difficult decisions at the front end of the
    requirements process.
        We are developing our acquisition strategies with the intent of
    expanding the use of fixed price contracts, leveraging competition, and
    tightening up on the use of incentive and award fees to ensure quality
    systems are delivered consistently on budget and on time to our Sailors
    and Marines. When we could not achieve these objectives this past year
    on the Littoral Combat Ship program, we rewrote the program's
    acquisition strategy to improve performance through competition. I
    thank the Committee for its strong support of this revised strategy,
    and I assure you that I will not hesitate to re-compete or cancel
    programs when sub-standard performance demands change.
        We are demanding strict discipline in the execution of our
    contracts. Before commencing production on new start ship programs, I
    have reported to you the results of reviews conducted to ensure that
    designs are mature. We are specifically clamping down on contract
    changes, the most-often cited reason for cost growth, through improved
    policies and increased oversight.
        Our goals for modernizing today's force and recapitalizing the
    fleet affordably cannot be accomplished without a healthy industrial
    base and strong performance by our industry partners. We have worked
    hard to procure our ships, aircraft, and weapon systems at a rate
    intended to bring stability to the industrial base and enable efficient
    production. The Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan was developed with
    particular regard for maintaining the unique characteristics and
    strength of the base and our efforts support the QDR's emphasis on
    maintaining the defense industrial base with appropriate levels of
    competition, innovation, and capacity. The Future Years' Defense
    Program outlines construction of a balanced force of 50 ships, an
    average of 10 ships per year, which requires the full breadth of
    capabilities and services provided by our major shipbuilders and
    vendors.
        In the end, industry must perform. We will work with our shipyards,
    aircraft manufacturers, and weapon systems providers to benchmark
    performance, to identify where improvements are necessary, to provide
    the proper incentives for capital investments where warranted, and to
    reward strong performance with terms and conditions that reflect our
    desire for a strong government-industry partnership.
        To meet our objectives, we must be smart buyers. The acquisition
    workforce has been downsized over the past 15 years and in truth our
    professional acquisition corps has been stretched too thin.
    Accordingly, and with your strong support, we are rebuilding the
    acquisition workforce through a number of parallel efforts. We must
    both increase the number of acquisition workers and restore to the
    government the core competencies inherent to their profession. The
    Department has added 800 acquisition professionals in the last year
    towards the goal of increasing the community by 5,000 over the Future
    Years' Defense Program. This represents a 12 percent growth in our
    workforce.
                                unmanned systems
        The complex nature of today's security environment, as well as
    current and future anti-access threats faced by the United States
    require that the Navy and Marine Corps investigate the contributions
    unmanned systems can make to warfighting capability. Unmanned systems
    are unobtrusive, versatile, persistent, and they reduce the exposure of
    our Sailors and Marines to unnecessary threats. They perform a vast
    array of tasks such as intelligence collection, precision target
    designation, oceanographic reconnaissance, and mine detection, and that
    array will grow exponentially year to year.
        Navy and Marine Corps unmanned systems have already made key
    contributions to operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the counter-
    piracy effort off the coast of Africa. Unmanned aircraft systems have
    flown thousands of flight hours in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
    and Operation Enduring Freedom. Unmanned ground vehicles employed by
    the Marine Corps have conducted thousands of missions detecting and/or
    neutralizing improvised explosive devices. And unmanned maritime
    systems have provided improved port security.
        We continue to support research and development activities to
    improve these capabilities and increase the level of autonomy in
    unmanned systems. Over the Future Years' Defense Program we will
    continue to focus on transitioning from research and development and
    limited deployments, through test and evaluation, to full fleet
    integration and operations. In order to best direct our research and
    harness the capabilities of unmanned systems, I am tasking the
    Department to develop a comprehensive roadmap for unmanned system
    development, to include a coordinated strategy for air, ground,
    surface, and subsurface systems focused on integration and
    interoperability with our existing platforms and capabilities.
        The initiatives and investments contained in the fiscal year 2011
    budget request will move us onto this path. I look forward to reporting
    continued progress throughout the year.
                                    closing
        In this statement, I have discussed the strategic and tactical
    imperatives that guide the Department and influence the future
    decisions we will make. Specific programmatic requests are reflected in
    the fiscal year 2011 budget request, which I believe incorporates the
    difficult trade-offs and disciplined decisionmaking that you and the
    American taxpayer expect of us. We have carefully weighed risks and
    made proposals to you that will ensure we retain a ready and agile
    force capable of conducting the full range of military operations. And
    we will continue to work hard to be effective stewards of the resources
    you allocate to us.
        Forty years ago I stood watch on the deck of the U.S.S. Little Rock
    as a young junior officer. Today I have the solemn privilege of
    standing watch on behalf of our Navy and Marine Corps in a time of war
    and national challenge. I am honored by the trust the President and
    Congress have placed in me and I fully recognize the solemn obligation
    I have to those who defend us.
        That obligation fueled my desire to observe our people up close in
    their varied and often dangerous jobs. I've seen first hand the courage
    of our young Marines in Helmand, the determination of a wounded SEAL to
    walk despite losing two legs, the pride of a young Sailor in a hot
    engine room, the selfless dedication of corpsmen, nurses and doctors
    caring for the fallen.
        Sacrifice and service created and preserve the freedom and
    opportunity that we enjoy as Americans. Although we aspire to create a
    world in which violence and aggression have been eliminated, we
    understand that peace and stability are often secured only when strong
    nations and good people are willing and prepared to use decisive force
    against those who threaten it. The Navy and Marine Corps stand ready to
    do so.
        Your commitment to the service of our country and your recognition
    of the sacrifice of our Sailors, Marines, civilians and their families
    has been steadfast and is fully reflected in the support of this
    Committee for our key programs and our people.
        I, along with my partners, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
    Roughead, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway, look
    forward to hearing your thoughts and answering any questions you may
    have about our budget request or specific programs of interest. I also
    look forward to working closely with Congress as we move forward to
    sustain the Navy and Marine Corps as the most formidable expeditionary
    fighting force in the world.
        Thank you and Godspeed.

        Chairman Inouye. And now, may I call upon the Chief of
    Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead?
    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL
                OPERATIONS
        Admiral Roughead. Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and
    members of the subcommittee, it's my honor to appear before you
    again today, representing more than 600,000 sailors and Navy
    civilians and our families. Sixty-five thousand of them are
    deployed, 12,000 on land in the Central Command area of
    operations, and 55 percent of our fleet is underway, carrying
    out our maritime strategy, a prescient precursor to the 2010
    Quadrennial Defense Review. They are projecting power into
    Afghanistan, building partnerships in Africa, delivering relief
    in Haiti, and providing ballistic missile defense in the
    Arabian Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean, with pride and
    determination.
        They're even deployed in the first littoral combat ship, 2
    years ahead of schedule. And in the first weeks of that ship's
    deployment, they've already seized approximately 4 tons of
    cocaine with a street value of $89 million.
        It is our sailors and Navy civilians who make all things
    possible; and thanks to your support, we've made important
    progress in building tomorrow's Navy, remaining ready to fight
    today, and supporting our sailors, Navy civilians, and families
    this year. This year's budget submission will take us even
    further.
        As the high demand for our Navy continues apace, we have
    stabilized end strength, and the tone of the force remains
    positive. We will continue to aggressively improve wellness
    programs and medical and social services for our wounded
    warriors; indeed, all who serve.
        Our fleet, unlike other services, is a continuously
    deployed force that we reset in stride. Conducting routine,
    indeed regular, maintenance and training is how our ships and
    aircraft reach their expected service lives. We increased our
    base budget and overseas contingency operation, or OCO, funding
    requests for operation and maintenance in fiscal year 2011 over
    our levels of last year. Our operation and maintenance requests
    are focused tightly on meeting increased OPTEMPO requirements,
    sustaining ships and aircraft to reach expected service lives,
    sustaining flying-hour readiness requirements, and funding
    price increases. I strongly request your support for full
    funding of our operation and maintenance accounts.
        While we reset, we must also procure ships and aircraft to
    reach our requirement of more the 313 ships. Last year, we
    commissioned 9 ships, and over the next decade our plan
    procures an average of 10 ships per year; significant growth
    for the near term. For aviation, I remain committed to bringing
    new capabilities online--the Joint Strike Fighter and unmanned
    aircraft--and to maintaining the readiness of our current Naval
    Air Force, all of which give our Nation flexibility and
    response unencumbered by overseas basing.
        Affordability for all our plans will remain fundamental to
    our decisions. The effectiveness of our unmanned systems,
    ships, and aircraft is a feature of the systems which connect
    them. Last year, I brought information capabilities and
    resources under a single information dominance directorate
    within the Navy staff, and commissioned Fleet Cyber Command/
    10th Fleet. I see the benefits of this already.
        I'm proud of our Navy's accomplishments last year, and I'm
    confident we can achieve even more with this year's budget
    submission. Our risk continues to trend toward significant, and
    achieving the right balance within and across my priorities
    remains critical to mitigating it. But, I remain optimistic
    because of our outstanding sailors and Navy civilians and the
    spirit of our Nation. We have seen more challenging times, and
    have emerged prosperous, secure, and free.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I ask that you support our fiscal year 2011 budget request,
    and I thank you for all you do to make the United States Navy a
    global force for good, today and into the future.
        Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Admiral Roughead.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Admiral Gary Roughead
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and members of the Committee, it
    is my honor and pleasure to appear before you, once again, representing
    the more than 600,000 Sailors and civilians of the United States Navy.
    Every day, our dedicated Navy men and women are forward deployed
    protecting the global commons in every domain: sea, land, air, space,
    and cyberspace. I appreciate your continued support for them as our
    Navy protects our Nation and our national interests.
        When I signed our Maritime Strategy with General Conway and Admiral
    Allen more than 2 years ago, I was confident that the strategy would
    prepare us well for the current and future security environments. Since
    then, it has guided our operations and investments, and I am further
    convinced of its relevance to our operations today and of its enduring
    attributes. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) validated the
    underlying principle articulated in the Maritime Strategy that
    preventing wars is as important as winning wars. The QDR also declared
    that U.S. security and prosperity are connected to that of the
    international system, that deterrence is a fundamental military
    function, and that partnerships are key to U.S. strategy and essential
    to the stability of global systems. These themes reinforce the tenets
    of our Maritime Strategy and the six core capabilities it identified
    for our maritime Services: forward presence, deterrence, sea control,
    power projection, maritime security, and humanitarian assistance and
    disaster response (HA/DR).
        My priorities for the Navy remain unchanged: to build tomorrow's
    Navy, to remain ready to fight today, and to develop and support our
    Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families. We are making progress in
    these areas thanks to your continued support. Some highlights follow.
        We added nine new ships to our Fleet in 2009, including U.S.S.
    Freedom (LCS 1), currently on its first deployment, and U.S.S.
    Independence (LCS 2), our second Littoral Combat Ship. We delivered
    three DDG 51 destroyers and restarted the DDG 51 line to increase
    surface combatant capacity for maritime security, deterrence, and anti-
    submarine warfare. We are adapting our force to meet the President's
    demand for sea-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) of Europe while
    sustaining our current BMD missions in the Arabian Gulf and Western
    Pacific. Our Virginia class submarine program continues to excel with
    the delivery of U.S.S. New Mexico (SSN 779) 4 months ahead of schedule.
    We rolled out our first carrier variant of Joint Strike Fighter (F-35C)
    aircraft, the timely delivery of which remains essential to fulfilling
    our strike fighter requirements. We are conducting the first deployment
    of our Vertical Take Off and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV)
    and we expect the first test flight of our Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial
    System demonstrator this year.
        In the information and cyberspace domain, I established Fleet Cyber
    Command/U.S. Tenth Fleet as the global operator of Navy's cyber,
    networks, cryptology/signals intelligence, information, electronic
    warfare, and space operations. I restructured the Navy staff to bring
    all Navy information capabilities and resources under our new
    Information Dominance Deputy Chief of Naval Operations and created the
    Navy Information Dominance Corps, integrating more than 45,000 Sailors
    and civilians from our existing intelligence, information professional,
    information warfare, meteorology/oceanography, and space communities.
    About 1,400 of these Sailors are deployed globally as individual
    augmentees (IAs) today, most supporting operations in the Central
    Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.
        More than 40 percent of our Fleet is underway daily, globally
    present and persistently engaged. Our forward presence enabled the
    rapid response of our aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson and numerous
    other surface and USNS ships, helicopters, and personnel to Haiti to
    provide humanitarian aid after the devastating earthquake in January.
    We remain engaged in operations in Afghanistan and in the drawdown of
    U.S. forces in Iraq. Navy has more than 21,000 active and reserve
    Sailors on the ground and at sea in CENTCOM. This includes a doubling
    of our construction battalion (SEABEE) presence in Afghanistan and
    ongoing IA support to both operations. I recently issued our Navy
    Vision for Confronting Irregular Challenges to shape how our Navy will
    plan for, resource, and deliver a wide range of capabilities to
    confront irregular challenges associated with regional instability,
    insurgency, crime, and violent extremism at sea, in the littorals, and
    on shore.
        Our Navy continues to support our people and their families. We are
    in the process of expanding opportunities for service at sea to women
    in the Navy by opening to them assignments on submarines for the first
    time in history. Our Navy has received 19 national awards in the past
    18 months for its workforce planning, life-work integration, diversity,
    and training initiatives. Most notably, Workforce Management magazine
    awarded Navy the 2009 Optimas Award for General Excellence, which
    recognized the U.S. Navy as an employer of choice among the ranks of
    previous distinguished recipients such as Google, Intel, and Hewlett-
    Packard. We have met or exceeded overall officer and enlisted (active
    and reserve) recruiting goals for 2009 and we are on track to achieve
    similar success in 2010. I appreciate the support of Congress for our
    Fleet and its dedicated Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families
    that serve our nation every day.
        I continue to focus on ensuring our Navy is properly balanced to
    answer the call now and in the decades to come. Last year, I stated our
    risk was moderate trending toward significant because of the challenges
    associated with Fleet capacity, increasing operational requirements,
    and growing manpower, maintenance, and infrastructure costs. This risk
    has increased over the last year as trends in each of these areas have
    continued. We are able to meet the most critical Combatant Commander
    demands today, but I am increasingly concerned about our ability to
    meet any additional demands while sustaining the health of the force,
    conducting essential maintenance and modernization to ensure units
    reach full service life, and procuring our future Navy so we are
    prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
        The costs to own and operate our Fleet continue to rise due to
    increasing operational demands, higher maintenance requirements, and
    growing manpower costs. Over the last decade, the overall size of our
    active Fleet decreased by more than 30 ships, about 10 percent, and our
    active duty end strength decreased by about 13 percent, while
    operational demands globally have grown. Our Navy's high tempo of
    operations has placed additional stress on our smaller Fleet of
    Sailors, ships, and aircraft and we are consuming the service life of
    our Fleet at a higher than expected rate. We are implementing force
    management measures in the near term to stretch the capacity of our
    286-ship force to meet increasing global requirements. Through our
    Fleet Response Plan, we are tailoring our training and maintenance
    cycles to generate ready forces, allowing us to meet the most critical
    Combatant Commander requirements today. The impact of these measures on
    our Fleet has been felt in longer deployments and shorter dwell times,
    which increase stress on our Sailors and drive up maintenance
    requirements and costs for our ships and aircraft. Regular maintenance
    of our ships and aircraft, and training and certification of our crews
    between deployments, is essential to our ability to sustain our force.
    It is how we reset. This ``reset in stride'' is different from other
    Services. It ensures our ships and aircraft maintain the required
    continuous forward presence whether supporting coalition troops in
    Afghanistan, deterring North Korea and Iran, or providing humanitarian
    aid in Haiti. For our Navy, continuous reset translates into decades of
    service for each ship and aircraft, a significant return on investment.
        Our reset and readiness are tied directly to our operations and
    maintenance (O&M) funding. Over the last decade, we have relied upon a
    combination of base budget and overseas contingency operations (OCO)
    funding to operate and maintain our Navy. Our fiscal year 2011 OCO
    request for O&M is tightly focused on supporting our ongoing and
    increased operations in CENTCOM. Our fiscal year 2011 base budget
    request for O&M is focused on properly sustaining our ships and
    aircraft so they reach their expected service life; funding enduring
    readiness requirements, particularly in aviation; and funding price
    increases, most notably in fuel, to support our enduring operations.
    Together, our OCO and base budget O&M requests reflect our commitment
    to resource current operations while preserving our Fleet for future
    operations. I ask for your full support of this year's O&M request.
        Our fiscal year 2011 budget request achieves the optimal balance
    among my priorities to build tomorrow's Navy, to remain ready to fight
    today, and to develop and support our Sailors, Navy civilians, and
    their families. It supports our Maritime Strategy and the 2010 QDR and
    continues us on the path we started in fiscal year 2010 to support our
    forces forward, take care of our people, continue rebalancing our force
    to meet current and future challenges, and reform how and what we buy.
    Highlights follow.
                             build tomorrow's navy
        Since the release of our Maritime Strategy, I have stated that our
    Navy requires a minimum of 313 ships to meet operational requirements
    globally. This minimum, a product of our 2005 force structure analysis,
    remains valid. We are adjusting our requirement to address increased
    operational demands and expanding requirements, as outlined in the QDR,
    for ballistic missile defense, intra-theater lift, and forces capable
    of confronting irregular challenges. Our shipbuilding plan addresses
    these operational needs by growing our Fleet to 315 ships in 2020 and
    peaking at 320 ships in 2024. Per the President's direction, we will
    improve our capacity to conduct sea-based ballistic missile defense of
    Europe by increasing our inventory of Aegis-capable ships through our
    restarted DDG 51 production line and modernization of our existing
    cruisers and destroyers. The funding for these upgrades will deliver
    the capability and capacity of ships required to perform this mission
    while maintaining sustainable deployment ratios for our Sailors. To
    fulfill Combatant Commander requirements for intra-theater lift, we
    will increase the number of Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) in our
    Fleet; the large payload bays, speed, and shallow draft of these
    versatile ships make them capable of supporting a wide range of naval
    missions, including security cooperation, security force assistance,
    and logistics support. To provide forces capable of confronting
    irregular challenges, we will continue to pursue the planned number of
    Littoral Combat Ships, providing a flexible and modular ship optimized
    for operations close to shore. We are moving from developing a Maritime
    Prepositioning Force (Future) squadron optimized for high-end, forcible
    entry operations to augmenting our three existing Maritime
    Prepositioning Squadrons (MPS) with enhanced sea basing capabilities
    that are useful across a wide range of military operations. The
    augmented MPS will support our amphibious warfare force, which we will
    build to a minimum of 33 ships to increase our capacity to conduct
    theater security cooperation, sustain combat and assistance operations
    from the sea, and hedge against future conflict.
        We have improved the balance among capability, capacity,
    affordability, and executabilty in our procurement plans by developing
    a shipbuilding plan that procures our most needed capabilities,
    increases Fleet capacity in the near-to-mid-term, and is fiscally
    executable within the FYDP. It carefully manages increasing levels of
    operational and institutional risk, recognizing that, for as much as
    our Navy does to protect our national security and prosperity, the
    overall economy of our nation undoubtedly does more. I am confident our
    near-term plan provides the capability and capacity we need to conduct
    contingency operations and build partner capacity while retaining our
    ability to deter aggressors, assure allies, and defeat adversaries.
    Beyond 2024, I am concerned about the decrease in Fleet capacity that
    will occur as our legacy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and
    amphibious ships reach the end of their service lives. Many of these
    ships were brought into service during the 1980s, when we procured some
    ship classes at a rate of four to five ships per year. While economic
    and security conditions are sure to change between now and then, it
    takes 10 to 15 years to design and build our ships, which then remain
    in service for 20 to 50 years. A long view is necessary to ensure our
    Navy has sufficient capacity to protect America's global national
    interests in the future.
        As directed by the QDR, we are working with the Air Force and
    Marine Corps on an Air Sea Battle concept that will identify the
    doctrine, procedures, training, organization, and equipment needed for
    our Navy to counter growing military threats to our freedom of action.
    This joint effort will help us inform investments and identify future
    opportunities to better integrate naval and air forces across the
    entire range of operations. We are already moving forward with the Air
    Force to streamline capabilities, manpower, and resources related to
    our unmanned aviation systems. We continue to pursue our unique
    maritime aviation capabilities in carrier-based strike, anti-submarine
    warfare, and naval special warfare missions.
        Underpinning the capacity and capability of our Fleet is a highly
    technical and specialized industrial base. A strategic national asset,
    our shipbuilding and aviation industrial base is essential to
    sustaining our global Fleet and remains a significant contributor to
    our nation's economic prosperity. Our shipbuilding industrial base
    directly supports more than 97,000 uniquely-skilled American jobs and
    indirectly supports thousands more through second and third tier
    suppliers. The highly specialized skills in our shipbuilding base take
    years to develop and, if lost, cannot be easily or quickly replaced.
    Level loading and predictable ship procurement allow industry to
    stabilize its workforce and retain the critical skills essential to our
    national security.
        I am committed to reducing the total ownership cost of our Fleet so
    that what we buy today does not pressurize our ability to operate
    tomorrow. Significant cost drivers for our Fleet include increasing
    technical and design complexity, changes in requirements, reductions in
    the number of ships procured, and higher labor costs. To reduce these
    costs, we are pursuing common hull forms and components, open
    architecture for hardware and software, and increased modularity.
    Moreover, we are considering total ownership costs in procurement
    decisions. We are exploring new ways to design our ships with greater
    affordability throughout their lives, including reducing costs of fuel
    consumption, maintenance, and manpower and by increasing the efficiency
    of our maintenance and support processes and organizations. We are
    leveraging open production lines to deliver proven and required
    capabilities, such as in our DDG 51 and EA-18G programs. We are
    promoting longer production runs with our Virginia class SSNs, EA-18G
    and F/A-18E/F, P-8A, BAMS, and DDG 51 programs. We are capitalizing on
    repeat builds to control requirements creep and increase predictability
    with our aircraft carrier, destroyer, and submarine programs. Finally,
    we are pursuing evolutionary instead of revolutionary designs to
    deliver required future capabilities. Our future missile defense
    capable ship, for example, will be developed by spiraling capability
    into our DDG 51 class ships, instead of designing and building a new
    cruiser from the keel up.
        I remain committed to delivering a balanced and capable Fleet that
    will meet our national security requirements. I seek your support for
    the following initiatives and programs:
                               aviation programs
    Aircraft Carrier Force Structure
        The Navy remains firmly committed to maintaining a force of 11
    carriers for the next three decades. With the commissioning of U.S.S.
    George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) and inactivation of the 48-year-old U.S.S.
    Kitty Hawk (CV 63), our last conventionally powered aircraft carrier,
    we now have an all nuclear-powered carrier force. Our carriers enable
    our nation to respond rapidly, decisively, and globally to project
    power, as we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to deliver
    humanitarian assistance, as we have done in Haiti, while operating from
    a small, yet persistent, footprint that does not impose unnecessary
    political or logistic burdens on other nations. Our carriers remain a
    great investment for our nation.
        Our eleven-carrier force structure is based on worldwide presence
    and surge requirements, while also taking into account training and
    maintenance needs. I thank Congress for granting us a waiver to
    temporarily reduce our force to ten carriers for the period between the
    inactivation of U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN 65) and the delivery of Gerald
    R. Ford (CVN 78). We will continue to meet operational commitments
    during this 33-month period by managing carefully carrier deployment
    and maintenance cycles. After the delivery of CVN 78, we will maintain
    an eleven-carrier force through the continued refueling program for
    Nimitz class ships and the delivery of our Ford class carriers at 5-
    year intervals starting in 2020.
        CVN 78 is the lead ship of our first new class of aircraft carriers
    in nearly 40 years. Ford class carriers will be our nation's premier
    forward-deployed asset capable of responding to crises or delivering
    early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. These new
    carriers incorporate an innovative new flight deck design that provides
    greater operational flexibility, reduced manning requirements, and the
    ability to operate current and future naval aircraft from its deck.
    Among the new technologies being integrated in these ships is the
    Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), which will enable the
    carrier's increased sortie generation rate and lower total ownership
    costs. EMALS is on track for an aircraft demonstration later this year
    and is on schedule to support delivery of CVN 78 in September 2015.
    Strike Fighter Capacity: Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18 E/F
        Our Navy remains committed to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
    program. The timely delivery of the F-35C carrier variant remains
    critical to our future carrier airwing strike fighter capacity. Our
    Navy has the necessary tactical aircraft capacity in the near term to
    support our nation's strategic demands; however, a January 2010
    assessment forecasts a decrease in our carrier-based strike fighter
    capacity that peaks in 2018. We have a plan to address this capacity
    decrease that involves several management and investment measures.
        Our force management measures are targeted at preserving the
    service life of our existing legacy strike fighter aircraft (F/A-18A-
    D). We will reduce the number of aircraft available in our squadrons
    during non-deployed phases to the minimum required. We will reduce our
    Unit Deployed squadrons (UDP) from twelve aircraft to ten aircraft per
    squadron to match the corresponding decrease in Marine Corps
    expeditionary squadrons. We are accelerating the transition of five
    legacy F/A-18C squadrons to F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets using available F/
    A-18E/F aircraft and will transition two additional legacy squadrons
    using Super Hornet attrition reserve aircraft. These measures make our
    legacy strike fighter aircraft available for High Flight Hour (HFH)
    inspections and our Service Life Extension Program, which together will
    extend their service life and manage to some extent the decrease in our
    carrier-based strike fighter capacity through 2018. These measures
    expend the service life of our Super Hornets earlier than programmed,
    so we are refining our depot level production processes to maximize
    throughput and return legacy strike fighter aircraft to the Fleet
    expeditiously. Our fiscal year 2011 budget procures 22 additional F/A-
    18E/F aircraft.
        Our investment measures are targeted at extending the service life
    of our F/A-18A-D aircraft and procuring Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). HFH
    inspections, which have been in place for 2 years, provide the ability
    to extend the service life of our legacy F/A-18A-D aircraft to 8,600
    flight hours, while engineering analysis is underway to determine the
    SLEP requirements necessary to reach the service life extension goal of
    10,000 flight hours. The HFH and SLEP programs increase our
    institutional risk by diverting investment and maintenance funds from
    other accounts, but they are necessary measures to address our strike
    fighter decrease while preserving our investment in JSF.
        I remain committed to the JSF program because of the advanced
    sensor, precision strike, firepower, and stealth capabilities JSF will
    bring to our Fleet. While the overall system demonstration and
    development schedule for JSF has slipped, we still plan for our
    squadrons to receive their first JSF airplanes in 2014 and we have not
    reduced the total number of airplanes we plan to buy. We are monitoring
    the JSF program closely and managing our existing strike fighter
    capacity to meet power projection demands until JSF is delivered.
    Procurement of an alternate engine for JSF increases our risk in this
    program. The Navy does not have a requirement for an alternate engine,
    and its additional costs threaten our ability to fund currently planned
    aircraft procurement quantities, which would exacerbate our anticipated
    decrease in strike fighter capacity. Our fiscal year 2011 budget
    request procures seven F-35C aircraft.
    EA-18G Growler
        The proliferation of technology has allowed state and non-state
    actors to use the electromagnetic spectrum with increasing
    sophistication. Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) provides one of the
    most flexible offensive capabilities available to the joint warfighter
    and it remains in high demand in traditional, irregular, and hybrid
    conflicts. The Navy continues to provide extensive AEA support from our
    carriers afloat and from our expeditionary EA-6B Prowler squadrons
    deployed currently to Iraq and Afghanistan.
        We are leveraging the mature and proven F/A-18E/F airframe
    production line to recapitalize our aging EA-6B aircraft with the EA-
    18G Growler. As directed in the QDR, we are planning to procure an
    additional 26 EA-18G Growler aircraft across the FYDP to increase joint
    force capacity to conduct expeditionary electronic attack. Our program
    of record will buy 114 total EA-18G aircraft, recapitalizing 10 Fleet
    EA-6B squadrons and four expeditionary squadrons. The program continues
    to deliver as scheduled. In September, our first EA-18G transition
    squadron, based at NAS Whidbey Island, reached Initial Operational
    Capability and it will deploy as an expeditionary squadron later this
    year. Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests funding for 12 EA-18Gs.
    P-3 Orion and P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft
        Your continued support of the P-3 and P-8A force remains essential
    and is appreciated greatly. Our P-3 Orion roadmap focuses on
    sustainment and selected modernization until it is replaced by the P-8A
    Poseidon. These aircraft provide capabilities ideally suited for
    regional and littoral crises and conflict, and are our pre-eminent
    airborne capability against submarine threats. Our P-3s are in high
    demand today for the time-critical intelligence, surveillance and
    reconnaissance they provide to the joint force on the ground in CENTCOM
    and for their direct contributions to our maritime domain awareness in
    key regions across the globe.
        P-3 Zone 5 wing fatigue has resulted in the unplanned grounding of
    49 aircraft between 2007 and 2009, with more expected. Mitigation
    measures include a combination of targeted Zone 5 modifications and
    outer wing replacements. As of December, we have returned 12 aircraft
    to service after completing Zone 5 modification and 32 aircraft are
    currently being repaired. As part of our sustainment program, we have
    included $39.6 million in our fiscal year 2011 budget request to
    conduct outer wing installations on nine of our P-3 aircraft. P-3
    sustainment and modernization programs are critical to ensuring
    successful transition to the P-8A, while preserving essential maritime
    and overland battle space awareness.
        The P-8A completed it's first Navy test flight this past October
    and will resume integrated flight testing in March of this year. The P-
    8A will achieve initial operating capability and begin replacing our
    aging P-3 aircraft in 2013. Our fiscal year 2011 budget request
    procures seven P-8A aircraft.
    MH-60R/S Multi-Mission Helicopter
        The MH-60R and MH-60S successfully completed their first deployment
    together this past summer with the U.S.S. John C. Stennis carrier
    strike group. The MH-60R multi-mission helicopter replaces the surface
    combatant-based SH-60B and carrier-based SH-60F with a newly
    manufactured airframe and enhanced mission systems. With these systems,
    the MH-60R provides focused surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare
    capabilities for our strike groups and individual ships. Our fiscal
    year 2011 budget request procures 24 MH-60R helicopters. The MH-60S
    supports surface warfare, combat logistics, vertical replenishment,
    search and rescue, air ambulance, airborne mine counter-measures, and
    naval special warfare mission areas. Our fiscal year 2011 budget
    request procures 18 MH-60S helicopters.
                             surface ship programs
    Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
        LCS is a fast, agile, networked surface combatant that is optimized
    to support naval and joint force operations in the littorals and
    capable of supporting open-ocean operations. It will operate with
    tailored-mission packages to counter quiet diesel submarines, mines,
    and fast surface craft. The modular and open architecture design of the
    seaframe and mission modules provides the inherent flexibility to adapt
    or add capabilities beyond the current Anti-Submarine, Mine
    Countermeasures, and Surface Warfare missions. These ships will employ
    a combination of manned helicopters and unmanned aerial, surface, and
    undersea vehicles.
        U.S.S. Freedom (LCS 1) has completed her post-delivery testing,
    trial, and shakedown periods and commenced her maiden deployment in
    February to Southern Command and Pacific Command. Her deployment 2
    years ahead of schedule will allow us to incorporate operational
    lessons more quickly and effectively as we integrate these ships into
    our Fleet. U.S.S. Independence (LCS 2) completed builder's trials in
    October 2009 and acceptance trials in November 2009. We accepted
    delivery of Independence on December 18, 2009, and commissioned her
    January 16, 2010. In March 2009, fixed price contracts were awarded for
    U.S.S. Fort Worth (LCS 3) and U.S.S. Coronado (LCS 4) which are now
    under construction by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics
    respectively.
        I am impressed and satisfied with the capabilities of both LCS
    designs and am committed to procuring 55 of these ships. Affordability
    remains the key factor in acquiring LCS in the quantities we require.
    After careful review of the fiscal year 2010 industry proposals,
    consideration of total program costs, and ongoing discussions with
    Congress, we made the decision to cancel for affordability reasons the
    Phase II requests for proposals for three fiscal year 2010 LCS ships
    and adjust our acquisition strategy. In fiscal year 2010, we will
    conduct a competition among the existing LCS industry participants to
    down-select to a single LCS design. The winner of the down-select will
    be awarded a block buy contract for up to 10 ships, to be procured from
    fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014 at a rate of two ships per
    year, built in one shipyard. To sustain competition and increase
    capacity, the winner of the down-select will be required to deliver a
    Technical Data Package to the Navy to support competition for a second
    contract source. We plan to award up to five ships to a second source
    beginning in fiscal year 2012 with one ship and continuing with an
    additional two ships per year through fiscal year 2014. The winner of
    the down-select will provide combat systems equipment, up to 15 ship
    sets, for the ships built by the two contract sources: 10 sets for the
    10 ships under contract with the winner of the down-select and up to
    five additional sets for the five ships being procured by the second
    contract source. The five additional sets will later be provided as
    government-furnished equipment to support the second source LCS
    contract. We intend to procure all future LCS ships within the fiscal
    year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) revised cost cap.
    Our down-select strategy leverages competition to the maximum extent
    practical, provides for economic procurement quantities, improves
    learning curve and commonality opportunities, and ultimately provides
    for program stability. We recently issued the requests for proposals
    for this contract and expect industry bids in March of this year.
        Consistent with our new strategy, our fiscal year 2011 budget
    requests two LCS seaframes and an additional $278 million to secure an
    LCS block buy, which is essential to lowering unit costs. I request
    your support as we acquire LCS in the most cost-effective manner and
    deliver its innovative capability in sufficient capacity to our Fleet.
    Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD)
        Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) incorporates all aspects
    of air defense against ballistic, anti-ship, and overland cruise
    missiles. IAMD is vital to the protection of our force, and it is an
    integral part of our core capability to deter aggression through
    conventional means. The demand for sea-based ballistic missile defense
    (BMD) is increasing significantly. The Navy's mature and successfully
    demonstrated maritime BMD capability will play a primary role in the
    first phase of our nation's plan to provide for the missile defense of
    Europe. Aegis BMD counters short, medium, and some intermediate range
    ballistic missiles through active defense and is able to pass target
    information to other BMD systems, thereby expanding the BMD battlespace
    and support of homeland defense. Currently, 20 ships (four cruisers and
    16 destroyers) have this capability and are being used to perform
    maritime BMD. All of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and nine of the
    Ticonderoga class cruisers are planned to receive BMD capability
    through our modernization program.
    DDG 51 Restart and Future Surface Combatant
        To address the rapid proliferation of ballistic and anti-ship
    missiles and deep-water submarine threats, as well as increase the
    capacity of our multipurpose surface ships, we restarted production of
    our DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers (Flight IIA series). These
    ships will be the first constructed with IAMD, providing much-needed
    Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capacity to the Fleet, and they will
    incorporate the hull, mechanical, and electrical alterations associated
    with our mature DDG modernization program. We will spiral DDG 51
    production to incorporate future integrated air and missile defense
    capabilities.
        We are well underway with restarting DDG 51 production. We awarded
    advance procurement (AP) contracts for DDG 113 and 114, and expect to
    award an AP contract for DDG 115 in the coming months, to support the
    long lead items necessary for production of these ships. I thank
    Congress for supporting our fiscal year 2010 budget, which funded
    construction of DDG 113. We anticipate a contract award for DDG 113
    production this Spring. Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests funding
    for the construction of DDG 114 and DDG 115 as part of our plan to
    build a total of eight DDG 51 ships through the FYDP.
        The Navy, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, conducted a Radar/Hull Study for future surface combatants
    that analyzed the total ship system solution necessary to meet our IAMD
    requirements while balancing affordability and capacity in our surface
    Fleet. The study concluded that Navy should integrate the Air and
    Missile Defense Radar program S Band radar (AMDR-S), SPY-3 (X Band
    radar), and Aegis Advanced Capability Build (ACB) combat system into a
    DDG 51 hull. While our Radar/Hull Study indicated that both DDG 51 and
    DDG 1000 were able to support our preferred radar systems, leveraging
    the DDG 51 hull was the most affordable option. Accordingly, our fiscal
    year 2011 budget cancels the next generation cruiser program due to
    projected high cost and risk in technology and design of this ship. I
    request your support as we invest in spiraling the capabilities of our
    DDG 51 class from our Flight IIA Arleigh Burke ships to Flight III
    ships, which will be our future IAMD-capable surface combatant. We will
    procure the first Flight III ship in fiscal year 2016.
    Modernization
        As threats evolve, we must modernize our existing ships with
    updated capabilities that sustain our combat effectiveness and enable
    our ships to reach their expected service life, which in the case of
    our destroyers and cruisers, is more than three decades. Our destroyer
    and cruiser modernization program includes advances in standard
    missiles, integrated air and missile defense, open architecture, and
    essential hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) upgrades. Maintaining
    the stability of the cruiser and destroyer modernization program is
    critical to achieving relevant future Navy capability and capacity.
        Our Navy plans to conduct DDG modernization in two 6-month
    availabilities. The first availability is focused on HM&E
    modifications, while the second availability, conducted 2 years later,
    is focused on combat systems modernization. The program will commence
    in fiscal year 2010 and focuses on the Flight I and II DDG 51 ships
    (hulls 51-78). All ships of the class will be modernized at midlife.
    Key tenets of the DDG modernization program include: an upgrade of the
    Aegis Weapons System to include an Open Architecture (OA) computing
    environment, an upgrade of the SPY radar signal processor, the addition
    of Ballistic Missile Defense capability, installation of the Evolved
    Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), an upgraded SQQ-89A(V)15 anti-submarine
    warfare system, integration with the SM-6 Missile, and improved air
    dominance with processing upgrades and Naval Integrated Fire Control-
    Counter Air capability.
        The Cruiser Modernization Program will modernize all remaining
    cruisers (Baseline 2, 3, and 4). The first fully modernized cruiser,
    U.S.S. Bunker Hill (CG 52), was completed in June 2009. The key aspects
    of the CG modernization program include: an upgrade to the Aegis
    weapons system to include an OA computing environment, installation of
    an SPQ-9B radar, addition of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), an
    upgrade to Close In Weapon System (CIWS) Block 1B, an upgraded SQQ-
    89A(V)15 anti-submarine warfare system, and improved air dominance with
    processing upgrades and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air
    capability. Six Baseline 4 cruisers will receive the Ballistic Missile
    Defense upgrade.
        Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests funding for the modernization
    of three cruisers and three destroyers.
    DDG 1000
        The DDG 1000 Zumwalt guided missile destroyer will be an optimally
    crewed, multi-mission surface combatant designed to fulfill long-range
    precision land attack requirements. In addition to providing offensive,
    distributed and precision fires in support of forces ashore, these
    ships will serve as test-beds for advanced technology, such as
    integrated power systems, dual band radars, and advanced survivability
    features, which can be incorporated into our other ship classes. The
    first DDG 1000 is under construction and approximately 20 percent
    complete. We recently notified Congress of a Nunn-McCurdy breach in
    this program as a result of our decision to reduce the number of DDG
    1000s in the original program. DDG 1000 will be a three-ship class. It
    is scheduled to deliver in fiscal year 2013 with an initial operating
    capability in fiscal year 2015.
    Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)
        Intra-theater lift is key to enabling the United States to rapidly
    project, maneuver, and sustain military forces in distant, overseas
    operations. The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program is an Army and
    Navy joint program that will deliver a high-speed, shallow draft
    surface ship capable of rapid transport of medium payloads of cargo and
    personnel within a theater to austere ports without reliance on port
    infrastructure for load/offload. In addition, the Navy JHSV will be
    capable of supporting extensive Security Force Assistance and Theater
    Security Cooperation operations, including the hosting of small craft
    for training. A JHSV Production Readiness Review was completed in
    October 2009 and the first vessel construction began this past December
    with an anticipated delivery to the Army in fiscal year 2012. The
    second ship, a Navy vessel, is scheduled to be delivered in 2013. Our
    fiscal year 2011 budget includes funds for the construction of Navy's
    third JHSV. Navy continues oversight of JHSV procurement for the five
    Army-funded vessels in this program. The Army assumes full
    responsibility for these five vessels following acquisition.
                               submarine programs
    Virginia Class SSN
        The Virginia class submarine is a multi-mission submarine that
    dominates in the littorals and open oceans. Now in its 13th year of
    construction, the Virginia program is demonstrating that this critical
    undersea capability can be delivered affordably and on time. Thanks to
    Congress, these ships will begin construction at a rate of two a year
    in 2011, with two ship deliveries per year beginning in 2017. The Navy
    continues to realize a return from investments in the Virginia cost
    reduction program and construction process improvements through
    enhanced shipbuilder performance on each successive ship. These
    submarines are under budget and ahead of schedule, and their
    performance continues to exceed expectations with every ship delivered.
    Three of the five commissioned ships completed initial deployments
    prior to their Post Shakedown Availabilities, a first for the Navy. I
    am pleased with the accomplishments of the combined Navy-Industry team
    and look forward to even greater success as we ramp up production to
    two submarines next year.
    SSGN
        Our Navy has four guided missile submarines that provide high-
    volume strike and irregular warfare capabilities in support of
    operations and missions across the broad spectrum of conflict. SSGNs
    are performing well on deployment, and we are learning valuable lessons
    from each mission. Combatant Commanders value the long-range strike
    capability they provide and we are investigating options to sustain
    this capability in the most operationally and cost effective manner, to
    include options for expanding the long-range strike capacity of the
    submarine fleet.
    SSBN and OHIO Replacement
        Our Navy supports the nation's nuclear deterrence capability with a
    credible and survivable fleet of 14 Ohio class ballistic missile
    submarines (SSBN). Originally designed for a 30-year service life, this
    class will start retiring in 2027 after more than 42 years of service.
        The United States needs a reliable and survivable sea-based
    strategic deterrent for the foreseeable future. To ensure there is no
    gap in this critical capability, our fiscal year 2011 budget requests
    research and development funds for the Ohio Replacement to support the
    start of construction of the first ship in fiscal year 2019. The Ohio
    Replacement will be a strategic, national asset with the endurance and
    stealth to enable our Navy to provide continuous, survivable strategic
    deterrence into the 2080s. Appropriate R&D investment is essential to
    design a reliable, survivable, and adaptable submarine capable of
    deterring all potential adversaries. We completed our Analysis of
    Alternatives study in 2009, and Milestone A is planned for April 2010.
    The Ohio replacement program will leverage the many successes of the
    Virginia SSN program to achieve acquisition and total ownership cost
    goals. The United States will realize significant program benefits as a
    result of our close partnership with the United Kingdom's Vanguard SSBN
    replacement program, particularly in the design and construction of a
    common missile compartment. Our cooperation with the U.K. mitigates
    technical risk and shares design costs.
                            amphibious warfare ships
        Our amphibious warfare ships provide essential capabilities for the
    full range of military operations, including theater security
    cooperation, humanitarian assistance, conventional deterrence, and
    forcible entry as part of major combat operations. With the unique
    capability to move hundreds of personnel and substantial material
    through complementary surface and air capabilities, these ships are key
    to our ability to overcome geographic, political, and infrastructure
    impediments to access. The Commandant of the Marine Corps and I have
    determined that a minimum of 33 amphibious assault ships represents the
    limit of acceptable risk in meeting the 38-ship requirement for
    supporting a forcible entry operation conducted by an assault echelon
    of two Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEB). Our 33-ship force would be
    comprised of 11 LHA/D amphibious assault ships and a mix of 11 LPD 17
    amphibious transport dock ships and 11 LSD dock landing ships. At this
    capacity, we are accepting risk in the speed of arrival of the combat
    support elements of the MEB. The QDR and our 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
    account for 29-31 amphibious warfare ships within the FYDP. We plan to
    procure the 11th LPD 17 in 2012, which will allow us to realize a 33-
    ship minimum amphibious force in about fiscal year 2016. We continue to
    review options to achieve and sustain the minimum 33 amphibious ship
    assault echelon force.
    LPD 17 Class Amphibious Warfare Ship
        The LPD 17 class amphibious warfare ships represent the Navy and
    Marine Corps commitment to an expeditionary Fleet capable of power
    projection, security force assistance, and theater security cooperation
    in diverse operating environments. These ships have a 40-year expected
    service life and will replace four classes of older ships: the LKA,
    LST, LSD 36, and the LPD 4. Two LPD 17 class ships have completed their
    initial deployments, and U.S.S. New York (LPD 21), forged with steel
    from the World Trade Center, delivered in November 2009. We continue to
    apply the lessons learned during construction and initial operation of
    the early ships to those under construction. Quality is improving with
    each ship delivered as we continue to work closely with the shipbuilder
    to address cost, schedule, and performance concerns.
    LHA Replacement (LHA(R))
        LHA(R) is the replacement for our aging Tarawa class ships, which
    will reach the end of their already extended service life between 2011-
    2015. LHA(R) will provide us flexible, multi-mission amphibious
    capabilities by leveraging the LHD 8 design and increasing aviation
    capacity to better accommodate the Joint Strike Fighter, MV-22, and
    other aircraft that comprise the future Marine Corps Air Combat
    Element. We laid the keel of the lead ship, U.S.S. America (LHA 6), in
    April 2009 and our fiscal year 2011 budget includes one LHA(R) which is
    split-funded in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.
    Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) and Future Maritime Preposition Force
            (MPF(F))
        The MPF(F) program was envisioned as a forward-deployed squadron of
    ships capable of at-sea assembly and rapid employment of forces in an
    area of interest during a crisis. Our requirement for amphibious and
    joint forcible entry operations was reevaluated during the QDR and, as
    a result, we have adjusted our approach to augment our three existing
    Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons (MPS) instead of developing an MPF(F)
    squadron. MPF(F) was optimized for high-end, forcible entry operations,
    while the augmented MPS will provide enhanced sea basing capabilities
    across a wide range of contingency operations. Each existing MPS will
    be augmented by one Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) cargo
    ship (transferred from the Army), a T-AKE combat logistics ship, and a
    new Mobile Landing Platform (MLP). The MLP will be based on existing
    designs for commercial ocean-going tankers and will meet most of the
    mission requirements envisioned for the original MLP design. The three
    augmented MPS reflect the QDR's emphasis on day-to-day deterrence and
    partner capacity building, while continuing to meet forcible entry
    needs. Our fiscal year 2011 budget request procures one MLP.
                         information dominance programs
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
        We are investing in unmanned aircraft to meet an increasing
    warfighter demand for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
    (ISR), and we are making technology investments to expand UAS
    operations to other mission areas. The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
    (BAMS) UAS will enhance our situational awareness and shorten the
    sensor-to-shooter kill chain by providing persistent, multiple-sensor
    capabilities to Fleet and Joint Commanders. The Vertical Take-off and
    Landing Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle (VTUAV) Fire Scout is on its
    first deployment aboard the U.S.S. McInerney (FFG 8). We are developing
    a medium endurance maritime-based UAS and a Small Tactical Unmanned
    Aerial System (STUAS) that will support a variety of ships, Naval
    Special Warfare and Navy Expeditionary Combat Command units, and Marine
    Corps elements.
        The Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft System demonstration (UCAS-D) is
    designed to prove carrier suitability of an autonomous, unmanned, low
    observable, carrier-based aircraft. This effort includes maturing
    technologies for aircraft carrier catapult launches and arrested
    landings, as well integration into carrier-controlled airspace. Initial
    flight tests to demonstrate carrier suitability are scheduled to start
    later this year and autonomous aerial refueling demonstrations are
    planned for 2013. We will leverage the lessons learned from operating
    the demonstrator in developing a low-observable unmanned carrier-
    launched airborne strike and surveillance system.
    Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)
        Our Maritime Strategy demands a flexible, interoperable, and secure
    global communications capability that can support the command and
    control requirements of highly mobile and distributed U.S. and
    coalition forces. Satellite communications give deployed forces a
    decisive military advantage and often offer the only communication
    means to support on-going operations. Rapidly expanding joint demand
    for more access at ever-higher data rates requires moving beyond our
    current legacy Ultra High Frequency (UHF) satellite capabilities. The
    Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) will satisfy those demands when
    initial operational capability is reached in fiscal year 2012. I
    request your continued support of MUOS and the critical UHF satellite
    communication capability it will provide to the joint warfighter as the
    aging UHF Follow-On (UFO) constellation degrades.
    Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN)
        The Navy is continuing its transition from disparate independent
    computer networks to a single secure network environment. We are
    currently evolving our ashore network from the Navy Marine Corps
    Intranet (NMCI), the largest intranet in the world, to the Next
    Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN). NGEN Increment 1 is the follow-on
    to the existing NMCI contract, which expires at the end of fiscal year
    2010. NGEN will sustain the services currently provided by NMCI, while
    increasing government command and control of our network and enabling
    secure, reliable, and adaptable global information exchange. Future
    NGEN increments will expand on services currently provided by NMCI and
    support seamless transition between afloat and ashore environments. A
    continuity of services contract is expected to be awarded this spring
    and NGEN Initial Operating Capability is scheduled for the summer of
    2012.
    E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
        The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, which replaces the E-2C, will
    improve nearly every facet of tactical air operations and add overland
    and littoral surveillance to support theater Integrated Air and Missile
    Defense against air threats in high clutter, complex electro-magnetic
    and jamming environments. The airborne radar on the E-2D, with its
    improved surveillance capability, is a key pillar of the Navy
    Integrated Fire Control concept. The E-2D is scheduled to begin
    operational test and evaluation in 2012. The first Fleet squadron
    transition is planned for 2013, with deployment planned for October
    2014. Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests four E-2D Hawkeye aircraft.
                          remain ready to fight today
        Our Navy continues to operate at a high tempo. We are filling new
    Combatant Commander requirements for ballistic missile defense,
    electronic attack, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
    (ISR), combat support, combat service support, and maritime security
    force assistance, in addition to conducting ongoing deployments in
    support of our maritime and national strategies.
        In CENTCOM alone, we have more than 9,000 Sailors at sea, including
    a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and air wing dedicated to providing 24/7
    air support to U.S. and coalition forces on the ground. Navy Riverine
    forces are on their sixth deployment to Iraq, conducting interdiction
    patrols and training their Iraqi counterparts. Our surface ships in the
    region are providing ballistic missile defense and conducting counter-
    terrorism, counter-piracy, maritime security, theater security
    cooperation, and security force assistance operations. On the ground in
    CENTCOM, we have more than 12,000 active and reserve Sailors supporting
    Navy, joint force, and coalition operations. Navy Commanders lead seven
    of the 13 U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan. We
    have doubled our construction battalions (SEABEEs) in Afghanistan,
    increasing our capacity to build forward bases for U.S. forces and
    improve critical infrastructure in that country. Our Naval Special
    Warfare Teams continue to be engaged heavily in direct combat
    operations and our Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams continue to
    conduct life-saving counter-Improvised Explosive Device operations on a
    daily basis. As we shift our effort from Iraq to Afghanistan, demand
    for Navy individual augmentees (IAs) has grown. We are providing IAs to
    support the increase of U.S. forces in Afghanistan while our IAs in
    Iraq remain at current levels to support the withdrawal of U.S. combat
    troops, maintain detention facilities and critical infrastructure, and
    assist coalition efforts until they can be turned over to Iraqi forces.
    During my recent trip to CENTCOM, I met with many of our dedicated Navy
    men and women supporting these efforts and I could not be more proud of
    their contributions. Their expert skill, ingenuity, competence, and
    drive are impressive and unmatched.
        Our high tempo will likely continue as combat forces draw down in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. Navy enabling forces will remain in CENTCOM to
    provide protection, ISR, and logistics support to our troops and
    partner forces in the region, while we will continue to maintain a
    forward-deployed presence of about 100 ships around the world to
    prevent conflict, increase interoperability with our allies, enhance
    the maritime security and capacity of our traditional and emerging
    partners, and respond to crises. Global demand for Navy forces remains
    high and continues to rise because of the unequalled and unique ability
    of our naval forces to overcome diplomatic, geographic, and military
    impediments to access while bringing the persistence, flexibility, and
    agility to conduct operations from the sea.
        Reset in stride is how our Navy prepares our Fleet to deploy again.
    Lifecycle maintenance and training between deployments is essential to
    our reset and to the ability of our ships and aircraft to reach their
    expected service lives. Although we are on pace to grow our Fleet for
    the next 10 years, our Fleet reduced in size over the past decade. As a
    result, while we continue to maintain the same number of ships at sea
    assigned to Combatant Commanders, we have a historically low number of
    ships available for at-sea training, exercises, and surge operations.
    Our fiscal year 2011 budget request balances the need to meet
    increasing operational requirements, sustain our Sailors' proficiency,
    and conduct the maintenance required to ensure our ships and aircraft
    reach their full service lives. Highlights follow of initiatives that
    ensure our Navy remains ready to fight today.
    Depot Level Maintenance
        Our ships and aircraft are capital assets that operate in
    challenging physical and security environments. Keeping these assets in
    acceptable operating condition is vital to their ability to accomplish
    assigned missions and to reach their expected service lives. Timely
    depot level maintenance, performed in a cycle determined by an
    engineered assessment of expected material durability and scoped by
    actual physical condition, will preserve our existing force structure
    and ensure it can meet assigned tasking. Continued investment in depot
    level maintenance is essential to our efforts to achieve and sustain
    the force structure required to implement the Maritime Strategy.
        Last year, I established the Surface Ship Life Cycle Management
    (SSLCM) Activity to address deficiencies in our ship class maintenance
    plans that could prevent our ships from reaching their full service
    life. SSLCM has established an engineered approach to surface ship
    maintenance that optimizes existing maintenance availability work
    packages and better tracks ship material condition through robust
    inspections and corrosion control tasks. We accelerated our review of
    the requirements for certain ship classes, significantly improving the
    accuracy of our surface ship maintenance requirements in fiscal year
    2011 over prior years. We are committed to a full review of all surface
    ship class maintenance plans, which will take several years. The value
    of investing in an engineered approach to maintenance is evident in our
    submarine force, where we have successfully extended the time between
    scheduled availabilities based on demonstrated material conditions and
    verification of engineering analysis. Because we have invested in this
    engineering and planning effort, we have been able to safely recover
    additional operational availability and reduce the overall depot level
    maintenance requirement for our submarines. This significant step has
    provided some of the resources needed to make additional investments in
    surface ship maintenance.
        Our combined fiscal year 2011 budget funds 99 percent of the
    projected depot ship maintenance requirements necessary to sustain our
    Navy's global presence. Our budget funds aviation depot maintenance to
    provide 100 percent of the airframes for deployed squadrons and 96
    percent of the non-deployed airframes. I request that you fully support
    our baseline and contingency funding requests for operations and
    maintenance to ensure the effectiveness of our force, safety of our
    Sailors, and longevity of our ships and aircraft.
    Shore Readiness
        Our shore infrastructure is a fundamental enabler of our
    operational and combat readiness and is essential to the quality of
    life and quality of work for our Sailors, Navy civilians, and their
    families. As I described last year, rising manpower costs and growing
    operational demands on our aging Fleet have led our Navy to take risk
    in shore readiness. This risk increases our maintenance, sustainment,
    restoration, and modernization requirements and continues our reliance
    on old and less efficient energy systems. These factors increase the
    cost of ownership of our shore infrastructure and outpace our efforts
    to reduce costs through facilities improvements and energy upgrades. At
    our current investment levels, our future shore readiness, particularly
    the recapitalization of our facilities infrastructure, is at risk.
        To manage our risk in shore infrastructure, our fiscal year 2011
    budget request prioritizes funding for our most critical needs,
    including Navy and Joint mission readiness, nuclear weapons security
    and safety, and improving our bachelor quarters through sustained
    funding for our Homeport Ashore initiative. To guide investment in
    other areas ashore, we continue to pursue our capabilities-based Shore
    Investment Strategy, which targets our investment in shore
    infrastructure to where it will produce the highest return on
    investment and have the greatest impact on achieving our strategic and
    operational objectives, such as in areas that enable critical
    warfighting capabilities, improve quality of life, and fulfill Joint
    requirements.
        We have made essential progress and improvements in nuclear weapons
    security, child care facilities, and bachelor's quarters. Thank you for
    funding all our requested military construction projects in 2010, as
    well as 19 additional projects and our Reserve program. Your support
    allowed us to address ship, aircraft, systems, infrastructure, and
    training requirements, while enhancing the quality of life and quality
    of service for our Sailors and their families. Your similar support and
    assistance through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    was also very helpful. As you requested, we identified Military
    Construction projects for Child Development Centers and barracks and
    prioritized them according to operational need and the ability to
    obligate funds quickly. We selected infrastructure and energy projects
    based on mission requirements, quality of life impact, environmental
    planning status, and our ability to execute quickly. Our aggressive
    execution schedule is on track; we have awarded all but one of our 85
    initial projects and construction outlays are ramping up swiftly.
    Training Readiness
        Our Fleet Synthetic Training (FST) program provides realistic
    operational training with seamless integration of geographically
    dispersed Navy, Joint, Interagency and Coalition forces. Using virtual
    and constructive training environments has allowed us to reduce our
    energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while providing the
    level of sophistication necessary to prepare our Sailors for
    operational and tactical mission proficiency. We continue to evolve FST
    to provide our Sailors with exposure to a multitude of warfare areas.
    Last year, we conducted our first BMD Fleet Synthetic Training event,
    proving the viability and effectiveness of integrated Navy, Joint and
    partner-nation BMD training.
        The proliferation of advanced, stealthy, nuclear and non-nuclear
    submarines continues to challenge our Navy's ability to guarantee the
    access and safety of joint forces. Effective Anti-Submarine Warfare
    (ASW) training with active sonar systems is vital to meeting potential
    threats. The Navy remains a world leader in marine mammal research and
    we will continue our robust investment in this research in fiscal year
    2011 and beyond. Through such efforts, and in full consultation and
    cooperation with other Federal agencies, Navy has developed effective
    measures that protect marine mammals and the ocean environment from
    adverse impacts of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar while not impeding
    vital Navy training. We continue to work closely with our interagency
    partners to further refine our protective measures as scientific
    knowledge evolves. It is vitally important that any such measures
    ensure the continued flexibility necessary to respond to future,
    potentially unforeseen national security requirements.
        Over the last year, we completed environmental planning for seven
    existing and proposed at-sea training and combat certification areas.
    We expect to complete planning for another six areas by the end of 2010
    as we continue to balance our responsibility to prepare naval forces
    for deployment and combat operations with our responsibility to be good
    stewards of the marine environment.
        Conducting night and day field carrier landing practice (FCLP)
    prior to at-sea carrier qualifications is a critical training
    requirement for our fixed-wing carrier-based pilots, who must develop
    and maintain proficiency in the fundamentals necessary to conduct safe
    carrier-based flight operations. We continue to seek additional
    airfield capacity in the form of an outlying landing field (OLF) that
    will enhance our ability to support FCLP training for fixed-wing,
    carrier pilots operating from Naval Air Station Oceana and Naval
    Station Norfolk. The additional OLF will allow Navy to meet training
    requirements and overcome challenges related to capacity limits, urban
    encroachment, and impacts from adverse weather conditions at existing
    East Coast facilities. In August 2009, the Navy announced that the
    release of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for
    construction and operation of an OLF would be delayed. This delay was
    necessary to ensure Joint Strike Fighter noise analysis is included in
    the OLF draft EIS. The Navy is committed to developing, with local,
    state, and Federal leaders, a plan to ensure the OLF provides positive
    benefits to local communities while addressing Navy training
    shortfalls.
    Energy and Climate
        Energy reform is a strategic imperative. The Secretary of the Navy
    and I are committed to changing the way we do business to realize an
    energy-secure future. In alignment with the Secretary of the Navy's
    five goals, our priorities are to advance energy security by improving
    combat capability, assuring mobility, ``lightening the load'', and
    greening our footprint. We will achieve these goals through energy
    efficiency improvements, consumption reduction initiatives, and
    adoption of alternative energy and fuels. Reducing our reliance on
    fossil fuels will improve our combat capability by increasing time on
    station, reducing time spent alongside replenishment ships, and
    producing more effective and powerful future weapons. Most of our
    projects remain in the demonstration phase; however, we are making good
    progress in the form of hybrid-electric drive, delivered last year on
    the U.S.S. Makin Island (LHD 8), bio-fuel engines, advanced hull and
    propeller coatings, solid state lighting, and policies that encourage
    Sailors to reduce their consumption through simple changes in behavior.
        Thanks to your support, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
    (ARRA) funded Navy energy conservation and renewable energy investment
    in 11 tactical and 42 shore-based projects totaling $455 million.
    Tactical projects included alternative fuel, drive, and power systems,
    while ashore projects included alternative energy (wind, solar and
    geothermal) investments in ten states and the installation of advance
    metering infrastructure in three regions. Our fiscal year 2011 budget
    continues to invest in tactical and ashore energy initiatives,
    requesting $128 million for these efforts.
        In our Maritime Strategy we addressed maritime operations in an era
    of climate change, especially in the ice diminished Arctic. In May
    2009, I established the Navy's Task Force on Climate Change (TFCC) to
    develop policy, investment, and force-structure recommendations
    regarding climate change in the Arctic and globally over the long-term.
    Our focus will be to ensure Navy readiness and capability in a changing
    global environment.
    Second East Coast Carrier-capable Port
        Hampton Roads is the only nuclear carrier capable port on the East
    Coast. A catastrophic event in the Hampton Roads Area affecting port
    facilities, shipping channels, supporting maintenance or training
    infrastructure, or the surrounding community has the potential to
    severely limit East Coast Carrier operations, even if the ships
    themselves are not affected. Consistent with today's dispersal of West
    Coast aircraft carriers between California and Washington State, the
    QDR direction to make Naval Station Mayport a nuclear carrier-capable
    homeport addresses the Navy's requirement for a capable facility to
    maintain aircraft carriers in the event that a natural or manmade
    disaster makes the Hampton Roads area inaccessible. While there is an
    upfront cost to upgrade Naval Station Mayport to support our nuclear
    aircraft carriers, Mayport has been a carrier homeport since 1952 and
    is the most cost-effective means to achieve strategic dispersal on the
    East Coast. The national security benefits of this additional homeport
    far outweigh those costs.
    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
        The Law of the Sea Convention codifies navigation and overflight
    rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global
    mobility of our armed forces. It directly supports our national
    security interests. Not being a party to this Convention constrains
    efforts to develop enduring maritime partnerships, inhibits 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.
    By becoming a party to the Convention, the United States will be able
    to expand its sovereign rights to the increasingly accessible outer
    continental shelf areas of the resource rich environment of the Arctic,
    as well as in other locations where technological advances are opening
    up previously unobtainable resources. Accession to the Law of the Sea
    Convention remains a priority for our Navy.
       develop and support our sailors, navy civilians and their families
        Our Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families underpin our
    Maritime Strategy and are the foundation of our nation's global force
    for good. We have great ships, aircraft, weapons, and systems, but it
    is our skilled and innovative Sailors who turn these ships, aircraft,
    and technologies into capabilities that can prevent conflict and win
    wars. In January 2010, we released the Navy Total Force Vision for the
    21st century to guide our efforts to attract, recruit, develop, assign,
    and retain a highly-skilled workforce and reaffirm our commitment to
    supporting our uniformed and civilian people wherever they serve and
    live.
        We have transitioned from reducing end strength to stabilizing our
    force through a series of performance-based measures. Our stabilization
    efforts remain focused on maintaining a balanced force in terms of
    seniority, experience, and skills while supporting growth in high-
    demand areas such as cyber and special operations. We recognize the
    importance of retaining the talent and experience of our Sailors after
    they complete their active duty obligation so we are actively removing
    barriers associated with the transition between active and reserve
    careers to allow for a continuum of service over a lifetime. Our fiscal
    year 2011 budget requests authorization and funding for 328,700 active
    end strength and 65,500 reserve end strength. We continue to request
    OCO funding for our individual augmentees that are performing non-core
    Navy missions in support of contingency operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. OCO funding remains critical to our ability to meet these
    missions without adversely impacting Fleet readiness or Sailor dwell
    time.
        We continue to provide support to our Sailors and their families,
    including those who are wounded, ill and injured, through expanded
    Fleet and Family Support services, Navy Safe Harbor, and our
    Operational Stress Control program. We are addressing aggressively the
    recent rise in suicide rates by implementing new training and outreach
    programs for Fleet commanders, Sailors, and Navy families to increase
    suicide awareness and prevention. We are focused on reducing sexual
    assaults in our Navy through our new Sexual Assault Prevention and
    Response Office and initiatives that emphasize our intolerance for
    sexual assault and related behavior in our Navy. We remain committed to
    helping our Sailors balance work and family commitments through
    initiatives such as 12-month operational deferments for new mothers
    (the most comprehensive policy of all military services), 21 days of
    administrative leave for adoptive parents, 10 days of paternity leave,
    a Career Intermission pilot program, and flexible work options. I
    continue to emphasize diversity outreach and mentorship to ensure we
    attract, leverage, and retain the diverse talent of our nation.
    Diversity among U.S. Naval Academy and Navy Reserve Officer Training
    Corps (NROTC) applicants and graduates continues to grow each year.
    Through our Naval War College and Naval Postgraduate School, we are
    providing Joint Professional Military Education and world-class higher
    education and training to our Sailors. We continue to build our Foreign
    Area Officer program to strengthen existing and emerging international
    partnerships.
        Our fiscal year 2011 budget request represents a balanced approach
    to supporting our Sailors and their families, sustaining the high tempo
    of current operations, and preserving Fleet and family readiness. I
    request the continued support of Congress for our fiscal year 2011
    manpower and personnel initiatives.
    Recruiting and Retention
        Our Navy has attracted, recruited and retained a highly-skilled
    workforce over the past several years, and we expect this success to
    continue into fiscal year 2011. Fiscal year 2009 marked the second
    consecutive year Navy achieved its aggregate officer and enlisted
    recruiting goals in both the active and reserve components. At the
    forefront of this effort is our highly trained and professional
    recruiting force, which has postured us to respond to changing trends.
    We continue to attract the highest quality enlisted recruits in our
    history. We are exceeding DOD and Navy standards for the percentage of
    non-prior service enlisted recruits who have earned a high school
    diploma and whose test scores are in the upper mental group category.
    We met the Navy standard of 95 percent of recruits with a high school
    diploma in fiscal year 2009 and are currently at 96 percent this fiscal
    year. We exceeded the Navy standard of 70 percent of recruits in the
    upper mental group category in fiscal year 2009 (77 percent tested into
    this group) and we are currently at 78 percent this fiscal year.
        Navy will remain competitive in the employment market through the
    disciplined use of monetary and non-monetary incentives. Using a
    targeted approach, we will continue our recruiting and retention
    initiatives to attract and retain our best Sailors, especially those
    within high-demand, critical skill areas that remain insulated from
    economic conditions. Judicious use of special and incentive pays
    remains essential to recruiting and retaining these professionals in
    the current economic environment, and will increase in importance as
    the economic recovery continues. Our goal remains to maintain a
    balanced force, in which seniority, experience, and skills are matched
    to requirements.
    Diversity
        Our Navy draws its strength and innovation from the diversity of
    our nation. We continue to aggressively expand our diversity. We are
    committed to implementing policies and programs that foster a Navy
    Total Force composition that reflects America's diversity. We have
    increased diverse accessions through targeted recruiting in diverse
    markets, developed relationships with key influencers in the top
    diverse metropolitan markets, and are aligning all Navy assets and
    related organizations to maximize our connection with educators,
    business leaders and government officials to increase our influencer
    base. Recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce, reflective of the
    nation's demographics at all levels of the chain of command, is a
    strategic imperative, critical to mission accomplishment, and remains
    focus area for leaders throughout our Navy.
        We continue to expand our relationships with key influencers and
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-based affinity
    groups to inform our nation's youth about the unique opportunities
    available in our Navy. To increase our accessibility to diverse
    markets, we established NROTC units at Arizona State University and
    Tuskegee University. Tuskegee University accepted students in the fall
    of 2009, and ASU will accept students in the fall of 2010. Our
    diversity outreach efforts have contributed to our 2013 U.S. Naval
    Academy and NROTC classes being the most diverse student bodies in our
    history. In the years ahead, we will continue to focus our efforts on
    retaining this talent by building and sustaining a continuum of
    mentorship approach that reaches out and engages Sailors throughout
    their career. This approaches includes social networking, strong
    relationships with affinity groups, and various programs offered by our
    Sailors' immediate commands and associated leadership in addition to
    their respective enterprises and communities.
    Women on Submarines
        The Secretary of the Navy and I are in the process of changing the
    Navy policy that restricts women from serving aboard our submarines.
    This move will enable our Navy and, specifically, our submarine force
    to leverage the tremendous talent and potential of our female officers
    and enlisted personnel. Initial integration will include female
    officers assigned to ballistic missile (SSBN) and guided missile (SSGN)
    submarines, since officer accommodations on these submarines have more
    available space and appear to require less modification. The plan also
    integrates female supply corps officers onto SSBNs and SSGNs at the
    department head level. We are planning the first female submarine
    officer candidate accessions into the standard nuclear training and
    submarine training pipelines this year, making it possible to assign
    the first women to submarines as early as fiscal year 2012. Integration
    of enlisted females on SSBNs and SSGNs and integration of officer and
    enlisted female personnel on attack submarines (SSNs) will occur later,
    once the extent of necessary modifications is determined. This
    initiative has my personal attention and I will continue to keep you
    informed as we integrate these highly motivated and capable officers
    into our submarine force.
    Sailor and Family Continuum of Care
        We remain committed to providing our Sailors and their families a
    comprehensive continuum of care that addresses all aspects of medical,
    physical, psychological, and family readiness. Our fiscal year 2011
    budget request expands this network of services and caregivers to
    ensure that all Sailors and their families receive the highest quality
    healthcare available. Navy Safe Harbor, Navy's Operational Stress
    Control Program, Reserve Psychological Health Outreach Program, Warrior
    Transition Program, and Returning Warrior Workshop are critical
    elements of this continuum.
        Navy Safe Harbor continues to provide non-medical support for all
    seriously wounded, ill, and injured Sailors, Coast Guardsmen, and their
    families through a network of Recovery Care Coordinators and non-
    medical Care Managers at 16 locations across the country. Over the past
    year, Safe Harbor's enrollment has grown from 387 to 542. Over 84,000
    Sailors have participated in Operational Stress Control (OSC) training,
    which is providing a comprehensive approach designed to actively
    promote the psychological health of Sailors and their families
    throughout their careers while reducing the traditional stigma
    associated with seeking help. The Warrior Transition Program (WTP) and
    Returning Warrior Workshops (RWW) are essential to post-deployment
    reintegration efforts. WTP, established in Kuwait and expanded via
    Mobile Care Teams to Iraq and Afghanistan, provides a place and time
    for individual augmentees to decompress and transition from life in a
    war zone to resumption of life at home. The RWW identifies problems,
    encourages Sailors to share their experiences, refers family members to
    essential resources, and facilitates the demobilization process.
    Stress on the Force
        As we continue to operate at a high operational tempo to meet our
    nation's demands in the Middle East and around the world, the tone of
    the force remains positive. We continue to monitor the health of the
    force by tracking statistics on personal and family-related indicators
    such as stress, financial well-being and command climate, as well as
    Sailor and family satisfaction with the Navy. Recent results indicate
    that Sailors and their families remain satisfied with command morale,
    the quality of leadership, education benefits, healthcare, and
    compensation.
        Suicide affects individuals, commands and families. We continue
    efforts at suicide prevention through a multi-faceted approach of
    communication, training, and command support designed to foster
    resilience and promote psychological health among Sailors. Navy's
    calendar year 2009 suicide rate of 13.8 per 100,000 Sailors represents
    an increase from the previous year rate of 11.6 per 100,000 Sailors.
    Although this is below the national rate of 19.0 per 100,000
    individuals for the same age and gender demographic, any loss of life
    as a result of suicide is unacceptable. We remain committed to creating
    an environment in which stress and other suicide-related factors are
    more openly recognized, discussed, and addressed. We continue to
    develop and enhance programs designed to mitigate suicide risk factors
    and improve the resilience of the force. These programs focus on
    substance abuse prevention, financial management, positive family
    relationships, physical readiness, and family support, with the goal of
    reducing individual stress. We continue to work towards a greater
    understanding of the issues surrounding suicide to ensure that our
    policies, training, interventions, and communication efforts are
    meeting their intended objectives.
        Sexual assault is incompatible with our Navy core values, high
    standards of professionalism, and personal discipline. We have
    reorganized our efforts in this critical area under the Navy Sexual
    Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program, which takes a multi-
    faceted approach to raise awareness of effective prevention methods,
    victim response and offender accountability. Recent program reviews
    undertaken by the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Task
    Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, and the Navy
    Inspector General will help us to identify program gaps and refine our
    program so we can continue to promote a culture that is intolerant of
    sexual assault.
    Learning and Development
        Education and training are strategic investments that give us an
    asymmetric advantage over our adversaries. To develop the highly-
    skilled, combat-ready force necessary to meet the demands of the
    Maritime Strategy and the Joint Force, we have 15 learning centers
    around the country providing top-notch training to our Sailors and Navy
    civilians. We continue to leverage civilian credentialing programs to
    bolster the professional qualifications of Sailors in all ratings and
    increase Sailor equity in their own professional advancement. We are
    balancing existing education and training requirements with growth in
    important mission areas such as cyber warfare, missile defense, and
    anti-submarine warfare. Cultural, historical, and linguistic expertise
    remain essential to the Navy's global mission, and our budget request
    supports expansion of the Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture
    (LREC) program for NROTC midshipmen, as well as implementation of the
    AF-PAK Hands Program. We recognize the importance of providing our
    people meaningful and relevant education, particularly Joint
    Professional Military Education (JPME), which develops leaders who are
    strategically-minded, capable of critical thinking, and adept in naval
    and joint warfare. Our resident courses at Naval War College, non-
    resident courses at Naval Postgraduate School and Fleet Seminar
    program, and distance offerings provide ample opportunity for
    achievement of this vital education. I appreciate the support of
    Congress in the recent post-9/11 GI Bill. We have led DOD in
    implementing this vital education benefit and continue to carefully
    balance our voluntary education investments to further develop our
    force.
                                   conclusion
        Our Sailors are performing brilliantly, providing incredible
    service in the maritime, land, air, space, and cyberspace domains
    around the world today. I am optimistic about our future and the global
    leadership opportunities that our Navy provides for our nation. Our
    fiscal year 2011 budget request continues the progress we started in
    fiscal year 2010 to increase Fleet capacity, maintain our warfighting
    readiness, and develop and enhance the Navy Total Force. I ask for your
    strong support of our fiscal year 2011 budget request and my identified
    priorities. Thank you for your unwavering commitment to our Sailors,
    Navy civilians, and their families, and for all you do to make our
    United States Navy an effective and enduring global force for good.

        Chairman Inouye. Now, may I call upon the Commandant of the
    Marine Corps, General Conway.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES T. CONWAY, COMMANDANT,
                MARINE CORPS
        General Conway. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to report to you on the posture of your Marine
    Corps. My pledge, as it has been over the years, is to provide
    you, today, with a candid and honest assessment.
        Having recently returned from a trip to theater, I'm
    pleased to report to you on the magnificent performance of
    marines and sailors in combat. If you count a 4-year enlistment
    as a generation of marines, we are now experiencing our third
    generation of great young patriots since our Nation was
    provoked on 9/11. The first generation broke trail, leading the
    strikes into Afghanistan and Iraq. The second generation
    quelled a once-volatile province of Anbar. Today, there are
    less than 130 marines in Iraq, but our third generation has
    more than 16,000 serving in Afghanistan. Your marines are
    fighting a skilled and determined enemy, but, with the Afghan
    Security Forces, they are once again proving that they are the
    strongest tribe in the Taliban stronghold of Helmand. Let me
    assure you from what the sergeant major and I witnessed
    firsthand, the highest morale in the Corps resides in those
    units posted in Afghanistan.
        My written statement to the subcommittee provides a
    snapshot of the Corps and describes our near-term focus, long-
    term priorities, and our vision of the future. That vision
    matches closely the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
    The Secretary of Defense seeks to create a U.S. Military more
    closely focused on hybrid threats, yet capable of responding to
    a major-level contingency. That combination essentially
    describes the Marine Corps that we have built today, a Corps we
    call a ``two-fisted fighter,'' able to perform equally well in
    a counterinsurgency or in a high-intensity combined-arms fight.
        Our resource expenditures, moreover, reflect our dual or
    swing capacity. That is to say that 100 percent of our Marine
    Corps equipment can be used in a hybrid conflict or in a major
    fight.
        Equipment procurement is, indeed, our primary concern, as
    we look at the fiscal year 2011 budget and beyond. Our
    requirements for equipment density in Afghanistan and our
    resolve to reestablish our maritime pre-positioned squadrons
    have driven equipment stocks to an all-time low in our
    operating forces at home station. The ability to properly train
    for deployment, and certainly the ability to respond to an
    unexpected contingency, is at significant risk, based on this
    increasing shortfall.
        Congress has promised us resources for reset and
    reconstitution. But, increasingly, we cannot wait for the guns
    to fall silent in Afghanistan for such an effort to begin. We
    ask for your help in this critical area.
        Our military construction accounts in the fiscal year 2011
    budget and the FYDP are sufficient to help maintain a promise
    we have made to our marines, that they will have quality living
    spaces while they're home between deployments. One need only
    visit some of our major bases and stations to realize that we
    waited too long to begin this effort.
        Similarly, we believe that, even in wartime, we must
    continue a heavy emphasis on education of our officers and our
    staff noncommissioned officers. A strong reservoir of strategic
    and operational thinkers is a must on sophisticated joint and
    combined battlefields. Therefore, a quality Marine Corps
    university with facilities to match our already world-class
    student body, faculty, and curriculum is a major priority. We
    trust we will receive your full support on our military
    construction investments that will repay huge dividends in the
    years to come.
        Ladies and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I must admit my
    own surprise that our Marine Corps and their families have
    remained so resilient over these 9 years of conflict. They have
    been incredibly determined, loyal, and courageous in an effort
    to see these two wars to a successful close. Much of the credit
    goes to you, in the Congress, for providing them with the
    finest, in terms of equipment, warrior care, quality of life
    for families, and compensation. The number one question in the
    minds of our troops is always, Is the country behind us? The
    Members of Congress have answered that question in spades, both
    by your apportionment of the Nation's precious resources, but
    also through personal efforts to visit both troops in theater
    and our wounded at Bethesda and Walter Reed.
        As a result of all the above and the natural tendency of
    marines to stick around for a fight, our recruitment and
    retention are at all-time highs. I predict that, for the second
    year in a row, we will close out reenlistment for both the
    first-term and career force halfway through the fiscal year.
    Clearly, such a phenomenon would not be possible if marines and
    their families were not happy in the service of their country.
        One day this long war with terrorists and Islamic
    extremists will be over. Your Marine Corps will cease being a
    second land army and will gladly rejoin our Navy brothers
    aboard amphibious ships in order to project America's global
    presence, demonstrate American goodwill, and, if need be,
    protect America's vital interests.
        Until that day comes, however, your Corps will continue, as
    we say, ``to do windows.'' That is, we will continue to take
    aboard the indomitable youth of America and make them marines,
    with the absolute conviction that, as a result, they will one
    day be better citizens. We will be trained and equally as
    prepared to route Taliban fighters in Marjah as we are to feed
    beleaguered Haitians outside Port-au-Prince. With your
    continued support, and that of our loyal countrymen, we will do
    whatever the Nation asks us to do, and do it exceedingly well.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, sir, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, General.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of General James T. Conway
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to provide a written report for the
    record on the current posture of the Marine Corps. My pledge, as
    always, is to provide you with a candid and honest assessment. On
    behalf of all Marines, their families, and our civilian employees, I
    want to thank you for your concern and continued support.
        This brief statement contains a summary of our near-term focus and
    enduring priorities, an update on your Marine Corps today, a discussion
    of the challenges we see ahead, and our vision of the future. In
    addition to any testimony you wish to receive from me, I have directed
    the Deputy Commandants of the Marine Corps to meet with you as
    individuals and members of your respective subcommittees, and to
    provide you any other information you require. Our liaison officers
    will also deliver copies of 2010 U.S. Marine Corps Concepts and
    Programs to the offices of each member of the committee. This almanac
    and reference book contains detailed descriptions of all our major
    programs and initiatives. We hope you will find it useful.
                               your marine corps
        We believe that Americans expect their Marines to be ready to
    respond when our country is threatened; to arrive on the scene on short
    notice anywhere in the world via the amphibious ships of the United
    States Navy, as was necessary when a disastrous earthquake recently
    struck Haiti; and to fight and win our Nation's battles. The public
    invests greatly in the Marine Corps. In turn, our commitment is to
    uphold their special trust and confidence and provide them the best
    return on their investment.
        Characteristics.--Your Marine Corps is a young force that provides
    great value to the Nation.
      --The average age of a Marine is 25 years old.
      --Almost half of the enlisted force--84,830 Marines--is between the
            ranks of private and lance corporal (pay grades E1-E3).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ As of December 23, 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Almost 70 percent of your Marines are on their first enlistment,
            and some 30,000 have been in uniform for less than 1 year.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ As of December 1, 2009, the percentage of Marines on their
    first enlistment was 68.6 percent, and the number of Marines with less
    than 1 year on active duty is 29,032.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The ratio of officers to enlisted Marines is 1:9--the lowest of all
            the services.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Authorized endstrength of 202,000 equals 21,000 officers plus
    181,000 enlisted Marines equals 1:9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --More than 136,000 Marines (67 percent) are in deploying units--what
            we call the Operating Forces. Nearly 30,000 Marines are forward
            deployed, forward based, or on training exercises around the
            world.
      --For 6.5 percent \4\ of the baseline 2010 Defense budget, the Marine
            Corps provides: 17 percent of the Nation's active ground combat
            maneuver units; 12 percent of the Nation's fixed wing tactical
            aircraft; and 19 percent of the Nation's attack helicopters.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 6.5 percent of DOD budget represents fiscal year 2010 USMC
    Green dollars and Direct Blue (Navy) dollars.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Expeditionary.--The Marine Corps is the Nation's naval
    expeditionary, combined-arms force-in-readiness. To Marines,
    expeditionary connotes fast, austere, and lethal.
      --Expeditionary means rapid deployment by air or sea to respond to
            crises of temporary duration. For example, within 24 hours of
            the speech by the President of the United States in December
            announcing the current strategy in Afghanistan, the lead
            elements of 1st Battalion, 6th Marines from Camp Lejeune, North
            Carolina were en route to Afghanistan.
      --Expeditionary means being efficient and effective while operating
            in an austere environment--a task-organized force that is
            manned and equipped no larger or heavier than necessary to
            accomplish the mission.
      --Expeditionary means being prepared for decisive action--to be
            lethal, if necessary--but also possessing the lesser-included
            capabilities for security cooperation, humanitarian assistance,
            or disaster relief.
      --In summary, the term expeditionary to Marines goes to the very
            heart of our service culture, core values, and warrior ethos.
            Service as part of an expeditionary force means embracing a
            Spartan way of life and regular deployments on foreign soil in
            furtherance of our Nation's interests.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ This is consistent with the official Defense Department
    definition of an expeditionary force: ``An armed force organized to
    accomplish a specific objective in a foreign country.'' Joint Pub 1-02
    Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms
    (Washington, D.C.: 2001, as amended through August 31, 2005), p. 193.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Organization.--The Marine Corps is the only general-purpose force
    in the Department of Defense that is trained and equipped as the
    Nation's first responders.
      --We organize in Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs). Under a
            single command element, the MAGTF integrates three major
            subordinate elements: (1) Ground Combat Element, (2) Aviation
            Combat Element, (3) Logistics Combat Element. Each element of
            the MAGTF is complementary, and Marine Corps forces are most
            effective and best employed as MAGTFs within the joint or
            multinational command structure.
      --MAGTFs are adaptive, general-purpose rapid response forces. They
            are multi-capable, transitioning seamlessly from fighting
            conventional and hybrid threats to promoting stability and
            mitigating conditions that lead to conflict. For example, in
            2003, after completing a conventional, 350-mile attack over
            land from Kuwait to Baghdad, I Marine Expeditionary Force--a
            60,000 Marine-plus MAGTF--was able to transition quickly to
            security and stability operations.
        Near-Term Focus.--We understand the economic challenges facing our
    country and the hard decisions Congress must make. We thank you for
    your unwavering support. This report discusses the near-term focus of
    the Marine Corps:
      --The current fight in Afghanistan and the responsible drawdown in
            Iraq.
      --Readiness and reset of equipment.
      --Modernization of the MAGTF.
      --Preparing for the next contingency and the uncertainties of the
            future.
        Enduring Priorities.--Through the future years defense plan and
    beyond, we are focused on:
      --Providing the Nation a naval expeditionary force fully prepared for
            employment as a MAGTF across the spectrum of operations.
      --Remaining the most ready when our Nation is least ready.
      --Providing for our Marines and their families.
                              iraq and afghanistan
        Operation Iraqi Freedom.--Since testimony before your committee
    last year, the Marine Corps has transferred authority for Anbar
    Province to the U.S. Army and is near completion of a responsible
    drawdown from Iraq.
      --From 2003-2009, our force levels in Iraq averaged 25,000 Marines.
      --As of February 19, 2010, there were 159 Marines in Iraq. By spring
            of this year, our mission in Iraq will be complete and your
            Marines will redeploy.
        Operation Enduring Freedom.--In Afghanistan, the mission has
    expanded.
      --As of September 23, 2009, there were more Marines in Afghanistan
            than in Iraq.
      --By March 2010, there will be more than 18,500 Marines in
            Afghanistan, and by mid-April, that number will grow to a
            robust MAGTF of 19,400 personnel with equipment, and will be
            commanded by a Marine two-star general.
      --Your Marines have already had success and have made a difference in
            some of the toughest regions of Afghanistan, primarily Helmand
            Province in the South--formerly a Taliban stronghold, and the
            source of the highest volume of opium production in the world.
            However, more work remains to be done.
    Summary
        Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have required the Marine Corps
    to fight as a second land army. Although we have been successful in our
    assigned missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, that success has come at the
    price of degraded readiness for our designed missions. The Marine Corps
    will always do whatever the Nation requires. But, as Congress has
    authorized and resourced, the Marine Corps is trained, organized, and
    equipped for our primary mission as a force in readiness.
        The harsh environments and tempo of operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan through 8 years of combat have accelerated wear and tear on
    our equipment. The enemy's weapon of choice--the improvised explosive
    device or IED--has forced us to increase the weight of our personal
    protective equipment and the armor on our vehicles.
        The distributed nature of operations has shown us that our legacy
    tables of equipment were inadequate. The required type and number of
    ground vehicles, radios, and other major end items of equipment have
    significantly increased. In our infantry battalions, for example, the
    number of tactical vehicles has almost doubled while the number of
    radio sets has grown sevenfold. Our preliminary estimates indicate that
    the cost of restructuring the Marine Corps' tables of equipment would
    be $5 billion over fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015.
        The amount of equipment that has been damaged, destroyed, or has
    reached the end of service life from accelerated use has increased, and
    the cost associated with fixing or replacing this equipment has
    increased significantly.
        Based upon the Marine Corps current analysis, our estimated reset
    cost is $8 billion. The $8 billion consists of $3 billion requested in
    the fiscal year 2011 OCO and an additional long term reset liability of
    $5 billion upon termination of the conflict.
        Equipment on hand at home station to support training has been
    serious degraded. Particularly worrisome is our capacity to respond to
    other contingencies.
        We are institutionalizing the lessons learned in Iraq and
    Afghanistan in training, education, organization, doctrine, and
    capability development. One of the ways we are doing this is through
    the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned.
        The current operating environment in Iraq and Afghanistan has led
    to an exponentially increased need for intelligence collection assets
    down to lower levels of command. The Marine Corps Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Enterprise (MCISR-E) provides support
    to the MAGTF in this operating environment by organizing all of the
    intelligence disciplines, sensors, and equipment and communication
    architecture into a single capability that is integrated and networked
    across all echelons.
                                   readiness
    Personnel Readiness
        Our people--the brave men and women who wear our uniform and the
    spouses, children, and the parents who support them--are our most
    valuable resource. In 2009, your Corps lost 65 Marines to enemy action
    in combat. We also lost 52 Marines who died by suicide--this serious
    issue, which will be discussed later in this report, has my personal
    attention.
        Endstrength.--Current authorized endstrength is 202,100 Marines in
    the active component and 39,600 Marines in the Selected Reserve.
      --During fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps requested and received
            authorization to grow 27,000 additional personnel by the end of
            fiscal year 2011.
      --We completed our growth during fiscal year 2009--2 years ahead of
            schedule. We attribute this to four factors: quality
            recruiting, exceptional retention, reduced personnel attrition,
            and a great young generation of Americans who want to serve
            their country during wartime.
      --With this personnel increase, we will improve training, upgrade
            readiness, and enhance the quality of life for all personnel
            and their families. The goal is to build the equivalent
            capacity of three Marine Expeditionary Forces--the largest
            MAGTF and principal Marine Corps warfighting organization.
      --We are continuing to shape the Marine Corps with the right mix of
            units, grades, and occupational specialties.
                Quality
        Recruiting.--In fiscal year 2009, we exceeded goals in numbers and
    standards for the active component and the Selected Reserve. The active
    component accessed 31,413 personnel, and the Selected Reserve accessed
    9,627 personnel. In fiscal year 2010, our goal is to access 27,500
    enlisted personnel in the active component and commission 1,800 new
    officers.
        Enlistment Standards.--One of the Department of Defense standards
    for new recruits is that at least 90 percent will possess a high school
    diploma. The Marine Corps has chosen to maintain a higher standard; our
    goal is a high school graduation rate of 95 percent. In fiscal year
    2009, for our combined active and reserve components, the high school
    graduation rate of our recruits exceeded 98 percent.
        First Term Reenlistments.--In fiscal year 2009, 8,011 first-term
    Marines reenlisted, meeting 109.2 percent of our goal. This represented
    a retention rate of 33.7 percent, exceeding our traditional retention
    rate of 24 percent. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, 5,194
    first-term Marines have already reenlisted--77 percent of the goal for
    the entire year.
        Subsequent Term Reenlistments.--In fiscal year 2009, 7,985 Marines
    who had completed at least two enlistment contracts chose to reenlist
    again. This number represented 107 percent of our goal and a 78.6
    retention rate--the highest in history. In the first quarter of fiscal
    year 2010, 5,685 Marines who had completed at least two enlistment
    contracts chose to reenlist again--82 percent of the goal for the
    entire year.
        Officers.--The quality of officers accessed and retained remains
    high. In one example, the share of Marine-option United States Naval
    Academy candidates in the top third of their graduating class greatly
    exceeded representative levels in 2008. The number of Naval Academy
    graduates who chose to become Marine Corps officers last year was 270--
    the highest number in history for the second year in a row.
        In fiscal year 2009, our officer retention rate was 93 percent and
    during fiscal year 2010, we expect officer retention to remain stable.
        Reservists.--The Marine Corps Reserve is a full partner in the
    total force. As of January 2010, there were 39,164 Marines in the
    Selected Reserve and another 55,233 in the Inactive Ready Reserve.
    Marine Forces Reserve includes 183 training centers in 48 states, the
    District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
      --The extensive contributions of the Reserve have reduced deployment
            requirements for the active component, thereby improving the
            health of the total force. More than 54,000 Marines from the
            Selected Reserve and the Inactive Ready Reserve have mobilized
            and deployed in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring
            Freedom, or other operational commitments around the globe.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ As of January 3, 2010.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Every Marine into the Fight''.--The majority of your Marines
    joined the Corps after our Nation was already at war. They expect to
    train, deploy, and fight because that is what they believe Marines are
    supposed to do. As such, the 2007 ``Every Marine into the Fight''
    initiative adjusted personnel assignment policies so Marines serving in
    non-deploying units or the supporting establishment would have the
    opportunity to deploy. At the same time, we monitor carefully the
    frequency and duration that units and individual personnel spend
    deployed.
      --To date, 73 percent of the available Marines have deployed in
            support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, or
            other operational commitments around the globe.
      --Individual Deployment Tempo.--We measure individual deployment
            tempo on a 2-year sliding scale--the number of days deployed
            out of the previous 730 days. In the last 7 years, we have seen
            a twentyfold increase in the individual deployment tempo of
            Marines in the active component. In October 2002, the number of
            Marines who deployed for at least 120 consecutive days in a 2-
            year period was 4,845. As of January 2010, 100,760 Marines had
            deployed for at least 120 consecutive days.
      --Unit Operational Tempo.--The metric we use to measure unit
            operational tempo is the ratio of ``deployment to dwell''--
            months deployed to months at home station. We limit the
            duration of deployments for units and individual Marines to no
            more than seven months for battalions and squadrons. Higher
            headquarters units deploy for 1 year.
      --Our goal is to achieve a 1:2 deployment to dwell ratio in the
            active component and a 1:5 ratio in the reserve component. Our
            reserve units are currently operating at a ratio that more
            closely approximates a ratio of 1:4, while many of our active
            component units, on average, are nearing the goal of 1:2 (see
            Table 1).

               TABLE 1.--MAGTF UNIT DEPLOYMENT TO DWELL RATIOS \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Average Ratio
                                                                 (Months
                         MAGTF Element                       Deployed:Months
                                                              Home Station)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Command Element........................................           1:1.43
    Ground Combat Element..................................           1:2.08
    Aviation Combat Element................................           1:2.11
    Logistics Combat Element...............................           1:1.79
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ As of November 18, 2009.

      --The subordinate units most frequently deployed are Intelligence
            Battalions, 1:1.01 (Command Element); Infantry Battalions,
            1:1.78 (Ground Combat Element); VMU Squadrons, 1:1.10, and
            Attack Helicopter Squadrons, 1:1.28 (Aviation Combat Element);
            and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Companies 1:1.30 (Logistics
            Combat Element).
        Suicide Prevention.--The number of Marines who have died by suicide
    in recent years is shocking and unacceptable. This issue has my
    personal attention, and we have multiple programs at work to reverse
    this trend.
      --Causes.--Our studies have shown that regardless of duty station,
            deployment, or duty status, the primary stressors associated
            with Marine suicides are problems in romantic relationships,
            physical health, work-related issues, such as poor performance
            and job dissatisfaction, and pending legal or administrative
            action. Multiple stressors are typically present in a suicide.
            This is consistent with the findings of the other services and
            civilian agencies.
      --Deployments.--We analyze suicides monthly and annually for combat-
            related trends such as the number of deployments and dwell
            time. Although it is reasonable to assume that one or more
            deployments may cause an increase in suicides, to date, we have
            been unable to establish a direct correlation between
            deployments and suicides.
        Sexual Assault Prevention and Answer.--Sexual assault is a crime,
    and it tears at the very fabric of our ethos. We continue to train and
    educate all Marines on the warning signs and the situations that lead
    to sexual assault. To our commanders, we have reinforced their
    responsibility to investigate all allegations of sexual assault and
    take the appropriate actions consistent with their findings. Finally,
    we continue to take aggressive strides toward improving our Sexual
    Assault Prevention and Response Program.
        Civilian Employees.--Civilian employees are a vital part of the
    Marine Corps. In fiscal year 2010, civilian Federal employees will
    number more than 25,000. Through initiatives in management and career
    development, the Marine Corps is dedicated to maintaining a civilian
    workforce with the leadership skills and technical competencies
    necessary to meet the challenges of today as well as those of the
    future.
      --Traditionally, civilian employees have served primarily in the
            supporting establishment. Now, more than ever before, they are
            deploying with the operating forces and serving in positions
            traditionally occupied by active duty Marines. For example, we
            are in the process of hiring more than 260 tactical safety
            specialists, who will each rotate on deployments with the
            operating forces. We are also participating in DOD's program to
            build a deployable Civilian Expeditionary Workforce.
        Families.--While we recruit Marines, we retain families. More than
    45 percent of your Marines are married, and we believe that investing
    in military families is critical to the long-term health of the
    institution. When Marines know that their loved ones at home station
    have access to quality housing, healthcare, child development services,
    and education, they are better prepared to face the rigors of
    deployment and more inclined to stay in uniform when they return home.
      --Family Readiness Programs.--Our baseline budget in fiscal years
            2010 and 2011 for family programs is $399 million per year. We
            have reformed our family readiness programs at every level of
            command at all of our installations. As an example, we have
            created more than 400 full-time positions for family readiness
            officers down to the battalion and squadron level.
      --Child Care.--Today, we are currently meeting 64 percent of
            potential need for child care spaces. To meet the DOD standard
            of 80 percent of potential need based on the current
            population, we would require approximately 3,000 additional
            spaces. With your support, we have programmed an additional
            2,615 spaces that will open over the next 18-24 months.
      --Families with Special Needs.--With an increase of $11 million for
            the Exceptional Family Member Program in this year's baseline
            budget, we have made great strides improving the programs that
            support special needs family members. Enrollment is now
            mandatory and more than 8,900 exceptional family members are in
            the program. The Marine Corps assigns a caseworker to each
            family, who assists during relocation, deployment, and life
            events. In addition, the Marine Corps now underwrites the cost
            of up to 40 hours of respite care per month for families in the
            program. To date, the Marine Corps has provided more than
            250,000 hours of respite care.
        Wounded Warriors.--About 9,000 Marines have been injured or fallen
    seriously ill while serving in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom or
    Enduring Freedom. We are deeply committed to their care as well as the
    welfare of their families. Since activation in April 2007, the Wounded
    Warrior Regiment has provided a wide range of non-medical care for the
    injured and ill. The Marine Corps now also has wounded warrior
    battalions at Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune.
      --Infrastructure.--The Marine Corps is investing $50 million from the
            2009 Overseas Contingency Operations supplemental for the
            construction of resource and recovery centers at Camp Pendleton
            and Camp Lejeune. These recovery centers will provide spaces
            for counseling, physical therapy, employment support, financial
            management, and other training and outreach programs in support
            of our wounded.
      --Outreach.--With a 24-hour call center for wounded Marines and their
            families, the Wounded Warrior Regiment has contacted 99.4
            percent of all Marines (7,654 out of 7,703) who were wounded
            since the beginning of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
            Freedom, in order to determine their health status. We also
            maintain a toll-free number to the medical center in Landstuhl,
            Germany for families to contact their loved ones who have been
            wounded.
      --Recovery Care.--The Marine Corps has 42 recovery care coordinators,
            who coordinate non-medical services for Marines and their
            families during recovery, rehabilitation, and transition.
                Mental Health
        Traumatic Brain Injury.--Naval medicine remains at the forefront of
    researching and implementing pioneering techniques to treat traumatic
    brain injury. One technique, Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment, is showing
    great promise. We anticipate a study to begin this spring that tests
    the efficacy of this revolutionary treatment. The Marine Corps has a
    formal screening protocol for Marines who suffer concussions or who are
    exposed to blast events in theater.
      --Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).--We are attentive to the
            mental health of our warriors and we are dedicated to ensuring
            that all Marines and family members who bear the invisible
            wounds caused by stress receive the best help possible. We
            developed the Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC) program
            to prevent, identify, and holistically treat mental injuries
            caused by combat or other operations.
      --With the increased workload, we do have concerns about the capacity
            of mental healthcare in military medicine. Operational support
            and current treatment facility demands continue to stretch our
            mental health professional communities, even though DOD has
            taken many steps to increase mental health services. Our
            shortages of mental health professionals are a reflection of
            Nation-wide shortages of this specialty. We are actively
            engaged in discussions about possible solutions.
    Equipment Readiness
        We have sourced equipment globally, taking from non-deployed units
    and strategic programs to support our forces in theater. As a result,
    the amount of equipment remaining for non-deployed units to use for
    training and other potential contingencies is seriously deficient.
      --For example, while the overall supply rating of Marine Corps units
            in Afghanistan is near 100 percent, the supply rating of units
            at home station is less than 60 percent.
      --Additional equipment is being procured with supplemental funds, but
            the production rates are too slow to meet our requirements for
            new equipment orders.
        Equipment Reset.--As mentioned previously, the distributed and
    decentralized nature of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown us
    that our legacy, 20th century tables of equipment are significantly
    inadequate. Moreover, the tempo of operations has accelerated the wear
    and tear on equipment. Also, the diversion of equipment in theater from
    Iraq to Afghanistan has delayed reset actions at our logistics depots
    in the United States.
      --Our preliminary estimates indicate that the cost of restructuring
            the Marine Corps' tables of equipment would be $5 billion over
            fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015.
      --In light of the continued high tempo of operations in Afghanistan,
            and the delay in reset actions due to the diversion of
            equipment in theater, we estimate the cost of reset for the
            Marine Corps to be $8 billion ($3 billion requested in the
            fiscal year 2011 OCO and an additional $5 billion reset
            liability upon termination of the conflict).
        Aviation Readiness.--All Marine Corps aircraft in support of
    overseas contingency operations are exceeding programmed rates, and are
    thus consuming service life at a rate sometimes three times higher than
    that scheduled for the lifetime of the aircraft. (See Table 2.) This
    will eventually result in compressed time lines between rework and,
    ultimately, earlier retirement of the aircraft than originally
    programmed.
      --It is critical that our aviation modernization programs, discussed
            in the next section of this report, continue to receive the
            support of Congress.
      --The majority of our legacy platforms are at the end of their
            service life and most of the production lines are closed.

               TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2009 USMC AIRCRAFT UTILIZATION RATES--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Programmed
                                                                          Average      Rates    OCO Rates   OCO Life
                                  Aircraft                                  Age       (Hours/    (Hours/     Usage
                                                                          (Years)     Month)      Month)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AH-1W..............................................................         19        19.5       32.7       1.7x
    UH-1N..............................................................         35        21.7       30.0       1.4x
    CH-46E.............................................................         41        13.6       31.1       2.3x
    CH-53D.............................................................         40        23.8       50.3       2.1x
    CH-53E.............................................................         21        19.2       33.6       1.8x
    MV-22B.............................................................          3        20.9       29.4       1.4x
    AV-8B..............................................................         13        20.9       24.1       1.2x
    F/A-18A............................................................         23        25.5       72.5       2.9x
    F/A-18C............................................................         16        23.9       65.5       2.7x
    EA-6B..............................................................         27        26.4       66.0       2.5x
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: Programmed rates are defined in the Weapon System Planning Document and are based on the projected dates
      an aircraft will be replaced by a new platform or reworked to extend its service life. Programmed rates
      include monthly flight hours and the associated logistical support required for each aircraft.

                Strategic Prepositioning Programs
        Marine Corps prepositioning programs trace their origins back 30
    years, when the Iranian revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,
    the Iraqi attack on Iran, and the deepening civil war in Lebanon
    collectively brought to the forefront the limitations of strategic
    airlift to respond to no-notice contingencies. The solution--the
    Secretary of Defense testified in 1980, and Congress agreed--was
    prepositioned combat equipment, ammunition, and supplies afloat on
    commercial vessels underway or docked in strategic locations. The
    Marine Corps developed three squadrons of maritime prepositioned ships
    and, in 1982, began prepositioning equipment and ammunition underground
    in Norway.
        The first real test for these programs was in 1991, during
    Operation Desert Shield. In 2003, in Kuwait, the Marine Corps
    downloaded 11 vessels from all three prepositioned squadrons and moved
    648 principal end items from Norway in preparation for Operation Iraqi
    Freedom. Without this capacity, the Marine Corps would not have been
    able to move half of the entire operating forces--more than 60,000
    fully equipped Marines--halfway around the world for a 350-mile attack
    on Baghdad.
        When completely loaded, Marine Corps prepositioning vessels today
    carry more than 26,000 pieces of major equipment including tanks,
    wheeled tactical vehicles, and howitzers, as well as the necessary
    supplies to support the force.
        When measured against authorized allowances, the percentage of
    major item equipment (Class VII) currently present in the prepositioned
    fleet is 94 percent; the percentage of supplies currently present is in
    excess of 99 percent.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Data as of February 18, 2010. To clarify any misperceptions,
    these are not the formal readiness percentages the Marine Corps uses in
    separate reports to Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense, and Congress. The readiness percentages in those reports
    are a measurement against MARES reportable items, a more select range
    of equipment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Norway, the current percentage of on-hand major end item
    equipment (Class VII) measured against authorized allowances is 47
    percent; the percentage of on-hand supplies is 78 percent.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Data as of February 18, 2010.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to note that these programs are not just a
    strategic war reserve. Marine Corps prepositioning programs support
    forward-deployed training exercises and, along with the amphibious
    ships of the U.S. Navy, the steady state requirements of the combatant
    commanders. For example, using the equipment positioned in Norway, the
    Marine Corps provides security force assistance to partner nations in
    U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command.
        In summary, Marine Corps prepositioning programs are vital to the
    Nation and they require the continued funding and support of Congress.
    Infrastructure
        Bachelor Housing.--Our number one priority in military construction
    is barracks. In years past, due to fiscal constraints, we had focused
    on operational concerns. We now have a program under way that will
    provide adequate bachelor housing for our entire force by 2014. Table 3
    depicts Marine Corps fiscal year 2011 investment in new barracks.

              TABLE 3.--USMC FISCAL YEAR 2011 BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal Year      New
                       Location                         2011       Barracks
                                                     Investment     Spaces
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Twentynine Palms, CA..........................        $53.2          384
    Camp Lejeune, NC..............................        326.6        2,794
    Cherry Point, NC..............................         42.5          464
    Camp Pendleton, CA............................         79.9          860
    MCB Hawaii, HI................................         90.5          214
    MCB Quantico, VA..............................         37.8          300
                                                   -------------------------
          Total...................................        630.5        5,016
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --The Marine Corps is committed to funding the replacement of
            barracks furnishings on a 7-year cycle and to funding the
            repair and maintenance of existing barracks to improve the
            quality of life of Marines.
                Summary
        Our equipment shortfalls are serious and the impacts on readiness
    have been significant. Our non-deployed units do not have the required
    amount of equipment they need to train or support other contingencies.
    Moreover, the harsh environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, the tempo of
    operations, and our employment as a second land army since 2004 has
    accelerated wear and tear on our equipment and delayed the reset
    activities necessary to prepare for the next contingency.
        We estimate that the cost of restructuring the Marine Corps' tables
    of equipment from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015 would be $5
    billion and the cost to reset for the Marine Corps will be $8 billion
    ($3 billion requested in fiscal year11 OCO and an additional $5 billion
    reset liability upon termination of the conflict).
        Iraq and Afghanistan have not adversely affected personnel
    readiness or the resiliency of the force. The Marine Corps continues to
    recruit and retain the highest quality people. Your Marines want to
    make a difference; they understand being a Marine means deploying and
    fighting our Nation's battles. Indeed, the Marines with the highest
    morale are those currently in Afghanistan.
        The Marine Corps has achieved its goal of 202,000 active duty
    personnel and has done so with no compromise in quality. However, the
    Marine Corps has not achieved the correct mix of skills and pay grades.
    Continued funding will be needed to balance the force correctly.
        Our personnel growth has outpaced our growth in infrastructure, and
    your continued support is needed to provide the additional barracks,
    messing, and office spaces required.
                           modernization of the magtf
        Our modernization effort is not merely a collection of programs but
    a means of aligning the core capabilities of the MAGTF across the
    spectrum of present and future security challenges. All of our
    procurement programs are designed to support the full range of military
    operations.
        The Individual Marine.--Marines are the heart and soul of your
    Corps. The trained, educated, and physically fit Marine enables the
    Corps to operate in urban areas, mountains, deserts, or jungles.
    However, we are concerned about weight. Depending on the enemy
    situation, and including helmet, body armor, individual weapon, water,
    ammunition, and batteries, the weight of gear for a Marine on foot-
    patrol in Afghanistan can average 90 pounds. There is a delicate
    balance between weight and protection, and we continue to pursue the
    latest in technology to provide Marines with scalable protection based
    on the mission and threat.
        Tactical Vehicles.--The Marine Corps currently has a total ground
    tactical vehicle quantity of nearly 47,500. Over the next 10 years, we
    plan to replace about 50 percent of that total.
      --We are planning, programming, and budgeting toward a balanced fleet
            of vehicles. Our chief considerations are mobility,
            survivability, payload, transportability, and sustainability.
            Our goal is a portfolio of vehicles that is able to support
            amphibious operations, irregular warfare, and operations ashore
            across the range of military operations. We envision a blend of
            Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles, Marine Personnel Carriers,
            Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs), and
            replacements for our High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
            Vehicles (HMMWVs).
      --The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is the number one
            modernization program in the ground combat element of the
            MAGTF. The requirements of the current and future security
            environment have driven the research and development of the
            critical capabilities associated with the EFV. The Marine Corps
            has not taken a myopic view of the EFV; we are well aware of
            the fiscal realities and developmental challenges associated
            with such a revolutionary vehicle. We are, however, convinced
            that national security demands the capabilities of the EFV and
            justifies the costs. This vehicle will save lives and enable
            mission success across an extremely wide, and highly probable,
            range of operational scenarios.
        Fire Support.--We are modernizing Marine Corps land-based fire
    support through a triad of weapons systems--a new and more capable 155
    mm howitzer, a system of land-based rockets, and a helicopter-
    transportable 120 mm mortar. Each of these is extremely accurate. This
    accuracy is critical in counterinsurgency operations and irregular
    warfare because accuracy reduces the instances of civilian casualties
    and collateral damage to local infrastructure.
      --The Lightweight 155 mm Towed Howitzer (M777) weighs about half of
            the cannon it is replacing and fires projectiles to a range of
            15-19 miles. Our Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Afghanistan
            has 15 of these howitzers at three different locations, which
            have collectively fired more than 600 rounds since April 2009.
      --The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (M142 HIMARS) provides
            high-value rocket and missile fire in support of ground forces.
            Each system carries six rockets or one missile. Like our new
            lightweight howitzer, HIMARS has proven itself over the past
            year in Afghanistan, delivering long-range precision fires.
      --The Expeditionary Fire Support System is a rifled 120 mm mortar,
            internally transportable 110 nautical miles by both the MV-22
            Osprey and the CH-53E helicopter. This will be the primary
            indirect fire-support system for helicopter-transported
            elements of the ground combat element. A platoon equipped with
            these new mortars recently deployed with the 24th Marine
            Expeditionary Unit.
        Marine Aviation.--Marine pilots are naval aviators; they are
    trained to fly from the ships of the U.S. Navy or from expeditionary
    airfields ashore in support of Marines on the ground. We are in the
    midst of an unprecedented modernization effort. By 2020, we will have:
      --Transitioned more than 50 percent of our aviation squadrons to new
            aircraft.
      --Added 5 more operational squadrons and almost 100 more aircraft to
            our inventory.
      --Completed fielding of the tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey and the upgraded
            Huey (UH-1Y) utility helicopter.
      --Updated our entire fleet of aerial refuelers to the KC-130J model.
      --Fielded the upgraded Cobra (AH-1Z) attack helicopter and the Joint
            Strike Fighter (F-35B).
      --Fielded an entirely new family of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).
      --Introduced a new model of the heavy-lift CH-53 cargo helicopter.
        The Joint Strike Fighter.--The Marine Corps is on track to activate
    the Department of Defense's first operational Joint Strike Fighter
    squadron in 2012. Although our investment in this program may seem
    high, it is important to note that the Marine Corps has not bought a
    fixed-wing tactical aircraft in 11 years, and that the Joint Strike
    Fighter will ultimately replace three different types of aircraft
    currently in our inventory.
      --The short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant (F-35B) of
            the Joint Strike Fighter will be transportable aboard the
            amphibious ships of the U.S. Navy; it will be able to operate
            under the same austere conditions as does the AV-8 Harrier; it
            will be able to carry more bombs and loiter overhead longer
            than does the F/A-18 Hornet; and it will be a better electronic
            warfare platform than our legacy EA-6 Prowler.
        The Osprey.--We are very pleased with the performance of the tilt-
    rotor MV-22 Osprey. The Osprey provides greater speed, more range, and
    enhanced survivability compared to other rotary wing platforms. It
    flies more than twice as fast and carries three times the payload at
    more than six times the range of the medium-lift helicopter it is
    replacing.
      --Osprey squadrons have completed three successful deployments to
            Iraq and one aboard ship. One squadron is currently in
            Afghanistan. We are nearing delivery of our 100th operational
            aircraft, and at a current build of 30 Ospreys per year, we are
            replacing our CH-46E medium-lift helicopter squadrons at a rate
            of two squadrons per year.
        Logistics Command and Control.--Global Combat Service Support
    System--Marine Corps is the cornerstone of our logistics modernization
    strategy.
      --The program is a portfolio of information technology systems that
            will support logistics command and control, joint logistics
            interoperability, secure access to information, and overall
            visibility of logistics data. It will align Marine Corps
            logistics with real-world challenges, where speed and
            information have replaced mass and footprint as the foremost
            attributes of combat operations; it will replace 30-year old
            legacy supply and maintenance information technology systems;
            and it will provide the backbone for all logistics information
            for the MAGTF.
                                     vision
        The current transnational struggle against violent extremism will
    not end anytime soon. Other threats--conventional and irregular--will
    continue to emerge and the complexity of the future operating
    environment will only increase. As we look to the future, we believe we
    must refocus on our core competencies, especially combined-arms
    training and operations at sea with the United States Navy.
        2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.--We believe the report from the
    Quadrennial Defense Review offers an accurate and informed analysis of
    the challenges in the future security environment, particularly with
    respect to growing complexity of hybrid threats and the spread of
    advanced anti-access capabilities.
      --We concur with the overarching need for a comprehensive and
            balanced approach to national security--a whole of government
            approach.
      --We agree with the need for a U.S. military that is balanced in
            capabilities for irregular warfare and conventional conflict.
            For the Marine Corps, we have always believed in such a
            balance. Our equipment and major programs, and our means of
            employment as an integrated MAGTF, reflect our commitment to be
            flexible in the face of uncertainty. One hundred percent of our
            procurement can be employed either in a hybrid conflict or in
            conventional combat.
      --Finally, while our current focus is rightly on today's fights, we
            believe it is critical that we do not underestimate the need to
            maintain the ability to gain access in any contested region of
            the world.
        Seabasing and the Navy-Marine Corps Team.--With oceans comprising
    about 70 percent of the earth's surface and the world's populations
    located primarily on the coasts, seabasing allows our Nation to conduct
    crucial joint operations from the sea.
      --Seabasing is a capability and a concept. It is the establishment of
            a mobile port, airfield, and replenishment capability at sea
            that supports operations ashore. In effect, seabasing moves
            traditional land-based logistics functions offshore.
      --From the sea, U.S. forces will be able to conduct the full range of
            military operations, from disaster relief and humanitarian
            assistance to irregular warfare and major combat operations.
            Sea-based logistics, sea-based fire support, and the use of the
            ocean as a medium for tactical and operational maneuver permit
            U.S. forces to move directly from sea to objectives ashore.
      --There are misperceptions that the United States has not conducted
            an amphibious operation since Inchon during the Korean War in
            1950. Since 1982, our Nation has conducted more than 100
            amphibious operations. For example, the Navy-Marine Corps Team
            has been on the scene in Bangladesh (1991), the Philippines
            (1991), Liberia (1996), and East Timor (1999).
        --After 9/11, U.S. amphibious forces, from a seabase, led the first
                conventional strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
        --In 2004, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit was on station in
                Southeast Asia to support the relief efforts after the
                Tsunami.
        --In 2005, from a seabase in the Gulf of Mexico, the Navy and
                Marine Corps supported recovery efforts after Hurricane
                Katrina.
        --In 2009, off the coast of Somalia, when pirates boarded the
                Maersk Alabama, the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the
                U.S.S. Boxer were on station to support the counterpiracy
                operations.
      --Last month, with Haiti's airfield overwhelmed and their seaport
            disabled by wreckage following the earthquake, the U.S.S.
            Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary
            Unit provided a significant and sustainable delivery of food,
            water, and other supplies without the logistical burden ashore.
    Seabasing--Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) Enhancements
        Critical to seabasing are the logistics vessels of the Maritime
    Prepositioning Force. As discussed in the Long-Range Plan for Naval
    Vessels, we have restructured our Maritime Prepositioned Force (Future)
    program and will enhance the current capabilities of each of our three
    existing Maritime Preposition Force Squadrons.
        One mobile landing platform (MLP), one Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/
    Roll-off (LMSR) ship, and one Lewis and Clark class (T-AKE) cargo ship
    will be added to each squadron of the MPF.
        The MLP will interface with the LMSRs, which are being added to
    each MPF squadron from fiscal year 2009-11, thus providing the
    capability to transfer cargo while at sea and making each MPF squadron
    highly responsive to demands across the full-spectrum of operations.
        In summary, as the security environment grows more complex, so does
    the value of amphibious forces.
        Expeditionary Operations in the Littoral Domain.--The littoral
    domain is where the land and sea meet. This is where seaborne commerce
    originates and where most of the world lives. Littorals include
    straits--strategic chokepoints that offer potential control of the
    world's sea lanes of communication. The Navy-Marine Corps team and the
    vitality of the amphibious fleet is critical to overcoming anti-access
    challenges in locations along the coastlines of the world where there
    are no American military forces or basing agreements.
      --The QDR emphasized the need for U.S. naval forces to be capable of
            robust forward presence and power projection operations, while
            adding capability and capacity for working with a wide range of
            partner navies. Amphibious forces are perfectly suited for
            engagement and security force assistance missions, as well as
            humanitarian missions such as are ongoing in Haiti. In short,
            the strategic rebalancing directed in the QDR places high
            demands on our amphibious forces.
      --Given the fiscal constraints facing the Department of the Navy, the
            Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and I agreed
            that 33 amphibious ships represents the limit of acceptable
            risk in meeting the 38-ship requirement we established in a
            letter to the committee on January 7, 2009.
      --We currently have a 31-ship force in the U.S. amphibious fleet. The
            Long-Range Plan for Naval Vessels projects a 33 ship amphibious
            inventory in the near-term.
      --With a robust inventory of amphibious ships the Navy-Marine Corps
            team will be able to:
        --Better address the growing steady state combatant commander
                requirement for theater security cooperation, forward
                presence, and crisis response.
        --Strengthen our Nation's relations with allied and partner
                countries through peacetime engagement and training
                exercises.
        --Better ensure our Nation is ready to respond with humanitarian
                assistance when disaster strikes anywhere around the globe.
        --In the event of major conflict, improve our response time to gain
                theater access with combat forces without having to rely on
                basing agreements with foreign governments.
      --Finally, to clarify any misperceptions about the numbers of
            amphibious ships cited in the 2010 QDR Report, those numbers of
            ships are neither shipbuilding requirements nor targets; they
            are simply statements of the amphibious ship numbers across the
            fiscal year 2011-2015 future years defense program.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR Report)
    (Washington, DC: Feb. 2010), p. xvi, 46.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Training, Education, and Professional Development
        ``Two-Fisted Fighters''.--The QDR Report calls for increased
    counterinsurgency capacity in the general purpose forces of the United
    States.\10\ The Marine Corps has long recognized the special skills
    required to operate with host nation forces and among local
    populations. Evidence of this dates back to the Marine Corps
    publications of Small Wars Operations (1935) and the Small Wars Manual
    (1940), both comprehensive texts on counterinsurgency operations and
    irregular warfare. Today, through standing Marine Corps organizations
    such as the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning and the
    Center for Irregular Warfare, and programs such as the International
    Affairs Officers Program, we continue to build capacity in foreign
    language, and regional and cultural skills.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR Report)
    (Washington, DC: Feb. 2010), pp. 20-26.
        \11\ Each year, the Marine Corps selects officers for the
    International Affairs Officer Program, which consists of two
    professional tracks: Foreign Area Officer (FAO), and Regional Area
    Officer (RAO). The International Affairs Officer Program provides
    graduate-level study and language training for nine geographic areas.
    There are 329 international affairs officers on active duty (262 FAOs,
    67 RAOs). The officers in this program possess advanced knowledge and
    expertise in the language, culture, and political-military affairs of a
    given region. Since 2008, the Marine Corps has doubled the number of
    accessions in the FAO program, and accessions will continue to increase
    through 2015. Moreover, the Marine Corps provides mid-grade officers
    (major--lieutenant colonel) for the Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) Hands
    Program. Our current requirement is to provide 63 officers--three
    cohorts of 21 officers each.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Leadership Development.--We recognize the need for a diversity of
    skills and specialties, and our standing guidance to promotion,
    command, and special selection boards is to give due consideration to
    personnel with special skills and non-traditional career patterns.
        Marine Corps University.--Annually, a percentage of Marine Corps
    officers from the rank of captain through colonel attend year-long
    resident courses in professional military education at Marine Corps
    University in Quantico. The Marine Corps University is regionally
    accredited to award postgraduate degrees and, in 2009 alone, University
    schools awarded 200 master's degrees.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ The Marine Corps also has a separate, voluntary graduate
    education program, through which officers attend Naval Postgraduate
    School and other secondary institutions to obtain advanced degrees.
    There are 300 officer billets in the Marine Corps that require master's
    degrees. The Marine Corps also maintains an active fellowship program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Facilities are an integral part of supporting professional military
            education. To that end, the Marine Corps fiscal year 2011
            military construction budget request includes funding for
            additions in Quantico to the General Alfred M. Gray Research
            Center and the Staff NCO Academy. These projects will support
            our plan to upgrade the infrastructure of the Marine Corps
            University.
        Acquisition Professionals.--The Marine Corps has an active
    acquisition professional program in place to meet the need identified
    in the QDR ``for technically trained personnel--cost estimators,
    systems engineers, and acquisition managers--to conduct effective
    oversight.'' \13\ There are about 520 acquisition billets in the Marine
    Corps--400 are entry and mid-level positions filled by enlisted Marines
    and officers, and 120 are senior-level acquisition professional
    positions filled by field grade officers who oversee our major ground
    and aviation programs. Our acquisition professional officers are
    members of the Defense Acquisition Community; they possess Level II
    certification, four years of acquisition experience, at least 24
    undergraduate credit hours in business.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ DOD, QDR, p. 76.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Future Realignment of Marine Forces in the Pacific.--The
    governments of the United States and Japan have agreed to invest in a
    realignment of forces that will result in Marine Corps forces postured
    in the Pacific for a long-term presence on Japan, Guam, and Hawaii.
    Critical requisites to the implementation of this realignment are:
      --Japanese construction of a replacement for Marine Corps Air Station
            Futenma that meets both operational and safety requirements.
      --An appropriate force laydown that supports the operational
            requirements of the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command.
      --Adequate available airlift and sealift within theater to transport
            Marines to training areas and partner countries.
      --Adequate training areas and ranges in Guam and the Northern Mariana
            Islands that can maintain readiness as well as support security
            cooperation with our regional partners.
      --An enduring, sustainable ``live where you work,'' base on Guam that
            maximizes operational effectiveness, minimizes encroachment,
            accommodates future development, and provides a quality of life
            on Guam commensurate with any other U.S. base.
      --Continued political and financial support by the governments of the
            United States and Japan.
        Refined planning and staff interaction processes within the
    Department of Defense have made significant contributions to our
    efforts to align these requirements. Planned and executed properly,
    this realignment effort will result in an enduring solution that
    provides forward deployed combat ready Marine forces to uphold our
    Nation's commitment to the security and stability of the Pacific
    region.
        Energy and Water Initiatives.--We believe energy and water are two
    of our Nation's most valuable resources. We are focused on improving
    our stewardship at our installations and on the battlefield.
      --Our Installations.--We have already gained efficiencies and
            achieved savings at all our major installations. We have three
            major goals:
        --From 2003-2015, reduce energy consumption by 30 percent.
        --Through 2020, reduce water consumption by 2 percent per year.
        --By 2020, increase the use of alternative energy at our
                installations to 50 percent of the total energy consumed.
      --On the Battlefield.--Operations in Afghanistan have forced us to
            reevaluate energy and water distribution and usage in
            expeditionary environments. We believe the future security
            environment will again require the Marine Corps to operate over
            long distances in austere environments, and we are actively
            pursuing a wide range of solutions to:
        --Lighten the combat load of our Marines and Sailors.
        --Reduce our overall footprint in current and future expeditionary
                operations.
        --Lessen energy consumption and dependence on fossil fuels.
        --Achieve resource self-sufficiency in expeditionary environments.
                                   conclusion
        As a naval expeditionary force in the form of an elite air-ground
    team, the Marine Corps is ready and willing to go into harm's way on
    short notice and do what is necessary to make our country safe. America
    expects this of her Marines. In the complex and dangerous security
    environment of the future, the Marine Corps stands ready for the
    challenges ahead. We appreciate the continued support of Congress.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to report on the posture of your
    Marine Corps.

                           PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

        Chairman Inouye. I will be submitting questions of a
    technical nature on weapons systems and ships, but I'd like to
    ask some broad questions.
        Mr. Secretary, you spoke very generously on the good things
    that we are providing, but I'm certain you have challenges. I'd
    like to know if you're really satisfied with the budget
    request.
        Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, we are exceptionally satisfied
    with this budget request. We believe that the budget that has
    been submitted will allow us to do all the missions that we
    have been tasked to do. It will allow us to buy the equipment
    that we need for those missions. It will allow us to maintain
    the equipment that we have today, to make sure that it reaches
    the end of its lifecycle.
        The budget request that we have in, over the next 5 years,
    will buy, as the CNO said, an average of 10 ships per year,
    beginning to move our fleet toward the level that we believe it
    needs to be. In aircraft procurement, a little over 1,000
    aircraft over the 5 years to meet those requirements. In terms
    of people, this budget meets the needs for taking care of our
    sailors and marines, both in terms of deployed missions and
    also in terms of their families at home station. It also takes
    care of the research and development needs that we have to
    pursue to make sure that we continue to be at the forefront of
    new technologies and emerging weapon systems.
        So, we believe this is a very good budget. We believe that
    it will allow us to do everything that we need to do, and we
    believe that it was constructed using--making some hard
    choices, but making them in a way that ranked priorities and
    that all our high priorities have been met.
        Chairman Inouye. I'm pleased to listen to your response. It
    makes us feel better.

                                   SHIP COUNT

        But, if I may ask the Admiral--I come from a State
    surrounded by the ocean, so Navy has been part of my life. And
    I recall, not too long ago--that about 25, 30 years ago--we
    were speaking of a 600-ship Navy. Now you have a 313 ship-for-
    tomorrow's Navy. But, the Navy is all over the globe. In fact,
    just a few weeks ago, I was in Afghanistan, and there I saw
    Navy personnel--sailors and officers--right in the middle of
    Afghanistan, running a hospital, training troops.
        Do we have enough ships? Do we have enough equipment for
    all of these activities all over the world?
        Admiral Roughead. Thank you, Senator.
        And, as you pointed out, the objective that we have for the
    fleet size is of what I call the ``floor'' of 313 ships. Right
    now, we have 286. The shipbuilding program puts us on the
    trajectory to get to that 313 ship floor that is--that
    addresses the many needs that our Navy has around the globe. If
    we meet that floor of 313, I'm comfortable that we will be able
    to address the Nation's requirements.
        That said, that 313 ship floor must be of the proper
    balance to be able to meet the mission requirements, not just
    with the largest capital ships, such as our aircraft carriers,
    but the value that our submarine force provides is
    extraordinarily important. The amphibious ships that support
    our marines in their operations, that can also be used for some
    humanitarian activity, when we're called upon to do so, as we
    have been, seemingly, every year in the last decade. But, it's
    important to get to 313 ships. That will give us the capacity
    we need, but the balance must be right, to give us the
    capabilities that we need.

                                    SUICIDES

        Chairman Inouye. The subcommittee's very impressed by your
    recruiting and retention numbers, but I must say, honestly,
    that we were set back a little when we read the numbers on
    suicides. Do you have anything to tell us about that?
        Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. Suicide is a problem that all
    the services deal with. Indeed, I think society deals with.
        While it's too early, I think, to call it a trend, as a
    result of some of the programs that we have put in place, the
    engagement with leadership over the past few months, starting
    in January, we've seen some very encouraging signs, as suicide
    numbers in the Navy are not replicating what we had last year.
    In January, in our Active Force, we did not have a suicide.
    February--we are down from February of a year ago, and I can
    say the same for this year. But, it is something that requires
    a great deal of attention.
        The Navy's demographic is somewhat different, in that our
    suicides tend to be more senior. But, they have a common
    thread, for the most part: personal problems, personal issues.
    Mix the use of alcohol in with that and a firearm, and you have
    homed in on about 74 percent of our suicides. We are going to
    be relentless in getting at this problem. But, I do see some
    encouraging signs in where we have gone in the last few months
    in the Navy.
        Chairman Inouye. So, the suicide rates are not necessarily
    based upon deployment.
        Admiral Roughead. No, sir. And in our case, they are not
    necessarily driven by deployments. We've been looking for
    various correlations. As I mentioned, our demographic of
    suicides seem--they seem to be more senior, not necessarily
    deployment driven. However, if there is a suicide relative to a
    deployment, it--a higher probability occurs within 6 months of
    return. But, for the most part, ours are not a function of
    deployments. In many instances, we have young men and women who
    take their lives who have not deployed. So, we're looking at
    all the possible drivers and methods to get at this issue.

                     MARINE CORPS RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        And, General, if I may. We're very much impressed by the
    activities of the Marine Corps. You're all over the globe.
        General Conway. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. You're in Haiti, you're in Afghanistan.
    But, yet, you're having no problems with recruiting and
    retaining. What's your secret?
        General Conway. Sir, I think there's a culture there that
    we provide to some very incredible young men and women in our
    country that simply makes them want to become marines.
        I--as I mentioned in my opening statement, the biggest
    problem I have, as the Commandant, is trying to find a way to
    get about 190,000 other marines who want to go to Afghanistan,
    to Afghanistan. And those are the nature of the people that we
    seem to attract.
        We work hard at it. I'll say that. We've got some
    tremendous recruiters in the field. I would in no way discount
    their efforts. We're tied into a very good advertising agency
    in New York City that's been with us now for, I guess, close to
    60 years.
        But, I just have to think, sir, that there's a great young
    strain of Americans out there that see the need to defend their
    country's vital interests, and are more than willing to step up
    to do so.

                       MARINE CORPS RESET/RECONSTITUTION

        Chairman Inouye. I note that, in your resetting and
    reconstituting of the Marine Corps, it's getting bigger, for
    one thing, and having different missions. Are you having
    problems with that change?
        General Conway. Sir, to the extent that we're not staying
    up with our equipment, we are. As I referenced in my opening
    statement, we have what I would call a ``rolling requirement.''
    In other words, every day that we're in a fight in Afghanistan
    now, we're going to have equipment damaged, equipment that is
    undergoing some tremendous usage rates and those manner of
    things. There's equipment density there that we just have not
    seen before in previous conflict, based upon what we now would
    call our ``distributed operations'' that we're conducting today
    over large areas of landmass.
        Those marines at the point of the spear will have
    everything they need. But, in the process, the bill payers,
    which, for the most part, are our base and station units at
    home, are starting to see some real concerns with regard to the
    readiness rates.
        Congress has been, I think, generous in the past, it's fair
    to say. We were kept at about 75 percent of that requirement
    over the previous years. Today we're only at about 50 percent.
    Congress has told us that, when we are finished with that fight
    in Afghanistan, and, God forbid, any others, that there will be
    a 2- or a 3-year period where we can get healthy again, both
    the Army and the Marine Corps, principally, with regard to our
    equipment sets.
        But, I'll paraphrase my Secretary and say that I think our
    Nation is going to face hard choices at that point, based upon
    the national fiscal picture. And I would advocate, sir, that,
    before that time, starting as soon as possible, that we try to
    get caught up again and essentially do in-stride kinds of reset
    and reconstitution of our equipment sets.
        Chairman Inouye. Well, thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran.

                                   TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, there is a lot of pressure on the budget,
    because of modernization efforts and things that are being
    planned to make our Navy and Marine Corps team more
    sophisticated, with newer component parts and advanced systems
    for both reconnaissance and combat activities that may be
    required of these services. What is the status of some of our
    efforts to take advantage of new technologies, like composites
    and polymer science initiatives, that provide us with more
    modern coatings for ships, and efficient operations? Is this
    something that is a part of our R&D effort that's funded in
    this budget? Or is more money needed to be appropriated for
    these kinds of activities to make us more modern and capable?
        Mr. Mabus. Senator, this--those kinds of activities are
    funded in this budget, and I'll give you some--a few specific
    examples of that.
        One is on energy savings, energy efficiency. We've done a
    lot of work and are continuing to do work on hull coatings and
    hull technologies, and particularly in the polymer area. When
    you combine that with some stern flaps and missions planning
    tools, you can cut down the use of fuel on our ships pretty
    substantially. The DDG 1000 program has a completely composite
    superstructure, for example. We're looking at other ways to use
    those sorts of technologies.
        The move toward polymers, toward different sorts of
    materials that are stronger, more resilient, that can withstand
    different sorts of pressures, is one of the focuses of what we
    are doing. It is--as always, the challenge is to make those
    requirements come into the budget and to--and one of the ways
    we're trying to do that is--as new technologies such as this
    come forward--is to incorporate them into existing designs,
    into existing hull forms, so that we don't have new ship
    classes coming out with the resultant more expensive first and
    second ships in the class.
        But, to finish the answer, things like new advances in
    polymers, and all across the spectrum of science, are something
    that we're focused on. We're asking for a little over $17
    billion in fiscal year 2011 to continue the R&D in all sorts of
    areas, but polymers is certainly one of those.
        Senator Cochran. General Conway, I recently had an
    opportunity to be briefed and see a--some demonstration
    techniques of new bullet-resistant vests and body armor, I
    guess you could call it. It didn't look like old-timey armor.
    You didn't--you couldn't tell by looking at the material that
    it had the capability of resisting injury from fired weapons.
    Is this something the Marine Corps is involved in? And to what
    extent are our troops benefiting from research and development
    of new capabilities for defense of this kind?
        General Conway. Sir, the short answer to your question is
    that we're heavily involved in it. And as an adjunct to, again,
    the Secretary's answer, we are branching out, as it pertains to
    our equipment, to try to accomplish better sets of gear through
    advanced technology. And I'll give you two or three examples.
        We have endeavored to find a helmet, since I've been the
    Commandant, that will stop 7.62 caliber rounds, which is the
    enemy's primary rifle bullet. We're close, but we're not there
    yet. And yet, it is, in many regards, my number one procurement
    priority. It's simply a matter of technology and industry being
    able to put the polymers together, we think, and make it work.
        Now, to your point on protection in vests. We have, now,
    what we call ``small arms protective insert (SAPI) plates.''
    There's an enhanced SAPI plate, and there's even an X-SAPI out
    there that will stop, supposedly, Chinese ceramic bullets.
    Well, sir, I've never seen a Chinese ceramic bullet, and we're
    not willing to forego the weight that that extra plate would
    create. So, we're looking for lightweight kinds of
    technological advancement that will, ideally, be flexible and
    give us the same level of protection that we have today in
    these fairly heavy and very rigid plates.
        Another area is the joint light tactical vehicle. It was
    going to be light because it was going to have new age armor,
    as opposed to plated steel. And yet, again, for all of the
    expense and resources that we apply against it, industry tells
    us that we're probably still 5 years away from that type of
    development.
        So, sir, we're pushing hard for those things that we think
    will enhance the force, but in some ways, the science is just
    not there.
        Senator Cochran. Well, we don't want to drop the ball here
    on this side of the table, either. If we need additional
    funding or some priority readjustments, we hope you'll
    communicate that with us in the appropriate way.
        General Conway. Thank you, sir.

                        SHIP COUNT/MISSION REQUIREMENTS

        Senator Cochran. Admiral Roughead, you had experienced that
    on the Mississippi gulf coast, I know, when you were commanding
    officer of a ship that was built at Ingalls, when we first got
    to meet you, and we appreciate your distinguished service as
    Chief of Naval Operations.
        Now, what is the status of the readiness of our ship -- the
    obligations and needs of our Navy vessels? Do we have enough
    ships? Is our construction schedule sufficient to enable us to
    carry out our responsibilities around the world?
        Admiral Roughead. Thank you, Senator.
        And I would say that, until we get to the floor of 313
    ships, we're going to be pressing the fleet that we have today
    pretty hard, as we currently are doing. But, the shipbuilding
    program that we have presented to this subcommittee puts us on
    that proper trajectory.
        I would say that there are two elements in there that are
    key to the future. One is the restart of the DDG 51 class
    destroyer. That allows us to address the ballistic missile
    threats that are proliferating around the world, as well as the
    more advanced cruise missiles. The restart of that class of
    ship gives us the capabilities we need, and then it allows us
    to backfit that rather large class. So, now we have the
    capacity that is so very important, and then--and we have the
    capability that's there.
        The other element that's going to be extremely important is
    that we get to a good, quick, clean down-select, so that we can
    begin to produce littoral combat ships in the numbers that we
    need to meet the obligations that we have around the world.
    That ship, whatever design it may be, is going to be a
    workhorse for us, and it will generate the numbers that we
    need.
        I'm also very pleased that this year's budget starts the
    production of two Virginia class submarines a year. Submarines
    remain in great demand. Submarines are a capability that gives
    us a cutting edge in naval warfare, and the Virginia class
    submarine that we're building now is an extraordinary
    submarine.
        But, I would also say there's something more that gets to
    force structure, and that is our operation and maintenance
    account. It's all very interesting to look at how many ships
    we're buying and building a year, but if we do not maintain the
    fleet that we have today, then those numbers will be
    disappearing from the books faster than we expected, and our
    fleet size will begin to drop off. And that's why it's
    important that we properly fund the fleet that we have today,
    with our operation and maintenance accounts.
        I'm a fleet sailor, and I have paid a great deal of
    attention, since becoming the CNO on what does it cost to
    maintain the fleet that we have today, to get the life we need,
    to get the readiness that we need, and not put work on the
    backs of our sailors because we're not properly funding
    shipyard maintenance. And so, this year's budget has a
    significant increase in it. That increase is the cost that we
    need to maintain the fleet that we have today. And that is
    something that I ask for your strong support in, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Well, thank you very much for your
    leadership and your response to our questions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Bond.

                                    AVIATION

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I applaud your statement about demanding on-
    time, on-budget acquisition, that you would terminate a program
    that was substandard or with a cost escalation, much as I said
    in my opening statement, quoting the Secretary of Defense. I
    trust that you either watch or read the transcript of the F-35
    hearing held last Thursday. Stated many times by witnesses
    that, best-case scenario, ``if everything goes perfect,'' the
    Navy's JSF will be in initial operating capability, IOC, in
    2016. It was also stated that the Navy Strike Fighter shortfall
    of 100 is no longer accurate, since the JSF restructuring plan.
    And as far as budget--cost escalation, I believe an accurate
    cost accounting would show that the JSF not only has breached
    the initial threshold of Nunn-McCurdy, but will have gone past
    it. If it hasn't, it will be soon. When you're taking
    production dollars to go into continued testing, something is
    very wrong. And knowing these facts, do you think the Navy need
    only purchase F/A-18s on a year-by-year, case-by-case basis, or
    would it better to enter into a multiyear contract which would
    save hundreds of millions of dollars for American taxpayers?
        Mr. Mabus. Thank you, Senator.
        Because of the--what Congress has provided to the Navy in
    fiscal year 2010, in terms of F/A-18s, both E, Fs, and Gs, and
    our budget request, which, counting fiscal year 2010, is for
    124 F/A-18 E, F, and Gs, we received, the last week of
    February, a proposal from the contractor for a multiyear
    procurement. Congress had allowed us to look at a multiyear
    procurement on the F/A-18. That proposal, on its face, met the
    10-percent savings requirement for a multiyear, but it is,
    right now, in--looking at the details to make sure that the
    requirements are met, it's with the Cost Analysis and Program
    Evaluation Office in DOD. Assuming that those thresholds for a
    multiyear procurement are met, we would be very eager to enter
    into a multiyear, and we'll be coming back to Congress to ask
    for permission to do that, assuming those thresholds are met.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        I think the only requirement that Congress would put on you
    is substantial savings. I don't know--I believe that 10 percent
    is a figure that the Defense Department has come up with; I
    don't think it is a statutory requirement. But, in any event,
    so long as you would see a substantial savings, I would think
    it would be a good investment.
        Admiral, given the conditions of last year and the TACAIR
    shortfall, if you don't continue, with major purchases of the
    F/A-18s, to address the shortfall, what will the shortfall for
    the Navy's carriers be by about 2015 or some period along in
    there? Do you have that information?
        Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. We're still looking at the
    shortfall of being in that area, around 100. And the reason I
    say that is that, even though we have slipped the JSF in what
    appears to be a calendar slip of 2 years--2014 to 2016--it
    really looks to be about 13 months, because we're going from
    December 2014 to January 2016. That still allows us to deploy
    the Joint Strike Fighter in 2016, as we planned. It deploys
    first on one of our Pacific Fleet carriers. But, we're
    continuing to look at the Joint Strike Fighter production.
        We, in the Navy, have somewhat of an advantage, because
    we're the third service in line to get it. So, a lot of the
    testing that will go forward early on Joint Strike Fighter,
    we'll be benefiting from that. And we're looking at getting the
    IOC in January 2016.
        Senator Bond. It's interesting you say that, because last
    year at Souda Bay, I talked with a master chief petty officer
    who was very familiar with it, and he thought that the JSF will
    never operate off of a carrier, because of the backblast and a
    lack of operating--of area to service the airplane. So, I think
    the testing is continuing, but I think there's a final question
    of whether it will work on shipboard.
        Now, I know that there's been a proposal for service-life
    extension. And are you considering that? I gather it will add
    only about 1,400 hours to an older Hornet, which is at $26--
    $18--$12 to $26 million, it would be about one-half of a Super
    Hornet. If you're considering a service life extension program
    (SLEP), isn't a purchase of a new aircraft a better option,
    better bargain for the taxpayers?
        Admiral Roughead. Senator, if I could just touch on the--
    comment on the Joint Strike Fighter on the carrier. Our
    carrier--the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is
    compatible with carrier operations. I think the chief may have
    been talking about the short takeoff and landing aircraft. But,
    our carrier variant is compatible. We may have to make some
    adjustments to the jet-blast deflector that we use in the
    launch of the airplane, but it's compatible.
        With regard to the Service Life Extension Program, as we go
    into the 2012 budget, we're going to be taking a very, very
    close look at the--managing the strike fighters that we have.
    SLEP is where I'm going to be looking, because I can generate
    more strike fighters at less cost for a period of time to do
    that. And that's something that we're going to be getting into
    in the 2012 budget.
        Senator Bond. Well, we appreciate that you're looking at
    that.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record, a
    letter I have written to the Secretary of Defense today which
    addresses these issues that I have raised.
        And I thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. So ordered.
        Senator Bond. Thank our witnesses very much.
        [The information follows:]
                                                        March 17, 2010.
    The Honorable Robert M. Gates,
    Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon,
    Washington, D.C. 20301-1000.
        Dear Mr. Secretary: On February 26, 2010, the Department of Defense
    (DOD) wrote to the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee its
    intentions to explore a multi-year procurement agreement for the
    purchase of F/A-18 series aircraft for fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
    I applaud the Department of the Navy for considering a multi-year
    procurement, a prudent move that would prevent the Navy from having
    empty carrier decks, save hundreds of millions in valuable taxpayer
    dollars, and maintain the strength of the United States defense
    industrial base.
        As you know, the F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets are the backbone
    of the carrier-based strike fighter aviation fleet. These aircraft are
    providing support for our warfighters through close air support
    missions to ground forces with an unmatched deterrent capability. The
    F/A-18 aircraft continues to be the Navy's only strike fighter with
    advanced air-to-ground and air-to-air operational capability. The
    continued procurement of these aircraft is necessary to continue the
    Navy's warfighting operations.
        The majority of the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft have been
    purchased under two, multi-year procurements this past decade. With
    significant savings achieved from long-lead production and higher
    procurement rates, these agreements saved hundreds of millions of
    taxpayer dollars compared to more costly single-year procurements. The
    Navy's own estimate stated that the multi-year procurements from fiscal
    year 2000 through fiscal year 2009 resulted in over $1.8 billion in
    savings. A third multi-year procurement agreement could save hundreds
    of millions more in taxpayer dollars, all of which could be applied to
    other pressing defense requirements.
        A third multi-year procurement for the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft
    also would ensure that the defense industrial base for tactical
    aviation is maintained through at least fiscal year 2013. In order for
    the United States military to maintain its current air dominance, the
    skills and experience of the aviation manufacturing sector must be
    protected for as long as possible into the future rather than
    curtailed.
        I strongly urge that you and the Department of the Navy take
    aggressive steps to enter into a multi-year procurement for the F/A-18
    Super Hornet aircraft. I stand ready to assist you in that effort.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Christopher S. Bond.

        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP

        Mr. Secretary, I'm going to get into the littoral combat
    ship that the Admiral alluded to. A lot of us are concerned,
    Mr. Secretary, that the pending request for proposal for the
    next 10 littoral combat ships does not appear to take
    capability and lifecycle costs into consideration. The upfront
    acquisition price of the LCS, I believe, must be balanced
    against total ownership expenditures, and neglecting to
    evaluate these criteria may result in an inaccurate picture of
    the total costs associated with each ship.
        I'm concerned, Mr. Secretary, about fuel efficiency, which
    is a big cost--you mentioned this earlier, over in the Armed
    Services Committee--being a critical factor of competitive cost
    evaluation. The two LCS designs are dramatically different in
    this respect, as you well know.
        Now, it's my understanding--if the request for proposal is
    not amended, it would appear that the acquisition would go
    forward in a direct contradiction to the statement that you
    made before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 25
    that said, and I'll quote your words, ``I have also committed
    the Navy and Marine Corps to consider energy as a mandatory
    evaluation factor in contracting.'' I'd like to see the request
    for proposal (RFP) amended, if it needs to be, to include an
    evaluation factor that provides for the consideration, as you
    mentioned, of energy consumption costs in the valuation and the
    source selection decision.
        As my letter to you on March 12 of this year stated, I've
    asked the Congressional Budget Office to review and to address
    the total lifecycle costs of the LCS Program. We haven't gotten
    a response yet. Would you consider extending the April 12
    submission date, considering your statement to the Armed
    Services Committee and our request to the Congressional Budget
    Office regarding this? Because, what we want is the best vessel
    for the Navy. Isn't that right? And you have to consider all
    costs.
        Mr. Mabus. Thank you, Senator. Yes, sir, in terms of total
    ownership cost, the entire LCS was designed with that in mind.
    And we believe that the current RFP addresses the need for the
    Navy to get the best ship possible. Either variant, either LCS
    1 or LCS 2, meets all the requirements that the Navy has, in
    terms of operation. And in terms of total ownership cost, if
    you look at everything, from the manning of the vessel, which,
    as you know, is about 40 sailors for the core crew, and the
    other things that go into total ownership cost, if you look
    also at the way these ships are to be used--at the profile the
    speeds that they will be used at while they're at sea--where
    the fuel savings diverge is only at the very upper end of the
    speed of these ships.
        Senator Shelby. But, that could be a lot of money, could it
    not?
        Mr. Mabus. Well, the profile that we've developed for these
    ships is that they would be used very infrequently at such high
    speeds. And so, I think that the current RFP, which stresses
    the cost to purchase the ship so that we can get enough of
    these ships--and both variants, we believe, meet every
    requirement that we have, not only operationally, but also in
    terms of lifecycle costs, going forward.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, where, in the request for
    proposal for the year 2010 LCS procurement, does the Navy
    consider the fuel differential in dollars between the two
    competing designs over the expected life of the program? Can
    you furnish this to me and for the subcommittee?
        Mr. Mabus. I'll be happy to furnish you the technical
    aspects of that RFP.
        [The information follows:]

        The request for proposal (RFP) for the littoral combat ship
    (LCS) fiscal year 2010 block buy procurement does not
    specifically consider the fuel differential in dollars between
    the two competing designs.
        The RFP includes an evaluation factor under the technical/
    management category for Life Cycle Cost Reduction Initiatives.
    Since the inception of the LCS program, the Navy has focused on
    reducing both acquisition cost and life cycle cost in LCS class
    ships. In this regard, lifecycle cost considerations are
    emphasized in both designs through the Navy's requirements for
    reduced manning, open architecture and missing package
    modularity that have been key design parameters since the
    inception of the program. Total Ownership considers research
    and development costs, investment costs, disposal costs, and
    operating and support costs including maintenance, manning,
    training, fuel, and infrastructure support. Fuel costs are an
    important contributor to the estimated life cycle cost for each
    ship design, but are also highly dependent on the speed-time
    profile assumed for the LCS mission.

        Senator Shelby. That would be very interesting to get,
    because we're interested in the total lifecycle cost. And you
    stand by your words, do you not, before the Armed Services
    Committee?
        Mr. Mabus. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Mr. Mabus. And not only total lifecycle cost, in terms of
    manufacturing, but also what energy requirements the shipyards
    themselves use. That was the import of my words----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Mr. Mabus [continuing]. Before the Armed Services
    Committee.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Kohl.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary and Admiral Roughead and General Conway, we
    thank you all for being here today.
        I'd like to congratulate the Navy on the successes the
    Marinette-built littoral combat ship, U.S.S. Freedom, has had
    in the Caribbean. It's already making a great contribution to
    the war on drugs, and you should be very proud; I know
    everybody in Wisconsin is.
        Just to review the previous questioning, Mr. Secretary,
    there are a lot of concerns being raised about the total
    ownership costs of the two competing LCS designs. And that, of
    course, is a fair thing to do, because we all want taxpayer
    dollars to be spent wisely. But, aren't long-term costs already
    a part of the criteria that you will be using to evaluate these
    designs, which does include fuel consumption? I think you
    responded to the previous question that way.
        Mr. Mabus. Yes, sir, that's correct.
        Senator Kohl. As far as fuel efficiency goes, don't you now
    have real data on the first LCS, Freedom, and its fuel
    consumption, not just estimates? Is the ship's fuel consumption
    about what you expected?
        Mr. Mabus. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, one of the concerns, as well,
    has been the experimental nature of the Austal ship design and
    use of aluminum as a building material. Aluminum is not
    traditional for Navy ships; it wears differently, and it melts,
    as we know, at lower temperatures. Compared to steel
    construction, how much experience does the Navy have estimating
    the maintenance costs, over decades, of aluminum ships? How
    much experience do you have evaluating the maintenance
    requirements Trimaran vessels?
        Mr. Mabus. In terms of aluminum, Senator, other ship types
    have been made out of aluminum for many years now. And looking
    at other ships that have been made this way, we have been able,
    we think, to look at what that will--what sort of maintenance
    will be required over time. And it's because of things like
    that that we think that either variant of these--of the LCS
    will meet all our requirements, both in terms, as I said, of
    operations and in terms of lifecycle costs and maintenance, as
    we go forward. We don't foresee any significant issues for
    either variant.
        And as the CNO said, and I want to echo this, it's crucial
    to us to get the cost of these ships down so that we can buy
    the numbers that we need. We, over the 30-year shipbuilding
    plan, propose to buy 55 of these. They have become one of the
    backbones of the fleet. And we're taking this exceptionally
    seriously, and we will pick the best ship for the Navy today
    and the Navy of the future.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you.
        Aren't aluminum ships, Mr. Secretary, more expensive to
    fix, in part because not all shipyards have welders, or enough
    welders, trained to work on aluminum?
        Mr. Mabus. My understanding, Senator, is that welding for
    aluminum and welding for steel are very similar, and that the
    training required to do aluminum could be done in a normal
    course of events.
        Senator Kohl. Finally, I'd like to say, in closing, that
    this is an argument, as we know, about cost, but one of these
    ships, because of its radical design and nontraditional
    material, I believe, makes it riskier and harder to determine
    the long-term costs. It seems, in a very real sense, that we're
    comparing apples and oranges.
        But, I thank you for your testimony. I thank you for your
    frankness and your interest and your concern in making the
    correct decision.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mabus. Thank you, Senator.

                              WOMEN ON SUBMARINES

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        I have one further question.
        I participated in an ancient war many years ago, and in
    that war, the women I saw were nurses, far away from the combat
    zone. But, today we have women in all branches, in all areas,
    and I commend the Department of Defense for that decision.
    However, recently, I've been receiving e-mail and letters on
    the decision to assign women on submarines. May I have your
    thoughts on that, sir? Admiral?
        Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. I believe that the initiative
    that we have put forth, and have made notification to the
    Congress, that it's our intent to incorporate women into our
    submarine force, is exactly the right thing to do. The young
    women who serve in the Navy today are absolutely extraordinary.
    There is great interest among the young women who serve, in
    joining our submarine force.
        In fact, just this past weekend, I was at a function, and a
    young woman came up and thanked the leadership for moving
    forward, and that she was putting in her papers to join.
        We have a very good plan to incorporate women into our
    submarine force, starting with our ballistic missile submarines
    and our guided missile submarines, the SSBNs and the SSGNs. The
    young women will begin in the officer ranks, attend nuclear
    power school, submarine school, and the plan has the first
    women coming aboard in 2011.
        The skill, the competence, the drive, the focus, and the
    dedication of the young women who serve today, I believe that
    this will enhance the capabilities of the force, and I look
    forward to being able to have this implemented before the end
    of 2011.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, and I congratulate
    you on your decision.
        Admiral Roughead. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Any further questions?

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If not, Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, General Conway,
    the subcommittee thanks you for your testimony today, and we
    thank you for your service to our country. And if we may,
    through you, thank the men and women in uniform who are willing
    to stand in harm's way in behalf of us.
        Thank you very much.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                     Questions Submitted to Hon. Ray Mabus
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. This year, the Navy began a major development effort on a
    new ballistic missile submarine to replace the aging Ohio-class. Nearly
    $6 billion is committed to designing the submarine over the next 5
    years, and the cost of each submarine is expected to be $7 billion.
        Secretary Mabus, the Navy's 30 Year Shipbuilding Plan projects an
    average of $15.9 billion in shipbuilding costs over the next three
    decades. What steps are being taken to insure that the new ballistic
    missile submarine will be affordable?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2011 funding continues the major U.S.
    investment in the Ohio-class replacement submarine started in fiscal
    year 2010. The key to an affordable future sea-based strategic
    deterrence fleet is the proper level of investment now in early design
    work and up-front critical research and development.
        Current efforts leverage a United Kingdom (U.K.) investment of $288
    million (fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 2010), and synchronize with the
    U.K. efforts to develop a Common Missile Compartment (CMC). Cooperation
    with the U.K. mitigates technical risk and contributes to reducing
    acquisition cost.
        The Ohio Replacement Program will also leverage design and
    construction lessons learned and ongoing cost reduction initiatives
    from the Virginia Class Submarine Program.
        The Navy is managing the shipbuilding portfolio as a business unit
    and is looking for ways to better leverage its buying power, such as:
      --Leverage cost savings and value creation on basis of broader
            business arrangements across contracts and shipyards.
      --Evaluate each ship class and identify cost reduction opportunities
            while balancing warfighting requirements, costs, and industrial
            base realities.
      --Incorporate open architecture for hardware and software systems and
            increase the use of systems modularity.
      --Emphasize repeat builds of ships, commonality, cross-program buys,
            and design re-use to drive down costs.
      --Use contract incentives, such as multi-year procurements, fixed
            price contracts, and other mechanisms to increase competition
            at the vendor level.
        Question. Secretary Mabus, as you know, the Subcommittee has
    supported the Navy's decision to end procurement of the DDG 1000
    program and restart the DDG 51 program. I understand that in addition
    to restarting the DDG 51 program, the Navy now proposes to terminate
    the next generation cruiser in order to build an improved version of
    the DDG 51, the so-called Flight III.
        What are the industrial-base consequences of canceling the cruiser
    and instead building improved DDG-51's?
        Answer. The President's budget for fiscal year 2011 includes eight
    DDG 51 class ships, to be procured between 2011 and 2015. This
    shipbuilding plan, combined with the continued technology development
    of the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), offsets the industrial
    base consequences of canceling the next generation cruiser CG(X) and
    ensures stability for the industrial base in procuring future Navy
    surface combatants. CG(X) was envisioned to fulfill a critical role in
    Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD). However, due to the ship's
    projected high cost and the immaturity of its combat systems technology
    and still evolving joint Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) architecture,
    the Navy determined that it is not feasible to continue to pursue a
    new-design CG(X) procurement program at this time. The increased
    demands for additional capability and capacity in IAMD make it critical
    to pursue the technology development and combat system design for
    application on a future combatant.
        Question. Secretary Mabus, you listed alternative energy as one of
    your top priorities upon taking office. This Committee has added more
    than $54 million over the past 3 years to Navy alternative energy
    initiatives and similar amounts to the other Services as well. This
    does not even begin to count the many dozens of alternative energy and
    energy efficiency earmarks the Congress has approved in the same
    period, or the substantial amounts of alternative energy funding
    contained in the stimulus bill.
        Could you please describe to the Committee your top energy
    initiatives, and how the fiscal year 2011 budget supports your plan?
        Answer. In October 2009, I established five energy goals within the
    Department of Navy (DON) that would aggressively reduce the amount of
    foreign oil consumed by DON:
      --1. Acquisition Process Reform.--Evaluation factors when awarding
            contracts for platforms, weapons systems, and facilities will
            include lifecycle energy costs, fully-burdened cost of fuel,
            and contractors' energy footprint;
      --2. Sail the ``Great Green Fleet''.--Demonstrate a Green Strike
            Group in local operations by 2012 and sail it in 2016. The
            Strike Group will be made up of nuclear vessels, surface
            combatant ships using biofuels and hybrid electric propulsion
            systems, and aircraft flying on biofuels;
      --3. Reduce Petroleum Use in Non-Tactical Vehicles.--By 2015, reduce
            petroleum use by 50 percent in commercial fleet through use of
            flex fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and neighborhood
            electric vehicles;
      --4. Increase Alternative Energy use Ashore.--By 2020, produce at
            least 50 percent of shore-based requirements from alternative
            resources and 50 percent of all Naval installations will be Net
            Zero energy consumers;
      --5. Increase Alternative Energy Use Department Wide.--By 2020, 50
            percent of total energy consumption will come from alternative
            resources.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes an
    additional $174 million to support these goals. The following describes
    this investment in detail:
    Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation--$40.9 million
        $7 million supports the Naval variable cycle engine technology
    program, which is focused on optimizing aviation engine performance at
    all operational conditions. This energy efficiency effort supports
    goals 2 and 5.
        $13.6 million for the Hybrid Electric Drive. The operating
    efficiency/fuel savings for DDG 51 class ships will be achieved by
    employing fewer gas turbines for propulsion and ship service power
    generation while also loading gas turbines to their optimal operating
    condition. The Hybrid Electric Drive supports goal 2.
        $20.3 million will fund various energy conservation programs in
    support of goals 2 and 5:
        --$1 million to establish an Incentivized-Energy Conservation (I-
                ENCON) for aviation programs.
        --$1.2 million to support a fleet scheduler plan in the Naval Ship
                Incentivized-Energy Conservation (I-ENCON).
        --$8 million to enhance F414 Engine Efficiency.
        --$3 million supports Aircraft Energy Efficiency Conservation R&D,
                including:
          -- T-56 turbine, compressor, and inlet housing upgrades;
          -- Development and testing of F/A-18 E/F flight management
                system.
        --$2 million supports the F/A-18 Bring Back Weight initiative to
                certify F/A-18E/F & E/A-18G aircraft structures to increase
                carrier bring back weight.
        --$2.9 million supports high energy efficient HVAC systems.
        --$2.2 million supports improvements to the LCAC hovercraft.
        In addition to the $40.9 million outlined above, the Office of
    Naval Research will invest $136 million in fiscal year 2011 for power
    and energy programs that directly and indirectly support my energy
    initiatives, including a PB 2011 energy initiative focused primarily on
    alternative energy and biofuels. This investment will support goals 2,
    3, 4, and 5.
    Procurement--$4.2 million
        $2.1 million for Navy variant Environmental Control Units (ECUs) to
    provide improved generator capabilities (to reduce log tail in
    theater).
        $2.1 million for Onboard Vehicle Power capability to use vehicles'
    internal combustion engine to provide power for communication and
    auxiliary systems, situational awareness devices, environmental
    control, and other electric powered accessories.
        These efforts support goals 3 and 5.
    Operation and Maintenance--$96 million
        Will fund advanced metering efforts, facilities energy efficiency
    upgrades, and continue energy audits, all in support of goals 4 and 5.
    National Defense Sealift Fund--$3.3 million
        Includes Military Sealift Command's initiatives to include Energy
    Audits and evaluation of other technology currently being used by the
    shipping industry to more efficiently plan routes, monitor energy
    usage, realize cost savings for fuel burned reaching ships in theater.
    These efforts support goals 2, 4, and 5.
    Military Construction--$30 million
        Three $10 million solar arrays will be constructed at MCRD San
    Diego, California; MCB Camp Pendleton, California; and MCB Camp
    Lejeune, North Carolina. These projects support goals 4 and 5.
        Question. Secretary Mabus, are there enough engineers and tradesmen
    trained in ``green collar jobs'' to support your goals for increasing
    energy efficiency and research into alternative power sources?
        Answer. Yes, I do believe there will be enough engineers and
    tradesmen trained in ``green collar jobs'' to support the ambitious
    goals I have announced within the Department of the Navy. Our Navy
    engineers and architects have years of experience incorporating
    sustainable principles such as the Leadership in Energy and
    Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. As this new
    economy emerges, the Department of Labor is providing over $500 million
    in grants, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    initiative, to fund workforce development projects that promote
    economic growth by preparing workers for careers in the energy
    efficiency and renewable energy industries. Additionally at the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, a new program called Veterans Green
    Jobs (VGJ) is teaching returning veterans to become leaders in creating
    a more secure and sustainable future for the United States.
        All across the United States universities, community colleges, and
    vocational technical institutions, are developing curriculum to address
    this new and exciting field. This emphasis on Green Collar Jobs is
    being embraced in both the public and private sector. Businesses see an
    improvement in their bottom line, through energy cost savings and by
    going green, which causes a ripple effect throughout the supply system.
    By working together, and with the Department of the Navy taking the
    lead, the United States will move away from dependence on fossil fuels
    and move toward a more secure energy future.
        Question. Secretary Mabus, last year the Congress approved multi-
    year procurement authority for the F/A-18 aircraft. What is Navy doing
    to follow up on that course of action?
        Answer. The Navy is actively working with the prime contractor and
    OSD to determine if sufficient savings are available through a multi-
    year acquisition contract.
        As described in the February 26, 2010, letter from Deputy Secretary
    of Defense to the committees, within the last few months, the
    Department's procurement profile for the F/A-18 increased by 35
    aircraft and extended the final year of procurement from 2012 to 2013.
    The prime contractor provided a viable offer committing to a multi-year
    procurement on February 22, 2010. The Director, Cost Analysis and
    Program Evaluation (CAPE), is currently conducting a cost analysis of
    the potential savings of a multi-year versus single year procurement,
    as required by statute.
        If sufficient savings are identified, the Secretary of the Defense
    will certify to Congress the amount of savings and notify Congress of
    its intent to enter into a multi-year procurement (MYP). In addition,
    Navy is working with the committee staffs for legislative relief to
    fiscal year 2010 MYP language in National Defense Authorization Act and
    Defense Appropriations Bills.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Secretary Mabus, there has been some advocacy for
    additional funding outside the normal shipbuilding budget to fund a new
    ballistic missile submarine fleet. If the Navy does not receive
    additional funding for the project in the coming years, do you foresee
    the $80 billion or more cost of the program forcing big shipbuilding
    cuts and triggering industry consolidations?
        Answer. Recapitalizing the SSBN force with funding from the SCN
    core budget will impact the Navy shipbuilding programs (fiscal year
    2019-fiscal year 2033). In total, the Department of the Navy's annual
    SCN and NDSF budgets average approximately $15.9 billion per year
    (fiscal year 2010 dollars) throughout the period of the fiscal year
    2011 Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels.
        Because of the expected costs for these important national assets,
    annual SCN budgets during the mid-term planning period (fiscal year
    2021-fiscal year 2030) will average about $17.9 billion (fiscal year
    2010 dollars) per year, or about $2 billion more than the steady-state
    30-year average. Even at this funding level, the total number of ships
    built per year will inevitably fall because of the percentage of the
    shipbuilding account which must be allocated for the procurement of the
    SSBN.
        As a result of the limited shipbuilding and the rapid retirement of
    ships built in the 1980s, after peaking at 320 ships in fiscal year
    2024, the overall size of the battle force is forecast to gradually
    fall, reaching 288 ships in fiscal year 2032.
        In the far-term planning period (fiscal year 2031-fiscal year
    2040), average SCN budgets return to about $15.3 billion (fiscal year
    2010 dollars) average per year. After the final order for Ohio class
    replacement in fiscal year 2033, the average inventory per year begins
    to rebound from a low of 288 ships in fiscal year 2032 to 301 ships in
    fiscal year 2040.
        The need to fund SSBN recapitalization will result in some risk to
    the Navy's shipbuilding plan. Given the expected challenges of the mid
    and far term periods, significant consideration must be given to
    ascertain the way ahead for the Navy. DON will have to consider
    operational demands that could change force structure requirements as
    well as inherent technology requirements of future platforms and the
    effect they have on platform cost. Additionally, we will need to
    complete an analysis of force structure requirements over the next
    decade as we get a better understanding of what threats and obstacles
    lie in front of us to determine what the complexion of the 2040 force
    ought to look like and the efficacy of the planned force in meeting
    those challenges.
        The Navy recognizes that stabilizing ship procurement to help
    sustain minimum employment levels and skill retention promotes a
    healthy U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
        The Navy also recognizes that building the required force structure
    will largely depend on controlling shipbuilding costs (including combat
    systems) within an affordable range. The Navy is committed to
    maintaining stability in requirements, funding and profiles in an
    effort to control costs. This will require the combined efforts of the
    Navy and the shipbuilding and combat systems industries. Working in
    conjunction with Congress, the Navy will procure and sustain the force
    structure necessary to deliver the capabilities required of United
    States naval forces.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted to Admiral Gary Roughead
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. Admiral Roughead, in December, the Congressional Research
    Service reported that the Department of the Navy will have a shortfall
    of 243 strike fighters in 2018. The Navy today is projecting a
    shortfall of about 100 aircraft toward the end of the decade. That 100-
    aircraft shortfall assessment was made prior to the recent grounding of
    104 F/A-18s due to structural cracks. Could you address the steps that
    the Navy is taking to reduce the shortfall and the risks associated
    with that plan?
        Answer. The Navy is today projecting a shortfall of about 100
    strike fighters in the 2018 timeframe. Anticipating a shortfall, the
    DON continues to identify further opportunities to reduce its impact.
    The strike fighter shortfall can be mitigated through the application
    of the near and long term management actions. Examples are--the Marine
    Corps modifying it's F-35 transition plan by transitioning some Hornet
    squadrons earlier and leveraging the service life remaining in the AV-
    8B fleet, the Navy accelerating the transition of five legacy F/A-18C
    squadrons to F/A-18 E/F and transitioning two additional F/A-18C
    squadrons to F/A-18E/F using the remaining attrition F/A-18E/F reserve
    aircraft, and reducing the Navy Unit Deployment Program (UDP) and USMC
    Expeditionary F/A-18A+/C/D squadrons from 12 to 10 aircraft per
    squadron. Although global demand may challenge implementation of some
    of these actions in the near term, changes in the operational
    environment in the future may allow additional flexibility in their
    implementation. As we go forward, we are considering all options to
    manage our inventory and balance risk, including SLEP to some number of
    F/A-18 (A-D) aircraft to extend their service life to 10,000 flight
    hours and optimizing depot efficiencies. SLEP analysis continues and
    will be addressed in the fiscal year 12 budget process.
        The Department of the Navy continues to rigorously manage the
    service life and warfighting effectiveness of each of our legacy
    Hornets, Harriers, and Super Hornets to ensure the maximum contribution
    to the nation's security for the taxpayer dollars invested.
        Question. This year, the Navy began a major development effort on a
    new ballistic missile submarine to replace the aging Ohio-class. Nearly
    $6 billion is committed to designing the submarine over the next 5
    years, and the cost of each submarine is expected to be $7 billion.
        Admiral Roughead, the Navy is working with Strategic Command to
    refine key decisions about SSBN-X. What have we learned about the
    needed capabilities of the submarine as a result of those reviews?
        Answer. The Ohio replacement will be a strategic, national asset
    whose endurance and stealth will enable the Navy and Nation to provide
    continuous, survivable strategic deterrence into the 2080s. Our Initial
    Capabilities Document (ICD) for our Ohio replacement identified several
    key attributes the submarine must have, including improved stealth,
    survivability, reliability, endurance, tailorability, and adaptability.
    To ensure there is no gap in our future strategic deterrent capability,
    the design process for the Ohio replacement started in fiscal year 2010
    to ensure sufficiently developed technologies and a mature design are
    in place to support lead ship authorization in fiscal year 2019.
        Question. Admiral Roughead, the Navy has historically assumed some
    risk in ship depot maintenance, while balancing resources and
    requirements across the Department's readiness portfolio. For the past
    8 years, the Navy has requested an average of 96 percent of the
    projected ship depot maintenance costs in any given year. However, in
    fiscal year 2011, the request level has jumped to 99 percent.
    Considering the limited resources available in all readiness accounts,
    please explain the Navy's decision to make ship depot maintenance a
    priority in fiscal year 2011, and whether the Navy will continue to
    fund it at the higher level in the future.
        Answer. Continued investment in depot level maintenance is
    essential in achieving and sustaining the force structure required to
    meet our global security interests. Our ships are capital assets that
    operate in challenging physical and security environments. Almost
    three-quarters of our current Fleet will still be in service in 2020.
    As a result of increased technical assessment, we have raised the
    priority of ship's depot maintenance, keeping the Fleet in satisfactory
    operating condition to preserve our ability to accomplish assigned
    missions and for the ships and aircraft to reach expected service
    lives.
        In May 2009, Navy established the Surface Ship Life Cycle
    Maintenance (SSLCM) Activity to provide timely depot-level maintenance
    determined by an engineered assessment of expected material durability
    and scoped by actual, not estimated, physical condition. The SSLCM
    Activity's engineering assessments of maintenance requirements for DDG
    51 and LSD 41/49 provided the technical foundation for our decision to
    increase maintenance funding in our fiscal year 2011 budget request.
    The SSLCM Activity is in the process of completing engineering
    assessment of maintenance requirements for the remainder of surface
    ship classes in the near term.
        Question. Admiral Roughead, what kind of actions is the Navy
    undertaking to reduce the reliance on supplemental funding for ship and
    aircraft depot maintenance?
        Answer. The Navy is currently engaged with the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE)
    to assess Navy's base and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding
    needs as they relate to future requirements. Findings from this effort
    will serve as the basis for establishing a more refined apportionment
    between baseline and OCO funding requests for ship and aircraft depot
    maintenance.
        Question. Admiral Roughead, as you know, the Subcommittee has
    supported the Navy's decision to end procurement of the DDG 1000
    program and restart the DDG 51 program. I understand that in addition
    to restarting the DDG 51 program, the Navy now proposes to terminate
    the next generation cruiser in order to build an improved version of
    the DDG 51, the so-called Flight III.
        Could you give us an update on the status of the DDG 51 restart,
    explain why building an improved version of the DDG 51 is an adequate
    substitute for the cruiser, and why it is the right ship for the fleet
    in the future?
        Answer. We are well underway with restarting DDG 51 production and
    the restart is on schedule and on budget. A total of nine DDG 51
    restart hulls will be procured from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal
    year 2015, alternating between one per year and two per year beginning
    in fiscal year 2010. Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests funding for
    the construction of two ships: DDG 114 and 115. We are also in the
    process of conducting a full and open competition for the Main
    Reduction Gears (MRG) to be installed on DDG 113 and follow on ships.
    Source selection is in progress, and the contract award is projected
    for Spring 2010. The MRGs are being procured using a firm, fixed-price
    contract and will be provided to the shipbuilders as Government
    Furnished Equipment.
        Our DDG 51 restart ships (Flight IIA) will be the first constructed
    with Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD), providing much-needed
    Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capacity to the Fleet, and they will
    incorporate the hull, mechanical, and electrical alterations associated
    with our mature DDG modernization program. We will spiral DDG 51
    production to incorporate future IAMD capabilities.
        In consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Navy
    conducted a Radar/Hull Study for future surface combatants that
    analyzed the total ship system solution necessary to meet our IAMD
    requirements while balancing affordability and capacity in our surface
    Fleet. The study concluded that the most cost-effective, total-ship
    solution to Fleet air and missile defense requirements over the near-
    to mid-term is a DDG 51 hull with a new Air and Missile Defense Radar
    (AMDR), coupled to the Aegis Advanced Capability Build (ACB) combat
    system. This combination of ship, sensor, and combat system will
    provide our Fleet with the capabilities needed for future mission
    success with less risk and cost than a new start cruiser program. The
    first of these ships, designated as DDG 51 Flight IIIs, will be
    procured in fiscal year 2016.
        Question. Admiral Roughead, what are the potential operational
    impacts to the fleet of building improved DDG 51's instead of the next-
    generation cruiser?
        Answer. Restart of the DDG 51 class, and the spiraling of air and
    missile defense capabilities into the DDG 51 Flight III, will deliver
    required Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capability and
    capacity into the Fleet sooner, at a more affordable cost, and with
    less risk than pursuing a new start cruiser program at this time.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Admiral Roughead, the Navy has cancelled plans to replace
    EP-3 airborne reconnaissance aircraft. This decision raises the
    question about the replacement strategy for the Navy's Special Projects
    Aircraft. How long does the Navy intend to maintain and operate the EP-
    3 and Special Projects Aircraft, and considering the work these
    aircraft do, have you considered continued investment to improve the
    capabilities of these aircraft until a replacement airframe is
    selected?
        Answer. Navy continues to sustain the operations and maintenance of
    our EP-3 and Special Project Aircraft. We are evaluating several
    options for our future airborne SIGINT capability, including
    accelerating the Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of the Broad Area
    Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Spiral 3, which is SIGINT-equipped;
    equipping a Medium Range Ship-Based UAV with SIGINT payloads with an
    IOC in about 2016-2017; and outfitting a modest number of manned
    platforms initially with remote SIGINT sensors.
        Question. Admiral Roughead, the Navy is beginning design work on a
    new submarine to replace the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile
    submarine fleet. The cost estimate to design and build 12 submarines
    under this program is staggering, $80 billion or more. This creates a
    concern as to whether the Navy can afford these new submarines without
    curtailing or giving up other shipbuilding efforts. Under the current
    shipbuilding plan and funding profile, what is your assessment of the
    impact this costly program will have on the industrial base and overall
    ship force structure level?
        Answer. The battle force inventory presented in our 30-year
    shipbuilding plan provides the global reach, persistent presence, and
    strategic, operational, and tactical effects required of our naval
    forces within reasonable levels of funding. On balance, the force
    structure represented by our 30-year shipbuilding plan maintains our
    ability to project power across the spectrum of challenges we are
    likely to face throughout the time period of the report, albeit with
    prudent risk where appropriate. One of the plan's three basic precepts
    is the importance of maintaining an adequate national shipbuilding
    design and industrial base necessary to build and sustain tomorrow's
    Navy. The shipbuilding plan aims to maintain that base.
        The SSBN(X) procurement will begin to constrain our shipbuilding
    plan in the latter part of this decade because recapitalization of our
    SSBNs will occur at the same time our SSN 688 submarines, CG 47 class
    guided missile cruisers, DDG 51 class guided missile destroyers, and
    LSD 41/49 class dock landing ships reach end-of-service-life. During
    the years in which the new submarine is being procured, the procurement
    of other ship types will be reduced, resulting in force level and
    industrial base impacts. Even under these constraints, our shipbuilding
    plan still achieves a peak battle force inventory of 320 ships in
    fiscal year 2024 and averages about 303 ships between fiscal year 2020
    and fiscal year 2040.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted to General James T. Conway
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. General Conway, in December 2009, a key deadline passed
    without a decision by the Japanese Government regarding the realignment
    of U.S. forces on Japan and the movement of Marines to Guam. This move
    includes the closure of Futenma and the expanded land return to the
    people of Okinawa. The Government of Japan is now saying they will have
    a decision in May, but some are concerned that this decision may be
    delayed until after the July election. Can you please share with us the
    impact of further delays in a decision on the future force structure
    and the overall political relationship between Japan and the United
    States?
        Answer. It would be imprudent to alter the force laydown, to
    include moving any forces to Guam, until the Futenma issue is
    adequately resolved. The realignments of U.S. forces on Japan and the
    relocation to Guam are capabilities issues, not basing issues, and we
    have a responsibility to provide ready and able forces in support of
    the Combatant Commander. We need to look at future force laydown in the
    Pacific in total, and central to this are aviation capabilities on
    Okinawa.
        The Marine Corps requires that an aviation capability must remain
    on Okinawa to support the rest of the Marine Air Ground Task Force
    there. We currently have that capability at Futenma. If a replacement
    facility were delayed, untenable or unresolved for whatever reason, we
    would maintain our current force structure and continue to operate out
    of Futenma.
        In the context of the overall political relationship, we understand
    that the U.S.-Japan negotiated agreements were a comprehensive set of
    realignment initiatives designed to meet the strategic needs for both
    allies. We understand that the Government of Japan is taking a hard
    look at options however, we are confident that they realize the
    strategic value of having Marines on Okinawa for their own defense and
    for security in the region.
        Question. General Conway, please lay out the current plan to
    realign 8,000 Marines and their dependents to Guam. What are your
    biggest concerns with the plans?
        Answer. Based on the Agreed Implementation Plan, the units
    relocating to Guam will be the headquarters elements of the III Marine
    Expeditionary Force, including 1st Marine Air Wing, 3rd Marine
    Division, and 3rd Marine Logistics Group.
        With a move of this size and scope, there are inherent concerns. We
    must ensure that our distribution of forces in the Pacific will provide
    an enduring USMC presence in the region with ready and able forces,
    while ensuring the quality of life for our Marines and their families.
        We must balance our commitment to Japan to reduce our force
    structure in Okinawa, while ensuring that our force laydown in the
    Pacific remains responsive to the Nation's and the combatant
    commander's needs. A balanced Marine Air-Ground Task Force capability
    in the Pacific--on Okinawa, on Guam, and on Hawaii--is an essential
    ingredient in our ongoing analysis.
        We must ensure we have the right force laydown. Through the
    Quadrennial Defense Review, the Marine Corps analyzed refinements to
    the AIP that enhance operational capabilities. The AIP laydown was
    based on a 2006 force structure that had approximately 28,000 Marines
    and Sailors assigned to III MEF. Since 2006 the Marine Corps has been
    authorized to grow to 202,000 Marines With todays force structure, that
    number would be closer to 31,000. On Okinawa, the corresponding units
    under the AIP would account for nearly 11,000 Marines, exceeding the
    personnel strength provided for in the current agreement. We are
    examining alternatives that remain within the 10,000 Marine cap on
    Okinawa.
        Question. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle has been in
    development for more than a decade, and many questions have been asked
    about its ability to protect Marines from roadside bombs. If the
    program can overcome its development challenges, it has been proposed
    that after the EFV travels from the sea to take a beach, additional
    armor could be then be added to afford greater protection to its crew
    before they continue inland.
        General Conway, what is your response to those who might question
    this strategy as having to manage the tradeoffs of speed in amphibious
    operations against the protection of Marines?
        Answer. Each of the Services is organized differently to achieve
    different missions. The Navy, Army, and Air Force are organized to
    dominate their respective domains (sea, land, and air) while the Marine
    Corps--a rapid-response, general-purpose air-ground task force--
    operates across all domains. In the case of the Expeditionary Fighting
    Vehicle (EFV) and amphibious operations, a balance of speed and force
    protection is essential during movement from ship to shore, and
    subsequent movement on land. The increased range, speed, mobility, and
    firepower of the EFV generates a high degree of force protection and
    allows our forces to maintain the initiative while keeping the enemy
    off balance.
        If the situation becomes static, like in Iraq or Afghanistan, the
    application of modular armor for the EFV would offer greater force
    protection for our troops against the most likely threat. There would
    likely be some trade-off under that configuration with regards to speed
    and mobility--but the added protection brings the vehicle to MRAP-like
    survivability. Moreover, our lessons learned over the past several
    years have shown us speed is not necessarily a plus where the enemy can
    plot--then lay Improvised Explosive Devices against--movement patterns.
        In summary, we are committed to providing our Marines the best
    vehicle possible to meet all mission requirements while providing the
    greatest levels of force protection. We will do all that while acting
    as responsible stewards of the nation's precious resources.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. General Conway, when requirements for amphibious ships
    are determined and validated, is consideration given to the demand
    signal from geographic Combatant Commanders for amphibious ship
    capabilities and support. If so, could you share with the subcommittee
    what the aggregate demand from Combatant Commanders is for amphibious
    ships?
        Answer. The Department took into consideration what had been
    historically sourced in order to meet Combatant Commanders (CCDRs)
    missions when the CNO and CMC developed the requirement for amphibious
    ships. However, the primary driver for the Navy's requirement was
    Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) Assault Echelon lift, and 38 ships
    fiscally constrained to 33 ship force that supports a 2.0 MEB lift.
    Assessment of CCDR steady state demand and demand registered in the
    Global Force Management and Joint Capabilities Requirements Manager
    since fiscal year 2008 requires not less than an inventory of 50
    amphibious ships to meet the stated needs of the CCDRs.
        Aggregate CCDR demand for amphibious ships in fiscal year 2010 was
    for 4.3 ARG/MEUs and 3.8 independently deploying amphibious ships.
    Sourcing that demand, using OPNAV rotation rates, would require a force
    structure of 58 ships.
        Question. General Conway, based on current major contingency plans
    what is the requirement for amphibious ships, and how can these plans
    be conducted with the current number of amphibious ships? What is your
    personal opinion concerning the amount of risk being accepted in
    maintaining only 29 to 31 amphibious ships to support warfighting plans
    for which the Marine Corps has been tasked to be prepared?
        Answer. The requirement for 38 amphibious ships to conduct 2.0 MEB
    forcible entry operations has been fully analyzed and agreed to, in
    writing, within the Department of the Navy. Given the fiscal
    constraints facing the Department of the Navy, the Secretary of the
    Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and I agreed that 33 amphibious ships
    in the assault echelon represents the limit of acceptable risk in
    meeting the 38-ship requirement we established in a letter to your
    committee on January 7, 2009. This 33-ship force accepts risk in the
    arrival of combat and combat service support elements of the MEB, and
    represents a trade off to preserve the Sea Shield.
        The 29-31 ship inventories during the future years defense plan
    (FYDP) does present risk in our Nation's ability to overcome anti-
    access challenges in locations along the ``arc of instability,'' where
    there are no American military forces or basing agreements. Moreover,
    with the current inventory of 31 amphibious ships, we are unable to
    meet all of the steady state combatant commander demands for theater
    security cooperation, forward presence, and crisis response.
        The Long-Range Plan for Naval Vessels projects an effort to build
    toward the 38 amphibious ship requirement. However, the closest the
    plan comes to achieving the requirement is 36 amphibious ships in
    fiscal year 2026.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. This subcommittee will stand in recess
    until March 24--Wednesday--at which time we will receive
    testimony from the National Guard and Reserves.
        The subcommittee is in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Murray, Cochran, Bond, and
    Brownback.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                 National Guard

    STATEMENT OF GENERAL CRAIG R. McKINLEY, CHIEF, NATIONAL
                GUARD BUREAU
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MAJOR GENERAL RAYMOND W. CARPENTER, ACTING DIRECTOR, ARMY
                NATIONAL GUARD
            LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY M. WYATT III, DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL
                GUARD

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. This morning, the subcommittee meets to
    receive testimony on the fiscal year 2011 budget of the
    National Guard and the Reserve components.
        And from the National Guard, we are pleased to have the
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Craig McKinley; the
    Director of the Army National Guard, General Raymond Carpenter,
    who is testifying with us for the first time; and the Director
    of the Air National Guard, General Harry Wyatt.
        And from the Reserves, we welcome the Chief of the Army
    Reserve, General Jack Stultz; the Chief of the Naval Reserve,
    Admiral Dirk Debbink; the Commander of the Marine Corps
    Reserve, General John Kelly, who is also appearing before this
    subcommittee for the first time; and the Chief of the Air Force
    Reserve, General Charles Stenner.
        And I thank all of you for joining us today, and the
    subcommittee reviews fiscal year 2011 budget.
        Over the last several years, the Guard and Reserves have
    made important changes as they transition from a strategic to
    an operational reserve. The Department has improved its
    resourcing of the Guard and Reserve, and the services have made
    significant strides in integrating the Reserve components in an
    effort to create one total force.
        The Guard and Reserve have also recovered from the
    recruiting and retention difficulties they confronted over the
    last several years. Although retaining personnel in certain
    high-demand career fields remain a challenge, the significant
    personnel shortages seen in years ago have been eliminated, and
    the Reserve components now have the opportunity to focus on
    refining their personnel mix to get the right person in the
    right position.
        And I wish to congratulate all of you.
        However, many challenges remain. The Guard and Reserve must
    continue to improve reintegration and family support programs.
    Suicide, divorce, and substance abuse are on the rise in the
    military, and the Reserve components are no exception.
    Reservists and their families lack the support network provided
    at Active Duty installations, so it is essential that we do
    everything we can to support Reserve families during
    deployments and as the reservists transition back to civilian
    life.
        Your Yellow Ribbon Program is a step in the right
    direction, but I encourage you to continue improving the
    program to better fit the needs of our servicemembers. And I
    look forward to hearing, today, what each component is doing to
    improve support to our Reserve families.
        The Guard and Reserves still face significant equipment
    shortfalls. For this reason, last year Congress provided $950
    million for the National Guard and Reserve equipment account to
    allow the Reserve components to purchase the additional
    equipment they need for predeployment training and operations
    at home and abroad. Congress has provided additional equipment
    funding for the Guard and Reserve in each of the last 30 years,
    because, year after year, the President's budget fails to
    sufficiently fund the Reserve components. Some critics decry
    the additional funds by this subcommittee as unnecessary
    earmarks, but I'm certain that the witnesses here today agree
    that, without this additional funding, our Reserve components
    would be woefully equipped.
        The success of the Guard and Reserve depends on the support
    of Reserve employers. The weak economy is placing additional
    strain on the employers, who must fill the jobs left by
    reservists when they deploy. As many reservists face their
    second, or even third, deployment, we must ask whether the
    current operational tempo is sustainable and what more we can
    do to ensure that we maintain the support of our business
    community in hiring and supporting Reserves.
        So, gentlemen, I look forward to the hearing, to hearing
    your perspective on these issues, and working with you this
    year in support of our guardsmen and reservists. And I thank
    you for your testimony this morning.
        And may I say that your full statements will be made part
    of the record.
        We'll begin our hearings with the panel from the National
    Guard, but first I'll turn it over to my vice chairman, Senator
    Cochran, for an opening remark he may wish to make.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I'm pleased to join you in welcoming this distinguished
    panel of witnesses before our subcommittee. And we look forward
    to working with them to identify ways we can make sure that the
    Guard and Reserve programs are funded at appropriate levels,
    and that they're able to carry out their duties and
    responsibilities under the law. Very important role. Gets more
    important as time has gone on. And Guard and Reserve personnel
    and leadership are depended on more and more to help protect
    the security interests of our great country.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Bond, would you care to make your
    remarks?

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I join
    with you and the ranking member, Senator Cochran, in welcoming
    the leadership of the National Guard today.
        And on behalf of the National Guard Caucus, Senator Leahy
    and I thank you for this tremendous support you've provided the
    Guard over the years.
        As you have indicated, had the subcommittee simply rubber-
    stamped the budget proposed over the last few decades, the
    National Guard today would be a hollow force, if it were still
    a force. Instead, this subcommittee and the Congress, as a
    whole, have chosen, many times, to make up the shortfall in
    equipment budgets and manpower so that the Guard could continue
    to perform its missions. By investing in the Guard, we serve
    the national security interests of the country, ensure the
    protection of the homeland, at a fraction of the cost of the
    Active Duty, leveraging the incredible skills and experience of
    our citizen-soldiers and airmen.
        I will ask that--submit for the record a letter that
    Senator Leahy and I have prepared on behalf of the National
    Guard Caucus, asking the Secretary of the Air Force to
    reconsider the decision made with respect to the C-130 aircraft
    and they made--a decision made without consultation with the
    Guard.
        And I thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. Without objection, so ordered.
        Senator Bond. Thank you, sir.
        [The information follows:]
                                          United States Senate,
                                        Washington, DC, March 24, 2010.
    The Honorable Michael B. Donley,
    Secretary of the Air Force,
    Washington, DC 20330-1670.
        Dear Secretary Donley: On behalf of the 96 member strong Senate
    National Guard Caucus, we are concerned and oppose the force structure
    cuts to the Air National Guard C-130 fleet. We are seriously troubled
    that the Air Force would consider taking aircraft from the Air National
    Guard to fill gaps in the Active Component. This most recent
    announcement is a troubling move in what appears to be a consistent
    trend since the 2005 BRAC to reduce the number of aircraft from the Air
    National Guard without substantive or even any consultation with Air
    National Guard leadership.
        The most disconcerting cuts come from the drawdown based on the
    Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS 16), which at
    the time of budget decisions, was still being developed. The
    programmatic decision resulting in these cuts was based from a draft
    study which now reflects what the budget had already announced. In a
    time of economic downturn and smaller defense budgets, we encourage the
    Department of Defense and the Air Force to adopt structures such as
    active associate wings to leverage the Air National Guard's lower
    operating and infrastructure costs and more experienced civilian
    airmen.
        We urge you to reconsider the C-130 Force Structure changes and
    seriously review alternative courses of action that will preserve our
    mobility capability for both of the Air National Guard's Federal and
    State missions.
                Sincerely,
                                         Senator Patrick Leahy,
                                Co-Chair, Senate National Guard Caucus.
                                   Senator Christopher S. Bond,
                                Co-Chair, Senate National Guard Caucus.

        Chairman Inouye. This morning, we have two panels. The
    first panel consists of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,
    the Director of the Army National Guard, and the Director of
    the Air National Guard.
        So, I'll call upon, first, General Craig McKinley.
        General McKinley.

                SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL CRAIG R. MC KINLEY

        General McKinley. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran,
    Senator Bond, it's an honor and privilege to be here today.
        I guess we won the coin toss, so the Guard goes first this
    year. We've kind of alternated the 4 years I've been here, so I
    think we'll try not to run out the clock on the Reserve Chiefs,
    who are really strong colleagues of ours. We operate as seven
    very close representatives representing the Reserve component
    force and the National Guard, and it's an honor to be here with
    you today.
        We've got about 460,000 members of the Army and the Air
    National Guard. And, as you said, Mr. Chairman, our strength is
    good, and our retention is even better.
        On my right, your left, is Bud Wyatt--Lieutenant General
    Bud Wyatt. Bud joined our team a year ago. He was former
    adjutant general in Oklahoma, so he knows not only the Federal
    piece of our business, but he has represented the State of
    Oklahoma exceedingly well.
        And on my left, your right, is Major General Ray Carpenter.
    Ray has been just a stalwart in standing in for the retirement
    of our former Director of the Army National Guard, Lieutenant
    General Clyde Vaughn. And, for almost a year now, Ray has
    managed the day-to-day operation of the Army Guard, working
    with United States Army. So, it's a pleasure for me to be ably
    assisted by these two fine gentlemen.
        The Department, for your interest, sir, is moving forward
    to identify a nominee for the position of the Director of the
    Army National Guard. It's a critical billet, and we have had
    the board--names have been recommended to both General Casey
    and Secretary McHugh. And so, they will be considering that. We
    hope, obviously, that that name gets over here and we move to
    confirm as quickly as possible.
        Senator Leahy, how are you, sir?
        We've submitted a copy of our posture statement to the
    subcommittee, and offer that as our formal testimony for the
    record. General Wyatt and General Carpenter will speak, in
    detail, about the budget request for the Army and the Air
    National Guard, as they work with our parent services in the
    budget process.
        As United States Armed Forces continue to conduct
    operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the
    world, units of the Army and Air National Guard are
    participating as total force partners in that effort. The
    National Guard has repeatedly proven itself to be a ready,
    accessible force. We have validated the total force concept by
    showing that the men and women in our formations are ready to
    answer the call, to be mobilized, to deploy overseas, return
    home, and then become prepared to do it again and again.
        The citizen-soldiers and airmen of your National Guard are
    adding value to America every day that they serve. The
    capabilities they bring to bear would not have been possible
    without the strong support of this subcommittee, and we thank
    you all very much for that support.
        The most critical part of that proven capability, however,
    is our National Guard men and women. Today's men and women
    volunteer to join, or stay, in the National Guard fully
    expecting to be deployed. This shift in expectation is a
    central aspect of the National Guard shift to being a fully
    operational force and no longer merely a strategic Reserve.
    Indeed, the soldiers and airmen of your National Guard now
    serve with that expectation, and are proud of it. They want to
    remain central players in the Nation's defense, and would
    indeed be resistant to any move to return to a role limited to
    strictly strategic Reserve.
        Overall, we can say that the budget request for fiscal year
    2011 meets the critical needs of the Army and Air National
    Guard in this era of persistent conflict overseas and ongoing
    threats to American lives and property here in the homeland.
        Of particular importance to us is the request for
    operations and maintenance funds. This money is critical. We
    use it to buy the fuel, the spare parts, building maintenance,
    and other things essential to being effective Reserve
    components of the Army and the Air Force, and we ask the
    subcommittee to fully fund that request.
        All of us in the National Guard are highly mindful and
    deeply grateful for the strong support of the National Guard
    which this subcommittee has shown to us in the past. In return,
    we try to be good stewards of the funds you appropriate for us,
    and use that money to make your National Guard as strong as it
    can be. We're particularly grateful for the additional funds
    which this subcommittee has provided through the National Guard
    and Reserve equipment account. We have used those funds to fill
    critical shortages in the Army National Guard and to provide
    technological modernization in our Air National Guard
    capabilities.
        We are especially grateful for the flexibility in which
    those funds are provided to us, allowing us to apply that money
    to our most critical equipment needs. And, as my predecessor
    Steve Blum was fond to say, ``Every dollar that is funded
    through the National Guard and Reserve equipment account is
    spent in that area.''
        One of the longest-running joint programs in the National
    Guard, one which employs both Army and Air National Guard
    capabilities, is the National Guard Counterdrug Program. This
    unique program provides a mechanism under which National Guard
    military experience can be employed to assist civilian law
    enforcement agencies to fight the corrosive effect of illegal
    drugs in American society. Funding for this program is included
    in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, and we ask for your
    full support of that request.
        As we've seen, parenthetically, with recent incidents along
    our Southwest border, the scourge of drugs migrating across
    that border creates a lot more concern on our part that this
    program still fills a very vital need.
        We are well aware that last year, as it has done in
    previous years, this subcommittee provided significant
    additional funds for that counterdrug program to fund
    capability enhancements. Nearly one-quarter of the capability
    of the National Guard Counterdrug Program exists today because
    of the additional funding provided in the past by Congress.
        In order to move quickly to your questions, I would now
    like to ask my Directors of the Air and Army National Guard to
    provide their perspectives. But, before I do that, I would just
    like to personally thank Senator Bond for his years of service
    to the Senate Guard Caucus.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We can't thank you, sir, enough, and your staff, for being
    there, for listening to us, and for providing that great
    leadership. And we wish you a great deal of well-being back in
    the State of Missouri when this run is over. Thank you, Senator
    Bond.
        Bud?
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of General Craig R. McKinley
                      introduction and executive overview
        About 400 years ago, a few hardy souls boarded tall ships from the
    shores of their comfortable European homeland to travel to a North
    American wilderness. They risked their lives on the treacherous waters
    of the North Atlantic for a new land and a better life.
        Immediately, homeland security became a concern for these early
    settlers. In times of need, volunteers from tiny hamlets and towns
    picked up their muskets to rush to the defense of their homes and
    families.
        Out of this necessity, the first militia was organized in the
    Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. About 140 years later, these Citizen-
    Soldiers had become a formidable force. At the Battle of Concord in
    1775, outnumbered musket-wielding militia defeated an ``invincible''
    British force and the enduring reality of the Minuteman was born.
        The Minuteman image was immortalized in the statue that stands
    today by the North Bridge, which spans the Concord River. The Minuteman
    was sculpted in traditional militia mufti with one hand on the plow and
    the other grasping a musket. The Citizen is ready at a moment's notice
    to become the Soldier.
        That ethos continues, ever stronger today, abroad and at home. Our
    Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen are adding value to America.
                                rapid evolution
    The National Guard Abroad
        The depth provided by the National Guard is no longer the ``once in
    a lifetime'' use of a strategic reserve as envisioned during the Cold
    War. The National Guard has become an operational force that is an
    integral part of the Army and Air Force. It is populated by seasoned
    veterans with multiple deployments in support of operations in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, the Balkans, and many other locations around the world.
        Our most precious assets flow from our communities. At this time,
    nearly 60,000 Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen are deployed in support of
    overseas operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and the Sinai.
        The National Guard has maintained a high operational tempo for more
    than 8 years in support of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Through the admirable service of thousands of Guardsmen we have
    provided essential combat, logistics, and other support capabilities to
    these operations.
        Most recently, the National Guard provided critical Humanitarian
    Relief and Disaster Response support following the massive earthquake
    of January 2010 in Haiti. From providing initial medical evacuation to
    sustained logistics support and airborne communications, National Guard
    Soldiers and Airmen quickly delivered the specialized expertise
    required to support the Haitian people in their hour of need.
    The National Guard at Home
        In addition to the thousands of National Guard Soldiers and Airmen
    currently activated for ongoing Federal missions overseas, the National
    Guard provides significant response to unexpected contingencies at
    home.
        On average, on any given day, 17 U.S. Governors call out their
    National Guard to help citizens in need. We responded in 2009 as we
    always have--immediately, effectively, appropriately, and in force.
    There's no reason to believe 2010 will be any different.
        Three significant events in 2009 were the record floods in North
    Dakota, the incredibly devastating ice storms in Kentucky, and the aid
    Hawaii quickly delivered to American Samoa after a tsunami smashed into
    the island.
        Rapid and full emergency response is another service that our
    Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen do well.
        At the peak of flood fighting efforts, the North Dakota Guard
    responded with more than 2,400 Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen aided by
    Guardsmen from six other states including Minnesota, Wisconsin, South
    Dakota, Montana, Missouri, and Iowa.
        The Guard assisted with levee patrols, evacuating residents, and
    sandbag operations. Our Soldiers and Airmen also provided traffic
    control points and presence patrols. They flew aviation support
    missions, including reconnaissance and ice salting to promote melting.
    They also delivered and operated water pumps, broke up ice jams, and
    performed other missions as required.
        In Kentucky, the entire Kentucky Army National Guard plus Guardsmen
    from Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin were called to
    duty, removing debris and running communications sites in addition to
    delivering essential supplies.
        Restoration of electric power to water plants, communications
    facilities, home generator support, operation of shelters in 24
    armories, and removing downed trees were the top priorities. Troops
    worked with state and local crews clearing roads and gaining access to
    damaged power transmission lines. Our National Guard men and women
    delivered more than 285,000 meals and a half million bottles of water
    every day to needy communities.
        An 8.4 magnitude earthquake struck the Samoa Islands region on
    September 29, which resulted in a destructive tsunami with 15-20 foot
    waves impacting the east side of American Samoa. Buildings suffered
    damage; up to 6,000 people were without power; there were 1,912 refuges
    in 14 shelters; and 32 confirmed fatalities.
        Within 24 hours, about 90 National Guard personnel from Hawaii's
    Civil Support Team and CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Package, a command
    and control element, and a mortuary affairs team flew to American Samoa
    to help in the recovery efforts.
        The National Guard is located in more than 3,300 communities around
    the nation providing an indispensable link between the military and the
    citizens of our great nation. We may be the only military that some of
    our citizens ever see.
        At the same time, more than 4,600 personnel are on duty in our
    daily ongoing domestic operations--state active duty, and Counterdrug
    and Air Sovereignty Alert missions. More than 390,000 are available to
    respond to any situation.
                                   readiness
    Personnel
        Despite all the nation has asked of them in the overseas warfight
    as well as here at home, we are recruiting and retaining National Guard
    members in impressive numbers and with higher quality marks. Americans
    join and stay in the National Guard. But as successful as we have been
    to date, we need continued support for recruiting and retention
    efforts.
    Equipment
        The National Guard must have modern equipment if we are to remain
    successful as defenders of the homeland at home and abroad. Army
    National Guard (ARNG) units deployed overseas have the most up-to-date
    equipment available and are second to none.
        However, a significant amount of equipment is currently unavailable
    to the ARNG due to continuing rotational deployments and emerging
    modernization requirements. Many states have expressed concern about
    the resulting shortfalls of equipment for training as well as for
    domestic emergency response operations.
        The Army has programmed $20.9 billion for ARNG equipment for fiscal
    year 2009 through fiscal year 2013 to procure new equipment and
    modernize equipment currently on hand. We appreciate that support and
    also the strong interest of Congress and Department of Defense (DOD) in
    closing the gap between our domestic requirements and the available
    equipment in our armories and motor pools.
        The Air Force is in the midst of modernizing and recapitalizing its
    major weapons platforms, and the Air National Guard (ANG) must be
    concurrently and proportionally recapitalized, particularly in order to
    avoid the near to mid-term ``age-out'' of the majority of its fighter
    force.
        Our primary concern is that 80 percent of our F-16s, the backbone
    of our Air Sovereignty Alert force, will begin reaching the end of
    their service life in 7 years.
        To that end, we support the Air Force's recapitalization plan, and
    believe that all roadmaps should be inclusive of the ANG as a hedge
    against this ``age-out.''
        We shouldn't be relegated to obsolete and incompatible equipment
    like we were during the Cold War. We have proven that the old way of
    doing business does not work in today's environment. The National Guard
    must remain an operational force, indeed a strategic force, and must be
    resourced as such, so we can assist the Army and Air Force as much as
    possible.
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA)
        A significant success story over the past few years is how NGREA
    funding has helped the Guard fill equipment shortages. This is
    particularly true for shortages involving Critical Dual-Use (CDU)
    equipment, which are items that the Guard uses in both Federal and
    state missions. The equipment purchased through NGREA includes CDU,
    however no equipment is purchased solely for domestic use by the
    states. The use of NGREA has been instrumental in providing for the
    quality and quantity of ARNG equipment. It has also enabled the ANG to
    both support Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and to also provide
    assistance to domestic response.
        An important benefit of NGREA funding is transparency in
    accounting. In fact, every dollar can be tracked and accounted for in
    the process. With NGREA, we are able to show Congress exactly what
    equipment the Guard received for the money spent and where that
    equipment is located.
    Training
        Along with preparations for Federal service, the National Guard
    prepares for possible use in domestic operations. To that end, in
    fiscal year 2009 the National Guard conducted four regional Vigilant
    Guard exercises and three combatant command/national level exercises to
    facilitate unity of effort. In fiscal year 2010, the NGB is building
    local, state, and national level exercise capability to support the 54
    states, territories, and the District of Columbia in preparing for
    larger scale exercises, National Special Security Events (NSSE), and
    real world events.
    Agribusiness Development Teams
        Nowhere does today's 21st century Minuteman embody the Citizen-
    Soldier promise better than in our Agribusiness Development Teams
    (ADTs) in Afghanistan, where it is so needed after 40 years of constant
    turmoil and war.
        We send Guardsmen, whose skills and livelihood are earned in
    agribusiness in the United States, to this war-torn country to help
    better their farming industry.
        The first team deployed from Missouri in 2007. Today, eight teams
    are dispersed throughout Afghanistan, doing incredible work promoting
    sustainable farming practices and stimulating Afghan agriculture.
        For the Guardsmen, that means engaging with local farmers and
    helping them address many of their challenges, such as water and
    infrastructure issues.
        Eighty percent of Afghanis depend on agriculture for their
    livelihood, so it's incredibly important that if we're going to attack
    all the challenges and ills that hinder Afghanistan, we help stabilize
    their agribusiness economy.
        The goal is not to teach how to farm but to expand those skills
    that Afghan farmers already have. They know how to farm. They need
    someone to help them with the more scientific aspects of agriculture.
        Before those crops get to market they need to be harvested or
    processed. Texas and Missouri ADTs developed clean and sanitary meat
    processing facilities powered by renewable energy sources. Also,
    mechanical engineers in the Guard were able to teach the Afghans how to
    build wind turbines and help produce power for these facilities. In the
    end, that's the goal--to find simple solutions to the challenges faced
    by Afghan farmers.
        Because of the ADTs, Afghanistan has entered into a bilateral
    relationship with Nebraska. There is a large Afghan population in
    Nebraska, and the University of Nebraska has a cultural center that has
    built a relationship that has endured for decades.
                            ngb as a joint activity
        In 2009, the National Guard made great progress in supporting DOD's
    efforts to both manage the Reserve Components as an operational force
    and establish the National Guard Bureau as a joint activity. The NGB,
    as part of the total operational force, has a greater role and
    increased responsibility for shaping the discussion and recommendations
    within DOD for issues related to Homeland Defense and Defense Support
    to Civilian Authorities.
        The National Guard has always recognized its unique role as
    America's first military responder. In the continued quest for serving
    our citizens, we have leveraged the concept of the Joint Staff, both at
    the national and at the state level, to ensure rapid, effective,
    coordinated responses to domestic emergencies. This capability is
    modular, scalable, and can maximize effectiveness by employing Army and
    Air Guard capabilities into a true joint response. This supports the
    Adjutants General with single procedures for communication,
    coordination, collaboration, and employment.
    State Partnership Program
        The National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP) establishes
    enduring and mutually beneficial partnerships between foreign countries
    and American states through the National Guard. This program is an
    important component of the Defense Department's security cooperation
    strategy, the geographic combatant commanders' theater engagement
    programs, and U.S. Ambassadors' Mission Strategic Plans.
        A primary aim is to promote partnership among the many nations
    working with us to advance security, stability, and prosperity around
    the globe.
        Today, American states are partnered with more than 60 foreign
    nations to focus on military-to-military, military-to-civilian, and
    civil security activities.
        Created in 1993, the SPP has helped the United States, European,
    African, Southern, Pacific, and Central Commands engage the defense and
    military establishments of countries in every region of the globe.
        This valuable mutual security cooperation program will continue to
    expand in size and strategic importance.
    Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination and Cooperation
        The National Guard's dual mission requires a disciplined balance
    between persistent readiness to defeat threats to our nation and its
    vital interests, and constant availability to help our communities and
    states.
        To improve efficiency for all involved in domestic operations, the
    NGB is orchestrating an effort to maximize collaboration with partner
    organizations like the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). By working together
    with our partners, we will provide a more coordinated response for all
    catastrophes, natural or man-made.
                            future plans--our vision
        The Guard must remain a community-based organization with a clear
    understanding of its dual role: to serve abroad in support of our
    national defense; and to serve the Governors and people of the states,
    territories, and the District of Columbia to which they belong.
    Recognizing the principles of states' rights and the tiered approach to
    domestic support to civil authorities, the Adjutants General (TAGs)
    will continue to provide a wide range of capabilities to their
    Governors and play a significant role in determining National Guard
    priorities and in shaping the future of the Guard.
        In an era of persistent conflict, we need a predictable rotational
    model and we must maintain proficiency and interoperability with the
    rest of the force. We must modernize at a proportional rate to the
    Active Component.
        At a steady state, we are going to have persistent requirements.
    There are tough resourcing decisions ahead, but I am optimistic we will
    continue our relevancy both on the domestic front and abroad while
    continuing to take the very best care of our Airmen, Soldiers, and
    their families.
        What the future holds for the National Guard Bureau is to cement
    its cross-functional relationships with other government and military
    agencies to answer any call, anywhere with the utmost collaboration and
    effectiveness. This is how we will continue adding value to America
    long into the future.
        The following pages show how the Army and Air National Guard and
    the Joint Staff are doing their part to build a balanced, flexible, and
    cohesive force for the future.
      major general raymond w. carpenter, acting director, army national
                                     guard
                           message from the director
        Unique events, leadership transitions, and a change in vision
    defined another challenging and rewarding year for the Army National
    Guard (ARNG). The ARNG shifted its focus from quantity of assigned
    strength to quality of the force, a new vision for an experienced and
    accessible force. As a result, we have significantly increased the
    readiness of the Army National Guard. Our Soldiers are better trained
    and equipped to support overseas contingency operations and provide
    domestic support to our civilian authorities.
        The ARNG made notable progress with our Modular Force Conversion
    and Rebalance efforts. We have also implemented a number of innovative
    initiatives such as the:
      --Agribusiness Development Team;
      --Domestic All-Hazards Response Team (DART);
      --Muscatatuck Urban Training Center;
      --Battle Command Training Capability Program;
      --eXportable Combat Training Capability (XCTC);
      --Patriot Academy;
      --General Equivalency Diploma (GED) Plus;
      --Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program; and
      --Community-Based Warrior Transition Program.
        Through these efforts, our Soldiers are educated, trained,
    equipped, and supported unlike any other time in our history. Our
    efforts to balance the lives of our operational units and individuals
    have given us the flexibility and effectiveness needed to keep America
    strong.
                                   operations
        Balancing domestic and overseas operations brings out the best in
    Army National Guard integrated missions. The concepts of ``critical
    dual-use equipment'' and ``Citizen-Soldier'' merge together to meet our
    international and domestic challenges. Building on our two pillars of
    strength--personnel readiness and equipment versatility--we conduct our
    integrated missions and accomplish our Soldier-centric goals.
    Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
        Overseas Contingency Operations have significantly increased the
    operating and deployment tempo within the Army National Guard. Nearly
    60,000 Army and Air National Guard personnel are supporting
    expeditionary operations around the world, including Operations
    Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Since 9/11, more than 316,000 Army
    National Guard Soldiers have been mobilized for Federal (Title 10) duty
    as of December 31, 2009, to support OCO around the world.
    Domestic Operations
        The Army National Guard coordinates and integrates policies,
    procedures, and capabilities to ensure critical operations continue in
    the event of an emergency, or threat of an emergency, anywhere in the
    United States and its territories.
        In January 2009, the ARNG supported Federal and state agencies
    during the most attended Presidential Inauguration in U.S. history by
    providing over 10,000 National Guard Soldiers from 14 states. The
    Soldiers supported civil authorities by providing traffic control
    points, reaction forces, and aviation support.
        The ARNG answered calls to their respective Governors for search
    and rescue, power generation, logistical support, debris clearing,
    sandbagging, security, law enforcement support, food distribution, and
    shelter construction during recovery efforts. Most notably, in March
    2009 six states sent more than 5,500 Soldiers to support North Dakota
    during the Red River flooding. During this event, the ARNG provided 13
    helicopters with crews to fill a mission assignment from the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
    Domestic All-Hazards Response Team
        Initiated in fiscal year 2009, the Domestic All-Hazards Response
    Team (DART) formalizes the National Guard use of the ARNG Division
    Headquarters in response to all catastrophic events. When requested by
    the Adjutant General of an affected state, the DART response is
    coordinated through the Chief, National Guard Bureau. The Army National
    Guard has eight division headquarters. Three division headquarters
    serve as the DART Headquarters on an annual rotation--two divisions
    serving in the East and West and one reinforcing both regions.
        Approximately 50,000 troops are available east of the Mississippi
    and 30,000 west of the Mississippi for activation into Title 32 Status.
    The DART works within the existing Emergency Management Assistance
    Compact framework. The DART is also divided along FEMA Region
    boundaries and is well positioned for interagency response. The DART
    maximizes the modular structure of the 21st century Army and positions
    the nation to respond to any man-made or natural disaster (or to
    mobilize in preparation for such an occurrence).
        For more details on DART, please see the information paper at:
    www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    ARNG Aviation
                Operational Support Airlift Agency (OSAA)
        The Operational Support Airlift Agency is a Department of the Army
    field operating agency under the National Guard Bureau that supports
    114 aircraft worldwide and over 700 personnel. OSAA's fleet of 80
    fixed-wing aircraft represents the single largest fixed-wing
    organization in the Army today. Both at home and abroad in 2009, these
    aircraft:
      --Flew more than 56,000 hours;
      --Completed over 26,000 missions;
      --Transported nearly 20 million pounds of cargo;
      --Carried more than 100,000 passengers; and
      --Supported the U.S. Southern Command in Colombia, the Criminal
            Investigation Task Force, Office of Military Commissions, and
            United States Army South at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB)
        By virtue of its basing locations throughout the homeland, ARNG
    Aviation provides immediate responsiveness to the Governors.
    Additionally, with certain unique design and equipment differences, the
    aviation force is a critical component of Defense Support to Civil
    Authorities.
        Six of the ARNG's eight CABs have a unique security and support
    (S&S) Aviation Battalion whose primary mission is homeland support.
    Each S&S battalion is equipped with the new UH-72 light utility
    helicopter with communications and mission equipment packages that are
    optimized for coordination and interoperability with civilian police,
    fire, and emergency responders. In addition, the ARNG aviation force
    provides the Army with a NORTHCOM-dedicated Theater Aviation Brigade
    for the vital Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-
    yield Explosive (CBRNE) Consequence Management Force that will respond
    to any natural or man-made disaster in the homeland. The ARNG provides
    the total Army with 43 percent of its aviation force.
        For more details about the Combat Aviation Brigade, please see the
    information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) Update
        The UH-72A ``Lakota'' Light Utility Helicopter is a state-of-the-
    art aircraft with twin engine reliability, a 21st century navigation/
    communication system, and a proven record of commercial aviation
    service.
        The Army developed the UH-72 Lakota to meet immediate and future
    light utility aviation needs. The ARNG now has 36 UH-72A aircraft and
    eight UH-72A MEDEVAC aircraft for a total of 44 Lakotas. The Army plans
    to field 12 UH-72As to the Army National Guard over the next several
    years with a total of 200 new UH-72s to be fielded to the National
    Guard by fiscal year 2017.
        For more details about the Light Utility Helicopter, please see the
    information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
                            present and future value
    Modular Force Conversion and Rebalance
        By the end of fiscal year 2009, the ARNG completed the most
    comprehensive force structure change in its history. This 5-year effort
    saw more than 2,800 operating force units transform into modular
    designs while deploying 43,225 Soldiers to combat and support
    operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. With this transformation,
    ARNG brigade combat teams are identical to Active Component Army
    brigades so they are compatible regardless of the mission. The ARNG
    continues to grow and adapt to fulfill all levels of the Federal and
    state missions in support of Homeland Security and Homeland Defense
    (HD), which includes supporting the warfighter.
        The historic fill rate for equipment for the ARNG has been about 70
    percent. Fill rates declined to approximately 40 percent of equipment
    available to the Governors in 2006 due to cross-leveling equipment to
    support immediate deployment requirements. Seventy-seven percent of the
    ARNG's Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) requirement
    is currently on hand (as of the end of fiscal year 2009).
        Increasing our investment in several key areas is essential to
    maintaining our forward progress.
    Agribusiness Development Teams
        An Agribusiness Development Team (ADT) is a self-contained
    volunteer unit composed of 58 National Guard Soldiers with backgrounds
    and expertise in various sectors of the agribusiness field. They
    provide training and advice to Afghan universities, provincial
    ministries, and local farmers to increase stability and improve
    opportunities for Afghanistan's reemerging agribusiness sector. Since
    2007, Agribusiness Development Teams from the following states have
    deployed to Afghanistan: Missouri, Indiana, Tennessee, Kansas,
    Nebraska, Texas, California, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.
        For more details about ADTs, please see the information paper at:
    www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
                    personnel strength and quality programs
        The overriding theme of the Army National Guard's recruiting and
    retention mission is to sustain a high quality force and continue to
    improve the quality of life for our Soldiers and their families.
        The ARNG recalibrated the fiscal year 2009 endstrength mission from
    371,000 to 358,200 resulting in a reduction of the recruiting accession
    mission to a target of 56,000. The endstrength goals focused on
    achieving historical quality marks in the military entrance exam (the
    Armed Forces Qualification Test) for high school graduates and an
    overall retention rate of 106 percent of the ARNG goal. Our sustained
    recruiting and retention successes are a testament to the outstanding
    work of our recruiting team and the inherent value of our organization.
        The ARNG is improving the quality of recruits through the Patriot
    Academy and the GED Plus programs.
    Patriot Academy
        The basic concept for this program came from research that
    indicated 500,000 students dropped out of high school in 2006. Launched
    in June 2009, the Patriot Academy enables Soldiers to complete basic
    training and then perform Title 10 Active Duty for Operational Support
    while obtaining their high school diplomas, additional military
    training, and life skills training. The ARNG plans to graduate 500
    Soldiers annually.
        For more details about the Patriot Academy, please see the
    information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    GED Plus
        The GED Plus program provides high school dropouts, 18 and older,
    basic training and a structured academic environment to earn their GED.
    To enroll, students must be fully qualified for enlistment and achieve
    the minimum Armed Forces Qualification Test score. In fiscal year 2007,
    some 700 Soldiers passed for a 73 percent success rate. In fiscal year
    2008, our success rate jumped to 95.6 percent with 2,457 students
    passing. The GED Testing team tested 2,283 GED Plus Soldiers in fiscal
    year 2009 with a passing rate of 96.6 percent. The team was noted as
    the best test site in the nation by Dantes staff. Also in fiscal year
    2009, the National Guard began construction on an $18 million GED Plus
    educational complex which will increase training capacity to more than
    7,500 students per year.
        As of May 31, 2009, the success rate continues to hover around 95
    percent, which is significantly higher than the 69 percent national
    average achieved by civilian GED programs. The improvement is due in
    part to grouping students by ability, sharing best practices, and
    implementing an instructional lab for specific student weaknesses.
        For more details on the GED Plus program, please see the
    information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    Full-time Support
        The ARNG Full Time Support (FTS) program consists of both Active
    Guard and Reserve (AGR) Soldiers and Military Technicians and has a
    direct link to unit readiness. In this continuing era of persistent
    conflict, FTS personnel are major contributors across the full spectrum
    of ARNG missions, home and abroad, providing vital strategic depth and
    continuity of operations. The ARNG is now an Operational Force and its
    FTS is even more critical to unit readiness. Currently, there is no
    programmed growth for AGRs while Military Technicians are programmed to
    increase by 1,170 authorizations by fiscal year 2013.
        Ongoing manpower studies are determining changes in FTS
    requirements. Results will be submitted for validation and coordinated
    with the appropriate organizations for submission in the Program
    Objective Memorandum process as completed.
        For more details on FTS, please see the information paper at:
    www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    Medical Readiness
        With the Army National Guard's transition to an operational force,
    the Office of the Chief Surgeon team led medical readiness improvements
    in fiscal year 2009 by addressing its three primary goals: Support
    deployment of a healthy force; support deployment of the medical force-
    units; and facilitate warriors in transition and family care-
    beneficiaries.
        Medical readiness increased 13 percent between fiscal year 2008 and
    fiscal year 2009. This was a direct result of increased targeted
    funding and stronger liaison efforts between NGB and Army medical
    commands to meet funding, manning, and equipment requirements.
        Industrial Hygiene Base funding served to both identify and
    mitigate preventable health conditions prior to impacting the medical
    readiness of ARNG units by using three programs--Decade of Health,
    Hooah4Health (H4H), and blood pressure kiosks. These programs have
    yielded the following results:
      --Dental readiness increased 34 percent in fiscal year 2008 and
            fiscal year 2009;
      --An estimated 1 million Soldiers checked their blood pressure at
            kiosks nationwide; and
      --Over the past 5 years, more than 5,400 Soldier-students have
            completed the Army's first interactive, web-based
            correspondence course on the H4H site with a 97 percent pass
            rate.
    Soldier Family Support (SFS)
        The increased operating and deployment tempo of the Army National
    Guard has placed additional strain on Soldiers and their Families. In
    October 2007, the Army initiated the Army Family Covenant program and
    pledged to provide Soldiers and Families with a quality of life
    commensurate with their dedicated service and sacrifice to the nation.
    In fiscal year 2010, the ARNG received an additional $10 million to
    support and ensure long-term sustainability of SFS functions in support
    of mission requirements and our role as an operational force. The
    following SFS programs are currently well underway:
      --The Personnel Blast and Contaminant Tracker system records data for
            all service members involved in blast incidents, even when
            immediate physical symptoms are absent. If the exposure to a
            blast or contaminant has long-term impacts to the service
            member, data will be used for line-of-duty benefit evaluation.
            The ``blast tracker'' can be expanded to all Army components as
            well as to the other services.
      --The Resiliency Training Center, opened in Kansas in 2009, builds
            resilience in our Soldiers and their families. The center
            focuses on preventing high stress through proactive marriage
            workshops and stress relief training before, during, and after
            deployments.
      --The Community-Based Warrior Transition Units program provides high-
            quality healthcare, administrative processing, and transition
            assistance for recuperating Reserve Component Soldiers while
            living at home with their families. These Soldiers work at a
            reserve center within their capabilities.
        For details about more medical programs, please see the information
    paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
                      facilities and military construction
        Army National Guard facilities are critical to the readiness and
    capability of the National Guard. These are the locations where our
    Soldiers perform administration, conduct training, and store and
    maintain equipment. Additionally, many National Guard facilities are
    critical rallying points for communities when disaster strikes. Now a
    combat-proven operational force, the Army National Guard needs adequate
    facilities to fulfill its crucial role in defending America at home and
    abroad. The ARNG has over 3,000 readiness centers nationwide.
    Approximately 1,408 readiness centers are more than 50 years old and
    are located on five acres or less. Recognized as the hometown
    ``Armory,'' these essential facilities may be ``the only military
    installation for hundreds of miles.'' For fiscal year 2010,
    appropriations for Army National Guard military construction are $582
    million.
        The Army National Guard received over $1.4 billion in military
    construction funds for fiscal year 2009 which included:
      --$736 million for 54 projects for the Military Construction Army
            National Guard program;
      --$147 million for three emerging requirements projects;
      --$470 million to construct 14 projects for the base realignment and
            closure (BRAC) program (ARNG executed 100 percent of these BRAC
            projects);
      --$50 million for six construction projects as part of the American
            Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and
      --$25 million of fiscal year 2008 funds to assist Mississippi and
            Indiana with storm damage to their facilities.
        ARNG Military Construction funding for fiscal year 2010 includes
    $30 million from the National Guard and Reserve Initiative. These funds
    are intended to address critical unfunded requirements of the ARNG.
                Environmental Program
        Recent success in the ARNG's environmental program underscores its
    mission to excel in environmental stewardship which balances community
    needs with sustaining military readiness.
        Since the Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program began in 2003,
    military funding ($17.5 million) has combined with private funding ($90
    million) to protect 40,000 military-acres from encroachment at eight
    ARNG training centers.
        For more details about environmental programs, please see the
    information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
                              equipment readiness
    Equipment On-Hand (EOH) and Equipment Availability
        At the end of fiscal year 2009, the Army National Guard had 76
    percent of its equipment on-hand. Subtracting equipment that is
    mobilized and deployed to support Federal missions, the current
    equipment-on-hand percentage falls to 63 percent of requirements
    available to the Governors. EOH levels remained fairly flat in fiscal
    year 2009 as overall requirements increased by 2 percent and equipment
    inventories rose 3 percent. In many cases, particularly with vehicles,
    new trucks replaced older legacy vehicles. This kept the EOH relatively
    constant although capabilities increased due to modernization and an
    overall decrease in the age of the fleet.
    Equipment Modernization and Readiness
        Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the Army significantly increased its
    investment in ARNG equipment, allocating approximately $25.1 billion
    for new procurement and recapitalization between fiscal year 2006 and
    fiscal year 2009. As a result of this investment, the Army National
    Guard received approximately 296,000 new items in fiscal year 2008 and
    another 433,000 in fiscal year 2009 at a combined value of $10.2
    billion. Additionally, $16.9 billion is currently programmed for Army
    National Guard equipment between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2015.
        Despite these successes, the Guard needs to procure and field
    leading-edge battle command equipment, and improve fill levels for a
    number of Combat Service Support items such as water purification
    systems, generators, material handling equipment, field feeding
    systems, tactical ambulances, and aviation ground equipment. In
    addition, modernization of the Guard's truck and helicopter fleets,
    while absolutely critical to long-term success, will continue to be a
    challenge well beyond fiscal year 2015.
    Ground and Air Operating Tempo
                Ground Operating Tempo
        The ground operating tempo (OPTEMPO) program is one of the keys to
    equipment readiness. The program consists of two parts: direct and
    indirect. Direct ground OPTEMPO pays for petroleum, repair parts, and
    depot-level repairables. Indirect OPTEMPO pays for expenses such as
    administrative and housekeeping supplies, organizational clothing and
    equipment, medical supplies, nuclear, biological and chemical supplies
    and equipment, and inactive duty training (IDT) travel which includes
    Command Inspection, staff travel, and cost of commercial
    transportation.
                Air Operating Tempo
        The air OPTEMPO program supports the ARNG flying hour program,
    which includes petroleum-oil-lubricants, repair parts, and depot-level
    repairables for the rotary wing helicopter fleet.
        In fiscal year 2009, air OPTEMPO funding for the Army National
    Guard totaled $271 million in base appropriation plus $40 million in
    supplemental for a total of $311 million. This funding provides for
    fuel and other necessities so that 5,722 ARNG aviators can remain
    current and proficient in their go-to-war aircraft. Achieving and
    maintaining desired readiness levels will ensure aircrew proficiency
    and risk mitigation, which helps to conserve resources. ARNG aviators
    must attain platoon level proficiency to ensure that they are
    adequately trained to restore readiness and depth for future
    operations.
    Reset Process
        The Department of the Army programmed the ARNG for $202 million to
    fund repair parts and the personnel required to repair equipment used
    in Overseas Contingency Operations during fiscal year 2010. The ARNG is
    planning to Reset 21 brigade-sized elements as well as many units below
    brigade level. The Reset process also provides additional training for
    National Guard Soldiers as they repair this equipment. As in previous
    years, having the ARNG perform its own Field Reset allows for equipment
    to be returned to the states' control much faster and repaired in a
    much more expeditious manner.
    Logistics-Depot Maintenance
        The Depot Maintenance Program is an integral part of ARNG
    sustainment activities. This program is based on a ``repair and return
    to user'' system as opposed to the direct exchange system used by the
    active Army component. In fiscal year 2010, depot surface maintenance
    program requirements increased by 14 percent. Funding for the ARNG's
    surface depot maintenance requirement was increased by 19 percent
    because of new requirements. In fiscal year 2010 the ARNG plans to
    overhaul 2,883 pieces of combat and tactical equipment.
                            training and technology
        During fiscal year 2009, the ARNG information technology (IT)
    resources supported the implementation of network security projects,
    mobilization support, wide area network modernization and redundancy,
    and emergency response projects. This allowed continued support to each
    United States Property and Fiscal Office, Joint Forces Headquarters--
    State, and Army National Guard Headquarters primarily in the National
    Capital Region.
        For more details about IT programs, please see the information
    paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    eXportable Combat Training Capability
        Soldiers and units are better prepared for mobilization due to the
    advent of the eXportable Combat Training Capability (XCTC) program.
    XCTC is an innovative training program that reduces training overhead
    without sacrificing training quality, standards, or outcomes. This pre-
    mobilization training program provides tough, realistic training to
    achieve company level certification and battalion battle staff
    proficiency. XCTC builds on fundamental tactics, techniques, and
    procedures by using advanced live, virtual, and constructive training
    technologies.
        For more details about the XCTC, please see the information paper
    at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    Muscatatuck Training Center
        The 974-acre Muscatatuck Training Center in Indiana provides a
    realistic training environment for urban warfare, civil support
    operations, and emergency response. Trainees include Army National
    Guard troops, firefighters, police officers, and other first
    responders. The center's concentrated urban infrastructure consists of
    68 major buildings including a school, hospital, dormitories, light
    industrial structures, single-family dwellings, a dining facility, and
    administrative buildings totaling about 850,000 square feet.
      lieutenant general harry m. wyatt iii, director, air national guard
                           message from the director
                   america's exceptional force, home and away
        The Air National Guard (ANG), the U.S. Air Force Reserve, and the
    Regular U.S. Air Force (RegAF) comprise our Total Air Force. The ANG
    anchors this Total Force team, providing trained and equipped units and
    personnel to protect domestic life and property; preserving peace,
    order, and public safety; and providing interoperable capabilities
    required for Overseas Contingency Operations. The ANG, therefore, is
    unique by virtue of serving as both a reserve component of the Total
    Air Force and as the air component of the National Guard.
        Upon its founding in 1947, the ANG served primarily as a strategic
    reserve for the U.S. Air Force. Increasingly and dramatically, the ANG
    has become more of an operational force, fulfilling U.S. Air Force
    routine and contingency commitments daily. Since 9/11, over 146,000 ANG
    members have deployed overseas.
        A snapshot of U.S. forces at any time shows Air Guard members in
    all corners of the globe supporting joint and coalition forces in
    mission areas such as:, Security; medical support; civil engineering;
    air refueling; strike; airlift; and intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR)
        Currently, over 7,000 ANG members are deployed in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and other overseas regions. At 16 alert sites, three air
    defense sectors, and Northern Command, 1,200 ANG members vigilantly
    stand watch over America's skies. Amazingly, 75 percent of our deployed
    individuals are volunteers, and 60 percent are on their second or third
    rotations to combat zones. Percentages like these speak volumes about
    the quality and sense of duty of America's ANG force!
        The ANG supports state and local civil authorities with airlift,
    search and rescue, aerial firefighting, and aerial reconnaissance. In
    addition, we provide critical capabilities in medical triage and aerial
    evacuation, civil engineering, infrastructure protection, and hazardous
    materials response with our Civil Support Teams and our Chemical,
    Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-yield Explosive (CBRNE)
    Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFPs).
        In the past year, Air Guard members helped their fellow citizens
    battle floods, fight wildfires, mitigate the aftermath of ice storms,
    and provide relief from the devastating effects of a tsunami. Here are
    just a few examples of how the ANG provides exceptional expertise,
    experience, and capabilities to mitigate disasters and their
    consequences.
      --Kentucky, Arizona, and Missouri Guard members responded to
            debilitating ice storms, which resulted in the largest National
            Guard call-up in Kentucky's history.
      --North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota ANG members provided
            rescue relief and manpower in response to Midwest flooding.
      --The Hawaii ANG sent personnel from their CERFP, a command and
            control element, and a mortuary affairs team to American Samoa
            in response to an 8.4 magnitude earthquake-generated tsunami.
        Within the Total Force, the ANG provides extraordinary value in
    terms of meeting our national defense needs with cost efficiency and
    immediate availability. In our domestic role, the ANG provides
    capabilities to support local emergency responders with life and
    property saving capabilities and expertise not usually found elsewhere
    in the Total Force.
                             best value for america
    Building Adaptable Airmen and Priorities for the Future
        The outstanding men and women of the ANG continue to defend
    American interests around the world. Throughout 2009, the ANG projected
    global presence in a variety of missions in regions ranging from the
    Balkans to Southwest Asia, and from Eastern Europe to Latin America. We
    have provided much more than airpower, contributing our exceptional
    capabilities in security, medical, logistics, communications, civil
    support, and engineering, in order to support our nation's national
    security.
        Our unique community-based heritage has been the foundation of our
    strength since colonial times. While the strategic environment has
    continually changed throughout history, the ANG has proven itself an
    adaptive force, able to meet any new challenges. One reason for our
    success is that our members normally live in the same communities in
    which they serve during times of natural disasters or when called upon
    to respond to national emergencies. Our Guard members know the folks
    they support very well because they work together, their children
    attend the same schools, and they shop at the same businesses. Our
    fellow citizens know the local Guard members and their contributions,
    and their appreciation has been illustrated through countless welcome
    home parades and outpouring of support over the years.
        Throughout history, many of the issues our forebears faced are
    essentially the same issues we face today: aging capabilities and
    declining budgetary resources. The ANG has consistently provided the
    answer in an efficient, cost-effective, community-based force that is
    ready and responsive to domestic and national security needs.
        Our traditional, predominantly part-time force continually adapts
    and evolves toward new missions and capabilities. As a nation, we must
    ensure America's ANG continues to be completely interoperable with the
    RegAF to meet operational and strategic reserve surge requirements. To
    continue as America's best value and to meet our national security
    objectives, the ANG focuses priorities in three areas:
      --Developing adaptable Airmen for future senior leadership roles and
            responsibilities;
      --Modernizing and recapitalizing our warfighting capabilities to
            ensure we remain completely interoperable with RegAF; and
      --Evolving and shaping our force to maintain our value to the Air
            Force mission.
    Best Value in Personnel, Operations, and Infrastructure
        During the past year, the ANG has deployed 18,366 service members
    to 62 countries and every continent, including Antarctica. The ANG
    provides a trained, equipped, and ready force for a fraction of the
    cost. We provide a third of Total Air Force capabilities for less than
    7 percent of the Total Force budget. In all three areas--personnel,
    operations, and facilities--the ANG provides the ``Best Value for
    America.''
        A key to ANG efficiency is our part-time/full-time force structure
    mix. Our predominantly part-time (traditional) force can mobilize
    quickly when needed for state disaster response missions, homeland
    defense, or when we need to take the fight overseas.
        We have the ability to maintain a stable force with considerably
    fewer personnel moves than the RegAF, which is a critical factor in our
    cost-effectiveness. Traditional National Guard members cost nothing,
    unless on paid-duty status. ANG efficiencies compared to regular
    military components include:
      --Fewer ``pay days'' per year;
      --Lower medical costs;
      --Significantly lower training costs beyond initial qualification
            training;
      --Virtually no costs for moving families and household goods to new
            duty assignments every 3 or 4 years;
      --Fewer entitlements, such as basic allowance for housing; and
      --Lower base support costs in terms of services and facilities
            including commissaries, base housing, base exchanges, and child
            care facilities.
        The ANG is an operational reserve with surge potential of 2,200
    mobilized and 5,700 volunteering per day. If this force were full-time
    active duty (as is the RegAF), the military personnel budget would be
    $7.62 billion. ANG military personnel pay in fiscal year 2009,
    including military technician pay, was $4.77 billion for a yearly cost
    savings of $2.85 billion, or a daily cost savings of $7.8 million.
        Whether compared to another major command (MAJCOM), the RegAF, or
    even to the militaries of other countries, the ANG is an extraordinary
    value. In direct comparison with the militaries of France and Italy,
    for example, our ANG members cost $76,961 per member, while the bills
    of those countries respectively run to $128,791 and $110,787 per
    member. Further, cost per ANG member is less than a fifth of that of
    the RegAF. Comparisons such as these illustrate well the cost savings
    realized with an operational reserve possessing surge potential.
        Operational savings are due to the ANG's experienced force and lean
    operating methods. An examination of the ANG's F-16 maintenance by Rand
    Corporation last year highlighted the ability of our maintenance
    personnel to generate double the amount of flying hours in a one-to-one
    comparison of full-time equivalents.
        Savings from ANG infrastructure start with basing at civilian
    facilities. With some ANG base leases costing as little as one dollar
    annually, the ANG is able to realize even more cost savings for the
    Total Force through our supporting infrastructure. Three-fourths of ANG
    bases are located at civilian airports. In fact, our Joint Use
    Agreements with civilian airports provide access to approximately $12
    billion in infrastructure for less than $5 million annually.
        Significantly, the ANG is a dual-use force of people and equipment.
    As indispensable as the ANG is to the Air Force, it is equally
    indispensable to the National Guard's domestic response capability. The
    ANG leverages the vast majority of its equipment in this dual role,
    from the movement of time-sensitive cargo and passengers during a
    domestic crisis to providing critical capabilities needed to support
    Total Force requirements overseas.
    Recruiting and Retention
        Our ability to conduct missions important to our states and nation
    rely on our people, which requires successfully recruiting and
    retaining our members. We are fortunate that our retention numbers have
    remained strong throughout 2009, at 90.8 percent, which beat our goal
    of 90 percent. This is a testament to the outstanding work of our
    recruiting and the inherent value of our organization.
        We focus our efforts in areas where we face challenges. Officer
    recruiting and other critical areas include healthcare, engineers,
    intelligence, mobility pilots, and chaplains. During 2009, we began
    linking recruiting and retention efforts to our strategic planning
    functions. This allowed the ANG to better position our force for new
    missions and align more effectively with shifts in the Air Force
    capabilities portfolio. Those new ANG members with prior service are
    particularly valuable for the ANG and constitute more than 50 percent
    of our recruits.
    Developing Future Leadership in the Total Force
        In developing adaptable Airmen, we are focusing on initiatives to
    prepare our Airmen for future Total Force leadership. Developing this
    leadership capability requires both increased in-residence
    opportunities at all Developmental Education schools and increased
    opportunities for joint service. Additionally, command opportunities
    must be afforded in theater, commensurate with the presence of all
    forces deployed to the warfight.
        One of our recent initiatives involved redesigning our statutory
    tour program to provide more opportunities for developing critical
    command and staff experiences for personnel at the National Guard
    Bureau and in the field. Through this two-way flow, we improve insights
    and perspectives that will help develop adaptable Airmen.
                          protecting america's future
    Modernization and Recapitalization
        The age of the ANG fleet continues to be of grave concern. Meeting
    future challenges at home and abroad will require modernization and
    recapitalization of both aircraft and equipment in the RegAF and the
    ANG. Concurrent and proportional equipping of the ANG within the Total
    Force ensures continued interoperability with the RegAF. America cannot
    afford to fall behind in air supremacy. Continued dominance depends on
    modernizing and recapitalizing planes and equipment, and adapting to
    the strategic environment while maintaining our technological
    advantages.
        Without concurrent recapitalization, the U.S. Air Force stands to
    lose 80 percent of its current Air Sovereignty Alert force for homeland
    defense in 7 years. Similarly, even as older KC-135 air refueling
    tankers retire, we nearly double the annual flight hours for the newer
    KC-135R/T, which hastens the aging process. Without suitable
    replacements, the current Combat and Mobility Air Forces face
    increasing maintenance and safety issues over the coming years, which
    will undoubtedly affect mission execution and accomplishment.
        It is essential to concurrently and proportionally maintain
    qualified pilots in the ANG who can provide operational surge
    capability to the Total Force in times of war, and lessen the burden of
    high operations tempo faced by the RegAF.
    Dual-Use Capabilities
        The ANG provides the balance at home and abroad through fielding of
    ``dual-use'' capabilities, a cornerstone of the ANG's cost effective
    contribution to the Total Force. We assist the RegAF as they respond to
    the needs of the Combatant Commanders. Comparable capabilities also
    protect the homeland and defend America's skies. As part of the Total
    Force mission, the ANG requires capabilities to defend against today's
    threats, and to assist our states, territories, and the District of
    Columbia in domestic missions, such as disaster response. We also
    continue to develop ways to take advantage of the cost effectiveness
    inherent in the ANG, such as maximizing associations and community
    basing.
    Total Force Integration (TFI)
        Total Force Integration is the method and process by which Air
    Force components leverage the inherent strengths of their respective
    forces and blend their equipment and capabilities to achieve maximum
    effectiveness across the full spectrum of air operations. The ANG
    provides the best value by applying its component-specific efficiencies
    to Total Force operations and by taking on missions that are
    appropriate to its cultural and operational composition.
        The cost savings offered by the ANG are not derived solely from its
    part-time force construct. Significant cost-effectiveness is realized
    in the streamlined operations and limited infrastructure costs unique
    to the ANG, as well as initiatives that combine RegAF and ANG
    personnel, equipment, and aircraft at associate units. The associate
    unit constructs increase Total Force responsiveness to national needs
    by integrating RegAF and ANG-specific mission capabilities, and by
    combining the facilities, training, combat support, and logistical
    infrastructures that maximize combat capability. Three prime examples
    of this construct are the most recently created associate wings, all of
    which perform aerial refueling missions in KC-135 Stratotankers: 126th
    Air Refueling Wing (ARW) at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; 157 ARW at
    Pease Air National Guard Base (ANGB), New Hampshire; and 117 ARW at
    Birmingham ANGB, Alabama.
    Planning for Future Missions
        The ANG is working with the Adjutants General to update and refine
    recapitalization and modernization plans through the ANG Flight Plan, a
    field-driven process in coordination with our Strategic Planning System
    (SPS) that will help position ANG units for future missions. The SPS
    enables the ANG to systematically develop plans that make sense for our
    states and the nation and position the ANG to support the Total Force
    in the future.
                Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
        The ANG sees opportunities to contribute further to the Total Force
    in mission areas such as ISR. Our military's increasing focus on
    special operations and analysis are two areas in which the ANG can help
    meet increasing demand.
        One such area is addressed by the RC-26, the ANG's only dedicated,
    light-manned ISR aircraft that supports Special Operations Forces.
    Within the domestic mission, the RC-26 is the ANG's premier aircraft
    for Incident Awareness and Assessment for National Special Security
    Events, counter narcotics, homeland security, and response to natural
    or man-made disasters. The ANG continues to seek Air Force recognition
    and assignment of a Major Command for this aircraft.
        The ANG also operates Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) and has been
    involved in this rapidly emerging mission area since 2004. Today, five
    states operate nine RPAs in combat air patrols in theater, and we
    anticipate even greater involvement in the future. One of these units,
    the New York ANG's 174th Fighter Wing at Hancock Field ANGB in
    Syracuse, now operates the MQ-9 Reaper in support of operations in
    Afghanistan, sending commands to the RPA through satellite networks.
    This wing, which formerly had an F-16 flying mission, is the first Air
    Guard unit to operate MQ-9s and to open the Air Force's only MQ-9
    maintenance schoolhouse this year.
                Space and Cyberspace
        As we look to the future, the ANG is well positioned to assist Air
    Force missions by virtue of the continuity and civilian skills we
    provide. For example, our Air Guard members' civilian skills are well
    suited to help the Air Force meet various mission requirements in areas
    such as cyber security, where the ANG already has eight operational
    units dedicated to deterring attacks on our nation's cyber networks.
        In space operations, Air Force Space Command looks to the ANG to
    provide support in areas such as missile operations, Distributed
    Command and Control Missions, and space launch/range operations. ANG
    efficiencies and initiatives such as TFI help the Total Force mission
    requirements in areas such as missile warning associate squadrons.
                Building Partnership Capacity
        In the emerging mission areas of Irregular Warfare/Building
    Partners/Building Partnership Capacity, the ANG seeks to enhance its
    ability to meet domestic needs, as well as sufficient force structure
    to meet the demands of steady state deployments. We are engaged in
    Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) testing and numerous Agile
    Combat Support mission areas. We plan to increase tactical and direct
    support airlift capacity, such as light mobility aircraft and rotary
    wing aircraft, as well as increase our ISR capacity and LAAR
    capabilities.
                Continuing Missions
        The ANG will retain some conventional mission sets, particularly
    those associated with Global Persistent Attack. For example, the ANG is
    well suited for missions requiring surge aircraft in the early stages
    of a large conflict because of our cost-effectiveness continuity-of-
    experience. The ANG must also continue to participate in missions such
    as Rapid Global Mobility, which includes: Strategic airlift (C-5, C-
    17); Intra-theater or tactical airlift (C-130, C-27); and Air refueling
    (KC-135, KC-10, and future platforms).
        ANG combat aircraft (A-10, F-15, and F-16) make up a third of the
    combat capability of our nation's Air Force. Additionally, the ANG
    defends America's air space by conducting the Air Sovereignty Alert
    (ASA) mission at 14 of 16 sites throughout the country. The F-16s used
    in this critical mission will reach their service life expectancy in 7
    years. While our maintainers continue to keep our fleet mission ready
    and capable, these ``legacy'' systems should be replaced as soon as
    practical for the Air Force to remain relevant and reliable.
        The ANG will continue to retain existing missions that provide
    surge capability, such as those involved in Global Persistent Attack.
    Our nation's Air Force Reserve Components are particularly well suited
    in this role, providing unmatched cost effectiveness. Many of our
    tactical airlift missions, as well as Agile Combat Support missions,
    such as medical support, services, security forces, civil engineers,
    transportation, and logistics support, provide dual-use capabilities
    that are an extraordinary value provided only by the ANG.
        Rebalancing the force and training for new missions will directly
    impact thousands of Air Guard members nationwide. With the continued
    support of Congress, the ANG will continue to develop and field the
    most capable, cost-efficient force for fiscal year 2011 and well into
    the future. The members of America's ANG will continue to serve with
    pride and distinction at home and abroad.
        The ANG is an exceptional force, both in terms of the cost-
    effectiveness and in the quality and flexibility of our force. We
    continually strive to improve our capabilities and support the Total
    Force effort. We look forward to the future with great anticipation,
    secure in the knowledge that our nation's Air National Guard provides
    unsurpassed value for America.
        major general michael h. sumrall, acting director, joint staff,
                             national guard bureau
                           message from the director
        Today's prolonged worldwide irregular campaign against the forces
    of violent extremism requires global engagement across the spectrum of
    conflict. The challenge for the National Guard, as well as for the
    military as a whole, is to maintain the skills necessary to help
    struggling nations fight extremism while addressing the conditions that
    allow extremist groups to exist. The real challenge lies at the heart
    of what it means to be a successful, thriving democracy--the
    relationship among the populace, elected officials and government, and
    the military.
        Fortunately, the competitive advantage of the National Guard is its
    ability to build the bridges between civil and military authorities. We
    do this on a daily basis at home, and we are increasingly able to
    translate this capability to our Title 10 responsibilities abroad.
        In 2009, we made great strides in domestic planning efforts between
    U.S. Northern Command and National Guard Bureau (NGB). The National
    Guard has long been well prepared for commonly occurring natural
    disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, winter storms, and flooding.
    Preparing for less likely but catastrophic events requires an even more
    inclusive approach to planning.
        In recent years, the National Guard has developed innovative
    capabilities such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
    Teams (WMD-CST) and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
    High-yield Explosive (CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP) to
    respond to CBRNE events.
                              domestic operations
        Here are some examples of how the National Guard adds value to
    America:
    Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST)
        The National Guard will add two new WMD-CST units, bringing the
    total to 57 units. Each unit consists of 22 full-time Army and Air
    Guard personnel. WMD-CSTs help each state's civil authorities in
    identifying CBRNE agents, assessing current and projected consequences,
    advising on response measures, and assisting with appropriate requests
    for additional support.
    Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High-yield Explosive
            Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP)
        Seventeen CERFPs became fully operation capable in March 2009. This
    achievement helped to bridge the gap of a needed capability for a CBRNE
    response. These professionals train with Federal, state, and local
    agencies, and include the Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident
    Response Forces (CBIRF) and FEMA Urban Search and Rescue. In addition,
    a number of teams deployed to support national special security events
    such as the State of Union Address, Presidential Inauguration, and
    Republican/Democratic National Conventions, and will deploy to many
    others as the knowledge of this capability grows within the domestic
    operations community.
    Homeland Response Force (HRF)
        The National Guard has been directed by DOD to create 10 HRFs: two
    in fiscal year 2011 and eight in fiscal year 2012. The HRF will be made
    up of those early, life-saving capabilities including Search and
    Rescue, Decontamination, Emergency Medical, Security, and Command and
    Control (C\2\), with approximately 566 personnel per HRF. The 10 HRFs,
    17 CERFPs and 57 CSTs will provide the initial military response to a
    CBRNE incident.
    CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF)
        Whether deliberate or inadvertent, CBRNE incidents are one of the
    greatest challenges facing our nation today. Accordingly, DOD developed
    the CCMRF concept: a task force of approximately 5,200 service members
    who operate under the authority of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The CCMRF
    is designed to augment the consequence management efforts of state and
    local first responders, conventional National Guard forces, and Federal
    agencies by providing complementary and unique capabilities when the
    effects of a CBRNE incident exceed state capabilities. Restructured
    CCMRF 1 capabilities include CBRNE assessment, search/rescue,
    decontamination, emergency medical security, logistic support, and
    C\2\. CCMRF 2 and 3 each consist of a 1,200 personnel C\2\ element to
    provide additional command and control capability if required during a
    major incident.
    Critical Infrastructure Program (CIP)
        National Guard Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) assessment
    teams conduct all-hazard vulnerability assessments of prioritized
    Defense Industrial Base (DIB) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    Tier II sites in support of the Departments of Defense and Homeland
    Security.
        DIB CIP Teams are manned by a joint team consisting of nine
    traditional Air and Army National Guard members. The team consists of a
    team leader, mission analyst, electrical specialist, transportation
    specialist, water, heating, ventilating and air conditioning
    specialist, communications specialist, a petroleum, oil, and
    lubrication specialist, and security operations and emergency
    management. These teams conduct mission assurance assessments of
    prioritized Defense Industrial Base assets. DHS CIP Teams are manned by
    a joint team consisting of three traditional Air and Army National
    Guard members. These teams conduct assessments based on Department of
    Homeland Security criteria of DHS-selected critical assets.
        In fiscal year 2009, NGB CIP teams assessed over 200 industrial
    sites and critical U.S. Government infrastructure for vulnerabilities
    to attack. The teams anticipate assessing 200 more in fiscal year 2010.
        For more details on CIP, please see the information paper at:
    www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    National Guard Reaction Force (NGRF)
        A critical element in the first line of counter-terrorism defense,
    the NGRF is designed to respond to an incident ahead of Federal assets
    with the capability to be logistically self-sustaining for up to 72
    hours. Reaction Forces provide every state with a ready combat arms
    force capable of delivering, at the request of the Governor or
    President, an initial force package of 75-125 personnel who can respond
    within 8 hours. A follow-on force of up to 375 personnel can arrive
    within 24 hours. In fiscal year 2009, states and territories used their
    NGRFs to support the Presidential Inauguration and numerous other
    events and emergencies.
        For more details about the National Guard Reaction Force, please
    see the information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    Joint Enabling Team
        The National Guard Bureau Joint Enabling Team (JET) provides
    critical NGB Joint Staff, Army, and Air National Guard expertise to
    support the state or territory during a crisis event. In essence, when
    a disaster strikes, NGB will assist with reporting and coordination of
    NGB support. JETs will be on site within 24 hours of decision to
    execute. JETs have satellite phones, laptops and printers, cell phones,
    communications gear, and any other equipment needed to ensure a
    successful mission. The Team arrives self-sufficient and sustaining.
    NGB can field up to four JETs simultaneously.
    Joint Incident Awareness and Assessment Team (JIT)
        Incident Awareness and Assessment (IAA) is a key enabler that
    leverages traditional DOD and other governmental intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to support domestic
    operations while strictly adhering to all applicable legal frameworks.
    The JIT, a select, highly trained, fly-away team, assists the state
    Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ-State) in crisis response with expertise
    in IAA planning, tasking, acquisition, processing, assessment, and
    dissemination to appropriate responders during an incident.
    Counterdrug Programs
        The National Guard Counterdrug Program conducts a full spectrum
    campaign that bridges the gap between the Department of Defense and
    non-DOD institutions in the effort against illicit drugs and
    transnational threats to the homeland. The Counterdrug Program supports
    all levels of government, including DOD, law enforcement and community-
    based counterdrug operations to anticipate, prevent, deter and defeat
    those threats in order to enhance national security and protect our
    society.
        The National Guard Bureau Counterdrug Program is part of the
    national drug control strategy. Initially authorized by the President
    and Congress in 1989, DOD provides funds on a yearly basis to state
    Governors who submit plans specifying the usage of each state's
    National Guard to support drug interdiction and counterdrug activities.
        The National Guard brings three unique qualities to the Counterdrug
    problem: Trained Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen with unique military
    skills and equipment; legal status as a state militia (exempt from
    posse comitatus); and ties to the more than 3,200 local communities
    where National Guardsmen and women live and serve.
        In fiscal year 2009, approximately 2,600 National Guard personnel
    provided counterdrug support to law enforcement agencies in seizing
    drugs, weapons, and other contraband. During fiscal year 2009,
    counterdrug academies in Iowa, Florida, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania
    trained a total of 97,092 students which included: 4,278 military
    personnel, 23,918 community coalition members, and 68,896 law
    enforcement students.
        The National Guard's anti-drug program ``Stay-On-Track'' (SOT) has
    reached over 160,000 youth since 2006. We expect to expand SOT and
    reach out to 120,000 students in fiscal year 2010.
        For more details about the National Guard's Counterdrug program,
    please see the information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    National Guard Prioritized Capability Gaps
        Section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
    fiscal year 2008 directs DOD to provide an assessment of the extent to
    which the National Guard possesses the equipment required to perform
    its responsibilities in response to an emergency or major disaster. The
    assessment is to:
      --Identify any equipment shortfall that is likely to affect the
            ability of the National Guard to perform such responsibilities.
      --Evaluate the effect of any shortfall on the capacity of the
            National Guard to perform such responsibilities in response to
            an emergency or major disaster.
      --Identify the requirements and investment strategies for equipment
            provided to the National Guard by the Department of Defense
            that are necessary to plan for a reduction or elimination of
            any such shortfall.
        In response to this requirement, NGB developed its own Capability
    Assessment and Development Process (CADP), which is modeled after
    Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff processes for analyzing mission
    functions and capabilities, and determining gaps/shortfalls and
    solutions. The CADP supports NGB's ability to assess current and future
    capability needs to respond to domestic events, and to articulate those
    needs in appropriate planning, programming, and budgeting forums.
        The National Guard Bureau conducted regional scenario-based
    exercises in 2008 that provided data for the National Guard CADP.
    Subsequent analyses enabled the National Guard Bureau to identity and
    prioritize several capability gaps and develop recommendations for:
      --Improving command and control (C\2\), communications, interagency
            information sharing, and capacity to conduct domestic
            operations.
      --Improving National Guard Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
            Nuclear, and high-yield Explosive (CBRNE) disaster response
            capabilities.
      --Increasing joint and interagency training and readiness.
        The National Guard Bureau is working through appropriate plans,
    programs, and budgetary processes in order to obtain the necessary
    resources to mitigate identified National Guard capability gaps and
    improve National Guard capabilities for Homeland Defense and Civil
    Support.
                         joint and interagency training
        The NGB is leading the total force in a ``Race to the Top'' that
    postures the National Guard as the most effective joint force for
    domestic military operations. This endeavor started with a training
    transformation (T\2\) in NGB's Joint Interagency Training Capability
    (JITC) programs. NGB advanced T\2\ from a vision to reality in fiscal
    year 2009 by investing in new joint training and education, and by
    integrating joint exercises and training capabilities with interagency
    partners. T\2\ will emphasize JITC programs in fiscal year 2010 and
    beyond that produce experienced leaders and staff officers who are
    joint-minded, innovative, and who can adapt to the operational contexts
    of an event. The final objective of T\2\ is a fully joint force of
    motivated people who are well-trained, well-educated, and exercised to
    accomplish their joint mission essential tasks (JMETs).
    Joint Interagency Training Capability (JITC) programs
        Since its inception, JITC has prepared the National Guard by
    providing more than 30,000 man-days of individual, staff, and
    collective training in over 800 events. NGB plans to conduct over 200
    events in fiscal year 2011. Vital JITC programs include:
                Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) Training
        DSCA training uses simulations and linked Live-Virtual-Constructive
    environments to enhance training for homeland defense and emergency
    response missions.
                Joint Task Force (JTF) Commander Training Course
        This 5-day course provides current and future JTF commanders with
    an understanding of directives, current policies, guidance, and lessons
    learned regarding the complexities of commanding a JTF.
                Joint Staff Training Course
        This 6-month course blends distance learning with face-to-face
    sessions to train joint force staff personnel in all aspects of joint
    operations, planning, and execution to prepare them to act in concert
    with other joint, interagency, and intergovernmental organizations.
                Standardized CBRNE Collective Training
        This program trains CERFP, WMD-CST, and NGRF teams to provide an
    immediate response capability to support civil and military authorities
    following a CBRNE incident by forensically identifying the
    contamination; locating, extracting, decontaminating, and medically
    treating victims; and providing responders with security.
                                 vigilant guard
        Each year, the National Guard conducts four regional Vigilant Guard
    (VG) exercises to help military first-responders unify their efforts to
    support civilian authorities. In 2009, regional VG exercises were
    hosted by Iowa, Montana, New York, and Puerto Rico, with many other
    states contributing. The NGB is also building a special Vigilant Guard
    exercise to support the 54 states and territories in preparing for
    larger scale or real-world events. Implementation will begin in fiscal
    year 2011.
    Emergency Response and Training
        The National Guard's Joint Incident Site Communications Capability
    (JISCC) provides communications capabilities for the National Guard
    while conducting domestic operations and providing military support to
    civil authorities. With 85 deployed systems, JISCC is available for
    utilization anytime and anywhere. It provides interoperable
    communications and emergency satellite links to command and control
    centers to share information and tools needed to support collaboration
    with other Federal, state, and local responders including FEMA, the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and state emergency management
    agencies.
        The success of JISCC's anytime and anywhere communications
    capability in supporting domestic operations has received recognition
    and support from the military departments. The NGB and Army and Air
    Force are assessing it for future development as a programmed and
    funded defense communications system. The JISCC system, in conjunction
    with a web-based application (Joint Information Exchange Environment),
    and a Command and Control Coordination Center (C\4\) are known
    collectively as the Joint CONUS Communications Support Environment
    (JCCSE).
        Together, JCCSE's three elements offer the states and territories,
    Combatant Commanders, and domestic operations partners a complete
    communications package for emergency management/response: Deployable
    communication equipment; situational awareness and common operating
    picture capability; and a center for coordinating emergency operations.
        Partial funding for sustainment of the three JCCSE elements has
    been recognized in the fiscal year 2010-15 defense budget.
                      supporting the warfighter and family
    Financial Management Awareness Program
        In 2009, the National Guard Bureau established the Consumer
    Education and Financial Services Program. Working with defense,
    government, and civilian agencies, the program educates members of the
    National Guard and their families on financial responsibility and
    provides them with the necessary resources available to help them make
    sound financial decisions. Financial health is essential to the
    National Guard's preparedness and is an important quality-of-life
    issue. Continued collaboration among all agencies will ensure that
    every National Guard member and each family can understand and access
    the myriad of available financial resources.
        Websites: http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil/; http://
    www.myarmyonesource.com; and http://www.jointservicessupport.org/.
        The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP) provides
    information, services, referrals, and proactive outreach to Service
    members, families and employers throughout pre-deployment, deployment,
    and post-deployment. Through May 2009, the National Guard has already
    conducted 619 events involving 47,182 service members and 58,350 family
    members.
    Youth Development
        Our Citizen-Soldiers who, in their civilian lives, are influential
    across the spectrum of business, education, and government make up the
    backbone of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program. The award-
    winning community-based program leads, trains, and mentors at-risk
    youth to become productive citizens in America's future. ChalleNGe has
    32 sites in 28 states and Puerto Rico, offering a 5-month ``quasi-
    military'' residential phase and a 1-year post-residential mentoring
    phase for unemployed, crime-free high school dropouts, ages 16-18.
        Since 1993, ChalleNGe has graduated over 90,000 students. Over 67
    percent have earned a GED or high school diploma and 12 percent enter
    the military. The program pays for itself by savings realized from
    keeping young people out of jail and off public assistance rolls. Based
    on a formula from a 1998 Vanderbilt University study, ChalleNGe saves
    approximately $175 million annually in juvenile corrections costs,
    while keeping youth off of Federal assistance.
        For more details on the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program,
    please see the information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    DOD STARBASE Program
        Thirty-four National Guard sites host the DOD STARBASE Program
    which reaches out to at-risk 5th grade students to improve their
    knowledge and interest in the science, technology, engineering, and
    math fields. The United States faces a workforce and educational crisis
    in these fields as American 15-year-olds rank near the bottom of 30
    countries in combined science and math test scores. The program exposes
    the students to advanced technology and positive role models found on
    military bases and installations.
        For more details on the DOD STARBASE program, please see the
    information paper at: www.ng.mil/features/ngps.
    A Leader in Equal Opportunity
        The NGB Office of Equal Opportunity (NGB-EO) provides direction,
    administration, management, and policy implementation of National Guard
    (NG) military Equal Opportunity (EO) and technician Equal Employment
    Opportunity (EEO) and Civil Rights programs to both Army and Air Force.
    NGB-EO ensures the effective management of NG Affirmative Action
    Programs to achieve a military and civilian workforce structure that is
    reflective of the diversification of the 54 states, territories, and
    the District of Columbia.
        NGB-EO also oversees the implementation of programs that focus on
    the special needs of employees with disabilities. People with
    disabilities can be hired through the traditional competitive hiring
    process or if they qualify, noncompetitively through the use of
    accepted service appointing authorities. NGB-EO is responsible for
    providing educational awareness about Wounded Warriors, reasonable
    accommodations, and employment opportunities through various programs.
    As an employer, the National Guard recognizes that all employees with
    disabilities and wounded service members are essential to our workforce
    and have demonstrated excellence in executive, administrative,
    managerial, and technical fields.
                            state adjutants general
    Alabama: Major General Abner C. Blalock Jr.
    Alaska: Brigadier General Thomas H. Katkus
    Arizona: Major General (AZ) Hugo E. Salazar
    Arkansas: Major General William D. Wofford
    California: Brigadier General Mary J. Kight
    Colorado: Major General H. Michael Edwards
    Connecticut: Major General Thaddeus J. Martin
    Delaware: Major General Francis D. Vavala
    District of Columbia: Major General Errol R. Schwartz, Commanding
    General
    Florida: Major General Douglas Burnett
    Georgia: Major General William T. Nesbitt
    Guam: Major General Donald J. Goldhorn
    Hawaii: Major General Robert G. F. Lee
    Idaho: Major General (ID) Gary L. Sayler
    Illinois: Major General William L. Enyart
    Indiana: Major General R. Martin Umbarger
    Iowa: Brigadier General Timothy E. Orr
    Kansas: Major General Tod M. Bunting
    Kentucky: Major General Edward W. Tonini
    Louisiana: Major General Bennett C. Landreneau
    Maine: Major General (Ret) John W. Libby
    Maryland: Brigadier General (MD) James A. Adkins
    Massachusetts: Major General (MA) Joseph C. Carter
    Michigan: Major General Thomas G. Cutler
    Minnesota: Major General Larry W. Shellito
    Mississippi: Major General (MS) William L. Freeman, Jr.
    Missouri: Brigadier General (MO) Stephen L. Danner
    Montana: Brigadier General (MT) John E. Walsh
    Nebraska: Brigadier General (NE) Judd H. Lyons
    Nevada: Brigadier General William R. Burks
    New Hampshire: Major General (NH) William N. Reddel III
    New Jersey: Major General Glenn K. Rieth
    New Mexico: Major General (NM) Kenny C. Montoya
    New York: Brigadier General Patrick A. Murphy
    North Carolina: Major General William E. Ingram, Jr.
    North Dakota: Major General David A. Sprynczynatyk
    Ohio: Major General Gregory L. Wayt
    Oklahoma: Major General Myles L. Deering
    Oregon: Major General Raymond F. Rees
    Pennsylvania: Major General Jessica L. Wright
    Puerto Rico: Major General (PR) Antonio J. Vicens-Gonzalez
    Rhode Island: Major General Robert T. Bray
    South Carolina: Major General (Ret) Stanhope S. Spears
    South Dakota: Major General Steven R. Doohen
    Tennessee: Major General (TN) Terry M. Haston
    Texas: Major General Jose S. Mayorga Jr.
    Utah: Major General Brian L. Tarbet
    Vermont: Major General Michael D. Dubie
    Virginia: Major General Robert B. Newman Jr.
    Virgin Islands: Brigadier General (VI) Renaldo Rivera
    Washington: Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg
    West Virginia: Major General Allen E. Tackett
    Wisconsin: Brigadier General (WI) Donald P. Dunbar
    Wyoming: Major General Edward L. Wright
                                  in memoriam
        A special dedication to the men and women of the Army and the Air
    National Guard who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the United
    States of America.
        National Guard Soldiers and Airmen lost during the attacks on 9/11,
    Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom as of January 1, 2010.

    SGT Christopher P. Abeyta, IL
    CPT Clayton L. Adamkavicius, KY
    PVT Algernon Adams, NC
    SGT. Roger L. Adams Jr, NC
    SGT Ryan C. Adams, WI
    SFC Brent A. Adams, PA
    SGT Leonard W. Adams, NC
    SGT Spencer C. Akers, MI
    SPC Segun F. Akintade, NY
    PFC Wilson A. Algrim, MI
    SPC Azhar Ali, NY
    SGT Howard P. Allen, AZ
    1LT Louis E. Allen, PA
    SSG William A. Allers III, KY
    SFC Victor A. Anderson, GA
    SPC Michael Andrade, RI
    SGT Jan M. Argonish, PA
    SGT Travis M. Arndt, MT
    SSG Daniel L. Arnold, PA
    SSG Larry R. Arnold, MS
    SGT Jesse A. Ault, VA
    SPC Adrian L. Avila, AL
    SGT Christopher J. Babin, LA
    SFC Travis S. Bachman, KS
    SSG Nathan J. Bailey, TN
    SPC William L. Bailey, NE
    SPC Ronald W. Baker, AR
    SGT Sherwood R. Baker, PA
    SGT Juan C. Baldeosingh, NC
    MSG Scott R. Ball, PA
    1LT Debra A. Banaszak, IL
    SGT Derek R. Banks, VA
    1LT Gerard Baptiste, NY
    SGT Michael C. Barkey, OH
    1LT Leevi K. Barnard, NC
    1LT Christopher W. Barnett, LA
    SPC Bryan E. Barron, MS
    SGT Michael Barry, KS
    SSG Robert J. Basham, WI
    SPC Todd M. Bates, OH
    SSG Mark C. Baum, PA
    SSG Tane T. Baum, OR
    SFC John C. Beale, GA
    SPC Alan Bean Jr., VT
    SGT Bobby E. Beasley, WV
    SSgt Brock A. Beery, TN
    CPL Joseph O. Behnke, NY
    SGT Aubrey D. Bell, AL
    SSG Keith A. Bennett, PA
    SGT Darry Benson, NC
    SPC Bradley J. Bergeron, LA
    LTC Richard J. Berrettini, PA
    SSG David R. Berry, KS
    SSG Sean B. Berry, TX
    SSG Harold D. Best, NC
    SGT Robert L. Bittiker, NC
    1SG John D. Blair, GA
    SSG Richard A. Blakley, IN
    SGT Dennis J. Boles, FL
    SFC Craig A. Boling, IN
    SSG Jerry L. Bonifacio Jr., CA
    SSG Darryl D. Booker, VA
    COL Canfield Boone, IN
    SPC Christopher K. Boone, TX
    CPL Samuel M. Boswell, MD
    SSG Collin J. Bowen, MD
    PFC Samuel R. Bowen, OH
    SGT Larry Bowman, NY
    SSG Hesley Box Jr., AR
    SSG Stacey C. Brandon, AR
    SPC Kyle A. Brinlee, OK
    SSG Paul F. Brooks, MO
    SSG Cory W. Brooks, SD
    SFC John G. Brown, AR
    SGT Lerando Brown, MS
    PFC Nathan P. Brown, NY
    PFC Oliver J. Brown, PA
    SPC Philip D. Brown, ND
    SPC Timothy D. Brown, MI
    SGT Charles R. Browning, AZ
    SFC Daniel A. Brozovich, PA
    SSgt Andrew C. Brunn, NY
    SPC Jacques E. Brunson, GA
    PFC Paul J. Bueche, AL
    CPL Jimmy D. Buie, AR
    SSG James D. Bullard, SC
    SPC Alan J. Burgess, NH
    SSG Jason E. Burkholder, OH
    SGT Casey. Byers, IA
    SGT Charles T. Caldwell, RI
    MAJ Jeffrey R. Calero, NY
    SPC Norman L. Cain III, IL
    SSG Joseph Camara, MA
    1LT Jaime L. Campbell, WA
    LTC David C. Canegata III, VI
    SGT Deyson K. Cariaga, HI
    SPC Frederick A. Carlson, PA
    SSG Nicholas R. Carnes, KY
    SPC Jocelyn L. Carrasquillo, NC
    MSG Scott M. Carney, IA
    SGT James D. Carroll, TN
    SPC Dane O. Carver, MI
    SGT Frank T. Carvill, NJ
    SFC Virgil R. Case, ID
    CPT Christopher S. Cash, NC
    SPC Stephen W. Castner, WI
    SPC George W. Cauley, MN
    SPC Jessica L. Cawvey, IL
    CPL Bernard L. Ceo, MD
    SPC James A. Chance III, MS
    SSG William D. Chaney, IL
    MSG Chris S. Chapin, VT
    SGT Brock H. Chavers, GA
    SSG Craig W. Cherry, VA
    SPC Don A. Clary, KS
    MSG Herbert R. Claunch, AL
    SGT James M. Clay, AR
    SPC Brian Clemens, IN
    SSG Thomas W. Clemons, KY
    SGT Russell L. Collier, AR
    SFC Kurt J. Comeaux, LA
    SPC Anthony S. Cometa, NV
    SGT Brian R. Conner, MD
    SFC Sean M. Cooley, MS
    SSG Travis S. Cooper, MS
    SPC Marcelino R. Corniel, CA
    SGT Alex J. Cox, TX
    SFC Daniel B. Crabtree, OH
    MSG Clinton W. Cubert, KY
    SSG Daniel M. Cuka, SD
    SPC Carl F. Curran, PA
    CPT Patrick D. Damon, ME
    SGT Jessie Davila, KS
    SPC Daryl A. Davis, FL
    SSG Kevin D. Davis, OR
    SPC Raphael S. Davis, MS
    SSG David F. Day, MN
    PFC John W. Dearing, MI
    SGT Germaine L. Debro, NE
    MSG Bernard L. Deghand, KS
    SGT Felix M. Del Greco, CT
    SPC Daryl T. Dent, DC
    SPC Daniel A. Desens, NC
    CPT Bruno G. Desolenni, CA
    PFC Nathaniel E. Detample, PA
    CPL Scott G. Dimond, NH
    SPC Joshua P. Dingler, GA
    SGT Philip A. Dodson Jr., GA
    SPC Ryan E. Doltz, NJ
    SSgt Geronimo ``Jerome'' M. P. Dominguez, NY
    1LT Mark H. Dooley, NY
    SPC Thomas J. Dostie, ME
    SSG George R. Draughn Jr., GA
    SGT Duane J. Dreasky, MI
    SPC Daniel P. Drevnik, MN
    SPC Christopher M. Duffy, NJ
    CPL Ciara M. Durkin, MA
    SGT Arnold Duplantier II, CA
    MSG Kevin A. Dupont, MA
    Sgt Lance O. Eakes, NC
    SPC Chad A. Edmundson, PA
    SFC Amos C. Edwards Jr., GA
    CW2 Corry A. Edwards, TX
    SFC Mark O. Edwards, TN
    2LT Michael I. Edwards, AK
    SGT Michael Egan, PA
    SGT Christian P. Engeldrum, NY
    1LT William E. Emmert, TN
    SGT Daniel M. Eshbaugh, OK
    CPT Phillip T. Esposito, NY
    SPC Michael S. Evans II, LA
    SPC William L. Evans, PA
    SSG Christopher L. Everett, TX
    SGT Justin L. Eyerly, OR
    SPC Huey P. Long Fassbender, LA
    SGT Gregory D. Fejeran, GU
    CPT Arthur L. Felder, AR
    SGT Robin V. Fell, LA
    SGT Christopher J. C. Fernandez, GU
    SPC William V. Fernandez, PA
    SPC Jon P. Fettig, ND
    SGT Damien T. Ficek, WA
    SGT Courtney D. Finch, KS
    SGT Jeremy J. Fischer, NE
    CPT Michael T. Fiscus, IN
    SPC David M. Fisher, NY
    SGT Paul F. Fisher, IA
    CW3 William T. Flanigan, TN
    CW3 John M. Flynn, NV
    SSG Tommy I. Folks Jr., TX
    SGT Joseph A. Ford, IN
    SGT Joshua A. Ford, NE
    SPC Craig S. Frank, MI
    SSG Bobby C. Franklin, GA
    SSG Jacob Frazier, IL
    SSG Alex French IV, GA
    SPC Carrie L. French, ID
    SPC Armand L. Frickey, LA
    SSG Joseph F. Fuerst III, FL
    SFC Michael T. Fuga, AS \1\
    SSG Carl R. Fuller, GA
    SPC Marcus S. Futrell, GA
    CSM Marilyn L. Gabbard, IA
    SPC Joseph L. Gallegos, NM
    SGT Jerry L. Ganey Jr., GA
    SGT Seth K. Garceau, IA
    SPC Tomas Garces, TX
    SGT Landis W. Garrison, IL
    PFC Alva L. Gaylord, MO
    SGT Christopher Geiger, PA
    SPC Christopher D. Gelineau, ME
    SPC Mathew V. Gibbs, GA
    2LT Richard B. Gienau, IL
    SSG Charles C. Gillican III, GA
    SGT Terrell W. Gilmore, LA
    SPC Lee M. Godbolt, LA
    SGT Jaime Gonzalez, TX
    CPL Nathan J. Goodiron, ND
    SPC Richard A. Goward, MI
    SGT Shawn A. Graham, TX
    SFC Alejandro Granado, VA
    SGT Jamie A. Gray, VT
    SPC Anthony G. Green, NC
    SGT Kevin D. Grieco, IL
    SPC James T. Grijalva, IL
    SGT Shakere T. Guy, CA
    SGT Jonathon C. Haggin, GA
    SFC Peter J. Hahn, LA
    CSM Roger W. Haller, MD
    SSG Jeffrey J. Hansen, NE
    SGT Joshua R. Hanson, MN
    SGT Joshua W. Harris, IL
    SSG Asbury F. Hawn II, TN
    SPC Michael R. Hayes, KY
    CPT Bruce E. Hays, WY
    SGT Paul M. Heltzel, LA
    SPC Kyle M. Hemauer, VA
    1LT Robert L. Henderson II, KY
    SSG Kenneth Hendrickson, ND
    SFC John M. Hennen, LA
    SGT Gary M. Henry, IN
    SPC Michael L. Hermanson, ND
    SPC Brett M. Hershey, IN
    MAJ Tad T. Hervas, MN
    MSG Michael T. Hiester, IN
    SGT Stephen C. High, SC
    CPT Raymond D. Hill II, CA
    SGT Shawn F. Hill, SC
    SFC Matthew L. Hilton, MI
    SGT Jeremy M. Hodge, OH
    PFC Derek Holland, PA
    SFC Robert L. Hollar Jr., GA
    SPC Eric M. Holke, CA
    SPC James J. Holmes, MN
    SPC Jeremiah J. Holmes, ME
    SGT Manny Hornedo, NY
    SPC Chester W. Hosford, MN
    SGT Jessica M. Housby, IL
    SPC Robert W. Hoyt, CT
    SPC Jonathan A. Hughes, KY
    SGT Buddy J. Hughie, OK
    SGT Joseph D. Hunt, TN
    MSG Julian Ingles Rios, PR
    SSG Henry E. Irizarry, NY
    SPC Benjamin W. Isenberg, OR
    SFC Tricia L. Jameson, NE
    SGT Brahim J. Jeffcoat, PA
    SPC William Jeffries, IN
    MAJ Kevin M. Jenrette, GA
    SPC David W. Johnson, OR
    SPC Issac L. Johnson, GA
    SGT Joshua A. Johnson, VT
    SFC Charles J. Jones, KY
    SSG David R. Jones Sr., GA
    SFC Michael D. Jones, ME
    SGT Ryan D. Jopek, WI
    SPC Jeffrey W. Jordan, GA
    SGT Anthony N. Kalladeen, NY
    SPC Alain L. Kamolvathin, NJ
    SPC Mark J. Kasecky, PA
    SSG Darrel D. Kasson, AZ
    SPC Charles A. Kaufman, WI
    SPC James C. Kearney, IA
    SGT Michael J. Kelley, MA
    SSG Dale J. Kelly, ME
    COL Paul M. Kelly, VA
    SSG Stephen C. Kennedy, TN
    SSG Ricky A. Kieffer, MI
    SSG Bradley D. King, IN
    SGT James O. Kinlow, GA
    PFC David M. Kirchoff, IA
    SGT Timothy C. Kiser, CA
    SPC Rhys W. Klasno, CA
    SPC Chris Kleinwachter, ND
    SGT Floyd G. Knighten Jr., LA
    SPC Joshua L. Knowles, IA
    SGT Brent W. Koch, MN
    SSG Lance J. Koenig, ND
    SGT Allen D. Kokesh Jr., SD
    CW3 Patrick W. Kordsmeier, AR
    SFC Edward C. Kramer, NC
    SPC Kurt E. Krout, PA
    SPC John Kulick, PA
    SFC William W. Labadie Jr., AR
    SGT Joshua S. Ladd, MS
    SGT Dustin D. Laird, TN
    SFC Floyd E. Lake, VI
    SPC Charles R. Lamb, IL
    SPC David E. Lambert, VA
    SGT Denise A. Lannaman, NY
    SFC Issac S. Lawson, CA
    CW4 Patrick D. Leach, SC
    SGT Terrance D. Lee Sr., MS
    SGT David L. Leimback, SC
    PFC Ken W. Leisten, OR
    SSG Jerome Lemon, SC
    SPC Brian S. Leon Guerrerro, GU
    SPC Timothy J. Lewis, VA
    SSG Nathaniel B. Lindsey, OR
    SGT Jesse M. Lhotka, MN
    SSG Victoir P. Lieurance, TN
    SFC Daniel R. Lightner Jr., PA
    SPC Justin W. Linden, OR
    SSG Tommy S. Little, AL
    SPC Jeremy Loveless, AL
    SSG David L. Loyd, TN
    CPT Ronald G. Luce Jr., NC
    CPT Robert Lucero, WY
    2LT Scott B. Lundell, UT
    SPC Audrey D. Lunsford, MS
    PFC Jonathan L. Luscher, PA
    SPC Derrick J. Lutters, CO
    SPC Wai Phyo Lwin, NY
    CPT Sean E. Lyerly, TX
    SGT Stephen R. Maddies, TN
    SPC Anthony L. Mangano, NY
    SSG William F. Manuel, LA
    SPC Joshua S. Marcum, AR
    SPC Jeremy E. Maresh, PA
    PFC Adam L. Marion, NC
    PV2 Taylor D. Marks, OR
    PFC Ryan A. Martin, OH
    Sgt Anthony L. Mason, TX
    SGT Nicholas C. Mason, VA
    SGT John R. Massey, AR
    SGT Randy J. Matheny, NE
    SGT Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr., CA
    SFC Randy D. McCaulley, PA
    1LT Erik S. McCrae, OR
    SPC Donald R. McCune, MI
    SPC Bryan T. McDonough, MN
    SGT John E. McGee, GA
    SPC Jeremy W. McHalffey, AR
    SFC Joseph A. McKay, NY
    SPC Eric S. McKinley, OR
    LTC Michael E. McLaughlin, PA
    SPC Scott P. McLaughlin, VT
    SGM Jeffrey A. McLochlin, IN
    SSG Heath A. McMillan, NY
    SSG Michael J. McMullen, MD
    SPC Robert A. McNail, MS
    MSG Robbie D. McNary, MT
    SSG Jeremiah E. McNeal, VA
    SPC Curtis R. Mehrer, ND
    PV2 Bobby Mejia II, MI
    SPC Mark W. Melcher, PA
    SPC Jacob E. Melson, AK
    SSG Joshua A. Melton, IL
    SPC Kenneth A. Melton, MO
    SPC Jonathan D. Menke, IN
    SSG Chad M. Mercer, GA
    SPC Chris S. Merchant, VT
    SSG Dennis P. Merck, GA
    SGM Michael C. Mettille, MN
    SPC Michael G. Mihalakis, CA
    SSG Brian K. Miller, IN
    SPC John W. Miller, IA
    SGT Kyle R. Miller, MN
    CPT Lowell T. Miller II, MI
    SPC Marco L. Miller, FL
    PFC Mykel F. Miller, AZ
    SFC Troy L. Miranda, AR
    SGT Ryan J. Montgomery, KY
    SPC Samson A. Mora, GU
    SGT Raymundo P. Morales, GA
    SGT Carl J. Morgain, PA
    SPC Dennis B. Morgan, NE
    SGT Steve Morin Jr., TX
    SGT Shawna M. Morrison, IL
    SPC Clifford L. Moxley, PA
    LTC Charles E. Munier, WY
    SPC Warren A. Murphy, LA
    SGT David J. Murray, LA
    SPC Nathan W. Nakis, OR
    SFC Brian Naseman, OH
    SPC Creig L. Nelson, LA
    SGT Paul C. Neubauer, CA
    SPC Joshua M. Neusche, MO
    SGT Long N. Nguyen, OR
    SPC Paul A. Nicholas, CA
    SFC Scott E. Nisely, IA
    SGT William J. Normandy, VT
    PFC Francis C. Obaji, NY
    SGT John B. Ogburn III, OR
    SGT Nicholas J. Olivier, LA
    SSG Todd D. Olson, WI
    1LT Robert C. Oneto-Sikorski, MS
    1SGT Julio C Ordonez, TX
    SPC Richard P. Orengo, PR
    SSG Billy Joe Orton, AR
    SGT Timothy R. Osbey, MS
    SSG Ryan S. Ostrom, PA
    SSG Michael C. Ottolini, CA
    SSG Paul S. Pabla, IN
    SGT Mark C. Palmateer, NY
    PFC Kristian E. Parker, LA
    SGT Richard K. Parker, ME
    SSG Saburant Parker, MS
    SGT Lawrence L. Parrish, MO
    SSG Michael C. Parrott, CO
    SGT Schulyer B. Patch, OK
    SPC Gennaro Pellegrini Jr., PA
    SGT Theodore L. Perreault, MA
    SSG David S. Perry, CA
    SGT Jacob L. Pfingsten, MN
    SSG Joseph E. Phaneuf, CT
    PFC Sammie E. Phillips, KY
    SGT Edward O. Philpot, SC
    SGT Ivory L. Phipps, IL
    SSG Emanual Pickett, NC
    CW2 Paul J. Pillen, SD
    PFC Derek J. Plowman, AR
    SGT Foster Pinkston, GA
    SPC Matthew M. Pollini, MA
    SGT Darrin K. Potter, KY
    SGT Christopher S. Potts, RI
    SGT Lynn R. Poulin Sr., ME
    SFC Daniel J. Pratt, OH
    SFC James D. Priestap, MI
    2LT Mark J. Procopio, VT
    SGT Joseph E. Proctor, IN
    SSG Matthew A. Pucino, MD
    SPC Robert S. Pugh, MS
    SFC George A. Pugliese, PA
    SSG Thomas D. Rabjohn, AZ
    SPC Joseph A. Rahaim, MS
    SPC Eric U. Ramirez, CA
    PFC Brandon Ramsey, IL
    SPC Christopher J. Ramsey, LA
    SSG Jose C. Rangel, CA
    SGT Thomas C. Ray, NC
    SSG Johnathan R. Reed, LA
    SSG Aaron T. Reese, OH
    SGT Gary L. Reese Jr., TN
    SGT Luis R. Reyes, CO
    SPC Jeremy L. Ridlen, IL
    SPC James D. Riekena, WA
    SGT Greg N. Riewer, MN
    PFC Hernando Rios, NY
    SSG Milton Rivera-Vargas, PR
    CPL John T. Rivero, FL
    SSG William T. Robbins, AR
    SSG Christopher L. Robinson, MS
    CPL Jeremiah W. Robinson, AZ
    SPC Simone A. Robinson, IL
    SGT Nelson D. Rodriguez Ramirez, MA
    SSG Alan L. Rogers, UT
    SFC Daniel Romero, CO
    SGT Brian M. Romines, IL
    SFC Robert E. Rooney, NH
    SPC David L. Roustum, NY
    SGT Roger D. Rowe, TN
    CW3 Brady J. Rudolf, OK
    SGT David A. Ruhren, VA
    CW4 William Ruth, MD
    SPC Lyle W. Rymer II, AR
    SPC Corey J. Rystad, MN
    SSG Lukasz D. Saczek, IL
    SFC Rudy A. Salcido, CA
    SGT Paul A. Saylor, GA
    SSG Daniel R. Scheile, CA
    SPC Ronald A. Schmidt, KS
    SFC Richard L. Schild, SD
    SGT Jacob S. Schmuecker, NE
    SPC Jeremiah W. Schmunk, WA
    PFC Benjamin C. Schuster, NY
    SGT Andrew Seabrooks, NY
    SPC Dennis L. Sellen, CA
    SGT Bernard L. Sembly, LA
    SPC Daniel L. Sesker, IA
    SGT Jeffrey R. Shaver, WA
    SGT Kevin Sheehan, VT
    SGT Ronnie L. Shelley Sr., GA
    SGT James A. Sherrill, KY
    1LT Andrew C. Shields, SC
    SPC Bradley N. Shilling, MI
    PFC Ashley Sietsema, IL
    SGT Alfred B. Siler, TN
    SGT Alfredo B. Silva, CA
    SGT Isiah J. Sinclair, LA
    SPC Roshan (Sean) R. Singh, NY
    SPC Channing G. Singletary, GA
    SPC Aaron J. Sissel, IA
    SSG Bradley J. Skelton, MO
    1LT Brian D. Slavenas, IL
    SGT Eric W. Slebodnik, PA
    SPC Erich S. Smallwood, AR
    SGT Keith Smette, ND
    CW4 Bruce A. Smith, IA
    CPL Darrell L. Smith, IN
    SGT Gerrick D. Smith, IL
    SGT Michael A. Smith, AR
    SSG Paul G. Smith, IL
    SPC Norman K. Snyder, IN
    SGT Mike T. Sonoda Jr., CA
    Lt Col Kevin H. Sonnenberg, OH
    SGT Matthew R. Soper, MI
    SGT Kampha B. Sourivong, IA
    1LT Jared W. Southworth, IL
    SFC Theodore A. Spatol, WY
    SFC William C. Spillers, MS
    SSG Chris N. Staats, TX
    SPC David S. Stelmat, NH
    SGT Patrick D. Stewart, NV
    SGT Jonnie L. Stiles, CO
    SGT Michael J. Stokely, GA
    Maj Gregory Stone, ID
    SPC Samuel D. Stone, WA
    MSG John T. Stone, VT
    SPC Brandon L. Stout, MI
    SPC Chrystal G. Stout, SC
    2LT Matthew R. Stoval, MS
    SGT Francis J. Straub Jr., PA
    SGT Matthew F. Straughter, MO
    SGT Scott Stream, IL
    SGT Thomas J. Strickland, GA
    WO1 Adrian B. Stump, OR
    CW4 Milton E. Suggs, LA
    SFC Severin W. Summers III, MS
    SSG Daniel A. Suplee, FL
    SSG Michael Sutter, IL
    SGT Robert W. Sweeney III, LA
    SPC Christopher M. Talbert, IL
    SGT Deforest L. Talbert, WV
    SFC Linda A. Tarango-Griess, NE
    SPC Christopher M. Taylor, AL
    SPC Deon L. Taylor, NY
    CPT Michael V. Taylor, AR
    SGT Shannon D. Taylor, TN
    SGT Joshua A. Terando, IL
    MSG Thomas R. Thigpen Sr., GA
    SGT John F. Thomas, GA
    MSG Sean M. Thomas, PA
    SGT Paul W. Thomason III, TN
    CPL Michael E. Thompson, OK
    1LT Jason G. Timmerman, MN
    SGT Humberto F. Timoteo, NJ
    SPC Eric L. Toth, KY
    SSG Robin L. Towns Sr., MD
    SPC Seth R. Trahan, LA
    SPC Quoc Binh Tran, CA
    SSG Philip L. Travis, GA
    CW4 Chester W. Troxel, AK
    SGT Robert W. Tucker, TN
    SGT Gregory L. Tull, IA
    SPC Nicholas D. Turcotte, MN
    1LT Andre D. Tyson, CA
    SPC Daniel P. Unger, CA
    PFC Wilfredo F. Urbina, NY
    SGT Michael A. Uvanni, NY
    1LT Robert Vallejo II, TX
    SGT Gene Vance Jr., WV
    SGT Travis A. Vanzoest, ND
    SGT Daniel R. Varnado, MS
    SSG Jason A. Vazquez, IL
    1LT Michael W. Vega, CA
    SSG David M. Veverka, PA
    SPC Anthony M. K. Vinnedge, OH
    SPC Chad J. Vollmer, MI
    PFC Kenneth Gri Vonronn, NY
    SPC Jason E. von Zerneck, NY
    SSG Michael S. Voss, NC
    PFC Brandon J. Wadman, FL
    SSG Gregory A. Wagner, SD
    SGT Andrew P. Wallace, WI
    SGT Daniel W. Wallace, KY
    PFC Cwislyn K. Walter, HI
    SFC Charles H. Warren, GA
    1SG William T. Warren, AR
    SFC Mark C. Warren, OR
    SPC Glenn J. Watkins, CA
    MSG Davy N. Weaver, GA
    SGT Matthew A. Webber, MI
    SFC Kyle B. Wehrly, IL
    SGT Robert M. Weinger, IL
    SSG David J. Weisenburg, OR
    SPC Michael J. Wendling, WI
    SPC Cody Lee L. Wentz, ND
    SGT Earl D. Werner, WI
    SPC Jeffrey M. Wershow, FL
    SPC James D. Wertish, MN
    SGT Marshall A. Westbrook, NM
    SPC Lee A. Wiegand, PA
    SPC Carlos E. Wilcox IV, MN
    LTC James L. Wiley, OR
    1LT Charles L. Wilkins III, OH
    SGT David B. Williams, NC
    2LT Derwin I. Williams, IL
    SPC Michael L. Williams, NY
    SFC Christopher R. Willoughby, AL
    SSG Clinton L. Wisdom, KS
    SPC Robert A. Wise, FL
    SPC Michelle M. Witmer, WI
    SSG Delmar White, KY
    SGT Elijah Tai Wah Wong, AZ
    SPC John E. Wood, KS
    SFC Ronald T. Wood, UT
    SGT Roy A. Wood, FL
    SFC William B. Woods Jr., VA
    SSG James Wosika, MN
    SPC Brian A. Wright, IL
    SGT Thomas G. Wright, MI
    SGT Joshua V. Youmans, MI
    SPC Christopher D. Young, CA

        \1\ American Samoa

        Chairman Inouye. Before I call upon General Wyatt, may I
    recognize Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will hold my time
    until the questions.
        But, I just cannot help but note what General McKinley said
    about Senator Bond. One of the great joys of the last few years
    here in the Senate has been being cochair with Senator Bond--
    Governor Bond--on the National Guard Caucus. I have enjoyed our
    bipartisan cooperation, and that cooperation is one of the
    reasons why you have four stars on your shoulder, General. You
    earned them, of course, but we made it possible to have that
    slot there. Mr. Chairman, I think we have four very good
    friends sitting up here right now who are on both sides of the
    aisle.
        Kit, I know this is going to be your last hearing of this
    nature before the subcommittee, and I just wanted to say how
    much I've appreciated both the friendship and working with you.
        Chairman Inouye. I can't imagine not hearing from Senator
    Bond in years to come.
        Your voice----
        Senator Bond. I notice that's with a smile, Mr. Chairman--
    you're not looking sad.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. May I now call upon General Wyatt.

           SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY M. WYATT III

        General Wyatt. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, Senator
    Leahy, Senator Bond, on behalf of the 106,700 extraordinary men
    and women who serve in America's Air National Guard, thank you
    for inviting me today, and thank you for the continued strong
    support that this subcommittee has provided our servicemembers.
        Many of our folks continue to volunteer at unprecedented
    rates for worldwide contingencies and to protect our domestic
    security through air sovereignty alert missions and in
    responding to natural and manmade disasters.
        A shining example of the quality of individuals that we
    have is a young man who is seated behind me. And with the
    permission of the subcommittee, I would like to introduce to
    you Staff Sergeant Kenneth Walker.
        Sergeant Walker, if you'd please stand.
        Sergeant Walker is a tactical air control party journeyman.
    He's assigned to the 116th Air Support Operations Squadron as a
    flight supervisor at Camp Murray, Washington. He, in 1998,
    enlisted in the United States Air Force as an operations
    resource specialist, and joined the 9th Bomber Squadron in
    Abilene, Texas. In 2004, he joined the Army National Guard and
    began training with the 19th Special Forces Group in Buckley,
    Washington. In 2006, Sergeant Walker joined the Air National
    Guard at Camp Murray, Washington, and began his training as a
    tactical air control party noncommissioned officer (NCO).
    Sergeant Walker recently returned from his fifth deployment,
    this time as a tactical air controller personnel, where he
    directed close air support in support of the 3d Brigade Combat
    Team, 1st Infantry Division, Kunar Province, in Afghanistan. On
    this latest deployment his supported Army unit awarded him with
    the Army Commendation Medal with Valor Device for his
    successful efforts to save American lives under fire. He led 19
    combat air support missions for nine named operations, spent
    more than 135 hours outside the wire on combat patrol. He
    successfully prosecuted 18 precision strikes on enemy
    positions, with more than 48,000 pounds of ordnance on target.
    His courage and initiative resulted in 33 enemy casualties and
    an additional 16 enemy-wounded personnel.
        Sergeant Walker is a traditional guardsman. He is employed
    for the Oregon Youth Authority, which is a maximum security
    correctional facility for young adults who represent an
    unacceptable risk to the community.
        Sergeant Walker is one of the many 106,700 members of the
    Guard to which we take great pride.
        It's interesting that Sergeant Walker will be facing a
    decision to reenlist, here, pretty soon. In the Air National
    Guard, he is eligible for a reenlistment bonus, because of the
    fact that his job specialty is high-operations tempo and is one
    that is in great demand. He's entitled to a reenlistment bonus
    that pays him $15,000, but only if he reenlists for 6 years.
    Were he on Active Duty, he would quality for a $90,000 bonus
    and reenlist for 3 years. I say that to point out the need to
    continue our recruiting and retention budget so that we can
    continue attracting ladies and gentlemen like this young man.
        Sergeant Walker. Thanks.
        Chairman Inouye. The subcommittee thanks you and salutes
    you, Sergeant.
        General Wyatt. In order to ensure our continued success in
    our State and Federal missions, I've identified my enduring
    priorities for 2010 as, first of all, modernize our warfighting
    capabilities; second, secure the homefront and defend the
    Nation; and third, develop adaptable airmen. All equally
    important.
        In supporting these priorities, we evolve and shape our
    force and maintain our outstanding value. Our Nation's Air
    National Guard provides a trained, equipped, and ready force,
    accessible and available--that comprises about one-third of the
    total force capabilities for less than 7 percent of the total
    force budget.
        Mr. Chairman, I'm grateful to be here, and I look forward
    to answering any questions you and the subcommittee may have of
    me.
        Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        Now may I call upon General Wyatt.

            SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL RAYMOND W. CARPENTER

        General Carpenter. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman,
    Senators, it's my pleasure and honor to be here to represent
    the 360,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard today.
        And I would like to take a point of privilege and introduce
    one of those soldiers to you.
        Sergeant Campbell, would you please stand?
        He is a Maryland National Guardsman, and he is a senior
    tactical satellite communications systems specialist. He
    deployed in 2005-2006 with the 42d Infantry Division, 16th
    Armored Cavalry Brigade, and was deployed near Kirkuk, in Iraq.
    In that role, he provided the essential communication link to
    the warfighter in that area, and had a successful tour there,
    and returned home.
        He has been in the Army National Guard for 9 years. That
    means that he reenlisted about 3 years ago. When I asked him,
    ``How come he reenlisted in the Army National Guard?'', he said
    because he didn't think he had any other alternative, that that
    was something that he absolutely wanted to do.
        And so, I think that it's important for us to recognize
    that Sergeant Campbell represents many of those soldiers who
    make those decisions on a daily basis, of whether they stay in
    the National Guard, or not. And to date, our reenlistment rate
    is over 120 percent, which is a huge kudo to what the soldiers
    inside of our formations see as, first of all, a patriotic,
    meaningful service, and something that they want to continue.
        And so, Sergeant Campbell is in the midst of completing his
    degree in electrical engineering, and we look forward to his
    continued service in our Army National Guard.
        Chairman Inouye. Sergeant Campbell, we thank you for your
    service, and we salute you, sir.
        General Carpenter. As I mentioned, there are over 360,000
    citizen-soldiers in our Army National Guard, as we speak today.
    And of those 360,000, over 60,000 are either mobilized,
    deployed, and on point for this Nation. The sacrifice of these
    soldiers, their families, and employers is something we must
    not only acknowledge, but certainly appreciate.
        The National Guard of today is a far cry from the one I
    joined. The last 8 years have seen the Guard transform to an
    operational force. The enablers for the Army National Guard,
    one of the greatest forces for good, in my opinion, have been
    provided and sustained by the congressional initiatives, many
    of which we will discuss today.
        They begin with incentive and soldier programs, support
    programs, that allow us to recruit and retain the best and the
    brightest, of which Sergeant Campbell represents. You have
    supported the resourcing for equipment that has supported the
    modernization of our fleets inside the Army Guard. We now have
    equipped our units to 83 percent of critical dual-use
    equipment, that being the equipment that's available for use by
    the Governors as available for use for the overseas mission.
    Sixty-six percent of that equipment inventory is now on hand,
    in the States, and available for the Governors, should they
    need or have to use it tonight.
        The National Guard and Reserve equipment account, as
    General McKinley mentioned, has been especially supportive in
    our pursuit of equipping the force. Last year, you appropriated
    almost $800 million for the Army National Guard in that
    account. And over the last 6 years, you have appropriated
    almost $5 billion for our use. Thanks to the National Guard/
    Reserve equipment account, we will retire the M-35, the
    venerable ``deuce-and-a-half,'' this coming year. That truck
    has been in the inventory for almost 40 years, and we will
    replace them with the new family of modern tactical vehicles.
        Facilities and infrastructure are especially important in
    the homeland mission and supporting readiness for the overseas
    fight. We have 1,400 readiness centers, armories, that are over
    50 years old. The President's budget includes $873 million for
    construction for the Army National Guard. It is a high water
    mark in that business, as far as the President's budget is
    concerned; something we'd like to see sustained in order for us
    to do the modernization for those particular armories and
    readiness centers.
        I also want to highlight the $30 million appropriated last
    year in the Guard and Reserve initiative, a military
    construction NGREA-like account. That appropriation has already
    made a difference in construction of key facilities that we
    would not have otherwise been able to build.
        I solicit your support in the budget for the growth of the
    non-dual-status technician program. As you may know, those
    technicians are the ones that do not deploy, because they are
    not in the National Guard, and they maintain the home fires,
    they do the pay accounts, the equipment accounts, those kinds
    of things, in the absence of the dual-status technician. And,
    as General McKinley mentioned, I would also ask that the O&M
    accounts presented in the President's budget be approved,
    intact.
        Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support across the
    Army for the operational force. That support has been
    demonstrated in the budget process and programming process for
    the operational National Guard through fiscal year 2014, and
    it's actually a great story of the Army team, the Army Guard
    and the Army Reserve as one team on the battlefield, and one
    team in the budget process.
        Again, I'd like to acknowledge the critical role you all
    have played in building and sustaining the best National Guard
    in my career, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, General Carpenter.
        In recognition of the good work and leadership of the
    Senate National Guard Caucus, may I call upon Senator Bond
    first.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, General McKinley, for your very kind words.
        And, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran, it's been a great
    honor to work with you, but it's been a real pleasure to work
    with my friend Pat Leahy. And when we get something that is of
    importance to the Guard, I can count on Pat Leahy taking the
    leadership on his side while I try to do the same on my side.
    Of all the things I'm going to miss around here, this is one of
    them. I'd better say something about missing working with my
    chairman on the Transportation/Housing and Urban Development
    subcommittee, too. But, those things I will miss.
        But, back to the work at hand. I think we all agree with
    General McKinley's statement, and the statement of Generals
    Wyatt and Carpenter, about the importance of the men and women
    of our National Guard and Reserve. And that's why we were so
    honored to be able to recognize and thank Sergeant Walker and
    Sergeant Campbell, on behalf of all the men and women.
        You truly are, not only a vital component of our Nation's
    total force, but you are our heroes for what you do at home and
    abroad, and we offer you a heartfelt thanks.
        And now it's our job, not only to provide the support for
    you--and I think General Wyatt had a little idea how we might
    provide a little more support--but also to support, not only
    the personnel, but the equipment, to make sure that you are
    able to do the job.
        And I think one of the greatest achievements of this
    subcommittee has been its leadership in bringing about
    significant addition of dual-use equipment. At Katrina, when
    that hit--I've told the story here many times--we sent one of
    three engineer battalions to Louisiana. They said, ``They're
    doing a great job, send another one.'' I said, ``Well, we've
    had to send 'em in tennis shoes and pickup trucks, because we
    only have one of our three battalions equipped.'' But, we have
    gone from 33 percent to--according to your posture statement--
    to now 76 percent for the Army Guard.
        Unfortunately, on the air side, the situation is dire. And
    I think that we ought to agree that if you call it Air Guard,
    you ought to have aircraft. Aircraft are a paramount piece of
    equipment for the Guard to fulfill its mission. But,
    unfortunately, the Air Force, under pressure from the Pentagon,
    has been pursuing a strategy that will result in a significant
    drawdown of Air Guard aircraft. Unless Congress acts, the end
    result will be the eventual decline of our air dominance and
    the evisceration of the Guard.
        And, Senator Leahy, I've submitted for the record our
    letter to Secretary Donley.
        The Air Force has stated that it is in the midst of
    modernizing and recapitalizing its weapons systems and that the
    Air Guard must be concurrently and proportionally
    recapitalized. But, the problem is, there's nothing available
    with which to be concurrent and proportional. And the even
    greater problem is that they do not seem, still, to be willing
    to consult with, and talk with, the Air Guard.
        By the time the F-35 might be ready, we will already have
    lost multiple Air Guard units. Furthermore, at well over $100
    million per plane, according to the Cost Analysis Program
    Evaluation Office, I'm concerned the F-35 will be too expensive
    to be procured in sufficient quantities to recapitalize the Air
    Force and the Air Guard.
        Now, the Air Force has signaled its willingness to drawn
    down on the lift capability of the Guard, shifting 12 C-130s
    from Air Guard bases nationwide to replace older Active
    component models. The same scheme would also eliminate the only
    flying unit in the Puerto Rican Air Guard unit. Everyone prays
    for its response to and support of Haiti. That's no way to
    thank them for their selfless service.
        I refer to this as a backdoor BRAC of the Air National
    Guard. If the Air Force would leverage further low operating
    cost, experience, and effectiveness of the Air Guard, then it
    would have more resources for a much needed recapitalization of
    the total force.
        General McKinley, recent reporting indicates that the Air
    Force fighter gap is smaller than previously identified. I'm
    concerned about what you think about the total force fighter
    gap, its impact on the ANT, and how could that fighter gap have
    been made smaller with a final admission that the Joint Strike
    Fighter--and I will omit calling it what I normally call it--
    will slip, and the fact that no new fighters have been
    purchased in well over a decade.

                                ANG AGING FLEET

        General McKinley. Senator Bond, obviously, from the facts
    in your question, equipment is the lifeblood of a military
    organization--there is no doubt about it. Whether it's Army,
    Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps--for our Guard Army and Air Force
    equipment. And I've been before this subcommittee for 4 years;
    this is my fourth testimony and my first as the Chief of the
    National Guard Bureau. My perspective is that, on the Air Guard
    side--and I'll let General Wyatt comment specifically about
    what he has done within the Air Force to try to alleviate
    potential loss of aircraft from some of our units, which
    actually started in the 2005 BRAC. But, as we all know, by
    2011, those BRAC actions must be completed, and therefore,
    we're in the process of finalizing what aircraft will move and
    go to different places. But, it is creating some tension at
    those home units.
        The conditions have changed in those 4 years, Senator Bond,
    in terms of how we plan and program. I would emphasize--and I
    certainly don't need to explain to this subcommittee--that the
    services provide the equipment for the National Guard. The Air
    National Guard does not purchase aircraft; the aircraft are
    provided by the United States Air Force. And for over 60 years,
    there have been enough aircraft to flow or trickle down to the
    Air National Guard so that they can continue to maintain their
    units. And we are presently at approximately 88 flying units.
    We actually have three units that, without any kind of
    intervention, probably will not have equipment by the end of
    fiscal year 2012, which is a big concern to all of us, because
    we know the value of these units, we know the experience of the
    pilots and the maintenance people; you know those, certainly,
    better than I do.
        So, where do we stand? The Air Force and the Department has
    said that we can reevaluate the amount of flying life left on
    the legacy fighters. Those are the F-16 and F-15 aircraft. So,
    if they reevaluate it and extend the life of the aircraft, they
    can be used longer.
        They also, obviously, have invested a great deal of capital
    in the development of the F-35, and their planning assumptions
    are that they will build more F-35s--go from 48 to 80 per year
    in their budget--and that's a significant change over when I
    first talked to you about what is the Air Guard's Plan B.
        So, with that consideration, and the fact that the United
    States Air Force and the Department has not entertained any 4.5
    new aircraft, there's also a new feature on the table now that
    would allow for service-life extensions of our Block 40 and 50
    aircraft. My concern--and I've expressed this to the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force--is that most of our units fly the Block
    30 F-16. Those are older F-16s that are very capable today,
    but, without a significant amount of modernization money, will
    become less relevant and, potentially, less safe to fly over a
    period of time.
        So, those are the new dynamics that we face as we work
    within our services to make sure we reequip the Air National
    Guard.
        Senator Bond. Let me add--because I'd like you and General
    Wyatt to comment on this--the Navy is concerned about the F-35s
    being ready and available, and even whether they can fly off of
    carriers. They are looking at purchasing some 4.5 generation.
    And while they're talking about a Service Life Extension
    Program, or SLEP, it costs almost as much as one-half of
    purchasing a new airplane to get a SLEP, and you have much less
    capability than one-half the life of a new airplane. And I am
    curious why, with the tremendous production delays, the
    performance questions, and the huge cost overrun--which can do
    nothing but continue to build--there isn't a consideration of
    getting the 4.5 or, some would say, the 4.8 generations--15s,
    16s, and 18s. And I'd appreciate it if either you or General
    Wyatt would comment on that.
        General Wyatt. Senator, I would suggest that we now have
    some information available to us that we didn't have when we
    met, 1 year ago, at this time. There have been, obviously,
    decisions made regarding the F-35 program through RMD 700.
        We continue to work with the United States Air Force on
    alternatives and options to address the fighter bathtub, which,
    unlike last year, we are now in sync with the United States Air
    Force, as far as how many jets we're talking about and the risk
    out over the next few years.
        As you're well aware, though, the risk is greater for the
    Air National Guard, because Air National Guard has a
    preponderance of the older airplanes, the F-16 pre-Block 40s,
    the Block 30s. And so, our problem is near term, especially
    when we talk about the fact that, of the 18 Air Sovereignty
    Alert sites around the country, 16 of those are manned by the
    Air National Guard. And of those 16, 9 and sometimes 10 of
    those Alert sites are manned by these older Block 30 F-16s. So,
    it is a primary concern of mine that we address a plan to make
    sure that we have the capability, in the near term, as we wait
    for the fielding of the F-35, whenever that may be.
        We continue to work options with the Air Force, but one of
    the options that the Air Force is not working, at the current
    time, is the fourth generation 4.5/4.8. That's not one of the
    options that we are considering. That's not to say that, should
    circumstances change between now and the next time we have an
    opportunity to come before this subcommittee, that that might
    not be a consideration of the Air Force, but, at the current
    time, that's not part of the plan.
        We have offered up and continue working with the Air Force
    to address this fighter bathtub, considering things such as the
    previously mentioned Service Life Extension Program. It is
    expensive. It does extend the life-frame of our Block 30s, if
    the decision were made to do that, for 4\1/2\ to 5 years. But,
    it, so far, has not been programmed to be done.
        We've talked about the concurrent--and you mentioned it
    earlier--concurrent and proportional bed-down of the F-35 in
    the Air National Guard, whenever it is eventually fielded. And
    there are some reports, that the Air Force is required to file
    here pretty soon, as a result of NDAA 2010, wherein the Air
    Force will address, specifically, the question of, What is the
    intent of the Air Force regarding concurrent and proportional
    bed-down of fifth-generation aircraft in the Air National
    Guard? Those reports have not been filed, so I don't feel at
    liberty to speculate on what they might say, but would suggest
    the subcommittee take a look at those when they come in.
        We've talked about a possibility of leveling the squadron
    size across the combat air forces--Active, Guard, and Reserve--
    from 24 to 18 aircraft, and flow those legacy airplanes to the
    Guard, primarily in the form of Block 40 and 50 F-16s, some A-
    10s, perhaps some F-15Es, that could result in the flow of
    about 180 jets to the Air National Guard and the Air Force
    Reserve to address the problem with the age-out of the Block
    30s.
        And we've talked about, when the F-35 is eventually
    fielded, to initially field that in numbers of 18 aircraft, as
    opposed to 24, so that you can spread the fielding out among
    all three components, and better service the United States Air
    Force.
        We continue to talk about the possible need, because of the
    delay in getting the F-35 in the inventory, of increased
    acquisition numbers, from 80 to 110; an expensive proposition,
    as you have previously pointed out.
        We also look at transitioning some of these fighter units
    to remotely piloted aircraft, and then maybe some other
    nonflying missions. But, in the end, we face that latter
    circumstance.
        Senator Bond. Well, General, I don't want to impose any
    more. I have one followup question on that. Maybe I'm getting
    old and cynical, but to think that the Air Guard is going to
    get the Joint Strike Fighter when that comes off the line--
    whenever it comes off the line--at the same time the Actives
    get it, is something I just--I am from the Show Me State, and I
    will only believe it when I see it--when, very shortly, 80
    percent of the Guard's F-16s will hit the end of their service
    life. What will the total shortfall be that would have to be
    filled in with SLEPs of the existing Block 30s, with whatever
    is left over from the Active Air Force; 15s, 16s, F-4s,
    Cessnas, or whatever it is that they're going to fill it in
    with? What's the total number in that bathtub, before you start
    looking at all the options you have to pursue?
        General McKinley. Senator Bond, I asked that of the Air
    Force today. And outside this future years defense programs
    (FYDP), the Air Force is predicting 135 aircraft, a gap. That's
    outside the 2012-17 FYDP. That's from the United States Air
    Force.
        Senator Bond. All right.
        General McKinley. But, for the Air National Guard, as I
    look at our portfolio, closest wolf to the sled right now, we
    have about 10 Block 30 F-16 units. Those are the ones that will
    require attention the quickest, and will require General Wyatt,
    in the United States Air Force, to come up with a solution to
    either extend the life of those airplanes, to keep them flying
    longer, if it's relevant and safe--I'm very concerned about the
    safety of the aircrew in these older legacy fighters--or, we
    have to find alternative missions. Because the last thing that
    I want to see is a wing of aircraft leave, and leave 1,200
    people at a location with nothing to do. That's just not in the
    interest of the American citizen.
        Senator Bond. Finally, the number of Block 30s in those 10
    units, what is the number of airplanes that--and do you know
    the date--the service-life date range when they would be past
    service?
        General Wyatt. Yes, sir. Most of our Air National Guard
    wings are 18 aircraft, so those 10 wings would equate to that
    180 airplanes. And we are now in sync with the Air Force on the
    estimations of when the service life will expire, and we're
    looking at somewhere right around the 2017 timeframe when most
    of those Block 30s will hit the age out. Now, some will age out
    a little bit before then, and some will age out a little bit
    after that. But, as far as combat capability in a squadron-size
    formation, we're looking at about 10 wings.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I have a bunch more
    questions I'll submit for the record, but I thank you very much
    for your kindness.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy.

                            NATIONAL GUARD EQUIPMENT

        Senator Leahy. Well, thank you.
        And, again, I thank Senator Bond for his work all these
    years on the National Guard Caucus. I must say, Kit, as I've
    told you before, it was very helpful to have someone beside me
    who was a former Governor because you brought a perspective
    which was very, very helpful.
        General McKinley, it is nice to see you here, as always.
    I've enjoyed the times you've visited us in Vermont. And I've
    enjoyed being here with you. I was very proud to be there the
    day you were awarded your fourth star, and to be there with
    your family; a very nice family, I might add.
        What I worry about is how the Army and Air Guard still fall
    short of the equipment and the aircraft they need. I've
    introduced legislation, along with Senator Bond, to establish a
    dedicated budget line for the Army and the Air National Guard.
    Would you agree we ought to do that?
        General McKinley. In my opening comments, Senator Leahy, I
    said that we really do depend on our services for our equipment
    and our operations and maintenance, as do the other Reserve
    Chiefs; there's no doubt about it. And it's tough engagement,
    and as we build a budget, to convince the Air Force and the
    Army of our needs. I especially have found, since I've become
    the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, that many of our
    domestic requirements fall below the lines, quite frankly, on
    many of our Active Duty budgets, simply because there's not
    enough investment capital to take care of both the home game
    and away.
        My bottom line, sir, is, through the support of committees
    like this, we've been able to mitigate the effects of loss of
    purchasing power and equipage through the budgetary process. If
    it gets tighter, which everybody forecasts it to be over the
    next 3 to 5 years, with budgetary pressure, I'm afraid that
    both my colleagues on left and right are going to find it more
    difficult to equip the units in the fashion that they need to
    sustain the capability of both Army and Air Guard units.
        What that leads us to, Senator Leahy--I've got to tell you,
    I've got to stay within the Department bounds, here, but we
    will run into a budgetary crisis in reequipping the National
    Guard as soon as the budgetary pressure starts to set in. And,
    as you could tell from Senator Bond's question, we may already
    be there with the Air National Guard.
        Senator Leahy. Of course, Senator Bond and I have the
    privilege of not being within departmental guidelines and we
    can do what we want to do. We answer to the voters in our own
    State.
        I'm not trying to set up a conflict between the Guard and
    the Regular Army or Air Force. I just want less time to be
    spent on conflicts inside the Pentagon and more time spent
    concentrating on your mission.
        Senator Bond mentioned people calling for help, in Katrina
    and elsewhere. You're forced to reply, ``We're happy to send
    help, but all our equipment is overseas.'' I think there has to
    be--you understand this--a balance here. We're all aware of the
    number of people from all of the State Guards that are
    overseas, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have the largest
    deployment of the Vermont Guard that we've had since World War
    II. I mean, this is very, very significant--thousands of people
    from a little State like ours. We're very proud of all these
    men and women. They have been extraordinarily well trained.
    When I go to Iraq or Afghanistan, and I talk to the commanders
    on the field, they make no differentiation between the Guard
    and the Regular Army or Air Force today, because they're all
    integrated, they're all working together. And many times, I
    know, when I've gone from one part of the theater to the other,
    I'm very often on a Guard plane or helicopter.
        General Carpenter, you'd be proud of the pilots that you
    have flying those helicopters.
        But the problems at home continue just the same. God forbid
    that we have another major earthquake on the west coast, but we
    remember what happened when the major one that struck
    California. Had it not been for the Guard, that disaster could
    have been even worse than it was. Or what happens in wildfires,
    what happens in rescue missions, what happens in floods, and
    the whole litany? We know that the Guard is not just homeland
    security. And we know that, in all likelihood, they're going to
    be called up to go overseas more in the future. We have got to
    find a way to get both into the budget.
        General Carpenter, I mentioned the Army Guard equipment
    shortfall. The situation has improved, but I believe the
    Guard's at only 77 percent of equipment levels. Does the fiscal
    year 2011 budget request more? Where are we going to be over
    the next couple of years?
        General Carpenter. Sir, as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, the equipment that we have coming to the Army
    National Guard is unprecedented. The modernization piece, as I
    mentioned, is going to allow us to retire the venerable
    ``deuce-and-a-half,'' this next year. And we retired the UH-1
    helicopter, here, this past year.
        And so, a couple of years ago, we started into this process
    of transparency. Prior to that point, all we saw was the
    dollars that got appropriated, and we were guessing, or hoping,
    that the equipment came out the other end and showed up in the
    vehicle storage areas.
        The Army and the Army Guard and the Army Reserve have made
    great progress in that, to the point where I think we can give
    you pretty much an 80-percent affirmative that what you
    appropriate in Congress for the Guard, as far as equipment is
    concerned, is going to show up, with a time lag, obviously,
    inside the Army National Guard.
        If the promises made to keep the Army National Guard as an
    operational force are carried out through the next POM, the
    program objective memorandum, we'll continue to improve, sir.
    But, as General McKinley mentioned, the issue here is going to
    be pressure on the budget. And as those pressures come to bear,
    those POM dollars, those projected programs, are likely to
    change; and our concern, obviously is, is that it's a
    proportional change between the Army Guard and the Army. And I
    guess that's something yet to be seen.
        Senator Leahy. I think perhaps you and I should talk
    further about this later on, but I am concerned.

                                     C-130

        And, Mr. Chairman, my last question is about a letter that
    Senator Bond and I sent this morning to Secretary Donley. I
    address this question to General McKinley. We asked Secretary
    Donley to reconsider the decision to move C-130 airframes out
    of the Air National Guard into the Active component. Of course,
    I have not yet heard back from him. I'm not asking you to
    indicate what he might say, but I worry that we are robbing
    Peter to pay Paul. It seemed like the Air Force, while they
    said they were studying the C-130 issue, offered the fiscal
    year 2011 budget that went ahead and cut Air Guard C-130 force
    structure. I hear that military airlift throughout the world is
    stretched to the maximum. Certainly, I hear that message when I
    go to other parts of the world. Were you consulted by the Air
    Force leadership before the decision was made to draw down the
    Air Guard C-130 force structure? And, if so, what did you
    recommend?
        General McKinley. I personally was not consulted. I have
    brought the matter to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's
    attention, and he was very willing to discuss it with me. He,
    in turn, has asked his staff to revisit this issue. Not only
    did it affect our Air National Guard C-130s, General Stenner
    and some of his Air Force Reserve C-130s were included, too.
    And, Senator Leahy, as I said in my opening remarks, some of
    this is post-BRAC movement of aircraft. But, the analysis and
    the assumptions made to reduce the C-130Es, the oldest of our
    Air Force C-130s, has led some to believe, in the Air Force,
    from what I understand after I've talked to General Wyatt, that
    those aircraft need to be retired, that funds need to be used
    for other purposes.
        I certainly want to work with the United States Air Force
    to make sure that the analysis and the assumptions that they
    drew, which were part of a mobility capabilities requirements
    study (MCRS) for mobility aircraft, which included all of our
    lift aircraft, was done with the appropriate considerations to
    protecting of our homeland, for supporting our Army in direct
    support mission. And so, I'm asking the Chief of Staff to take
    a look at this slide deck.
        Senator Leahy. Well, I'm going to be very interested in
    hearing the response. I've been on more C-130s than I'd like to
    think about. As one pilot told me, ``It's the only aircraft
    pressurized to keep this noise inside.'' I can see some nodding
    heads in the back. I've been on these in all parts of the
    world; in fact, even once with Chairman Inouye. And virtually
    every time, they are being flown by a Guard unit. So, I'll be
    anxious to hear the response from the Secretary. And you and I
    will probably discuss this further.
        Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, in giving me
    this time.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.

                                    SUICIDE

        General Carpenter, I will be submitting questions on the
    upgrade of Blackhawks and your shortfall on equipment. But, may
    I ask one question? Last year, your suicide rates went up 75
    percent. And you have responded to that. Is the program
    sufficient?
        General Carpenter. Sir, we are alarmed by the suicide rates
    we're seeing inside the Army National Guard, also. January was
    the highest ever, in terms of the number of suicide rates we've
    experienced; above last year. That declined in February, to the
    point where currently we have experienced 24 suspected suicides
    in fiscal year 2010, against a number of 22 last year.
        Senator Brownback, I think, is probably very familiar with
    the initiatives that are being made by Kansas and the adjutant
    general of Kansas, in terms of the resiliency program. In
    addition to that, the Army at large is seriously engaged with
    the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, in terms of dealing with
    the suicide rates.
        Obviously, this is for the most part, a function of stress
    on our forces. Although in the Army Guard we have a little bit
    of an anomaly, because you find that almost one-half of the
    suicides we're experiencing are from soldiers who haven't even
    deployed. And so, there's more to this than just the
    mobilization and deployment piece.
        But, the issue--the bottom line issue, as the Army has
    viewed it--and I agree with them, and I think most do--is, it
    is preparing people for situations that are almost
    overwhelming, in many cases. And we see that in our young
    people. We see that inside our soldiers. We see that in the
    families. And so, we've got to build a resiliency out there to
    be able to sustain those tough times and to be able to not look
    at suicide as a viable option.
        And so, we are engaged with the Army on their Soldier
    Fitness Program. We are engaged with Kansas and General
    Bunting, in terms of the Flash Forward Program. And, frankly,
    we are trying to gather all the resources we can find to come
    to bear on this problem. And it's very serious.
        General McKinley. Senator Inouye, I'd like to thank General
    Casey and General Chiarelli for doing so much in the United
    States Army to address this situation. I'd also like to thank
    the State of Kansas for partnering. These types of programs are
    essential so that we can continue to take care of deploying
    airmen and soldiers. I think all of us are very concerned about
    the rapid rise in suicide and attempted suicide. And only
    through resiliency dollars--and thanks to this subcommittee for
    realizing that these programs require money to be successful--
    have we been able to get our arms around this very, very
    serious problem.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman.
        I am curious to know, General Carpenter, about the
    transition that is taking place into making the Army not just a
    National Guard force with traditional responsibilities, but
    actually an operational force, ready to go to the field--
    possibly combat right away. How well is the Army National Guard
    adjusting, in your opinion, to this transition? Is it too much
    for you to handle? Should we take another look at this and
    maybe take a step back and modify what we're trying to do?
    What's your assessment of the success of this?
        General Carpenter. Sir, as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, the National Guard that we have right now is far
    different from the one I joined, you know, a lot of years ago.
    And as we went into the--what was then the global war on
    terrorism, after 9/11, we had soldiers who had joined the Army
    National Guard, not expecting to be deployed. And those great
    soldiers deployed, some of them being from the 155th, and they
    went and did their duty, and they were proud of what they had
    done. They came back home, and they came to grips with the idea
    that maybe that wasn't quite what they had in mind, didn't fit
    into their lifestyle; their employers and their families said,
    ``You know, this isn't quite what we signed up for,'' and they
    made decisions to leave our formations. And that caused the
    recruiting crisis we saw in the Army National Guard in 2005.
    And General Vaughn, my predecessor, was key in turning that
    around.
        Since that time, we have had a different look at how we
    recruit people into the Army National Guard. The people we
    recruit in to our formations now, as was mentioned, are
    expecting to deploy. It's not if they're going to deploy, it is
    when they're going to deploy. And they have come to grips with
    that idea. And I think that, for the most part, we have an Army
    National Guard that is, at least in terms of mindset, an
    operational organization.
        What we've got to do is, we've got to make sure that we
    provide the enablers, the resourcing, for those young soldiers
    to go out and do what they're supposed to do.

                               OPERATIONAL FORCE

        Operational, at least in my definition, is manning the
    force, equipping the force, and then training the force, and
    then, finally, having access to that force. And the access
    discussion is one we have regularly in the Pentagon.
        But, my response is that we are exceeding the recruiting
    goals, we are exceeding the retention goals. We are stressed,
    we are sending soldiers more frequently than what we would
    like. But, frankly, sir, I've got to tell you, we are doing
    very well in this operational force.
        General Campbell, who's the FORSCOM Commander, his comment
    on the operational National Guard and operational Reserve is
    that it is a national treasure, one which we abandon at our own
    peril.
        So, sir, the enablers, I think, are the key piece.
        Senator Cochran. Well, that's very impressive, and we
    appreciate your leadership in helping achieve these results.
        General Wyatt, I was going to ask you the same question.
    What's your response?
        General Wyatt. Senator, the way the Air Force has used its
    Reserve component since about 1990 has been as an operational
    force. And we have been fortunate to enjoy the support of the
    United States Air Force in making sure that we train to the
    same standards, have the opportunities to deploy. And our
    deployment record speaks for itself. We are accessible, we are
    available.
        And again, the Air Guard is kind of like the Army National
    Guard; not the Air Guard that I joined, back in 1977. We've
    come a long way. But, in spite of the operations tempo, we
    continue to man our force at over 100 percent of our end
    strength. As we speak today, I believe our numbers are about
    1,400 airmen over end strength, gradually coming back down to
    our target. But, our retention rate has exceeded the
    requirements. We have the highest retention rate of any of the
    Reserve components, at close to 91 percent. People want to join
    our formations, and they want to stay in our formations.
        Our concern continues to be the modernization of our
    equipment to make sure that we provide the combat capability
    that this country needs in the Reserve component. Similar
    challenges that, I'm sure, General Stenner faces with the Air
    Force Reserve.
        But, we continue to work those issues with the Air Force.
    In those areas where we need some additional help with our
    modernization, both for the warfight and for the domestic
    mission overseas, this subcommittee has been extremely
    supportive with the NGREA accounts, and it keeps us relevant
    and in the fight.
        We do have this issue that Senator Bond has brought to the
    attention of the subcommittee today. We continue to work
    through that. But, it is a resilient force, continues to be
    available anytime we're called, and readily accessible.
        Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate your leadership very
    much. Thank you for your service.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, to all of you, for the service that you
    provide and for the tremendous work you're doing and all those
    who stand behind you.
        And I especially want to recognize Staff Sergeant Kenneth
    Walker, behind you there. I wasn't here when you were
    introduced earlier, because I was at a Veterans Affairs
    Committee hearing. But, we're delighted you're at Camp Murray,
    and know it's a great place, and appreciate all your service to
    our country. So, welcome to you.
        I wanted to ask, today--we all know the economy is really
    struggling, and our folks are coming home from Iraq and
    Afghanistan to a lot of hardships that make it extremely
    difficult for them. In the State of Washington, our National
    Guard unemployment is over 14 percent, versus what our State
    is, at 9\1/2\ percent unemployment. And in the last 3 years--
    Senator Inouye asked about the issue of suicide--we've seen
    seven suicides, with five of those tied to the guardsmen's
    financial situation. Twenty-one hundred Washington National
    Guardsmen live at or below the poverty line, as a result of
    employment when they come home. And I am really concerned, and
    increasingly concerned, about our soldiers' mental and
    emotional well-being as they return home from their service
    into the financial instability that their families are facing,
    and wanted to ask all of you what the National Guard is doing,
    really across the country, to help these National Guard
    soldiers, and their families, when they return home from
    deployment to this financial hardship they're facing today.
        General McKinley. Senator Murray, thank you for your
    question. And I just returned from Washington State, had a
    great briefing from the adjutant general, Tom Lowenberg, about
    these very serious concerns that he has. I will tell you that
    our deploying soldiers and airmen are facing challenges that
    none of us, on this panel certainly, ever did in our military
    careers. The stresses, the strains, the financial difficulties,
    the times we live in, the stress on the family, the fact that
    we've had continuous rotations, obviously have created an
    environment where many of our young soldiers and airmen
    struggle to make ends meet.
        General Carpenter has got several programs he would like to
    cover with this, but I would like to say that we benchmarked
    off some of the other Reserve component forces. General Stultz,
    who will follow us, has done some outstanding work with the
    Army Reserve in trying to address those needs.
        But, Ray, if you'll cover the Army Guard, and, Bud, what
    you've done on the Air side, please.

                                    FAMILIES

        General Carpenter. First of all, I know you know the 81st
    Brigade from Washington is back home, and they probably----
        Senator Murray. Yeah.
        General Carpenter [continuing]. Are exactly the population
    you're talking about, in terms of what they're experiencing, in
    terms of coming back off from a mobilization, and the job
    market that they face.
        As we looked at it--you are exactly on point, Senator--the
    unemployment rate for the Army National Guardsmen who come back
    is about 3 points above what we expect. As General McKinley
    mentioned, we have partnered with General Stultz in a number of
    initiatives; ``Helmets to Hardhats,'' for instance, is one that
    he has championed. He has also, and we have across the States,
    signed employment partnerships with Indiana, Chicago,
    California. And the whole effort, here, is to find guardsmen
    and reservists who are in exactly the plight that you've just
    described, and find a way for them to find a job and again
    return to some sort of meaningful lifestyle after deployment.
        It's not easy, and, frankly, the economic times have
    presented even a larger challenge than we had 3 or 4 years ago.
    But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't start into it and get about
    this business.
        Beyond that, we have a significant number of soldiers who
    are on what we call ADOS, additional duty operational support,
    which puts them on orders to support other units that are
    mobilizing and deploying. And with the qualifications of the
    soldiers you have in Washington, to the extent that they're
    willing to be part of that program, there are some
    opportunities there.
        Taking care of the soldiers is the Yellow Ribbon Program,
    which I know you're very familiar with. The State of
    Washington, and General Lowenberg and his staff out there, have
    done great work, in terms of getting to those soldiers and
    families that need help, that deserve the help.
        As I say, there's more to this war than just crossing the
    berm for Baghdad. We have soldiers who deserve care, and
    absolutely are entitled to the care, after they come home. And
    whether it happens to be emotional issues or whether it happens
    to be job issues----
        Senator Murray. Well, and we're redeploying them again. And
    are you concerned about the readiness factor, if they come
    home, they're unemployed, their families are in financial
    hardships, they get called up again? How's readiness----
        General Carpenter. Absolutely.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. Affected?
        General Carpenter. Eighty percent of our force is what we
    call a traditional Guard force. That means that they have an
    employer out there--they're doing something else besides being
    full-time in the National Guard. And if we didn't have the
    employer support that we've got out there today, we wouldn't
    have a National Guard. So, we are very mindful of that. And it
    is a readiness issue. Unlike the--our Active component
    counterparts, we have to have that support for us to be able to
    sustain and for us to ask the soldiers in the 81st Brigade to
    go back again.
        Senator Murray. Yeah.
        General Wyatt.
        General Wyatt. Senator Murray, we continue to leverage the
    strengths and the best practices, as General McKinley's
    indicated, from some of our brothers and sisters in the Reserve
    component. We enjoy the opportunity to partner with the Army
    National Guard, through the leadership of the adjutants general
    in the respective States, territories, and the District of
    Columbia, to leverage those resources that the Army National
    Guard provides, and then those that the Air National Guard
    provides.
        We have, at each of our wings--we are a wingcentric
    organization, and our outreach to our airmen is primarily
    through the wing leadership, obviously under the supervision
    and direction and command of the adjutant general. But, we have
    a wing--wing family support coordinators at each of our 88 wing
    locations. In addition to that, we're in the process of
    contracting for what we call behavioral health professionals
    that will address the mental health issues that you talked
    about just a few moments ago. These individuals will be
    provided to the adjutants general to be placed within their
    States, at his or her direction. They are also available to
    service the needs of any of the other Reserve components who
    may happen to be within the boundaries of that State. It's not
    just exclusively a service provided to the National Guard; it
    is made available to all members of the military.
        We are also embarking upon a process to make sure that the
    available resources out there are efficiently used and that the
    communication with our individual wing members is such that
    they know the programs are there, they know the avenues through
    which they can access those programs, whether they be provided
    by the National Guard, Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, or
    Active Duty. And we are working with the Active Duty to
    strengthen the access to Active Duty programs that usually
    surface at Active Duty bases, but also being made available to
    our Air Force, Reserve, and Guardsmen.
        Senator Murray. Okay. I think we really need to focus on
    this, because I do believe it's a readiness issue, and I see
    those families struggling, and it's a tough time for everybody.

                               HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

        General McKinley, it's my understanding that some of the
    returning National Guard members are not honest on their
    postdeployment health assessments, simply because they don't
    want to be delayed going home. Totally understandable. I wanted
    to ask you if it would be beneficial to require the
    postdeployment health assessment at their home station instead
    of the demobilization site, to make sure that they can get
    assistance at home, in order to properly assess their mental
    health status.
        General McKinley. Ma'am, I think anything that we can do to
    help soldiers return home quickly, get back into their normal
    life cycle, and then give them the care that they need and
    deserve from their deployment, would be helpful.
        General Carpenter, have you heard that the Army is looking
    at doing any of this?
        General Carpenter. We have a ongoing study with the Army
    right now. Retired General Franks is looking at the Medical
    Evaluation Board process, something that hasn't been looked at
    for almost 30 years inside the Reserve component. Part of that
    has to do with how we handle soldiers as they go through the
    demobilization process. And you are, again, absolutely right on
    the money, Senator, in terms of the people who want to get home
    and be with their families, as opposed to spend time at
    whatever installation they're being----
        Senator Murray. And they're afraid----
        General Carpenter [continuing]. Processed----
        Senator Murray. And I hear it all the time, they're afraid
    to say something is wrong, because they don't want to sit
    there, miles and thousands of miles away from family. So----
        General Carpenter. Yes, Senator. And the initiative that's
    being considered, at this point, is for the soldier to be
    honest with whatever emotional or physical problems they might
    have, be allowed to go home, be with their families, and then
    allow them to return to get the necessary treatment, whether it
    happens to be at the installation or whether it happens to be
    elsewhere. Because if they don't do that, and somehow or other
    we have to treat them through other programs, they are
    disadvantaged, in terms of the benefits that they get. And so,
    we in the Army Guard, and in conjunction with the Army, are
    looking at that and trying----
        Senator Murray. Okay.
        General Carpenter [continuing]. To use that perhaps----
        Senator Murray. I think that's----
        General Carpenter [continuing]. As a solution.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. Important to do. I mean, I
    understand how much easier it is to keep track of people at one
    place, but readiness is an issue, again. And if we don't get
    them home and with their families, and get them the care they
    need, then we're going to be in trouble in the future, and
    certainly they are.
        General McKinley. Ma'am, I'll bring it up with General
    Casey when I see him later today.
        Senator Murray. Okay, very good.
        Finally, my last quick question. In the State of
    Washington, we're very interested in adding a Stryker Brigade
    Combat Team to the Army National Guard, and wanted to ask you
    how an additional Stryker brigade would be beneficial to the
    Army National Guard.
        General McKinley. Well, we certainly had great success with
    our Pennsylvania Stryker formation that went over to Iraq.
    We're very pleased at the results. Obviously, again, Ma'am,
    General Casey and his leadership team, in concert with the
    leadership team of the Army National Guard, working with the
    Governors and working with the States, will decide the future
    acquisition strategy of Stryker.
        But, if you're asking our personal opinion, I think,
    representing the organization in a whole, we would welcome the
    opportunity to see additional Stryker brigades in the National
    Guard. And I'm sure my counterparts behind me would agree, too.
        It's a great, great platform, that we have found works
    extremely successfully in the combat theater, and we think it
    has applications here at home, also.
        Senator Murray. Okay, very good, thank you.
        And thank you, again, to all of you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And, gentlemen, I thank you very much for the testimony
    this morning. And we're grateful for your service to our
    Nation, and, through you, may we thank the men and women of
    your command for their service to our Nation. We appreciate it
    very much.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted to General Craig R. McKinley
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                         army and air guard--equipment
        Question. General McKinley, the equipment levels of the Army and
    Air Guard have improved significantly in the last 3 years, in large
    part due to additional equipment funding provided by Congress. The Army
    Guard now has 77 percent of its equipment requirements, up from 40
    percent in fiscal year 2006. Do you believe that the Army and Air Force
    have adequately budgeted for Guard equipment requirements through the
    remainder of the future year defense plan?
        Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) believes $3.5 billion to
    $4.5 billion is required each year of the future year defense plan to
    sustain at its current operational capability as an operational
    reserve. The current funding profile has a steady decline starting in
    fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2011. Additional funding is
    required to increase the modernization level to maintain not only
    modernization parody with the Active Component, but also to sustain and
    improve existing equipping interoperability.
        Between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2010, Headquarters
    Department of the Army invested approximately $29 billion in funding
    for procurement and modernization of ARNG equipment. While overall
    growth in equipment readiness and Equipment on Hand increases have been
    modest during this period, the ARNG's ability to respond to domestic
    incidents has increased dramatically. Equipment on Hand levels for
    Critical Dual Use items improved from 66 percent in fiscal year 2007 to
    84 percent by the end of fiscal year 2009. Furthermore, the ARNG is
    projected to reach 87 percent of Critical Dual Use Equipment on Hand by
    fiscal year 2011.
        The Air Force continues to budget the Air National Guard as an
    operational force; however, the modernization and recapitalization
    challenges the Air Force is facing continues to affect equipment
    readiness across all components. We are working with the Air Force and
    its major commands to find solutions to recapitalization of the ANG's
    equipment used in domestic and overseas contingency operations.
    Equipment readiness presents greater challenges as long-term costs in
    operating and maintaining older aircraft continue to rise due to more
    frequent repairs, fluctuations in fuel prices, and manpower
    requirements. The cost of aircraft maintenance continues to rise
    significantly as we struggle to extend the life of our aging fleet.
    This infrastructure of equipment is not just fighters; it includes
    tankers, air traffic control, command and control, security, and,
    communications--the entire system supporting and protecting our
    nation's last line of defense.
        Question. General McKinley, what remaining equipment shortfalls are
    you most concerned about?
        Answer. The majority of the Army National Guard (ARNG) equipping
    shortfalls exist in modernization of Aviation platforms, Force
    Protection, Communication and Transportation equipment. Specifically
    the ARNG is concerned with the modernization of UH-60A to UH-60L
    models, the Medium Truck fleet, High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled
    Vehicles (or HMMWVs), Chemical Protection Shelters, and High Frequency
    Radios.
        Modernization of UH-60A to UH-60L models.--While the ARNG currently
    has sufficient quantities of UH-60 aircraft on hand, much of the fleet
    needs modernization. Failure to upgrade or replace these aircraft at a
    rate that outpaces obsolescence will degrade the ARNG's domestic and
    war fighting mission capabilities. The current UH-60 A-A-L program
    production rate is less than the established HQDA rate. This reduced
    production exacerbates the effort to modernize the existing UH-60
    fleet.
        Medium Truck Fleet.--The ARNG has an fiscal year 2016 Family Medium
    Tactical Vehicle (FMTV) requirement of 31,568 Medium Trucks with 24,417
    on-hand and only 12,009 of the 24,417 are modern. The ARNG is on path
    to divest all existing M800 Series Trucks by fiscal year 2012. Our
    legacy M939 Medium Tactical vehicles are projected to remain in the
    ARNG's inventory until fiscal year 2025. These M939 Series vehicles
    have an average age of 23 years and are becoming more difficult to
    sustain. The current Presidential budget for fiscal year 2011 will
    produce an additional 9,000 FMTVs and increase our modernization to 63
    percent.
        HMMWVs.--The ARNG has a fiscal year 2016 requirement for 44,286
    HMMWVs. After all new programmed procurement and Recapped assets are
    delivered to existing inventory, the ARNG will have 100 percent of the
    HMMWV requirement. After new production ends, the ARNG will still have
    legacy HMMWVs in the inventory that are in excess of 20 years old. It
    is estimated that 12,127 legacy HMMWVs will require Recapitalization
    before the end of their use. The programmed Recap program will update
    7,800 HMMWVs and will leave a shortfall of over 4,000 vehicles
    requiring a Recapitalization.
        Chemical Biological Protective Shelter System (CBPSS).--The ARNG
    has a fiscal year 2016 requirement for 291 systems. CBPSS is on
    contract with First Article Testing being conducted in May 2010 through
    March 2011. Pending success, full production is projected to begin in
    the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.
        High Frequency Radios.--The ARNG has a fiscal year 2016 requirement
    for 559 Global Broadcast System (GBS)/Receiver Suite: AN/TSR-8
    Satellite Communications Systems, with 35 on-hand. With projected
    fiscal year 2011 deliveries, the ARNG will have a shortfall of 515
    Global Broadcast System.
        The Air National Guard continues to face challenges within the
    Domestic Response framework with equipping Security Forces, command and
    control personnel, imagery analysts, engineers and medical personnel.
    There is a need for tactical vehicles for Security Forces to provide
    enhanced capability to conduct operations such as checkpoints, road
    closures, traffic control points, civil disturbance operations, town
    patrol, and similar ``on the street'' missions. Our security forces
    require weapons and accessories, upgraded mobility bags and enhanced
    security and traffic control kits. Direct imagery analysis suites or
    needed to provide direct imagery analysis support to first responders.
    Additional CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages are critical to
    support the Homeland Response Force teams. Explosive Ordnance Disposal
    (EOD) equipment is required by 17 ANG units to respond to hazardous
    chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents throughout
    the United States and abroad. We have a need for deployable power teams
    during disaster relief operations to provide stable power support,
    advice and technical assistance in all aspects of emergency electrical
    power and distribution systems. Other top equipment needs critical to
    Domestic Support are Disaster Relief Bed-down Sets, and Mobile Short
    Range Command and Control equipment.
                   family support and yellow ribbon programs
        Question. General McKinley, one of the greatest priorities of this
    Committee is to ensure that service members and their families receive
    the support services they need. This is especially true for the
    families of the nearly 725,000 Guard and Reserve members that have been
    activated since September, 2001. Outreach efforts such as the Yellow
    Ribbon Reintegration Program are particularly important for guardsmen
    and families who are geographically dispersed across the country. Are
    family support programs fully funded in the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request? Are there programs, from your perspective, that could be
    improved?
        Answer. The National Guard Family Program is currently fully funded
    based on our fiscal year 2011 budget request. The National Guard Bureau
    continues to work through the Army and Air National Guard branches to
    ensure we are achieving maximum efficiencies from our funding. While we
    believe our Family Program does a very good job, we are always striving
    to do better. The continued support of Congress is greatly appreciated
    and will ensure our future success.
        Question. Gentlemen, the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program was
    established to provide outreach services and to support the members and
    families of the National Guard and Reserve. Can you please comment on
    the reintegration efforts for your component and whether or not your
    needs are being met?
        Answer. The National Guard has done a tremendous job ensuring that
    our service members and their Families are receiving the benefits of
    the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP). From October 1, 2009 to
    September 4, 2010 the National Guard has hosted 1,298 events and
    activities in 270 different locations. These events and activities have
    supported 96,276 Army National Guard service members, 3,470 Air
    National Guard Service members, and 401 service members from other
    Reserve components. Additionally, 56,297 spouses, 9,446 parents, and
    21,391 child/youth have been supported through the National Guard
    Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program during this period.
        As you can see from the statistics provided the National Guard has
    a robust Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. We are learning however,
    that in keeping with the intent of the YRRP legislation that we may
    potentially be providing the education, assistance, and resource
    information through the YRRP process too early and possibly for not
    nearly long enough. Feedback from our Commanders, program managers at
    the State level, and even some attendees at YRRP events and activities
    indicates that some of the major issues that are addressed as part of
    the YRRP process (psychological and physical issues, substance abuse,
    and possible suicide ideology, to name a few) do not actually manifest
    themselves until long after the Service member has attended their last
    YRRP event, which is currently the 90-day post deployment event.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                             military construction
        Question. Can you explain how the National Guard Bureau prioritizes
    its military construction projects both in a current budget year and in
    the Future Years Defense Plan?
        Answer. This process starts with the submission by each of the 54
    States/Territories and the District of Columbia of prioritized lists of
    major military construction (Milcon) projects. Projects with Regional
    or National significance are included in the list.
        The projects are ranked against each other according to established
    criteria related to project characteristics. Those criteria are the
    following: Support of force modernization; joint use project; resolves
    existing health and safety or environmental problem; equitable
    distribution of projects (funding not received in previous years);
    replacement of facilities in poor condition; the Adjutant General (TAG)
    priority rating.
        The criteria are reviewed annually based on National Guard Bureau
    priorities. The Army and Air National Guard projects compete with other
    Army and Air Force Projects for funding. Entry into the Future Years
    Defense Plan, (FYDP), is the goal of the Infrastructure Requirements
    Plan and the amount of funding provided from the Army and Air Force.
        Question. What direction do you provide to State Guard Bureaus as
    they prepare their lists of priorities?
        Answer. Each year the States receive a guidance memo from the
    National Guard Bureau (NGB) along with any updates to our regulation on
    program development. The criteria are reviewed annually considering
    Army and NGB priorities. Those criteria are the following: Support of
    force modernization; joint use project; resolves existing health and
    safety or environmental problem; equitable distribution of projects;
    replacement of facilities in poor condition; and the Adjutant General
    Priority Rating.
        Question. What process do you use to prioritize and rank the
    requests from State Guard Bureaus into a nationwide list of military
    construction projects?
        Answer. The Army National Guard continues to use the Infrastructure
    Requirements Plan (IRP). This process starts with the submission by
    each of the 54 States/Territories/the District of Columbia of the top
    #1 and #2 major military construction (Milcon) projects. These are
    ranked against each other according to established criteria related to
    project characteristics. Those criteria are as follows: Support of
    force modernization; joint use project; resolves existing health and
    safety or environmental problem; equitable distribution of projects;
    replacement of facilities in poor condition; and the Adjutant General
    Priority Rating.
        This National Guard project list is provided to the Army as part of
    the budget process.
        Question. When, how, and why was this process established?
        Answer. Beginning in 1996, Congress was concerned about how the
    Army National Guard prioritized their Military Construction Projects.
    The National Guard took the opportunity and did a comprehensive review
    of its planning process. As a result, now has the Infrastructure
    Requirements Plan (IRP), a process which has served well for the past
    14 years.
        Question. It is my understanding that Army National Guard
    facilities are an average of 41 years old, 24 percent are over 70 years
    old, and the military construction requirements for Army Guard
    facilities has been estimated to be around $1.5 billion per year over
    the next 20 years to bring these facilities up to current standards. Is
    the Army National Guard's request for fiscal year 2011 sufficient to
    address the Army Guard's infrastructure needs?
        Answer. The current Future Years Defense Program contains only a
    fraction of what is necessary in both military construction (Milcon)
    and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Restoration and Modernization to
    adequately refurbish these facilities to a standard that enables a 21st
    Century Army National Guard Operational Reserve. The Army Guard's
    request for Milcon is $873 million in fiscal year 2011 decreasing to
    $354 million in fiscal year 2015.
        The Army National Guard's plant replacement value for the over
    26,000 plus facilities is estimated to be more than $40 billion where
    40 percent of ARNG Facilities are greater than 50 years old. It would
    take in excess of $16 billion over the next 10 years to recapitalize
    just the aging facilities ($1.6 billion a year). A significant portion
    of the National Guard facilities inventory is readiness centers.
        Over 3,000 readiness centers, approximately 1,247 of them are
    greater than 50 years old and most will require recapitalization in the
    next decade. We will have a better understanding of our infrastructure
    investments needs once the National Readiness center study directed by
    the Senate Report 111-201 is completed. We plan to address our critical
    readiness center requirements with the required funding and more
    importantly stop the increasing decline of our facilities inventory
    condition and deficits to continue to meet mission readiness.
        Question. What is the average age of California Army National Guard
    facilities?
        Answer. The average age of California Army National Guard
    facilities is 48 years old.
        Question. Under the current FYDP and general facility replacement
    schedules, what will the nationwide average age of a National Guard
    facility be in 2020, 2030, and 2040?
        Answer. The following criteria and assumptions are applied to
    calculate ARNG responses:
      --Start point real property inventory used was September 2010 and
            included active, semi-active, excess, caretaker, closed, and
            surplus status facilities.
      --Inventory excluded TBA and disposed status facilities.
      --Inventory included both DOD and State owned and leased facilities.
      --Inventory included all facilities: buildings, structures and linear
            structures.
      --Inventory included ARNG facilities on over 100 enclaves for which
            the ARNG is responsible.
      --Assumed that the one for one disposal to offset additional new
            construction remains in effect through 2040. Therefore no
            additional disposal beyond the amount constructed is
            considered.
      --Based on sizes of new construction versus facilities being disposed
            assumed each newly constructed building is offset by two older
            buildings.
      --ARNG will construct about 50 new facilities each year.
      --Facilities older than 50 years are not leaving the inventory
            because they are eligible for historic status.
      --Facilities being constructed each year are replacing facilities
            that are 50 years old.
      --These assumptions result in the overriding assumptions that under
            the current FYDP and general facility replacement schedules,
            each year 50 new facilities will replace 100 buildings that are
            50 years old. This will reduce the total number of facilities
            by 50/year and reduce the total number of years by 5,000 each
            year. Based on these realistic assumptions given the number of
            facilities (over 95,000) they make no measurable difference.
        Question. Under the current FYDP and general facility replacement
    schedules, what will the average age of a California National Guard
    facility be in 2020, 2030, and 2040?
        Answer. Under the current FYDP and general facility replacement
    schedules, the average age of California Army National Guard facilities
    will be 58 years in 2020, 68 years in 2030, and 78 years in 2040.
                             blackhawk helicopters
        Question. California has a significant amount of high altitude
    terrain and heavy historical utilization of UH-60 and HH-60 Blackhawk
    helicopters in emergency response missions. What factors will the
    National Guard Bureau take into account when making the decision on
    where to assign additional modernized UH-60 L and M Blackhawk
    helicopters in the Army National Guard and HH-60 Blackhawks in the Air
    National Guard?
        Answer. Many factors are considered when stationing modernized
    helicopters in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard. A
    major factor is the Army Force Generation Model that assigns units to
    deploy overseas for Federal missions. Other factors include
    availability of aircraft in a state and region by type and state of
    modernization, the terrain of the region and suitability of other
    ground and air assets to support operations.
        Question. Specifically, will you consider unique geographical
    constraints and historical utilization rates in emergency response
    missions when determining assignments? If not, why not?
        Answer. The National Guard does consider geography and the threat
    of natural disasters when stationing units. Historical utilization
    rates are considered and are balanced against the increased capacity of
    modernized aircraft.
        Question. What other factors will the National Guard Bureau take
    into account and how do you determine and prioritize/rank those
    factors?
        Answer. National Guard Bureau first considers the availability of a
    unit for the Warfight when fielding modernized aircraft in order to
    reduce sustainment and logistical support requirements when units that
    are stationed across multiple states merge together on a deployment.
    The next scheduled deployment is considered to ensure a unit has enough
    time to train on modernized aircraft between fielding of the equipment
    and deployment. Other factors such as terrain, availability of other
    aircraft and historical flood, fire, hurricane and other natural
    disasters is also considered.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
        Question. Tight budgets are going to force us to make the best
    possible use of government and military facilities. Kansas recently
    announced it is closing several armories due to budget constraints, and
    several State budgets are experiencing shortfalls. The Federal budget
    for facilities also is limited and likely to shrink in the future.
    Because of these constraints, it might be useful to consider shared-use
    facilities for Guardsmen, and other public safety-related state and
    Federal personnel.
        Have you considered a shared-use facilities concept? Are you aware
    of any short-term steps that might be taken to create shared-use
    facilities or any legal or policy barriers that would need to be
    addressed to make the concept work?
        Answer. The National Guard has considered shared-use facilities and
    has constructed many installations in conjunction with State or Federal
    agencies, including other components of the Armed Forces. We are taking
    short-term steps to identify Federal shared use facilities through
    Joint Service Reserve Component Review Boards. State shared used
    facilities are presenting more of a problem, as many States lack the
    budget for major construction at this time. In addition to State-share
    requirements, incompatibility issues with Anti-Terrorism/Force
    Protection criteria and other Federal regulations make sharing
    facilities with the States difficult. We feel that the report language
    to accompany the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act
    (NDAA) directed Readiness Center Study will illustrate additional
    opportunities for shared use facilities.
        Question. Up to now, the various resiliency programs have existed
    on seed money provided through various accounts in Congress. I am
    concerned that these programs may not survive as budgets get tighter.
        What steps are you taking to capture the best practices from the
    various resiliency programs and make them available to Guardsmen and
    women around the country, and will you be able to institutionalize
    these resiliency programs as other priorities compete for space in the
    budget?
        Answer. The National Guard Bureau continues to work to develop more
    efficient and effective resiliency programs. One major success of the
    National Guard has been the The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
    (YRRP). This program has worked extremely well for the Army and Air
    National Guard. Through May 2009, the National Guard has already
    conducted 619 events involving 47,182 service members and 58,350 family
    members. These attendees have had access to information, services,
    referrals, and proactive outreach to Services members, families, and
    employers throughout pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment.
        The YRRP is made available to all members of the Army and Air
    National Guard when they deploy. Additionally, the National Guard makes
    every attempt to ensure that all Service branches within our States,
    Territories and the District are included, whenever possible, in our
    Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program process throughout all phases of
    the deployment cycle.
                                     ______

          Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Harry M. Wyatt III
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                      air national guard fighter shortfall
        Question. General Wyatt, in the statement submitted for the record,
    you observed that ``80 percent of our F-16s will begin reaching the end
    of their service life in 7 years.'' Retiring these aircraft will
    significantly reduce the fighter aircraft that the Air National Guard
    has dedicated to the Combat Aviation and Air Sovereignty Alert
    missions. How serious a problem is the fighter shortfall facing the Air
    National Guard and what steps are being taken to reduce the associated
    risk?
        Answer. The ANG faces a substantial fighter force shortfall in the
    near term which becomes critical by fiscal year 2016-17. By fiscal year
    2017 up to six ANG F-16 units may reach the end of their service life.
    To address this risk, the Air Force is funding and executing full-scale
    fatigue tests on aging F-16 aircraft to determine the feasibility of a
    service life extension program (SLEP).
        Question. General Wyatt, what force management options could be
    taken if the F-16 fleet sees significant aircraft retirements before
    replacement aircraft are available?
        Answer. If recapitalization does not occur in a timely manner and
    the Air National Guard (ANG) experiences significant aircraft
    retirements without replacement, the only option available for units
    without aircraft is to retrain, relocate, or retire their experienced
    ANG personnel. A preferable alternative to ``retrain, relocate, or
    retire'' is concurrent and balanced recapitalization. Addressing the
    needs of the ANG during recapitalization efforts ensures the ANG and
    its highly efficient, knowledgeable, and cost efficient forces remain
    available for Combatant Commander tasking at Home and Abroad.
                         c-130 force structure changes
        Question. General Wyatt, in fiscal year 2011 the Air National Guard
    will lose 18 aircraft through a combination of retiring 6 C-130Es and
    transferring 12 C-130Hs to the active component. To minimize the
    adverse impact, the plan is to remove one or two aircraft from multiple
    sites and reduce the size of the squadrons. The exception is a unit in
    Puerto Rico that will lose its last C-130Es next year. What is driving
    this change in your force structure and what are the consequences for
    the Air National Guard?
        Answer. Continuing budget pressures, the rising cost of maintaining
    and operating older weapons systems and the need to recapitalize aging
    tactical airlift assets are behind the programmatic actions in the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request. The reduction in airlift assets will
    result in fewer assets available to carry out both the Federal and
    State missions in response to any event or conflict. We are working
    with the Air Force and the Adjutants General to minimize the impact of
    the force structure changes.
        Question. The Air Guard unit at the Luis Munoz International
    Airport in Puerto Rico loses its last 6 aircraft (C-130Es) in fiscal
    year 2011. The Air Force has not yet decided what new mission the unit
    will receive.
        General Wyatt, we understand that the Air Force was concerned about
    having too much of the C-130 force in the Guard and Reserves. Can you
    shed some light on the problem being solved with the proposed shift of
    aircraft to the active component?
        Answer. Recent air force studies have suggested that there is an
    issue with the ratio of C-130's in the Guard and Reserves to those
    based in active duty units. The study suggests that the ability to
    access reserve component aircraft is limited, and could be fixed by
    basing more C-130's in the Active Duty. It is my belief that the ANG C-
    130 community has proven over the last decade through volunteerism and
    mobilization that access to ANG iron is not an issue. Although our
    fleet size has been reduced by 20 percent due to BRAC and Air Force
    programmatic changes, we continue to increase our level of effort to
    the total airlift requirements of our nation. This level of ANG C-130
    fleet effort cannot be measured strictly by the number of tails
    currently deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq as studies have suggested,
    but should also include the total level of effort that our ANG C-130
    fleet shoulders on a daily basis. I would remind everyone that the
    first C-130 aircraft to respond to the gulf area after Hurricane
    Katrina was an ANG C-130. This is the norm, not the exception.
        Question. General Wyatt, the Puerto Rico ANG C-130 unit is
    scheduled to lose all of its aircraft in fiscal year 2011. Have you and
    the Air Force identified a new mission for this unit?
        Answer. We continue to work with the Air Force basing process to
    identify the future mission for our outstanding unit in Puerto Rico. We
    have made a strong case that our ANG unit in Puerto Rico possesses many
    unique abilities, including language and cultural skills that should be
    leveraged by the Air Force. We also conclude that the location of
    Puerto Rico is unique and valuable as our only permanent airlift unit
    location in the Caribbean.
                  air national guard--recruiting and retention
        Question. General Wyatt, in the last 4 years the Air Guard has
    undergone significant force structure adjustments. Most of these
    adjustments have been completed but there are still a few bases without
    long term missions. How has the restructuring affected recruiting and
    retention across the Guard and in particular at the units that still
    lack a future mission?
        Answer. Air National Guard recruiting and retention remains strong.
    The challenge as we move forward is to strike a delicate balance of
    remaining close to end strength while strengthening ``effective''
    recruiting. We have been very successful with quickly matching missions
    for a majority of our units in transition and have been diligently
    working with the Air Force on the few units we have had trouble
    matching with follow-on missions.
        Question. General Wyatt, are you concerned that a decision on the
    new missions will not be reached in time to include funding in the
    fiscal year 2012 budget? What is holding up the decision?
        Answer. Our BRAC experiences have enabled us to rapidly match the
    right mission to the right unit. We will continue working with HAF to
    ensure the timely decisions and appropriate funding requests.
        The Executive Steering Group (ESG)--Strategic Basing Process is
    still a relatively new process and continues to be refined to increase
    efficiency. The ANG is fully integrated in the process and continues to
    work with HAF. While often time intensive, this deliberate process
    ensures the necessary vetting and review of basing actions.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
        Question. For the last few years, the Air National Guard has been
    working on a program to demonstrate the capabilities of the AT-6 light
    attack aircraft. During this time, the concept of a light attack
    aircraft has gained traction in various parts of the Department of
    Defense. In fact, the Air Force announced that it intends to purchase
    several light attack, armed reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft beginning in
    fiscal year 2012.
        Has the active duty Air Force--or anyone else from across DOD,
    contacted the Air National Guard about lessons learned from the
    demonstration program? Alternatively, have you reached out to
    interested parties at DOD--to include the active duty component of the
    Air Force, the Navy, SOCOM and JFCOM--about the importance of the AT-6
    demonstration program and its relevance to the development of a LAAR-
    type aircraft?
        Answer. The Air National Guard has been working closely with the
    Air Force on light attack efforts so that all involved are informed on
    the progress, results, and lessons learned from the various efforts.
    The AT-6 demonstration is a congressionally mandated demonstration that
    will provide platform-agnostic lessons learned that can be applied to
    any light attack effort or future acquisition programs. The Air Force
    has received inquiries about AT-6 Demo effort from the JFCOM/CC, EUCOM
    staff, and most recently, the Director of the Iraq Training and
    Advisory Mission. Air Guardsmen working the AT-6 demonstration at the
    ANG Test Center in Tucson and at the National Guard Bureau have
    actively kept SAF and HAF, JFCOM, and the OSD special capabilities
    office aware of program status and future plans. The first formal phase
    of the AT-6 demonstration flights in an operationally representative
    environment just started in late March and will conclude on April 22.
    We invited Navy personnel working the IMMINENT FURY program to observe
    the testing occurring at Nellis AFB April 12-22, and Air Force
    personnel will also be involved with the Nellis effort. We will
    actively share the results of that first phase, and the second phase of
    flights planned for August and September, with all organizations in DOD
    involved with Light Attack. We have also initiated contact with the
    offices at AFMC that will be responsible for any future light attack
    aircraft procurements to ensure they receive and understand the results
    of the AT-6 demonstration so they may be incorporated into any future
    full and open competitions.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Major General Raymond M. Carpenter
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                           uh-60 black hawk upgrades
        Question. General Carpenter, one of the Army Guard's top priorities
    is to modernize the oldest UH-60 Black Hawks to the latest
    configuration. The budget contains funds to upgrade 35 of these
    helicopters. How many of those conversions would directly benefit the
    National Guard?
        Answer. Current information indicates that 30 of the 35 A-A-L
    conversions in the budget will be coming to the Army National Guard.
    The Army UH-60 ``A to A to L'' upgrade program is a critical element
    for the timely modernization of the ARNG UH/HH-60 fleet, which
    comprises the largest and most heavily used part of the ARNG rotary-
    wing inventory.
        The ARNG is quickly approaching its full authorization of 849 UH/
    HH-60 aircraft. When that occurs, almost 500 of those will be the older
    and outdated ``A'' models that average over 30 years of age. At the
    presently programmed rate of future buys of ``M'' models and ``L''
    model conversions, the Army Guard will not be able to divest of the
    final ``A'' models until well into the 2020's. Future ``A-A-L''
    conversions are currently planned a rate of 38 per year.
        Question. General Carpenter, the dependence on helicopters in Iraq
    and Afghanistan has created a strain on our depots because of all the
    repairs needed on aircraft returning from overseas. Do you know if our
    depots have adequate capacity to accelerate the Black Hawk
    modernization program?
        Answer. These efforts are performed at the Corpus Christi Army
    Depot (CCAD). In regards to CCAD's capacity, the Depot could ``expand/
    increase'' its capacity beyond the current production for the UH-60 A-
    A-L RECAP of 38 aircraft per year; however, there is no existing
    requirement to do so.
        Any increase above the current requirement would entail a ramp up
    to properly set the conditions for success. Additional resources, to
    include staffing, tools, spare parts, facilities, and funding; could be
    needed depending on the number of additional aircraft to be addressed
    per year.
                                    Reserves

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JACK C. STULTZ, CHIEF,
                ARMY RESERVE
        Chairman Inouye. And now may I call upon the second panel,
    Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, Chief of the Army Reserve; Vice
    Admiral Dirk Debbink, Chief, Navy Reserve; Lieutenant General
    John F. Kelly, Commander, Marine Forces Reserve and Marine
    Forces North; Lieutenant General Charles E. Stenner, Jr.,
    Chief, Air Force Reserve.
        Gentlemen, thank you for joining us this morning. And may I
    assure you that your full statements will be made part of the
    record.
        And may I now call upon General Stultz, Chief of the Army
    Reserve.
        General Stultz. Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman Cochran, it
    is an honor to be here and, first and foremost, to say thank
    you for all of the support that you've given the well over
    207,000 soldiers that currently populate the Army Reserve.
        I know we're going to be pressed for time, and I don't want
    to take a long and drawn-out opening statement.
        I do want to recognize two soldiers that I did bring with
    me today, because I think they epitomize what Ray Carpenter
    talked about, that's referred to as a national treasure, and
    that is what we call ``warrior citizens.'' You used to be
    called ``citizen soldiers,'' and when I came into this job as
    the Chief of the Reserve, we changed the term to ``warrior
    citizen.'' And I took a little flak about that, because people
    said, ``That's a little harsh.'' And I said, ``I don't think
    so, because our soldiers, today, in uniform are warriors. They
    are an operational force. They're making, in a lot of cases,
    the ultimate sacrifice.'' We have lost a number of our Reserve
    component soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in combat.
        And so, these two soldiers that I want to introduce
    epitomize that national treasure that we've got. The first one
    is Second Lieutenant Rachel Milton. Second Lieutenant Milton
    joined the Army Reserve after 9/11, to serve her country, and
    she became a private in the Army Reserve. She deployed to Iraq
    as a specialist, E-4 medic, where she was working inside Abu
    Ghraib prison, treating prisoners, both inside the prison and
    in the grounds. But also, during her other time, she was out
    doing convoy security, where she was a .50 cal gunner in a
    Humvee, providing security to convoys moving in and around that
    area of Iraq. And, additionally, was part of a four-person team
    who flew back and forth into the Green Zone during the Saddam
    Hussein trial to provide medical support to him and others that
    were participating in that trial. Came back home from her
    deployment to Iraq, went back to school, got her bachelor's
    degree in nursing, became a nurse at a hospital in New York
    City; in 2 years, has already been promoted to charge nurse and
    is now getting ready to enter her master's program. That's the
    return on investment we get; where we take a young person who
    is a patriot, put them into the Army Reserve, or the other
    Reserve components, and let them develop on their own, and let
    them become leaders, and then let them go back to their
    communities and give back. So, now, here in the Army Reserve,
    I've got an officer, I've got a trained nurse, I've got a
    combat veteran standing before you. A true hero.
        The other individual is Sergeant David Foltz. Sergeant
    Foltz is an engineer. Sergeant Foltz deployed in 2003-2004, in
    support of the war, and then went back again in 2006-2007. Part
    of an engineer unit that was out in the Anbar Province during a
    very, very contested time, which I'm sure General Kelley is
    very familiar with, doing route clearance. His battalion
    clearing a number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that
    saved thousands of soldiers and marines' lives as they cleared
    them, but, in that battalion, lost six of their own soldiers,
    and 25 percent of their unit received the Purple Heart
    throughout that battalion. Came back home, works for me in the
    Army Reserve now as a civilian, giving back not only in terms
    of his technical skills, but giving back in terms of his
    leadership as a noncommissioned officer; that which
    distinguishes our Army from any other army in the world, the
    backbone of our Army.
        This is why I'm here today, sir, to say we need your
    continued support and the continued support of Congress, for
    these great young men and women who are in our ranks who are
    truly national treasures.
        I'll look forward to your questions, sir. Thank you.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Chairman Inouye. We thank you for your service to our
    Nation, and we salute you.
        General, finish with your----
        General Stultz. Yes, sir.
        As I said, I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Jack Stultz
        Against the backdrop of the second longest war in our nation's
    history and the longest ever fought by an all-volunteer force, the Army
    Reserve continues to be a positive return on investment for America.
    The fiscal year 2009 $8.2 billion Army Reserve appropriation
    represented only 4 percent of the total Army budget, yet we supply the
    Army seven to eight brigade-size elements. Since September 11, 2001,
    the Army Reserve mobilized 179,782 Soldiers, and now has 29,000
    deployed in support of Army missions. We supply the Army with 87
    percent of its Civil Affairs capability, 65 percent of its
    Psychological Operations, and 59 percent of its Medical support--to
    highlight a few of our top contributing specialized functions. Compared
    to the cost of expanding the full-time force, the small investment in
    the Army Reserve provides security at home and fights terrorism abroad.
    We respond to domestic disasters and participate in security
    cooperation operations while protecting national interests around the
    globe. In support of contingency operations, we foster stability in
    underdeveloped nations where conditions are ripe for terrorists to gain
    a foothold.
        The events of September 11, 2001 forever changed the way in which
    the Army Reserve provides combat support and combat service support to
    the Army and to the Joint Forces. Operational demands for Army Reserve
    support have been heavy and enduring. Operations in Afghanistan soon
    led to urgent calls for logistical, engineer, military police, medical,
    and civil affairs capability. The Army Reserve has the largest share of
    these capabilities and was soon meeting Combatant Commanders' urgent
    requests. Theater requests have grown larger since operations began in
    Iraq in 2003. Every year through 2006, Combatant Commanders anticipated
    needing fewer troops, but mission demands forced them to keep
    requesting more troops and support capabilities. In 2007, the ``surge''
    in Iraq reversed that country's descent into civil war, but sustaining
    that renewed commitment into 2008 represented yet further strain on the
    Army Reserve, its units and Soldiers, and their Families. As of October
    2009, the beginning of the Iraq drawdown hints there may be some
    operational relief ahead, but new requests from Afghanistan for forces
    has triggered another presidential strategic re-assessment. The reality
    is, current operations are consuming Army Reserve readiness as fast as
    we can build it, but Congress' support for the Army Reserve in recent
    years has gone far toward both meeting current demands and reshaping
    the Army Reserve for future national security requirements.
        As sustained operational demands on the Army Reserve became heavier
    after 9/11, it became ever apparent we could no longer function as a
    part-time strategic reserve. Based on the operational requirements
    outlined for the Army Reserve in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review,
    and while fighting two wars, we completed our transition from a
    strategic reserve to an operational force last year--to the extent we
    can--given today's resourcing and mission demands. An operational Army
    Reserve is a good return on investment for America because now we are
    in a stronger position to provide the Army with predictable, trained,
    equipped, and ready forces to meet global and contingency requirements.
    What remains is an ongoing effort to sustain an operational posture,
    with a fully functioning Army Force Generation model--that receives
    full funding.
        Thanks to Congress' leadership, we have made great progress in a
    number of initiatives required to complete Army Reserve transformation.
    We have re-organized operational commands to better support theater
    requirements, opened new training centers, and restructured training
    commands to support the total force. Through Base Realignment and
    Closure, we have closed scattered facilities in favor of more
    efficient, multi-service reserve centers. Through the Army Reserve
    Enterprise process, we are restructuring our strategic and operational
    efforts to maximize productivity, efficiency, and responsiveness in
    four Enterprise areas: Human Capital, Materiel, Readiness, and Services
    and Infrastructure.
        We have identified ``Five Imperatives'' to facilitate Army Reserve
    continued transformation to a stronger and more capable operational
    force. They are Shaping the Force, Operationalizing the Army Reserve,
    Building the Army Reserve Enterprise, Executing BRAC, and Sustaining
    the Force.
    Shaping the Force
        As we look ahead, we know that building the right force is crucial
    for success. In 2010, we will leverage human capital management
    strategies to better shape the force into a more affordable and
    effective Army Reserve capable of supporting national security
    objectives and our combatant commanders' war-fighting needs. We are
    developing a more precise human capital strategy to meet our nation's
    future military needs by ensuring the right people, with the right
    skills, in the right units, are in place at the right time.
        In today's competitive recruitment environment, incentives matter
    because they allow the Army Reserve to sustain and shape the force. We
    achieved our fiscal year 2009 end strength due to the hard work and
    dedication of our recruiters and our Soldiers. We also attribute this
    success to the recruiting and retention initiatives that support the
    Army Reserve's manning strategy. These include the Army Reserve
    Recruiter Assistant Program that promotes strength from within by
    recognizing and rewarding those Soldiers, Family members, and
    Department of the Army Civilians working for the Army Reserve who bring
    talent to the team. The second is enlistment bonuses, which help us
    recruit the critically short/high demand Military Occupational
    Specialties. In fiscal year 2009, our focused incentives increased Army
    Reserve End Strength. As we met the objective, it became evident that
    not all of our new Soldiers possessed the skill sets needed to support
    the Army Reserve structure while also fulfilling our wartime
    requirements.
        Successful recruiting added an abundance of Soldiers in the lowest
    three pay grades, but recruiting new Soldiers as privates and second
    lieutenants cannot fill the thousands of mid-grade noncommissioned and
    commissioned officer vacancies that currently exist. Despite excellent
    retention results, these shortages continue.
        Our recruitment efforts will focus on more prior-service recruits
    who are slightly older and bring more experience than most first-term
    Soldiers. These experienced Soldiers can fill shortages among mid-level
    commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Targeted incentives have
    been crucial to rebuilding our end strength and addressing critical
    shortages in some grades and job specialties. Continuing these
    incentives allows the Army Reserve to shape the force to better meet
    the requirements of our national security strategy and to give
    Soldiers, Families, and Employers stability and predictability.
        Ensuring a Continuum of Service (COS) is a human capital objective
    that seeks to inspire Soldiers to a lifetime of service. Active (full-
    time) and reserve (part-time) military service are two elements of
    valuable service to the nation. Continuum of Service provides Active
    and Reserve Components some of the means necessary to offer Soldiers
    career options while maintaining capability for the operational force.
    COS also recognizes the tremendous cost of accessing and training each
    service member and seeks to avoid unnecessary replication of those
    costs. To reach our objective, it is our intention to work with Army to
    propose recommended changes to current statutes and policies that will
    ease restrictions on statutes limiting Reserve Component Soldiers from
    serving on active duty.
    Operationalizing the Army Reserve
        Our status as an operational force means that the Army Reserve is
    no longer a force in waiting--we are an operational force in being. We
    can continue providing that positive return on investment to the nation
    when the Army Reserve is given the proper resources to succeed.
        The Army Reserve plays a vital operational role in overseas
    contingency operations and will for the foreseeable future. 179,782
    Army Reserve Soldiers have mobilized since 9/11 in support of Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); 45,000 have
    mobilized more than once. In 2009, the Army Reserve mobilized 34,472
    Soldiers to support Combatant Commanders' requests for forces. We
    execute a readiness strategy to deploy highly ready units and Soldiers
    to support OIF and OEF requirements. This readiness strategy
    synchronizes those strategic planning and resourcing actions necessary
    to generate sufficient manning, training, and equipping levels to meet
    combatant commander mission requirements. The Army Force Generation
    process allows for a structured progression of increased unit readiness
    over time, and provides the Army recurring access to Army Reserve
    trained, ready, and cohesive units, which translates to predictability
    for Soldiers, their Families, and Employers. In effect, ARFORGEN drives
    the battle rhythm of the Army Reserve.
        ARFORGEN works for the Army Reserve. It has enduring qualities that
    have been apparent in providing support to emergencies such as
    Hurricane Katrina and the Haiti earthquake relief efforts, for training
    Soldiers in Afghanistan, to supporting the African Contingency
    Operations Training and Assistance Program with training and equipment
    for selected militaries engaged in humanitarian or peace operations.
    The Army Reserve seeks continued support from Congress to be an
    effective responder to missions such as these.
        Within the transformation process, we realigned our force structure
    to meet the Army's global mission requirements in both the Operational
    and Generating Force categories. The Army Reserve is ready to take on
    additional missions as the Department of Defense and U.S. Army validate
    emerging requirements. Authorized growth in end strength will enable
    the Army Reserve to activate validated units to meet these emerging
    requirements and maintain the number of units we have in our ARFORGEN
    process. Plans reflect an increase of 1,000 to 206,000 spaces of
    Authorized End Strength (ESA) to provide the Army Reserve capability to
    meet emerging mission requirements within our ability to operate the
    force.
        Full-time support personnel comprise a select group of people who
    organize, administer, instruct, recruit, and train our people; and who
    maintain supplies, equipment, and aircraft. They also perform other
    functions required on a daily basis to maintain readiness in support of
    operational missions. Without these critical Soldiers and Civilians,
    the Army Reserve could not function as an operational force.
        Although resourced to the Department of the Army ``High Risk''
    funding methodology (meets minimal acceptable risk in support of a
    strategic reserve force), it is imperative that future planning ensure
    full-time support is fully resourced as an operational reserve.
    Adequate resourcing is critical in meeting the readiness requirements
    of the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model.
        The current full-time support model remains a strategic reserve
    legacy. Key legislative and policy modifications are required to change
    personnel support processes. Manpower models and programming processes
    require review and modifications to provide flexibility and rapid
    response adjusting resources amid changing priorities across the
    ARFORGEN process.
        Our Active Guard Reserve (AGR) and Military Technician (MT)
    programs provide the bulk of full-time support at the unit level. They
    provide the day-to-day operational support needed to ensure Army
    Reserve units are trained and ready to mobilize within the ARFORGEN
    process. The AGR and MT programs are vital to the successful transition
    to--and sustainment of--an operational reserve. The Army Reserve
    requires added flexibility in its hiring practices to sustain its
    commitments to ARFORGEN. We must take action to create a new category
    of Non-Dual Status Technician, which allows retention and direct hire
    of personnel from outside the Selected Reserve. This new capability
    will allow us to support non-mobilizing/deploying organizations while
    authorizing Dual Status Military Technicians to meet conditions of
    employment with a military assignment anywhere within the Selected
    Reserve. We are working with Army to relax legacy fulltime support
    policies in order to provide flexibility in the reallocation of
    resources within AFORGEN cycle.
        As an operational force, the Army Reserve must have the most
    effective and sustainable equipment for Soldiers and units at the right
    place and at the right time. The Army Reserve supports the Army
    Equipping Strategy of Cyclical Readiness, which means all units are
    equipped based on their position in the ARFORGEN process and their
    mission--regardless of Component. The Equipment Readiness levels
    increase as units move through the ARFORGEN process from the RESET to
    the Available Phase. Those units that are within the RESET phase start
    with zero readiness expectation. As the units move to the Train/Ready
    phase, they will be resourced from 80 percent growing to 90 percent;
    and once the units enter the Available Phase, they are resourced to
    ensure 90 percent plus equipment readiness. To maximize collective and
    individual training opportunities for our units in the ARFORGEN process
    on high demand/low density systems, the Army Reserve must address the
    challenge with small pools of current generation systems. Additionally,
    while the Army Reserve units in the Reset Phase should have minimal
    specific equipping expectations; the Army Reserve is identifying
    equipment requirements that a unit can properly maintain at a Reserve
    Unit Home Station while sustaining Soldiers and training readiness. We
    are thankful to Congress for helping us meet this goal with National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) funding. These funds
    greatly add toward operationalizing the Army Reserve by supporting Army
    Modularity, Homeland Defense/Homeland Security, and the Army Force
    Generation cycle with a fully modern and interoperable force. With
    continued NGREA funding, we will be able to train our Soldiers on the
    latest combat equipment before they deploy into harm's way.
    Enterprise Transformation
        Using an enterprise approach to managing our internal processes, we
    add value to the Army by applying a holistic approach to managing our
    resources and shape the force into what is beneficial for the Army
    Reserve and supports the needs of the Army. By ``shape the force,'' I
    mean taking a fresh approach to how we recruit and retain the best and
    brightest, and positioning them in the right place, in the right job,
    and at the right time.
        The Army Reserve Enterprise consists of four core management areas:
    Human Capital, Readiness, Materiel, and Services and Infrastructure. To
    optimize the enterprise we must: Attract and retain the very best
    Warrior Citizens to serve our nation (Human Capital), Prepare, train,
    and equip Soldiers (Readiness); provide our Soldiers with the latest
    mission ready modular force equipment, (Materiel); provide for the
    well-being of our Soldiers, Families, Army Civilians, and employers
    while providing training and unit facilities and secure, redundant
    communications (Services and Infrastructure). Working together, these
    core management areas enable the Army Reserve enterprise to realize its
    ultimate goal: predictable, trained, and ready units--the essential
    components that define CAPABILITY.
    BRAC
        We have facility responsibilities at more than 1,100 Reserve
    Centers and the installations of Fort McCoy, Fort Buchanan, and Fort
    Hunter-Liggett installations. We also are responsible for significant
    training areas at Jolliet, Devens Reserve Forces Training Area, and
    Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. Moving toward completion of the
    current BRAC cycle of 2005, the Army Reserve military construction
    priority is to complete the remaining projects budgeted at $361 million
    for fiscal year 2010. Supporting the transformation of the Army Reserve
    from a Strategic Reserve to an Operational Force, we will implement 21
    construction projects at a cost of $381 million. Our construction
    effort supports the realignment of the field command organizations into
    Operational Supporting Commands. The resultant Supporting Commands
    invested $561 million in operating the facilities and some $244 million
    in repair of those facilities that allows mission accomplishment for
    the Operational Commands.
    Sustaining the Force
        The Warrior-Citizens of the Army Reserve and their Families embody
    a lasting commitment to serve America. The Army Reserve recognizes the
    strain of this era of persistent conflict on Soldiers and Families. We
    know Family readiness is inextricably linked to mission readiness,
    recruitment, and retention. Operationalizing of the Army Reserve
    creates a requirement for an enduring level of support. As the Army
    Reserve transforms, so must Family Programs. Our way ahead includes
    realignment actions to: support the Army Reserve Enterprise management
    approach, sustain services to Soldiers and Families in the
    expeditionary force, standardize existing programs and services across
    the Army Reserve, and build partnerships with Army Families and
    communities. Our end state is to optimize programs and services to
    connect Soldiers and Families to the right service at the right time.
        The cornerstone of our planning effort is to ensure the integration
    of Family Support services with the ARFORGEN process. By doing so, we
    ensure that our Warrior-Citizens and their Families have solid programs
    that are ready for execution any time during the training and
    deployment cycle. Appropriate resourcing will allow us to assess
    structure requirements, staffing needs, and develop effective processes
    that ensure the consistent delivery of programs and services that meet
    the needs of ARFORGEN and especially for those of our geographically
    dispersed customers.
        The Army Reserve Family Programs Virtual Installation Program is an
    exciting new initiative that ensures the same services provided to
    active component Soldiers are available to all service members and
    their Families not living close to a military installation. Leveraging
    assets we have on hand is allowing us to test the program through a
    series of pilots located in selected communities. Funding for this
    priority will allow us to expand Virtual Installation within Army
    Strong Community Centers around the country and overseas.
        We must continue to increase the quantity and quality of support
    for Army Reserve children and youth. We can increase opportunities for
    youth to develop leadership skills and strategies for coping with
    separation. Teen panels provide forums for our youth to propose
    solutions for concerns that affect their lives during mobilization and
    deployment. Additional online teen deployment classes support youth
    living in the ``new normal'' of repetitive deployments. With additional
    resources, we will work with our community partners to expand childcare
    for geographically dispersed Families and respite care for mobilized
    Families.
        This year we provided new opportunities for children of Army
    Reserve Families to attend camps. While the Department of Defense (DOD)
    ``Purple Camps'' were a great initiative, they distributed
    opportunities among all military communities in DOD. This resulted in
    fewer opportunities for Army Reserve children than needed.
    Additionally, Army Reserve children are usually unable to travel, and
    require activities located in areas near their homes. By operating our
    own camps, we increased these opportunities to Army Reserve Families in
    their communities and tailored them to our communities. The goal of the
    program is to prepare Army Reserve Soldiers and their Family members
    for mobilization, sustain Families during deployment, and reintegrate
    Soldiers with their Families, communities, and employers upon release
    from active duty. The Army Reserve Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
    (YRRP) provides information, services and support, referral, and
    proactive outreach to Army Reserve Soldiers and their Families through
    all phases of the deployment cycle. The program includes information on
    current benefits and resources available to help overcome the
    challenges encountered with Army Reserve mobilization and
    reintegration.
        The Army Reserve successfully launched its Yellow Ribbon
    Reintegration Program. We have coordinated with other military
    agencies, Federal/state/local government agencies, community
    organizations, and faith-based organizations to provide robust,
    preventive, proactive programs for Soldiers and their Families.
    Elements of the program include promoting preparedness through
    education, conducting effective Family outreach, leveraging available
    resources, and supporting the All-Volunteer Force. During fiscal year
    2009, the Army Reserve executed more than 250 Yellow Ribbon events,
    serving some 12,000 redeploying Soldiers and 12,000 Family members. In
    interviews conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
    Soldiers and Family members reported positive experiences with the Army
    Reserve Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.
        The challenge to the Army Reserve remains to develop, improve, and
    sustain the mental, spiritual, and emotional health that fosters
    resilient Soldiers and Families.
        We are moving out aggressively to mitigate the effects of
    persistent conflict and build a strong, resilient force. Multi-symptom
    conditions including those signature wounds not visibly apparent (for
    example: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain
    Injury (TBI), exist for Soldiers with military service in Southwest
    Asia. We will work with Health Affairs and the other Services to
    continue to provide the care necessary for the wounds from the current
    conflicts.
        We appreciate the resources that Congress has provided to date to
    further programs such as the new GI Bill and TRICARE. The benefit of
    TRICARE Reserve Select provides our Soldiers and Families peace of mind
    knowing that if a Soldier decides to better him/herself career-wise
    with the skills gained while deployed, medical care will not be a worry
    if he or she decides to change careers.
        We are teaming with civilian industry to shape the Army Reserve
    into America's premier reservoir of shared military-civilian skills and
    capabilities through our Employer Partnerships programs. Through these
    mutually-beneficial alliances with businesses that share our valuable
    human capital, we can strengthen Soldier-employees, Families,
    employers, and communities.
        We seek to identify locations where our Soldiers can simultaneously
    add value to both the civilian workforce and the Army Reserve. This
    effort ties into our objective of achieving a continuum of service for
    Soldiers who want the option to transition from active and reserve
    components, and vice versa, to provide Soldiers flexibility with their
    career objectives, while allowing the Army Reserve to retain the best
    talent and critical skills capability.
        We are committed to minimizing turbulence to Soldiers and their
    Families while providing the most effective and efficient trained and
    ready units and forces to meet world-wide requirements. We must
    maintain current levels of predictability while making plans to
    increase it. The Army Force Generation process allows for a structured
    progression of increased unit readiness over time, and provides the
    Army recurring access to Army Reserve trained, ready, and cohesive
    units. While our commitment in Iraq may draw down, the requirement for
    forces to commit to other global missions will only increase. In 2010,
    we will work with Congress to ensure we obtain the necessary resources
    to sustain a viable Army Force Generation cycle that supports global
    commitments and new missions.
        Thank you.

        Chairman Inouye. And now, General Debbink--Vice Admiral
    Debbink.
    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DIRK J. DEBBINK, CHIEF, NAVY
                RESERVE
        Admiral Debbink. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran,
    thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today.
        My force master chief, Ronnie Wright, and myself want to
    begin by expressing our appreciation for your support for the
    approximate 65,851 sailors, and their families, of your Navy
    Reserve component.
        My written testimony does go into some length describing
    the programs that we utilize to ensure the Navy Reserve is a
    ready and capable force, responsive to both the needs of the
    Navy and Marine Corps team and joint forces for both strategic
    depth and operational capabilities, while at the same time
    providing the necessary support to our sailors and their
    families and, very importantly, showing our appreciation to the
    sailors' employers.
        As I testify this morning, Navy Reserve sailors are
    operating in every corner of the world, shoulder-to-shoulder
    with Active Duty sailors and alongside soldiers, airmen,
    marines, and coastguardsmen. On any given day, more than 30
    percent of the Navy Reserve is providing support to Department
    of Defense operations. The Navy Reserve is ready now, anytime,
    anywhere, as our motto and, most importantly, our sailors
    proudly claim.
        While fully engaged in overseas contingency operations
    around the world, your Navy Reserve was also, most recently,
    involved in Operation Unified Response in Haiti. During the
    last 2 months, more than 950 Reserve sailors were proud and
    humbled to be able to provide over 21,000 man-days of support
    for the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in
    Haiti.
        Success in these operations, of course, is no accident,
    but, rather, it's a result of your sailors' can-do spirit
    combined with the support of chain of command and the proactive
    support of this Congress. Together, we seek to provide our
    sailors with the proper training, equipment, and support, both
    abroad and back home, necessary to ensure their success. And
    Congress' engagement with these efforts is greatly appreciated.
        A central focus of our manpower strategy continues to be
    the establishment of a true continuum-of-service culture that
    provides a life/work balance, which accommodates individuals'
    circumstances while at the same time allowing us to sustain the
    necessary inventory of skilled and experienced professionals to
    meet the Navy's total force requirements.
        The Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Naval
    Personnel, and I recently signed the Navy's Total Force Vision
    for the 21st Century, which lays the foundation for the Navy to
    succeed in delivering the human component of our maritime joint
    warfighting capabilities. Recruiting, retaining, and properly
    employing the right sailors--Active, Reserve, and civilian--in
    the service of our country is both an operational and a fiscal
    imperative for the continued success of our Navy.
        Our 2011 budget request will enable the Navy Reserve to
    continue supporting current engagements and maximizes the
    strategic value of the Navy Reserve as a relevant force, now
    and in the future; a force valued for its readiness, its
    innovation, its agility, and its accessibility. We expect the
    future will call for even greater displays of all of these
    traits.
        It is a privilege to serve during this important and
    meaningful time in our Nation's defense, especially as a Navy
    reservist.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I thank you for your continued support and your
    demonstrated commitment to our Navy Reserve and the sailors in
    that Navy Reserve. I look forward to your questions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Admiral.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Dirk J. Debbink
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today about the capabilities, capacity,
    and readiness of the dedicated men and women who serve in our Navy's
    Reserve Component (RC). I offer my heartfelt thanks for all of the
    support you have provided these great Sailors.
        I have now had the honor of serving as the Chief of Navy Reserve
    for 20 months. In that capacity, I am privileged to work for more than
    66,500 Sailors in our Navy's RC, an elite fighting force which just
    celebrated its 95th birthday. I am continuously amazed and humbled by
    the daily sacrifices our Reserve Sailors are making for our Nation and
    our Navy. Witnessing such great deeds helps me to focus on the services
    that I can provide to each of them: to ensure they are given real and
    meaningful work every day they are on duty; to ensure that they receive
    every practical material and organizational advantage to support them
    in their work; and to provide their families and employers with the
    proper support to honor and ease their sacrifices.
        Our Navy needs, and our Sailors deserve, the best Navy Reserve
    possible, and today's Navy Reserve is as strong and as relevant as it
    has ever been. Our success is a direct result of the dedication and
    professionalism of our Sailors, which is a reflection of the tremendous
    support those Sailors receive from their families and civilian
    employers.
        Last year, the Navy Reserve adopted an official Force Motto:
    ``Ready Now. Anytime, Anywhere.'' This motto is our pledge to our
    shipmates, our Navy, and our Nation and serves as the guiding principle
    of the Navy Reserve Strategic Plan. In that Plan, the mission of the
    Navy Reserve is defined: ``to provide strategic depth and deliver
    operational capabilities to our Navy and Marine Corps team, and Joint
    forces, from peace to war.'' As Chief of Navy Reserve, I can report
    without reservation that our Navy Reserve Sailors accomplish this
    mission every day.
        The Navy Total Force is aligned with and supports the six core
    capabilities articulated in the Maritime Strategy and is managed by
    Navy leadership to enable the Chief of Naval Operation's priorities:
    (1) build tomorrow's Navy; (2) remain ready to fight today; and (3)
    develop and support our Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families.
    The Navy Reserve is integral to the Navy Total Force--we stand
    shoulder-to-shoulder with our active duty component executing full
    spectrum operations that represent every facet of our Navy's Global
    Maritime Strategy. Within this Total Force framework, I would like to
    take this opportunity to update you on the programs that support the
    Chief of Naval Operations' focus areas, while also highlighting some
    key contributions from Navy Reservists in 2009.
                           care for our warrior force
        This country owes a great debt to the men and women who have gone
    in harm's way in support of contingency operations around the globe and
    it is our obligation to provide them not just with every opportunity to
    succeed while deployed, but also with the means to reintegrate once
    they return from overseas.
        Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has stated, ``apart from the wars
    in Afghanistan and Iraq, my highest priority as Secretary of Defense is
    improving the outpatient care and transition experience for troops that
    have been wounded in combat.'' The Navy Reserve takes this commitment
    to heart and is setting a higher standard every day for the care and
    well-being of our Wounded Warriors. In 2009, we completed implementing
    programs recommended in the Naval Inspector General's Navy Reserve
    Wounded Warrior Care report, highlighted by the functional stand-up of
    the Reserve Policy and Integration organization (M-10) within the
    Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED). This organization provides
    BUMED with a Reserve perspective related to medical policies and issues
    impacting the Total Force. We continue to provide exceptional service
    to Sailors assigned to the Navy's Medical Hold (MEDHOLD) units. These
    units provide necessary medical and non-medical case management to the
    Navy's RC Wounded, Ill, and Injured (WII) population. For those Sailors
    and Coast Guardsmen who are seriously wounded, ill, or injured, the
    Navy Safe Harbor program is the Navy's lead organization for
    coordinating non-medical care for the warrior and their family members.
    Through proactive leadership, MEDHOLD helps RC WII members return to
    service and their communities, and Safe Harbor provides individually
    tailored assistance designed to optimize the successful recovery,
    rehabilitation, and reintegration of our Shipmates.
        Superior care is not reserved for injured Sailors alone. Medical
    research indicates that health concerns, particularly those involving
    psychological health, are frequently identified during the months
    leading up to and following return from an operational deployment.
    Current Navy programs, such as Operational Stress Control Training, the
    Psychological Health Outreach Program, and BUMED's Wounded, Ill, and
    Injured Warrior Support, are designed to align with critical stages of
    the deployment cycle.
        An integral component of Force Health Protection calls for ensuring
    all service members are fit to deploy, and Navy has improved the
    screening procedures for mobilizing Sailors to ensure they are
    medically able to meet theater requirements. For example, the Medical
    Readiness Reporting System (MRRS) has improved tracking of each
    Sailor's suitability for Area of Responsibility-specific expeditionary
    assignments. In addition, annual Physical Health Assessments (PHA),
    coupled with the new, standardized consolidated pre-deployment
    screening and local line support will streamline screening requirements
    while maintaining fidelity on issues which impact medical readiness.
    Early screening and associated fitness determinations help alleviate
    unnecessary stress on our Sailors and provides supported commands with
    a steady stream of well-prepared and able workforce. We are also
    actively engaged in implementing the new legislation that makes
    Reservists eligible for Tricare coverage up to 180 days before a
    mobilization event. We are thankful to Congress for their work in
    providing this benefit to our mobilizing service members.
        Sailors returning from overseas mobilizations are encouraged to
    attend a Returning Warrior Workshop (RWW), which is the Navy's
    ``signature event'' within the Department of Defense (DOD) Yellow
    Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP). In the 8 years since 9/11, the
    overwhelming majority of Reserve Sailors mobilized to active duty have
    deployed as Individual Augmentees (IAs). Deployed apart from their
    parent unit and often assigned duties which differ greatly from their
    primary specialty, these combat zone deployments can be uniquely
    stressful. The RWW is a dedicated weekend for Sailors to reconnect with
    spouses, significant others, and each other following an IA deployment.
    Staged at a high-quality location at no cost to the participants, the
    RWW employs trained facilitators to lead Warriors and their families/
    guests through a series of presentations and tailored break-out group
    discussions that address post-combat stress and the challenges of
    transitioning back to civilian life. Additionally, my goal is to have a
    Navy Flag Officer in attendance at every RWW to make a visible
    statement of Department of the Navy support for this valuable program.
    A total of 43 RWWs have been held as of March 1, 2010, attended by
    3,083 military personnel and 2,329 guests/family members. The fiscal
    year 2011 budget supports another 25 events. Pioneered by the Navy
    Reserve, these workshops are now available for all Navy IAs. RWWs are a
    true success story in honoring our Sailors and their families. It is
    one of my top priorities to ensure this program continues to have both
    the full support of Navy leadership and the widest possible
    participation by all returning Sailors.
        RWWs serve as a key component of the Navy Reserve Psychological
    Health Outreach Program. Outreach teams assigned to each Navy Region
    Reserve Component Command facilitate the RWWs and engage in other
    critical aspects of the Deployment Health Assessment (DHA) process.
    DHAs are regularly scheduled encounters used to screen service members
    prior to and after deployment and to facilitate appropriate
    psychological care. The DHA process supports the DOD health protection
    strategy to deploy healthy, fit, and medically-ready forces; to
    minimize illnesses and injuries during deployments; and to evaluate and
    treat physical, psychological, and deployment-related health concerns.
    The process is designed to identify stress injuries and other health
    concerns requiring further assessment or treatment as appropriate. The
    Navy Reserve now has dedicated mental health professionals and
    associated assets available to provide psychological health services
    for the Navy and Marine Corps Reserve communities. Providing
    psychological health assessment services for deploying reservists will
    assist in identifying potential stress disorders and facilitate early
    intervention before these disorders accelerate to a more critical
    ``injured or ill'' stage, keeping Navy and Marine Corps Reservists
    psychologically healthy for continued retention in the Reserves and for
    future overseas and CONUS mobilizations. Also recently established as
    part of the YRRP, the Pre-Deployment Family Readiness Conference
    (PDFRC) utilizes Psychological Health outreach teams to provide
    education and information to ensure that Sailors and their families are
    ready for the rigors of deployment and the challenges of family
    separation.
        Additionally, Navy's formalization and emphasis of the Operational
    Stress Control (OSC) Program is working to de-stigmatize psychological
    health issues, which can improve Sailors' participation in valuable
    psychological health programs for those in need. The Navy Reserve team
    is a charter member of the OSC Governance Board. The Psychological
    Health Outreach teams provide the OSC Awareness brief during periodic
    visits to Navy Operational Support Centers (NOSCs) across the country.
    As of February 1, 2010, the psychological health outreach team members
    have made 196 visits to NOSCs, providing the Operational Stress Control
    Awareness brief to over 20,200 Reservists and staff personnel.
        Finally, and although not solely related to mobilized Sailors, the
    Navy Reserve has aligned closely with the Chief of Naval Personnel on
    programs that detect and help individuals who are at risk of suicide.
    Families, often the first people to notice a desperate change in a
    Sailor, are included in programs such as the PDFRC and the RWW. A
    Suicide Event Report (SER) is completed on all actual or attempted
    suicides, regardless of duty status, which has provided a more complete
    picture of the problems afflicting all Navy Sailors. In every instance
    where the chain of command knows of a Navy Reservist who has attempted
    suicide, either in a duty or non-duty status, the Reservist is referred
    to the Navy Reserve Psychological Health Coordinators for follow-up and
    referral to the appropriate mental healthcare services. The
    aforementioned OSC Awareness briefs provided by the Psychological
    Health Outreach teams also include Suicide Prevention briefs.
                      progress in programs for our people
        The Navy Reserve Strategic Plan defines the vision for the Navy
    Reserve as follows: ``Our vision for the Navy Reserve is to be a
    provider of choice for essential naval warfighting capabilities and
    expertise, strategically aligned with mission requirements and valued
    for our readiness, innovation, and agility to respond to any
    situation.'' During the last 8 years, the Navy Reserve has demonstrated
    the ability to continue sustained and valuable contributions to the
    Total Force, in the full spectrum of missions, at home and abroad, and
    as both an operational and strategic force. We continue to forge ahead
    with ideas and programs that will allow us to continuously contribute
    to the strategic aims of the Navy and the Joint Force.
        As defined in the Strategic Plan, one of the three Focus Areas for
    the Navy Reserve is to enable the Continuum of Service (CoS). CoS
    reflects the reality of our Navy. As our Chief of Naval Operations,
    Admiral Gary Roughhead, states, ``we are one force today. One Navy,
    with an Active Component and a Reserve Component.'' CoS initiatives
    provide for seamless movement between the Active Component (AC), RC,
    and civilian service, while delivering operational flexibility and
    strategic depth at the best value for the Navy. Responding to the CoS
    philosophy, we recruit Sailors once and retain them for life through
    variable and flexible service options that provide a career continuum
    of meaningful and valued work.
        Not long ago, we spoke of creating active duty ``on ramps'' and
    ``off ramps.'' Today, a better analogy is that we're all on the same
    career highway, and during our career we may wish to change lanes
    several times, moving from Active to Reserve and back. Our commitment
    to our Sailors is to make these lane changes easier and faster.
        CoS is forcing us to think differently and make big changes in the
    way we do business. Changing our culture might be the hardest part. Too
    often we think the only way to have a Navy career is by serving on
    active duty alone. Our Navy Reserve gives Navy Sailors many other
    possible ways to have a full Navy career.
        There were many important accomplishments associated with our CoS
    efforts in fiscal year 2009. Beginning last year, the Career Management
    System--Interactive Detailing (CMS/ID) allowed our AC career counselors
    to assist Sailors transitioning from active duty to consider Reserve
    units in the location where they planned to live. This is a good
    example of how an effective career development program can be a
    fantastic opportunity for Sailors to Stay Navy for Life. Additionally,
    Sailors in selected ratings and designators are informed about their
    eligibility for bonuses of up to $20,000 for affiliating with the Navy
    Reserve in the specialties we need most.
        Our Perform to Serve (PTS) program has given AC Sailors avenues for
    continued service in the AC Navy, primarily through transitions from
    overmanned rates into undermanned rates. Last fall, Navy expanded this
    program to allow AC Sailors the option to affiliate with the RC in
    their current rate to continue their Navy career. Integrating Reserve
    opportunities early into the Sailor's transition process demonstrates
    the AC's commitment to CoS initiatives.
        One of the most exciting developments supporting CoS is the new
    Career Transition Office (CTO) within Navy Personnel Command. The goal
    of the CTO is to counsel Sailors before they leave active duty and
    through the transition process in order to help them to take full
    advantage of the opportunities in the Navy Reserve. By engaging our
    fully qualified, world-wide assignable personnel before they leave
    active duty, we can turn a personnel loss into a retention transaction
    without the need to involve a Navy recruiter. We started with officers
    transitioning from AC to RC, and immediately reaped success by nearly
    doubling Navy Veteran officer affiliation rates from 28 percent to 55
    percent. We have recently expanded the program to include enlisted
    Sailors who elected the Selected Reserve (SELRES) option in PTS. In the
    future, the CTO will handle all officer and enlisted transitions from
    AC-to-RC and RC-to-AC, except mobilizations.
        Expanding our CoS efforts is one of my top priorities for fiscal
    year 2010. In the upcoming year, we will further our participation in
    the World Class Modeling initiative sponsored by the Chief of Naval
    Personnel to anticipate Navy warfighting needs, identify associated
    personnel capabilities, and recruit, develop, manage, and deploy those
    capabilities in an agile, cost-effective manner. Additionally, we will
    place Reserve information in the Navy Retention Monitoring System to
    provide enhanced reporting and analysis capabilities for retention
    metrics.
        With regard to educating a ready and accessible force, we thank
    Congress for its support of the post 9/11 GI Bill. The opportunity to
    transfer post-secondary education funds to a spouse or child is a
    significant benefit for our Sailors and their families. Since
    implementation on August 1, 2009, over 3,000 reserve members have been
    approved for transferability. We will continue to assess the impact of
    transferability on enlisted and officer retention.
        Another Focus Area for the Navy Reserve is to Deliver a Ready and
    Accessible Force. Reserve support for contingency operations in the
    Central Command Area of Responsibility (AOR) is one of the most
    critical elements in the success our forces have experienced throughout
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). In
    fiscal year 2009, Navy Mobilization Processing Sites (NMPS) processed
    more than 7,400 Sailors for long-term active duty service. Of those
    Sailors, over 6,100 were mobilized to support Operation Iraqi Freedom
    and Operation Enduring Freedom in combat, combat support, and combat
    service support missions; the remaining 1,300 were on Active Duty for
    Special Work orders providing valued support throughout the Fleet.
        In fiscal year 2010, Navy will continue to improve advance
    notification of personnel for upcoming mobilizations, with a goal of
    consistently providing at least 180 days prior notification for all
    recurrent and rotational mobilization assignments. Further, the Navy
    Reserve will continue to leverage the already robust Total Force
    Command IA Coordinator (CIAC) program at all NOSCs in order to optimize
    the frequency, quality, and depth of communications with mobilized
    reservists and their families throughout the deployment cycle. The CIAC
    program, complemented by the extraordinary efforts of our command and
    unit leadership teams, is significantly increasing quality of life for
    our deployed warriors and their families. Also, full-time, long-term
    support of Navy and Joint Flag Officer requirements by Reservists will
    help expand the expertise and knowledge of the Navy, and I thank you
    for the increased ability for Reserve participation in those
    assignments due to the legislation passed as part of last year's
    National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
        The Navy Reserve executed the Navy Reserve Personnel (RPN) and
    Operations and Maintenance (OMNR) accounts, valued at $3.2 billion, at
    99.9 percent in fiscal year 2009. The force executed nearly $150
    million in discretionary Reserve Personnel funding in support of
    missions world-wide, including $98 million in Active Duty for Training
    (ADT) funding--a 32 percent increase over fiscal year 2008--
    contributing 311,345 man-days of on-demand expertise to our Navy and
    Marine Corps team and Joint Forces. This operational support is a
    critical enabler to the Navy as Navy Reservists provide full-time
    excellence through part-time and full-time service. In fiscal year
    2011, the budget requests $1.94 billion in baseline RPN, to include
    $190 million in discretionary RPN, and $1.37 billion in baseline OMNR
    appropriations.
        In addition to personnel support, Navy Reserve units and hardware
    contribute to Navy's warfighting effort across multiple mediums, in
    missions ranging from combat operations or combat support operations,
    to logistics support around the globe, to training and readiness
    facilitation for soon-to-be-deploying units. The wide spectrum of
    missions that can be completed with Reserve units is in keeping with
    the third of our focus areas: Provide Valued Capabilities. Even when a
    Reserve unit itself is not mobilizing, our focus is centered on
    guaranteeing that Sailors are ready to provide necessary capabilities
    to the supported Combatant Commander.
        In fiscal year 2010, it is one of my top priorities to ensure the
    use of long-term budgeting processes to ensure sufficient Operational
    Support funding to meet Navy and Joint Force requirements. Demand for
    the services of our talented Sailors has never been greater, and we
    must solidify our access to the ADT dollars used to fund this on-demand
    expertise. Navy Reserve Sailors can be incredibly cost-effective, but
    there is a cost, and that cost must be incorporated in any long-term
    plan. This means planning and budgeting for the Navy Reserve to do the
    part-time work of the Navy.
        Some of the Navy's work is ideally suited for the RC. For example,
    billets that require specialized skill sets on a periodic and
    predictable basis are the billets where the Navy Reserve can deliver
    great value on an ongoing basis while at the same time providing
    critical strategic depth in case of emergency. By working closely with
    the Navy to identify and quantify the work for the Navy Reserve, we can
    ensure the Fleet receives the support it requires and our Sailors will
    have real and meaningful work, delivering full-time excellence through
    part-time and full-time service.
        The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) designated the Navy
    Reserve as the lead agency for managing the RC Foreign Language/Culture
    Pilot Program. This exciting new program encourages our Reserve Sailors
    to take classes at institutions of higher learning to expand their
    awareness of critical foreign language and cultures. Incentivizing our
    Sailors' natural desire to learn will foster understanding across
    cultural lines which will shape our force for the better. Bonuses are
    awarded based on performance which can add up to $5,000 for strategic
    languages and cultural areas studied which are in high demand within
    DOD.
        The Navy continues to strive for ``Top 50 Employer'' recognition
    and the Navy Reserve is in lock-step with those efforts. Top 50
    organizations encourage innovation and focus on performance while
    taking care of their people through programs and policies that support
    a culture of trust, respect, communication, and collaboration.
    Maintaining a work environment that is conducive to quality work and
    leads to equal treatment of all personnel is paramount to the success
    of any organization. Sexual assault is a detractor from a healthy work
    environment, and it will not be tolerated in the Navy. The Navy Reserve
    participates in the Navy's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
    (SAPR) Cross Functional Team to ensure compliance with the Navy's Total
    Force SAPR program instructions, policies, and procedures. Navy
    leadership continually communicates a ``Not in my Navy'' stance towards
    Sexual Assault through the ranks.
        The policies focused on enhancing the quality of life in the Navy
    have paid dividends for the Force. Fiscal year 2009 marked the second
    consecutive year Navy attained enlisted and officer recruiting goals in
    both Active and Reserve components. In the Reserve, enlisted recruiting
    was at 100.6 percent of goal; officer recruiting finished at 107.7
    percent of goal. Not only did Navy find the quantity of recruits
    necessary to meet requirements, but the measured educational
    achievement of our recruits was at the highest level in years. SELRES
    retention numbers were equally strong, with attrition rates
    approximately 20 percent improved from fiscal year 2008 totals. There
    is still room for improvement in SELRES Officer strength, and numerous
    initiatives are underway to get SELRES Officer communities ``healthy''
    by 2014, including targeted Officer affiliation and future retention
    bonuses, the increase of accession goals, refinements in the CTO
    process, and development of retention measurements and benchmarks. The
    value of recruiting incentives and special pays has been critical to
    every success the Force has enjoyed in this arena, and I thank you for
    providing us with the tools necessary to populate the Navy Reserve in
    the right manner while working towards the fiscal year 2011 budgeted
    end-strength of 65,500. Bonuses have helped shape the ``Fit versus
    Fill'' successes of recent years; however, for certain enlisted wartime
    skills sets and in the officer inventory in general, the Navy Reserve
    requires the help bonuses provide to continue to meet recruiting and
    retention goals.
                                   way ahead
        In addition to the continuing attention to the programs and
    policies listed above, there are several other topics that have
    priority status this fiscal year to enhance our force-wide
    effectiveness, make it easier for each of us to serve, and to fully
    support our deploying members and their families.
        Foremost among my list of priorities is to achieve resolution on a
    path to fielding a Total Force Future Pay and Personnel System (FPPS).
    The Navy and Navy Reserve currently have separate pay and personnel
    systems, designed and built in an era when Sailors rarely mobilized or
    transitioned between components. With the present system, it can take
    weeks to properly transition a Sailor from one pay and personnel system
    to another. This creates a barrier to realizing our CoS goals.
        FPPS would enable Sailors to transition quickly and seamlessly on
    and off active duty without the commensurate delays and confusion
    regarding pay and benefits. The Navy Total Force goal is to transition
    a Sailor from one component to another within 72 hours. Navy leadership
    understands the urgency of resolving this issue, which impacts every
    Sailor. I am confident that in fiscal year 2010, we will make
    considerable progress towards this goal.
        Another top priority this year is to ensure Navy has the funding
    allowing the RC to perform directed missions. In addition to working
    through the long-term budgeting process needed to pay for our Sailors,
    we are fully engaged in the development of Naval Aviation Plan 2030 to
    ensure that the valued capabilities delivered by the Navy Reserve are
    properly resourced.
        Navy Reserve aviation trains the Fleet, moves the Fleet, and when
    needed, surges to the fight. Twenty-eight squadrons, eight Fleet
    Replacement Squadron (FRS) Squadron Augment Units (SAUs), and 17 Chief
    of Naval Aviation and Training SAUs provided more than 70,000 flight
    hours in fiscal year 2009, including 80 percent of the Navy's direct
    and indirect Fleet operational support. Our four adversary squadrons
    provided 76 percent of Navy capacity, and the Fleet Logistics Support
    Wing provided 100 percent of the shore-based Navy Unique Fleet
    Essential Airlift (NUFEA) with an average weekly cost avoidance of
    $655,000. These assets provide strategic surge capacity and maintain
    warfighting readiness at a lower cost, both in terms of payroll and
    airframe life, than AC squadrons. Navy Reserve's lower Fatigue Life
    Expenditure (FLE) has provided Navy inventory managers increased
    options that have been a valuable part of Naval Aviation's
    recapitalization plan generally, and of P-3Cs and F/A-18s in
    particular.
        Historically, Reserve aircraft have been procured via a combination
    of routine procurement processes, the use of National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriations (NGREA), Congressional buys, and the transfer
    of aircraft from the AC to the RC as new production aircraft enter the
    Total Force inventory.
        Current aviation procurement trends will challenge RC aviation
    capabilities as the Navy Reserve continues to recapitalize assets.
    Priorities include completing the C-40A (airlift) procurement and
    recapitalizing the electronic attack capability that is fully
    integrated into the Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) deployment plan
    that has provided 12 years of combat deployments in support of COCOM
    requirements. I am very appreciative of the Congress' support for the
    purchase of three C-40A aircraft in the last two budgets. The C-40A
    provides twice the range, twice the cargo load, and twice the Ready for
    Tasking (RFT) days of the C-9B it replaces. The overall burdened hourly
    operating cost of the C-9B is $8,147/flight hour versus the C-40A cost
    of $6,141/flight hour. As a result, a $42 million per year cost
    avoidance will be realized by completing C-40A procurement and retiring
    the 15 remaining C-9Bs.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget also supports the creation of a fourth
    Riverine Squadron for the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC).
    This additional unit was expressly addressed in the most recent
    Quadrennial Defense Review, and recognizes the unique skills and
    capabilities that the joint forces desire for current operations. NECC
    is manned equally by AC and RC personnel.
        We will continue to utilize NGREA as available to meet the needs of
    the Navy. NGREA has been a high impact capital infusion for the Navy
    Reserve since its inception in 1981, but has taken on added importance
    in recent years. While the Navy Reserve's NGREA service allocation has
    decreased from 11.3 percent in 2004 to 5 percent in 2009, the
    appropriation has been instrumental in resourcing the capability of
    NECC and has bolstered the recapitalization of critical RC equipment in
    both Naval Aviation and the Surface Navy. In fiscal year 2009, the Navy
    Reserve executed NGREA funding to equip the Maritime Expeditionary
    Support Force, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Naval Construction Force,
    Naval Expeditionary Logistics Support Group, Naval Aviation and Surface
    Warfare units with: tactical and armored vehicles; Civil Engineering
    Support Equipment; communications equipment; Table of Allowance
    equipment; aviation modernization upgrades; and Rigid Hull Inflatable
    Boats. I am thankful for the $55 million NGREA allocated to the Navy
    Reserve for fiscal year 2010.
        Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has committed the Navy and Marine
    Corps to meet bold, ambitious goals to advance Navy's energy strategy.
    The Navy Reserve, in cooperation with the Naval Installations Command,
    is committed to providing the Secretary an innovative and agile RC that
    can and will be a significant force multiplier in the pursuit of these
    goals.
        Navy Reserve Military Construction and Facilities Sustainment,
    Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) projects will be stringently
    evaluated for efficient use of energy and water, use of new and
    emerging energy technologies, employment of innovative strategies and
    best practices, use of renewable energy sources, and energy-efficient
    mobility. Large-scale, comprehensive organizational efforts will be
    made in the use of energy efficiency and management tools. All Navy
    Reserve Military Construction and FSRM projects will incorporate
    conservation measures and environmental stewardship practices into
    their design and execution. The focus will be to reduce the cost and
    environmental impact of Navy Reserve construction projects by advancing
    energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of
    distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management
    decisions at all Reserve facilities.
        Additionally, these energy goals can be helpful in facilitating
    transformation of the force; for example, completion of C-40A fleet
    logistics squadron recapitalization will offer a 13.2 percent fuel
    consumption reduction over the aging C-9B. Fuel savings in excess of
    43,300 barrels per year will be realized when the C-9s are finally
    retired.
        The Navy Reserve is an agile, innovative force, and in no arena is
    that description more apt than in the realm of Information Dominance.
    Navy Reserve has engaged in a directed, efficient transition from
    legacy systems and has successfully piloted state of the art solutions
    that are currently in use and will be used by the Fleet of the future.
    Continued use of this responsive Force as the Navy's test platform is
    critical in successfully deploying the latest technology in the most
    timely and cost effective manner possible.
        The threat posed to the government from aggressive actors in the
    cyber arena grows every day, and the Navy is engaged in actions to keep
    our country's systems protected. Key to the Cyber Manpower Strategy is
    the development of an RC Surge capability. The vision is to transition
    current Cyber manpower into Reserve Cyber Units that would serve in
    this capacity. Also, an enhanced direct-commission program would allow
    for increased accession of Cyber specialists. Finally, the Navy is
    considering a Civilian Cyber Augment Force: an ``on call'' team of
    experts that can provide strategic relevance and depth to the Navy as
    the cyber environment changes and technical progress is made. Civilian
    experts and consultants can be rapidly hired under existing authorities
    to meet the emerging critical requirements of Fleet Cyber Command/
    Commander Tenth Fleet. We feel this effort can open unexplored areas of
    expertise in support of Navy's Cyber vision and mission execution.
                                   conclusion
        Since 9/11, more than 62,000 mobilization requirements have been
    filled by SELRES personnel, along with an additional 4,500 deployments
    by FTS Sailors in support of the on-going conflicts in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. On any given day, more than 20,000
    Navy Reservists, or about 31 percent of the Force, are on some type of
    orders providing support to global operational requirements of Fleet
    Commanders and COCOM global operational requirements. Our Navy Reserve
    Force--more than 66,500 Sailors--are forward deployed in support of
    Coalition forces, at their supported commands around the world, or in
    strategic reserve and ready to surge 24/7 if and when additional Navy
    Total Force requirements arise.
        I am proud to be a Navy Reservist, and I am humbled by the
    commitment of the men and women of our Navy Reserve. It is very
    rewarding and fulfilling to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Navy's
    AC as we meet our Nation's call to duty. I am honored to receive the
    support of Congress on key initiatives, such as providing TRICARE
    eligibility to ``gray area'' retirees. Although I readily admit my
    bias, there has never been a better time to be part of the Navy-Marine
    Corps team, and our Navy Reserve is clearly an integral part of the
    this hard-working, high-spirited and amazingly capable force.
        The Navy's ability to be present in support of any operation, in
    war and peace, without permanent infrastructure in the area of
    operations, is a key advantage that will become even more important in
    the future. Our Navy remains the preeminent maritime power, providing
    our Nation with a global naval expeditionary force that is committed to
    global security, while defending our homeland as well as our vital
    interests globally. The Navy Reserve's flexibility, responsiveness, and
    ability to serve across a wide spectrum of operations clearly enhances
    the Navy Total Force, acts as a true force multiplier, and provides
    unique skill sets towards fulfilling Navy's requirements in an
    increasingly uncertain world.
        On behalf of the Sailors, civilians, and contract personnel of our
    Navy Reserve, we thank you for the continued support within Congress
    and your commitment to the Navy Reserve and our Navy's Total Force.

        Chairman Inouye. General Kelly.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN F. KELLY,
                COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE AND MARINE
                FORCES NORTH
        General Kelly. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, like everyone
    at the table, I want to first start off by saying thank you so
    very much for all of the support you've provided the Reserve
    component for as long as I can remember, sir; and I've had a
    fair amount of experience in this city working these issues.
        There are in the neighborhood of 90,000--if you consider
    all classes of marine reservists, we're about 90,000; almost
    40,000 of them are being what we would consider to be drilling
    reservists, spread out across the country, like we all are, 183
    different locations, 48 States, Puerto Rico. The strength of
    our Marine Corps Reserve has always been, perhaps, first and
    foremost, the very, very large percentage of marines in the
    Reserve component have considerable Active Duty time--4, 6, 8,
    10 years. Not all, but a considerable number. All of the
    requirements are the same. It's a total force organization, to
    say the least. Marine reservists don't consider themselves
    part-time marines or second-tier marines. It is one very large
    Marine Corps.
        Since 9/11, of course, one of the great strengths of the
    Marine Corps Reserve is that virtually all of us--all of them--
    have been involved in the fight at least once, and in many
    cases, multiple times. All of our battalions and squadrons have
    been called up or have had substantial portions activated and
    served at least once in Afghanistan or Iraq; 7,000 are
    mobilized today.
        I'm an Active Duty officer. I have used and abused
    reservists many times over my nearly 35 years in the Marine
    Corps, and I only saw one part of the Reserves. And I just
    wanted to share with you, on this issue of operational versus
    Strategic Reserve. When I took this job, in October, my
    thinking was that the natural state of a reservist, or at least
    Marine Corps reservist, is weekend--a weekend a month and 2
    weeks during the year. And that could not be--and you've heard
    that many times here this morning--could not be further from
    the truth. They see themselves as gunfighters because they are
    gunfighters. The vast majority of them have served as an
    operational Reserve since 9/11.
        And their appeal to me--and this comes from families, as
    well--is, as long as this fight is on, they want to be in it.
    And even when this fight is over, they want to continue in this
    operational Reserve mode, they don't want to be put back on the
    shelf. And we ought not to lose their services as we go into
    the future.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Recruiting is good. Retention is good. The marines are
    happy. The families are happy. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General John F. Kelly
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, it is my honor to report to you on the state of the
    Nation's Marine Corps Reserve.
        I assumed command of Marine Forces Reserve (MFR) and Marine Forces
    North in October of last year; however, these past months have by no
    means been my first experience with the Reserve Component (RC). Over my
    many years as a Marine, but particularly over the course of three tours
    totaling nearly 3 years in Iraq, I have served with and fought
    alongside Marine Reservists and know first hand the mettle of these men
    and women. My appearance here today represents my first opportunity to
    share with you my assessment of these tremendous Marines, and to
    outline my priorities for the Force going forward.
        First and foremost Marine Forces Reserve continues to be an
    integral element of the Marine Corps' ``Total Force.'' We share the
    culture of deployment and expeditionary mindset that has dominated
    Marine Corps culture, ethos and thinking since our beginning more than
    two centuries ago. All Marines stand eternally ready to answer the
    Nation's 9-1-1 call and as our charter requires, is to ``be most ready
    when the Nation is least ready.'' The Reserve Component is trained,
    organized and equipped in the same way the active forces are, and
    consequently we are interchangeable and forever leaning forward to
    deploy as the Nation requires. The Commandant of the Marine Corps
    recently stated that Marine Forces Reserve can be ``whatever the Nation
    needs it to be,'' an operational or a strategic reserve. Sustained
    combat operations and worldwide theater security cooperation and
    training commitments over the last 9 years more than suggest the
    essential need for the Reserves to continue focusing at the operational
    vice strategic end of the continuum. Indeed, in the just-published
    United States Marine Corps Service Campaign Plan 2009-2015, Marine
    Forces Reserve is tasked no less than five times to train, organize and
    equip for participation as an ``operational reserve'' within the Corps'
    Total Force. The Marines themselves, most of whom came to the Nation's
    colors after 9/11 and have deployed deep into harms way, prefer this
    model and do not desire to assume lives as so called ``weekend
    warriors.'' This high level of flexibility, responsiveness and elan is
    only possible by the ever deepening bench of combat tested and uniquely
    qualified citizen ``Soldiers of the Sea.'' I am humbled daily by my
    interactions with these magnificent young Americans. Like their active
    duty brothers and sisters they sacrifice so much of their time, and so
    much of themselves, to protect and serve this Nation. The way they
    balance their family responsibilities, and civilian lives and
    occupations--and still stay Marine--amazes me. They do it with
    humility, without fanfare, and with a sense of pride and dedication
    that is consistent with the great sacrifices of Marines of every
    generation. They continue to affirm the Commandant's conviction that
    today's Marines are cut from the same cloth as those who fought
    conspicuously upon the battlefields of our Corps' long history.
                          today's marine corps reserve
        The Commandant has said the Marine Corps Reserve will be whatever
    the Nation needs it to be. In the last decade, the nation has needed
    its Marine Reserves to be continuously engaged in combat operations in
    Iraq and Afghanistan and in regional security cooperation and crisis
    prevention activities. This tempo has built a momentum among our
    warfighters and a depth of experience throughout the ranks that is
    unprecedented in generations. The Marine Corps Service Campaign Plan
    calls for the employment of an operational reserve no less than 5
    times. Understanding that we are fighting a transnational enemy and
    that partner nations will continue to seek our training and mentoring
    capabilities, I expect our Marine Reservists to be in great demand
    during the coming years in a sustained manner. We are prepared to
    provide that persistent capacity. Our Commandant has further stated
    that Marines, Active or Reserve Component, join the Marine Corps to do
    the things they are now doing--deploying and winning our nation's
    battles. The nature of the fight in Afghanistan for instance, is
    particularly suited to our Marine Reserves. It is a thinking man's
    fight that requires solutions at the grassroots level, where our
    Marines operate best, among the population, as evidenced by our combat
    prowess in Iraq and humanitarian assistance today in Haiti. Our
    successes in Iraq were hastened by the types of individuals we have in
    our ranks, who were utilizing civilian skills in ways not necessarily
    anticipated, but ultimately pivotal to the success in Al Anbar. That
    maturity, creativity and confidence is what an Operational Reserve
    brings to the fight. Your Marine Corps Reserve is more highly trained,
    capable, and battle-tested than at any time since the Korean War. As an
    integral part of the Total Force Marine Corps, it blends seamlessly
    into the gaining force regardless of whether Marines come as individual
    augments, detachments, or as operational units.
        As of January 31, 2010, more than 54,000 Reserve Marines have
    executed over 70,000 mobilizations in support of Overseas Contingency
    Operations (OCO) since September 11, 2001. The vast majority of these
    Marines deployed to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.
    One hundred percent of Marine Corps Reserve units at the battalion and
    squadron level have either been activated in their entirety or
    activated task-organized detachments. Again, the vast majority deployed
    to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. Without going into
    too many specifics, 4,000 Marines and sailors--citizens from Texas,
    California, Missouri, Nevada, Utah, Maryland and Virginia--from the 4th
    Marine Division deployed to both war zones and went a long way to
    achieving success in al Anbar Province, Iraq and training security
    forces in Afghanistan. Thousands of other Division Marines also
    deployed in support of Combatant Commander Theater Security Cooperation
    initiatives to South America, Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia,
    and various Pacific island nations. This year will be no different with
    exercises planned for Norway, Peru, Belize, Uganda, Estonia and
    Morocco, and again in various nations in Asia and the Pacific islands.
        Our Reserve aviators of the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing are no less
    busy supporting Marine and joint training requirements here in the
    United States, as well as deploying fighter and helicopter squadrons to
    the war zones and Horn of Africa, and supporting Combatant Commander
    initiatives across the globe as well. Of particular note the Total
    Force Marine Corps has had to rely heavily on the 4th Marine Aircraft
    Wing in support of the Marine Corps Aviation Transition Strategy.
    Modernizing from, in some cases, 40 plus year-old legacy aviation
    systems, to the leap ahead capabilities inherent in the V-22 ``Osprey''
    and the Joint Strike Fighter, we have had to temporarily transfer
    manpower, airframe, and support structure to the active component.
    Beginning in 2014, Marine Forces Reserve will commence the process of
    transitioning to the new systems and capabilities, but in the mean time
    is in total support of the overall Total Force modernization efforts.
        The third Major Subordinate Command of the Reserve Component is 4th
    Marine Logistics Group. Anyone who understands the Marine Air Ground
    Task Force (MAGTF) concept knows full well the ground fighters of the
    Division, and aviators of the Wing, go nowhere without the logistics
    professionals in the Group. In addition to service in both wars, and
    every one of the 57 events--large and small--that have contributed so
    mightily to all the Combatant Commanders' efforts across the globe,
    there were two special endeavors I want to highlight. The first was the
    command element's service as operational logistic providers in the
    Korean Theater last April during exercise KEY RESOLVE, made necessary
    by a dearth of joint logistics capability due to the demands of Iraq
    and Afghanistan, and particularly the additional expeditionary demands
    of transitioning Marine forces in large numbers out of Iraq and into
    Afghanistan. The second is the increased support provided to various
    Maritime Prepositioning Exercises, again made necessary by wartime
    demands experienced by the Total Force.
        Unique inside the Marine Corps is the Mobilization Command
    (MOBCOM), of Marine Forces Reserve. As the increased use of the
    Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) has grown over the last several years,
    so too has the workload of Mobilization Command. During the last fiscal
    year, more than 900 sets of mobilization orders were issued with a
    total of 653 IRR Marines reporting for activation. MOBCOM also
    processed more than 9,400 sets of shorter duration orders. Mobilization
    Command developed and participated in family readiness programs that
    are particularly difficult within the IRR construct. Initiatives like
    the Congressionally-mandated ``Yellow Ribbon Programs'' seek to provide
    support to families from initial call up through return and
    demobilization. Additionally, Mobilization Command conducted regional
    IRR musters, often partnering with other government agencies like the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, to maintain required annual contact
    with Marines once they have left active service but still ``owe'' the
    Nation reserve time.
        Let me touch again on one of the important planning mechanisms for
    an Operational Reserve. Our Force Generation Model, developed and
    implemented in October 2006, continues to provide long-term and
    essential predictability of future activations and deployments. The
    Model provides my Marines, their families, and just as importantly
    their employers, the capability to plan their lives five or more years
    out. It enables them to strike the critical balance between family,
    civilian career, and service to the Nation, while allowing employers
    time to manage the loss of valued employees. The Force Generation Model
    also assists service and joint force planners in maintaining a
    consistent and predictable flow of fully capable Marine Corps Reserve
    units. Internal to the Marine Corps this flow of fully trained and
    capable Reserve units has proven essential in reaching the Secretary of
    Defense established target of a 1:2 dwell for our Active Component. The
    Model is a relatively simple management tool based on 1-year
    activations, to 4-plus years in a non-activated status. This makes
    continued programmed utilization of the Reserve Component sustainable
    at 1:5 over the long term and supports the momentum about which I spoke
    in my introduction.
        Predictable activation dates, mission assignments and geographical
    destination years out now permits me to orient training on core mission
    requirements early in the dwell period, then transitioning training
    focus to specific mission tasks once the unit is 12-18 months from
    activation.
        In each of the past 3 years, between the wars in the Middle East
    and South Asia, and theater security cooperation activities to include
    mobile training teams conducting ``Phase Zero'' operations, nearly one-
    third of our 39,600 Marines have deployed outside the continental
    United States both in an activated and non-activated status. In fiscal
    year 2009 alone, 7,500 Marines were activated and deployed in support
    of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an additional 5,800 were sent
    overseas to many locations on several continents in support of joint
    and combined theater security cooperation exercises.
        For the second year in a row Marine Forces Reserve stateside will
    sponsor exercise ``Javelin Thrust'' in June focusing on Marine Air-
    Ground Task Force (MAGTF) core competency training. The scenario of
    this year's event is tailored to the current operating environment, and
    participating units have been identified consistent with their future
    deployment schedule as defined by the Force Generation Model. The end
    state of the exercise (Javelin Thrust) is that the headquarters staffs
    of the participating organizations (regiments, aircraft groups,
    battalions, and squadrons) are prepared for activation and are provided
    an in-depth roadmap to guide future pre-activation training.
    Additionally, individuals serving on those staffs will receive training
    allowing them to take their place as individual augments on a MAGTF or
    joint staff overseas, while other individuals in those units will be
    prepared for activation and the conduct of pre-deployment training.
    Last year's Javelin Thrust was the first large scale MAGTF exercise
    involving all three Major Subordinate Commands (Division, Wing and
    Marine Logistics Group) in 6 years. The 2009 distributed operations
    Afghan scenario also allowed other Department of Defense agencies to
    participate and to test advanced technologies and transformational
    concepts. This year's exercise will also be conducted aboard
    installations throughout the Western United States with both virtual
    and real world aspects to the exercise.
                                   personnel
        The Selected Marine Corps Reserve is comprised of Marines in
    reserve units, those in Active Reserve status, Individual Mobilization
    Augmentees, and those in initial training. When taken together, these
    various categories of Marines form the inventory of the 39,600
    authorized end strength in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve.
        Although we continue to enjoy strong volunteerism there has
    recently been some slight degradation in our ability to maintain
    authorized end strength. We were above 100 percent of our authorized
    end strength during fiscal years 2002-2005. There was a very slight
    drop to 99.71 percent in fiscal year 2006. In fiscal years 2007 and
    2008 percentages of authorized end strength dropped to 97.36 and 94.76
    percent--shortfalls of 1,044 and 2,077 individuals--respectively. This
    past fiscal year (2009), end strength improved to 97.25 percent. This
    is within the mandated 3 percent of authorization. When the 138 Marines
    who had served on active duty for more than 3 of the last 4 years were
    taken into account, our shortfall increased to 3.1 percent (1,228). The
    dip below authorized strength experienced in 2007 and 2008 was
    predicted at the time due in large measure to the pressure put on the
    recruiting and retention of individuals to serve in the active force as
    the Marine Corps built to 202,000 active duty Marines. Now that the
    202,000 goal has been met and surpassed well ahead of schedule, we are
    now institutionally focusing on Reserve recruiting and retention
    efforts to maintain required Reserve Component end strength. The bonus
    and incentive programs that you provide for recruiting and retention
    will remain essential tools to continue achieving this goal.
        The Total Force Marine Corps will undoubtedly continue to rely
    heavily upon augmentation and reinforcement provided by Marine Forces
    Reserve. I believe our authorized end strength of 39,600 is still an
    appropriate number and will consequently drive recruiting and
    retention. This number provides us with the Marines we require to
    support the Force, and achieve the Commandant's goal of a 1:5
    deployment-to-dwell ratio in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve.
        The Marine Corps-Navy Reserve Team is as strong as ever. In the
    past year the Navy ensured Marine Reserve units were fully manned and
    supported with Program 9 (U.S. Navy personnel in support of Marine
    Forces) and HSAP (Health Service Augmentation Program) personnel during
    all phases of the deployment (pre, operational, post). More than 500
    Navy personnel were sourced to staff Marine Forces Reserve units
    deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as numerous joint/combined
    exercises. These individuals focused almost entirely on providing
    medical, dental and religious services. The Navy Mobilization Office
    works with my headquarters, as well as with the four major subordinate
    commands, sourcing 100 percent of all requirements. As the demand
    increases throughout the forces, Program 9/HSAP support commands a high
    level of attention to fulfill not only Marine Corps missions, but Army
    and Navy missions as well. I am confident this process will continue
    ensuring Marine Forces Reserve units are supported with qualified
    Program 9 and HSAP personnel to accomplish the mission.
        The Marine Corps is unique in that all recruiting efforts--officer,
    enlisted, Active and Reserve Component, and prior-service--fall under
    the direction of the Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruiting
    Command. This approach provides tremendous flexibility and unity of
    command in annually achieving Total Force recruiting objectives. Like
    the Active Component, Marine Corps Reserve units rely primarily upon a
    first-term enlisted force. Recruiting Command achieved 100 percent of
    its recruiting goal for non-prior service recruiting (4,235) and prior
    service recruiting (4,501) in fiscal year 2008. It also exceeded its
    recruiting goal for non-prior service recruiting (5,296) and exceeded
    100 percent of its goal for enlisted prior service recruiting (3,862)
    during fiscal year 2009. As of January 31, 2010, 2,359 non-prior
    service and 1,397 enlisted prior service Marines have been accessed,
    reflecting 46 percent of the annual enlisted recruiting mission for the
    Selected Marine Corps Reserve. We fully expect to meet our Selected
    Marine Corps Reserve recruiting goals again this year.
        The Selected Marine Corps Reserve Affiliation Involuntary
    Activation Deferment Policy was implemented during June 2006. The
    policy allows a Marine who has recently completed a deployment with an
    active unit an option for a 2-year deferment from involuntary
    activation if they join a Selected Marine Corps Reserve once they leave
    active duty. The intent of the 2-year involuntary deferment is to allow
    transitioning Marines the opportunity to participate in the Selected
    Marine Corps Reserve, while at the same time giving them a break and an
    opportunity to start the process of building their new civilian career.
        Officer recruiting remains our most challenging area. Historically,
    the Active Component has been the exclusive source of lieutenants and
    captains for the Reserves. This arrangement has paid tremendous
    dividends. Responding to the critical challenge of manning the Reserves
    with quality company grade officers, we have implemented three
    commissioning initiatives that focus exclusively on officer accessions
    for the Reserve Component: Reserve Enlisted Commissioning Program
    (expanded to qualified active duty enlisted Marines as well);
    Meritorious Commissioning Program--Reserve (open to individuals of
    either component holding an Associates Degree or equivalent in semester
    hours); Officer Candidate Course--Reserve (OCC-R). Since 2004 these
    three programs have produced a total of 190 lieutenants for the
    Reserves with OCC-R being the most successful of the three, producing
    161 officers. The program focuses on ground billets with an emphasis on
    ground combat and combat service support and within specific Reserve
    units that are scheduled for mobilization. The priority to man units
    with these officers is once again tied to the Force Generation Model.
        All commanders and senior enlisted leaders across the force are
    tasked to retain quality Marines through example, information and
    retention programs, and mentoring. This takes place across the Marine
    experience and not just in the final days of a Marine's contract. For
    those approaching the end of their current contracts--Active or Reserve
    Component--they receive more focused counseling on the tangible and
    intangible aspects of remaining associated with, or joining, the
    Selected Marine Corps Reserve.
        With the Congress' help, affiliation bonuses, officer loan
    repayment and other initiatives have effectively supported our efforts
    to gain and retain the very best. The Commandant and certainly all of
    us in Marine Forces Reserve, greatly appreciate the continuance of all
    of the many programs that help us recruit and retain the best young men
    and women this nation produces.
                                   equipment
        As mentioned previously we are as good today as we have been since
    at least the Korean War, if not World War II. This level of proficiency
    as warfighters is due, in large part, to the amount and frequency of
    combat the reserve forces have accumulated over the past 9 years while
    serving as an operational reserve. In addition, the quality of our
    equipment is on par with that of the active duty. Therefore, it is
    imperative we spend the relatively small amount required to maintain
    our operational reserve and provide a reasonable return on that
    investment. The end result is a better trained and more capable force
    than ever operating alongside our active duty brethren on the ground,
    in the air, and at sea. To achieve and maintain this high level of
    readiness and proficiency we have like all of DOD relied heavily on
    supplemental funding in the Overseas Contingency Operational account.
    As we move forward it is in the best interests of the nation to not
    lose these historically high levels of proficiency. The current strong
    and operationally competent Reserve Component has cost us much in lives
    and budgetary treasure to achieve over the last 9 years.
        As part of the Total Force, Marine Forces Reserve has two primary
    equipping priorities. The priority is to equip units and individuals
    set to deploy, and the second is to ensure units that are accomplishing
    normal training within the first 2-3 years of their dwell cycle have
    what they need in training allowance. We will always continue to
    provide those next into the fight all that they need in the latest
    generation of individual combat and protective equipment, and unit
    suites, to fight, accomplish the mission, and come home with the fewest
    number of casualties possible. Those not as close to deploying overseas
    to combat will also continue to be equipped with the best of everything
    and tailored specifically to whatever is next in their lives as defined
    by the Force Generation Model.
        The Marine Corps approaches equipment procurement and fielding from
    a Total Force perspective with the Reserve Component treated in exactly
    the way as the three active operational Marine Forces organizations. In
    many cases we have achieved lateral fielding when Active and Reserve
    Component organizations are receiving equipment sets simultaneously.
    Again, fielding is prioritized by who is next to the fight. If they
    need it to train with post-deployment, they have it, otherwise in some
    cases they will pick it up in theater in the normal transfer of
    equipment that has marked the way the Marine Corps has done business
    since 2003.
        The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA)
    allows me to mitigate any equipment deficiencies here in CONUS. For
    fiscal year 2009, Marine Forces Reserve received two sources of NGREA
    funding totaling $62.4 million. By providing the flexibility to
    purchase or accelerate the fielding of mission essential equipment, our
    units are better trained during pre-deployment and integrate
    effectively once they get in theater.
        As the Commandant consistently states, our number one focus will be
    the individual Marine and Sailor in combat. Ongoing efforts to equip
    and train this most valued resource have resulted in obtaining the
    latest generation individual combat and protective equipment: M16A4
    service rifles, M4 carbines, Rifle Combat Optic scopes, Lightweight
    Helmets, enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert plates, Modular Tactical
    Vests, and the latest generation Flame Resistant Organizational Gear
    (FROG.) Every member of Marine Forces Reserve has deployed fully
    equipped with the most current authorized Individual Combat Clothing
    and Equipment to include Personal Protective Equipment. The decisions
    regarding what they deploy with are made by commanders with a great
    deal of combat experience, and nothing is left to chance. However, as
    personal protective equipment has evolved over the years of this
    conflict there is now so much equipment and it is so heavy that the way
    we fight is adversely impacted. In particular the infantrymen are so
    heavy, in some cases carrying more than 100 pounds of equipment; they
    are more beasts of burden than they are agile hunters. It is not simply
    a matter of reducing the weight of individual items as these only add
    up to marginal weight savings, but hard decisions about what they carry
    and how much they carry are essential.
        The Commandant's unit equipping priority for Marine Corps Reserve
    units inside their dwell periods is to provide sufficient equipment to
    train with, but not burden the organizations with so much gear that
    they use all of their training time or unit funds maintaining it. We
    call this a reserve unit's Training Allowance (TA.) This TA is the
    amount of equipment required by each unit to conduct home station
    training. Our goal is to ensure that the Reserve TA contains the same
    equipment utilized by the active component. It is imperative that our
    units train with the same equipment they will utilize while deployed.
    The Marine Corps Reserve maintains a training allowance at each of its
    reserve centers. As a whole, we are adequately equipped to effectively
    conduct training.
        NGREA funding from 2009 continues to be used to purchase much
    needed Light Armored Vehicles, ruggedized command and control laptops,
    aircraft systems and survivability upgrades and continued procurement
    of the Logistics Vehicle Replacement System Cargo variant.
        Marines are exceptionally good stewards of American taxpayer
    dollars, and the public property procured by those monies. In order to
    sustain an inventory of current equipment necessary to conduct home
    station training several resources and programs are utilized. The first
    is the routine preventive and corrective maintenance performed locally
    by user and organic maintenance personnel. Second, we have expanded
    ground equipment maintenance efforts, which rely largely on contracted
    services and depot-level capabilities. Third is our reliance on Marine
    Corps Logistics Command mobile maintenance teams providing preventive
    and corrective maintenance support to all 183 Marine Reserve sites
    across the nation. This partnership provides a uniquely tailored Repair
    and Return Program. Fourth, we are intimately involved in the Marine
    Corps Enterprise Lifecycle Maintenance Program rebuilding and modifying
    an array of principal end items as required. Finally, we field the
    Corrosion Prevention and Control Program. Cumulatively all of these
    initiatives have resulted in a Marine Forces Reserve ground equipment
    readiness rate of 97 percent. Our 4th Marine Aircraft Wing ``mission
    capable'' rate in 2009 was 73 percent which is consistent with recent
    year rates and with the Active Component rate of 71 through November
    2009.
                                    training
        The reality today is that the Reserve Component has transitioned
    from what was considered a strategic reserve, to what is today the
    ``operational reserve.'' Forever gone are the days when Reserve Marines
    were considered mere ``weekend warriors'' and held in reserve to
    reinforce the active force when it experienced catastrophic casualties
    from a World War III scenario against the former Soviet Union. For the
    last 9 years our Reserves have been a fully integrated force, routinely
    deployed to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to execute theater
    cooperation engagement operations around the world at the behest of the
    combatant commanders. From all of these experiences we have captured
    important lessons that we have put to immediate use in improving every
    facet of our training. In this regard, one of the most exciting areas
    where we are continuing to transform the depth and scope of our
    training remains the cutting-edge arena of Modeling and Simulations
    Technology.
        Marine Forces Reserve is fielding several immersive complex digital
    video-based training systems, complete with the sights, sounds and
    chaos of today's battlefield environments. These systems are
    particularly important considering the limited training time and
    facilities available to our commanders. Last year we completed the
    fielding and upgrading of the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer-XP
    (ISMT). These simulators make it possible for the Marines to ``employ''
    a variety of infantry weapons (pistols through heavy machineguns) in
    rifle squad scenarios. These simulators now serve as regional training
    centers and more are planned. The Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer-
    Reconfigurable Vehicle System provides invaluable pre-deployment
    training for the drivers or all makes and models of tactical vehicles.
    The conditions of terrain, road, weather, visibility and vehicle
    condition can all be varied, as can the combat scenario (routine
    movement, ambush, IED, etc.) The simulator is a mobile, trailer-
    configured platform that utilizes a HMMWV mock-up, small arms, crew-
    served weapons, 360-degree visual display with after-action review/
    instant replay capability. We are now preparing to accept the fourth
    generation of this system, with student throughput doubling.
        Another simulation technology being fielded is the Deployable
    Virtual Training Environment (DVTE.) The DVTE also provides small-unit
    echelons with the opportunity to continuously review and rehearse
    command and control procedures and battlefield concepts in a virtual
    environment. All of this provides individual, fire team, squad and
    platoon-level training associated with patrolling, ambushes and convoy
    operations. Additional features include supporting arms upgrades (for
    virtual combined arms indirect fire and forward air control training),
    combat engineer training, small-unit tactics training, tactical foreign
    language training and event-driven, ethics-based, decisionmaking
    training. It is important to recognize the key role Congress has played
    in the fielding these advanced training systems, all of which have been
    rapidly acquired and fielded with supplemental and NGREA funding.
                                   facilities
        Marine Forces Reserve is comprised of 183 sites in 48 states, the
    District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These facilities consist of 32
    owned sites, 151 tenant locations, 3 family housing sites, and a Marine
    barracks. In contrast to Active Duty installations that are normally
    closed to the general public, our reserve sites are openly located
    within civilian communities. This arrangement requires close partnering
    with state and local entities nationwide. Thus, the condition and
    appearance of our facilities may directly influence the American
    people's perception of the Marine Corps and the Armed Forces.
        Department of Defense policy and the use of standardized models for
    Marine Forces Reserve Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and
    Modernization (FSRM) dollars have greatly improved funding profiles for
    our Reserve Facilities over the last several years. We are experiencing
    some of the best levels of facility readiness due to increased funding
    in the last 3 years, complemented by the addition of $39.9 million in
    stimulus dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009.
        We have repaired and upgraded sites across the country with
    projects continuing to completion in 2011. Between the BRAC 2005 and
    our normal Military Construction of Naval Reserve (MCNR) Program, we
    will have replaced over 35 of our 183 Reserve Centers in the next 2
    years. This represents the largest movement and upgrade in memory for
    the Marine Corps Reserve.
        MARFORRES research and investment for the last 2 years in energy
    efficiency, sustainability, and renewable energy is coming to fruition
    this fiscal year. Every new FSRM renovation project or MILCON is
    targeted for energy efficiency and sustainability aspects in accordance
    with policy and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
    guidelines. We recently commissioned our first LEED Silver building at
    Camp Lejeune (the first in the Marine Corps) and are anticipating
    completion this year of our first LEED Silver rehabilitation project
    for 4th Combat Engineer Battalion in Baltimore, Maryland (a potential
    first for the Marine Corps as well). All of our MILCON projects from
    fiscal year 2009 on will comply with directives to achieve LEED silver
    or higher as funding profiles allow. We will be conducting energy
    assessments of all our 32 owned sites this fiscal year along with
    preparation of smart metering technology for each to enhance
    conservation and management. The MARFORRES approach combines
    efficiency, conservation, and renewable aspects to achieve optimal
    return on investment. We have six active solar projects underway this
    year with all coming on line within the next 12 months. Our six wind
    turbine projects are under suitability and environmental evaluations.
    If findings support, they will start coming on line within 18 months at
    an anticipated payback of as little as 8 years. Marine Forces Reserve
    is working with the National Renewable Energy Lab to produce a sound
    renewable energy plan for all Marine Forces Reserve locations. Our
    investment and implementation of these technologies provides energy
    security, efficiency, and cost avoidance for our dispersed sites. The
    visibility of our projects in heartland of America and cities across
    the nation provides tangible evidence of our commitment to the future.
        Marine Forces Reserve Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and
    Modernization (FSRM) program funding levels continue to address
    immediate maintenance requirements and longer-term improvements to our
    older facilities. Sustainment funding has allowed us to maintain our
    current level of facility readiness without further facility
    degradation. Your continued support for both the MCNR program and a
    strong FSRM program are essential to addressing the aging
    infrastructure of the Marine Corps Reserve. The MCNR program for
    exclusive Marine Corps construction must effectively target limited
    funding to address at least $132 million in deferred construction
    projects of our aging infrastructure. Increases in our baseline funding
    over the last 6 years have helped to address these deferred projects
    substantially. Over 27 percent of the reserve centers our Marines train
    in are more than 30 years old and of these, 55 percent are more than 50
    years old. Past authorizations have improved the status of facilities
    in the 30 to 50 year range and continued investment will allow for
    further modernization. The $35 million in additional MCNR funding this
    fiscal year has allowed MARFORRES to commence several additional
    projects.
        The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 continues to move
    forward and the Marine Corps Reserve will relocate 12 units to
    consolidated Reserve centers this fiscal year. Marine Forces Reserve is
    executing 25 of the Marines Corps' 47 BRAC directed projects to include
    the only closure; Mobilization Command in Kansas City Missouri, is
    moving to New Orleans, Louisiana. Of these 25 BRAC actions, 21 are
    linked to Army and Navy military construction projects. Our BRAC plans
    are tightly linked to those of other services and government agencies
    as we develop cooperative plans to share reserve centers and coexist in
    emergent joint bases such as Joint Base Maguire-Dix-Lakehurst. All
    remaining Marine Corps Reserve BRAC projects are on track for
    successful completion with the directed timelines for closure.
        Of special note is the movement of Headquarters, Marine Forces
    Reserve and consolidation of its major subordinate commands in New
    Orleans. This unique BRAC project, integrating state, local and Federal
    efforts, is now well underway for the new headquarters compound and
    tracking for on time completion. The state of Louisiana is providing
    construction dollars for the new headquarters facility and saving the
    Federal government more than $130 million. The Department of the Navy
    is providing the interior finishings and security infrastructure in
    accordance with the lease agreement. This building will incorporate
    multiple energy and environmentally friendly processes to meet LEED
    certifiable standards. Marine Forces Reserve is working with the
    Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program to maximize
    the sustainability and energy efficiencies of the buildings and
    compound. Upon completion and certification, this building and its
    surrounding acreage will become the newest Marine Corps Installation:
    Marine Corps Support Facility, New Orleans.
        Our Marine Forces Reserve Environmental Program employs the
    Environmental Management System (EMS), which uses a systematic approach
    to ensure that environmental activities are well managed and
    continuously improving. Additionally, Marine Forces Reserve has
    initiated a nationwide program to reduce hazardous waste production and
    ensure proper disposal at our centers. Our Green Box Battery Program
    was responsible in fiscal year 2009 for recycling over 2 tons of
    various types of batteries alone. MARFORRES Environmental undertook
    steps to replace the recycling equipment with completely operable,
    fully recycling systems. Through fiscal year 2009, wash rack recycling
    systems at 16 reserve center sites have been replaced. This project has
    saved over 650,000 gallons of water and cost savings of $500,000, not
    to mention the enhanced risk avoidance to our national water
    infrastructure. Marine Forces Reserve is updating all environment
    baseline surveys of our owned sites to ensure we are current in all
    aspects of caring for our nation's resources.
                                health services
        The most important part of any Marine organization is of course the
    Marines, Sailors, Civilian Marines and families who shoulder the burden
    of defending our country every day. Taking care of them is a sacred
    trust. This begins with arduous training for combat, and equipping them
    with the best equipment in the world to do the job once deployed to the
    fight. It then extends to providing the best healthcare possible to
    them and their loved ones. Our routine health services priority is to
    attain and maintain Individual Medical and Dental Readiness goals as
    set by the Department of Defense. In 2009, individual medical and
    dental readiness for our Marines and sailors was 68 percent and 77
    percent respectively. This represents a 5 percent improvement over the
    previous year.
        The Reserve Health Readiness Program (RHRP) is the cornerstone for
    individual medical readiness. This program funds contracted medical and
    dental specialists to provide healthcare services to units specifically
    to increase individual medical and dental readiness. In the near term
    Navy medicine supports through various independent contracted programs
    such as the Post Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA), and the
    Psychological Health Outreach Program. The first identifies health
    issues with specific emphasis on mental health concerns which may have
    emerged since returning from deployment, while the Psychological Health
    Outreach Program addresses post deployment behavioral health concerns
    through a referral and tracking process. Worthy of mention in the area
    of mental health is our full participation in a very recent initiative
    designed and ruthlessly monitored by our Commandant and Assistant
    Commandant, in an effort to get at the tragedy of suicide. Our Warrior
    Preservation Program, run by senior staff officers and non-commissioned
    officers has trained 239 instructors who will return to their home
    units and reinforce the important lessons they received. We conducted
    training for all of our personnel at each of our units and I have as
    the Commander, filmed my own message on this topic and prominently
    displayed it on our public website.
        TRICARE remains a key piece of our medical support programs,
    providing medical, dental and behavioral health services. Members of
    the Selected Reserve qualify for and may enroll in TRICARE Reserve
    Select, which provides TRICARE Standard coverage until the member is
    activated. While on military duty for 30 days or less a Reservist who
    does not choose TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is covered under Line
    of Duty care. Upon activation, and during any applicable early
    identification period, the Reservist is covered by TRICARE Prime and
    may choose to enroll eligible family members in TRICARE Prime, Prime
    Remote or Standard. When deactivated, a Reservist who mobilized in
    support of overseas contingency operations is eligible for 180 days of
    TRICARE transitional health plan options. With your support these DOD
    programs will continue to provide Reservists and their family members'
    important medical benefits as they transition on and off active duty
    status.
                                quality of life
        Our Commandant has affirmed that our Corps' commitment to Marines
    and Sailors in harm's way extends to their families at home. As part of
    Marine Corps reforms to enhance family support, we are placing full-
    time Family Readiness Officers (FROs), staffed by either civilians or
    Active Duty Marines, at the battalion/squadron level and above to
    support the Commandant's family readiness mission. As you might imagine
    an organization spread across the nation and overseas has unique
    challenges, but communication technologies, improved procedures and
    processes have worked to more effectively inform and empower family
    members including spouses, children and parents who often have little
    routine contact with the Marine Corps and live far from large military
    support facilities. The installation of full-time Family Readiness
    Officers at the battalions and squadrons bridges many gaps and
    overcomes many challenges unique to the reserve component. It is a low
    cost solution with a significant return on investment and I urge the
    continued support of this critical program.
        We fully recognize the strategic role our families have in mission
    readiness, particularly with mobilization preparedness. We prepare our
    families for day-to-day military life and the deployment cycle by
    providing education at unit family days, pre-deployment briefs, return
    and reunion briefs, and post-deployment briefs. To better prepare our
    Marines and their families for activation, Marine Forces Reserve is
    fully engaged with OSD to implement the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
    Program, much of which we have had in place for quite some time. We are
    particularly supportive of Military OneSource, which provides our
    reservists and their families with an around-the-clock information and
    referral service via toll-free telephone and Internet access on
    subjects such as parenting, childcare, education, finances, legal
    issues, deployment, crisis support, and relocation.
        Through the DOD contract with the Armed Services YMCA, the families
    of our deployed Reserve Marines are enjoying complimentary fitness
    memberships at participating YMCA's throughout the United States and
    Puerto Rico. Our Active Duty Marines and their families located at
    Independent Duty Stations have access to these services as well.
        The Marine Forces Reserve Lifelong Learning Program continues to
    provide educational information to service members, families, retirees,
    and civilian employees. More than 1,100 Marine Forces Reserve personnel
    (Active and Reserve) enjoyed the benefit of Tuition Assistance,
    utilizing more than $3 million that funded more than 3,900 courses
    during fiscal year 2009. The Marine Corps' partnership with the Boys
    and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) and the National Association for
    Child Care Resources and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) continues to
    provide a great resource for service members and their families in
    accessing affordable child care, before, during, and after a deployment
    in support of overseas contingency operations. We also partnered with
    the Early Head Start National Resource Center Zero to Three to expand
    services for family members of our Reservists who reside in isolated
    and geographically-separated areas.
        Managed Health Network (MHN) is an OSD-contracted support resource
    that provides surge augmentation counselors for our base counseling
    centers and primary support at sites around the country to address
    catastrophic requirements. The Peacetime/Wartime Support Team and the
    support structure within the Inspector-Instructor staffs at our reserve
    sites provide families of activated and deployed Marines with
    assistance in a number of support areas. Family readiness directly
    impacts mission readiness and your continued support of these
    initiatives is deeply appreciated.
                casualty assistance and military funeral honors
        Casualty assistance remains a significant responsibility of active
    component Marines assigned to our Inspector-Instructor and Site Support
    staffs. Continued operational efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have
    required that these Marines remain ready at all times to support the
    families of our Marines fallen in combat abroad or in unforeseen
    circumstances at home. By virtue of our geographic dispersion, Marine
    Forces Reserve personnel are best positioned to accomplish the vast
    majority of all Marine Corps casualty assistance calls and are trained
    to provide assistance to the family. Historically, Marine Forces
    Reserve personnel have been involved in approximately 90 percent of all
    Marine Corps casualty notifications and follow-on assistance calls to
    the next of kin. There is no duty to our families that we treat with
    more importance, and the responsibilities of our Casualty Assistance
    Calls Officers (CACOs) continue well beyond notification. We ensure
    that our CACOs are adequately trained, equipped, and supported by all
    levels of command. Once a CACO is designated, he or she assists the
    family members in every possible way, from planning the return of
    remains and the final rest of their Marine to advice and counsel
    regarding benefits and entitlements. In many cases, our CACOs provide a
    permanent bridge between the Marine Corps and the family, and assist
    greatly in the process of grieving. The CACO is the family's central
    point of contact and support, and is charged to serve as a
    representative or liaison to the media, funeral home, government
    agencies, or any other agency that may become involved.
        Additionally, Marine Forces Reserve units provide significant
    support for military funeral honors for our veterans. The active duty
    site support staff members, with augmentation from their Reserve
    Marines, performed more than 12,700 military funeral honors in 2009 (91
    percent of the Marine Corps total). We anticipate providing funeral
    honors to more than 13,000 Marine veterans in 2010, even as projected
    veteran deaths slowly decline. Specific authorizations to fund Reserve
    Marines in the performance of military funeral honors have greatly
    assisted us at sites such as Bridgeton, Missouri, Chicago, Illinois,
    and Fort Devens, Massachusetts, where more than 10 funerals are
    consistently supported each week. As with Casualty Assistance, we place
    enormous emphasis on providing timely and professionally executed
    military funeral honor support.
                                   conclusion
        Your Marine Corps Reserve is operational and fully committed to
    train and execute the Commandant's vision for the Total Force. The
    momentum gained over the past 9 years, in Iraq, Afghanistan and in
    support of theater engagements around the globe remains sustainable
    through coordinated focus, processes and planning. In everything we do,
    we remain focused on the individual Marine and Sailor in combat.
    Supporting that individual requires realistic training, proper
    equipment, the full range of support services and professional
    opportunities for education, advancement and retention. That is our
    charge. You should know that the patriots who fill our ranks do so for
    the myriad reasons familiar to those who wear this uniform and those
    who sustain us. Yet reservists serve while balancing civilian careers
    and outside responsibilities, often at significant personal cost. Your
    continued unwavering support of the Marine Corps Reserve and associated
    programs is greatly appreciated. Semper Fidelis.

        Chairman Inouye. General Stenner.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES E. STENNER,
                JR., CHIEF, AIR FORCE RESERVE
        General Stenner. Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran,
    thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
        And as I start, I'd like to introduce my Air Force Reserve
    Command Command Chief, Chief Master Sergeant Dwight Badgett,
    who joins me here today in representing the 71,000 Air Force
    Reserve members, the large majority of whom are our enlisted
    force and are the backbone of what we do out there every day.
        And I would like to also state, as I start, that, most
    recently, I had an opportunity to take a trip through the area
    of operations and stop at some places in both Afghanistan and
    Iraq. One of the stops I made was at Kandahar. And at Kandahar,
    we had an opportunity to talk to some of our engineers, our
    explosive ordnance disposal folks, and go through what kinds of
    things they were doing just coming back from missions, just
    going to missions.
        And, of course, along the way, we always have the
    photographers, and we take the pictures. And as I returned
    home, 3 days later I received a picture of one of the
    individuals on explosive ordnance detail (EOD) who I had just
    chatted with, along with the notice that he had been killed on
    a route patrol in clearing some of the IEDs that had been along
    the way. I will tell you, sir, that as I met his family on my
    return, that it really hits home that we have a sacred pact
    with this Nation to sustain and maintain these valuable
    resources that we have that we call citizen warriors in each
    and every one of our services.
        So, that brought home to me that I need to continue with
    all effort, along with you and your subcommittee, in making
    sure that we are ready and we are capable in the jobs that we
    have. And in the Air Force Reserve, we are part of every
    mission set in the Air Force. We share those missions with our
    Active Duty and our Guard partners.
        And in two perspectives I'd like to talk real quick about
    readiness and readiness that goes to training and equipping.
    The training piece of this readiness--and since I last talked
    to you and introduced what we called a ``Seasoning Training
    Program''--has been extremely successful. We have used some of
    the dollars that you have allocated to take our brand new folks
    who we have been recruiting, putting through tech school. After
    tech school, we take them into a continued training program, as
    opposed to a monthly program, and have, in fact, been able to,
    in most cases, reduce by 18 to 24 months the time at which they
    become combat ready and combat capable, thereby getting them to
    the fight earlier. We're going to continue in that vein with
    that Seasoning Training Program, accelerate that. And if those
    folks have the availability, I want to get them to the war, and
    they want to be there, and our retention is much higher on the
    folks who have been able to go do the things that they have
    signed up to do as those volunteer warriors.
        The other part of this readiness piece is, of course,
    equipping. And we've talked a lot about that. The National
    Guard and equipment (NGREA) dollars are extremely important to
    all of us. In our case, we've looked at the precision
    engagement equipment, we've finished our buys on some of the
    pods. Our gear gets to the fight, it's able to be used. We've
    accelerated those buys of our defensive systems on our large
    aircraft, and thereby get that equipment U.S. Central Command
    equipment to the area of responsibility (AOR), as well, much
    earlier.
        And then, along the way, we've got the irregular warfare
    fight that we are all fighting. And we're looking at the
    personal protective gear--the body armors, the helmets, and the
    goggles that go along with those. We're accelerating those and
    making sure that, as we partner with our Active Duty and Guard
    partners, that we have the same equipment, so we have it at the
    same time, so we train with the same equipment and then can
    deploy, seamlessly integrated, as you have noted, throughout
    the area of operations.
        Let me finish with what I see--again, back to my sacred
    bond with this Nation is to make sure that we sustain and
    maintain that Strategic Reserve, which I believe we are, first
    and foremost. I leverage that Strategic Reserve on a daily
    basis to provide that operational force around this world in
    every single mission set that the Air Force has. I want to be
    at every location that the Active force is. So, when somebody
    makes a life-changing decision, I can capture that talent; I
    put them to work in the Air Force Reserve. I will offer them to
    the Army Guard and the Army Reserve and our other partners up
    here, as well.
        We just need not to lose that talent when they have a
    change in their life. At that point, I want to make sure I know
    where all of our folks are. I want to make sure I know where
    all that talent is. And I need to manage that such that we can
    be sustainable and predictable. And I'm working very hard with
    our Air Force to change the way we mobilize, to streamline that
    process, to make it much more efficient and effective across
    all of the expeditionary combat support and the operational
    arms that we have, to make sure that we get to the warfighter
    that package of capability they need to continue the fight
    we've got in every combatant command in the world today.
        I am committed to doing that. I'm committed to the
    readiness of this particular Air Force Reserve. I'm committed
    to sustaining these folks at the highest state so we can
    seamlessly integrate and holistically look across our entire
    enterprise to ensure that we do sustain that force in a
    predictable fashion, taking care of the family, the member, and
    their employer at the same time.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I look forward to your questions, sirs, and thank you for
    your support.
        [The statement follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Charles E. Stenner, Jr.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the
    state of the Air Force Reserve.
        The 21st century security environment requires military services
    that are flexible--capable of surging, refocusing, and continuously
    engaging without exhausting their resources and people. Moreover, the
    21st century fiscal environment is becoming ever-more constrained as
    threats by rising nations and pressing national interests compete for
    limited resources.
        In this challenging environment, the Air Force Reserve has never
    been more relevant. Reserve Airmen continue to support our Nation's
    needs, providing superb operational capability around the globe. We
    have sustained this operational capability for nearly 20 years--at high
    operations tempo for the past 9 years. The Air Force Reserve is
    accomplishing this while still providing a cost-effective Tier 1 ready
    force to the Nation available for strategic surge or ongoing
    operations.
        Speaking of ongoing operations, U.S. Air Force C-130 aircrews were
    among the first U.S. military to respond to the earthquake disaster in
    Haiti, on the ground in Port Au Prince within 24 hours of the
    earthquake. This quick response was not simply fortuitous, but the
    result of planning, preparedness, and readiness. This rapid-response
    capability is available 24/7, 365 days a year through Operation Coronet
    Oak.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In addition to Haitian relief support through Operation Coronet
    Oak, Air Force Reserve ISR personnel provided exploitation support to
    assess the damage and focus relief while Air Force Reserve airlift crew
    saved lives with much needed medical, water and food supplies flown
    into Haiti. Air Force Reserve members in fact planned, commanded and
    exploited Global Hawk derived exploitation missions in order to provide
    situational awareness on infrastructure status and guide relief efforts
    during one of the worst earthquakes to hit Haiti on over 200 years. The
    professional expertise and capabilities of these seasoned Citizen
    Airmen demonstrates the flexibility and service inherit in the men and
    women of the Air Force Reserve as they shifted from supporting combat
    operations to humanitarian relief.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since 1977, the Operation Coronet Oak mission has been manned
    primarily by Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard crews who rotate
    every 2 weeks, year-round. Crews from the Regular Air Force now perform
    about one-third of the mission. These Operation Coronet Oak crews are
    postured to respond within 3 hours of notification to any crises
    requiring airlift support within the U.S. Southern Command Area of
    Responsibility (AOR).
        This predictable-rotational mission allows Reservists to perform
    real-world operational missions and still meet their obligations to
    their full-time civilian employers. And, like Air Expeditionary Force
    (AEF) rotations, this operation leverages the Tier 1 readiness of Air
    Force Reserve Airmen in a way that works for the Combatant Commander,
    and the Reservist. Equally important, when Air Force Reserve Airmen are
    not training or performing an operational mission--they are not being
    paid; yet they remain ready to respond to any crisis within 72 hours
    should they be called upon. In this resource-constrained environment in
    which manpower costs are placing downward pressure on our budgets, I
    believe this full-time readiness/part-time cost is a great use of
    taxpayer dollars.
        This next year brings new challenges and opportunities. Air Force
    Reserve Airmen are being integrated into a wider variety of missions
    across the full spectrum of Air Force operations. Indeed, the
    Department of Defense (DOD) is considering using Reservists from all
    services to perform missions utilizing their unique civilian skill
    sets.
        The challenges we face are not unique to the Air Force Reserve or
    the Air Force as a whole. Each of the military services is being asked
    to shift capability and capacity across the spectrum of conflict--
    including irregular warfare--and to resource accordingly. Each has been
    asked to shift focus away from major weapon systems acquisitions and to
    the current fight.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ In Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom, Reserve C-130 crews
    flew over 9,800 hours in fiscal year 2009; Reserve F-16 and A-10 crews
    flew over 5,400 hours. The Air Force Reserve provides 24 crews and 12
    fighter aircraft to USCENTCOM in their regularly scheduled rotations
    for the close air support mission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To do so, all three components of the Air Force must continually
    strive to improve the capability provided to the warfighter. Each
    service component must examine its existing business practices and
    explore new processes to make optimal use of personnel, platforms, and
    monetary resources. The Air Force Reserve is helping lead the way in
    improving Air Force capability as we approach fiscal year 2011 and
    beyond.
        As the Nation looks for ways to strengthen its organizations and
    integrate all of the untapped resources it will need in facing the
    challenges of the 21st century, we submit that a model by which
    ordinary people, dedicated to serving their country in ways that meet
    both their needs and the needs of the Nation, is already manifest in
    the U.S. Air Force every day--in the extraordinary Americans of the Air
    Force Reserve.
        I'm proud to serve alongside these great Airmen and as Chief and
    Commander of the Air Force Reserve, I have made a promise to them that
    I will advocate on their behalf for resources and legislation that will
    allow them to serve more flexibly in peace and war with minimum impact
    to their civilian careers, their families and their employers. I will
    work to eliminate barriers to service, so that they can more easily
    serve in the status that meets their needs and those of the Air Force.
    And, I will work to efficiently and effectively manage our Air Force
    Reserve to meet the requirements of the Joint warfighter and the
    Nation.
                            recruiting and retention
        Over the last 9 years, the Air Force Reserve has exceeded its
    recruiting goals and is on track to meet fiscal year 2010 recruiting
    and end-strength goals. Our success in great part has been due to the
    accessions of experienced Active Component members upon completion of
    their active duty commitments. Indeed, recruiting highly trained
    individuals is essential to lowering the training costs for the Air
    Force Reserve. For some of our most critical specialties, affiliation
    and retention bonuses have provided a greater return on investment
    versus recruiting non-prior service Airmen. However, due to lower
    Regular Air Force attrition rates, we no longer have the luxury of
    large numbers of experienced Airmen leaving Active service.
        As the Air Force Reserve builds end strength to meet the needs of
    new and emerging missions, we are facing significant recruiting
    challenges. Not only will the Air Force Reserve have access to fewer
    prior-service Airmen; but, we will be competing with all other services
    for non-prior service (NPS) recruits. In fact, our non-prior service
    recruiting requirement has nearly doubled since the end of fiscal year
    2007. To improve our chances of success, we have increased the number
    of recruiters over the next 2 years.
        Air Force Reserve retention is solid with positive gains in all
    categories in fiscal year 2009, after rebounding from a slight annual
    drop from fiscal year 2006-fiscal year 2008. Both officer and enlisted
    retention are up; enlisted retention has returned to the fiscal year
    2006 rate. Career Airman retention is at its highest level in the last
    five years.
        Some of this success can be attributed to implementing several
    retention-focused initiatives such as developing a wing retention
    report card tool and General Officer emphasis on retention during base
    visits. With Air Force Reserve retention at its best for the last 3
    years, this renewed focus on retention is expected to ensure that rates
    continue on a positive trend.
        We can't take all the credit for this success. Congress has
    generously responded to our requests for assistance with improved
    benefits such as the post-9/11 GI Bill, inactive duty training (IDT)
    travel pay, and affordable TRICARE for members of the Selected Reserve.
        To date, under the conditions of the post-9/11 GI Bill benefit, the
    Air Force Reserve has processed over 4,400 transferability requests
    impacting nearly 7,000 dependents. Under the Individual Duty Training
    travel pay benefit, more than 5,100 Air Force Reservists have received
    this benefit. This has helped us address those critical duty areas
    where we have staffing shortages.
        Since October 2007 when the three-tier TRICARE plan was eliminated,
    the Air Force Reserve has seen an increase in covered lives from 4,541
    to 14,982 through January 31, 2010, equaling a 330 percent increase in
    program usage. The current coverage plan has made TRICARE more
    accessible and affordable for members of the Selected Reserve at a
    critical time when healthcare costs are rising. In addition to these
    new benefits, the Air Force Reserve has taken advantage of the many
    tools that you have provided us including the bonus program, the Yellow
    Ribbon Program, and our Seasoning Training program.
        The Bonus program has been pivotal to recruiting and retaining the
    right people with the right skills to meet Combatant Commander
    warfighting requirements. The Air Force Reserve uses the Bonus Program
    to fill requirements on our ``Critical Skills List.'' Those skills are
    deemed vital to Air Force Reserve mission capability. Development of
    these skills usually requires long training courses and members who
    have these skills are in high demand within the private sector. We are
    able to offer a wide menu of bonuses for enlistment, reenlistment,
    affiliation, and health professionals.
        Our Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Office is up and running and fully
    implementing Department of Defense directives. Our program strives to
    provide guidance and support to the military members and their families
    at a time when they need it the most, to ease the stress and strain of
    deployments and reintegration back to family life. Since the standup of
    our program from August 2008 to December 2009, we have hosted 113 total
    events across 39 Wings and Groups. 4,515 Reservists and 3,735 family
    members attended these events reflecting a 67 percent program usage
    rate for members deployed during this timeframe. From event exit
    surveys and through both formal and informal feedback, attendees
    indicated positive impressions, expressing comments about feeling
    ``better prepared, (and) confident following events.''
        Designed to build a ``ready force,'' our Seasoning Training Program
    allows recent graduates of initial and intermediate level specialty
    training to voluntarily remain on active duty to complete upgrade
    training. The results have been a larger pool of deployable Reservists
    at an accelerated rate through this program. As a force multiplier,
    seasoning training is ensuring the Air Force Reserve maintains its
    reputation for providing combat-ready Airmen for today's joint fight.
    The Seasoning Training Program is also proving beneficial for
    recruiting, training, and retaining members in the Air Force Reserve.
    This program is a success story and one that we will build on in the
    next year.
        The Air Force Reserve is working hard to increase Reservists'
    awareness of benefits and incentives associated with their service.
    Reservists are taking advantage of these programs because they are
    having their intended effect. These programs are helping to create the
    sustainable and predictable lifestyle that our members need to continue
    to serve in the Air Force Reserve.
        I am confident that as we act on not only our Air Force Reserve
    priorities, but also on those of the Air Force and the Department of
    Defense with the continued support of this Committee and Congress, we
    will be able to continue to meet the needs of Combatant Commanders and
    the Nation with a viable operational and strategic Air Force Reserve.
     maintain a strategic reserve while providing an operational, mission
                                  ready force
        The Air Force Reserve is first and foremost a strategic reserve
    leveraged to provide an operational, mission ready force in all mission
    areas.\3\ Air Force Reserve Airmen accomplish this by training to the
    same standards and currencies as their Regular Air Force counterparts.
    As indicated at the outset, Air Force Reserve Airmen continue to
    volunteer at high levels and provide superb operational capability
    around the globe, serving side by side with the joint team. These
    Airmen provide the insurance policy the Air Force and the Nation need:
    a surge capability in times of national crises. In fact, the Air Force
    Reserve is currently mobilizing our strategic airlift resources and
    expeditionary support to assist surge requirements in Afghanistan.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Airmen of the Selected Reserve are mission-ready, capable of
    performing ongoing operations. Collectively, they have met the
    operational needs of the Air Force for decades--largely through
    volunteerism, but also through full-time mobilization. Between 1991 and
    2003, Reservists supported the no-fly areas of Operations Northern and
    Southern Watch. Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, 54,000
    Reservists have been mobilized to participate in Operations Enduring
    Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Operation Iraqi Freedom--6,000 remain on
    active duty status today. It is a fact that the Air Force now, more
    than any other time, relies on members of the Reserve and Guard to meet
    its operational requirements around the globe.
        The Air Force Reserve maintains 60 percent of the Air Force's total
    Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) capability. Reserve AE crews and operations
    teams provide a critical lifeline home for our injured warfighters. Our
    highly trained AE personnel fill 43 percent of each AEF rotation and
    augment existing USEUCOM and USPACOM AE forces in conducting 12 Tanker
    Airlift Control Center tasked AE channel missions each quarter--all on
    a volunteer basis.
        In 2009, the men and women of our Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR)
    forces have been heavily engaged in life saving operations at home and
    abroad. Since February, Airmen of the 920th Rescue Wing at Patrick Air
    Force Base, Florida, and their sister units in Arizona and Oregon, flew
    over 500 hours and saved more than 200 U.S. troops on HH-60 helicopter
    missions in support of U.S. Army medical evacuation operations in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. While mobilized for 14 months in support of combat
    missions abroad, the 920th continued to provide humanitarian relief in
    response to natural disasters at home, as well as provide search and
    rescue support for NASA shuttle and rocket launches. In addition, the
    39th Rescue Squadron (HC-130s), also at Patrick AFB, flew rescue
    missions in Africa and provided airborne CSAR support during the rescue
    of the Maersk Alabama's Captain from Somalian pirates.
        The Air Force Reserve provides 100 percent of the airborne weather
    reconnaissance (hurricane hunting) capability for the Department of
    Defense. Throughout the year, the Citizen Airmen of the Air Force
    Reserve's 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron ``Hurricane Hunters'', a
    component of the 403rd Wing located at Keesler Air Force Base in
    Biloxi, Mississippi fly over 1,500 operational storm hours. The
    Hurricane Hunters have 10 WC-130J Super Hercules aircraft that are
    equipped with palletized meteorological data-gathering instruments.
    They fly surveillance missions of tropical storms and hurricanes in the
    Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and the central
    Pacific Ocean for the National Hurricane Center in Miami. The unit also
    flies winter storm missions off both coasts of the United States and is
    also used to perform advanced weather research missions for the DOD and
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The life-
    saving data collected makes possible advance warning of hurricanes and
    increases the accuracy of hurricane predictions warnings by as much as
    30 percent.
        In addition to our hurricane mission, the Air Force Reserve
    provides 100 percent of the aerial spray mission in support of the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Centers for Disease Control,
    and state public health officials. Air Force Reserve aircrews and C-
    130s from the 910th Airlift Wing, Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio,
    sprayed more than a million storm ravaged acres of land with pesticides
    to control the spread of disease.
        Our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance professionals are
    providing critical information as they answer the nation's call to
    service. Since September 11, 2001, 1,079 intelligence personnel have
    deployed in support of world-wide contingency missions to include
    Afghanistan and Iraq. For the foreseeable future, Reserve intelligence
    professionals will continue to be deployed throughout the Combatant
    Command theaters, engaged in operations ranging from intelligence
    support to fighter, airlift, and tanker missions to ISR operations in
    Combined Air Operations Centers and Combined/Joint Task Forces as well
    as support to the National Command Authority, such as, Defense
    Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and National Geospatial-
    Intelligence Agency.
        These are but a few examples of the dedication and contributions
    our Air Force Reserve Airmen have made and will continue to make around
    the clock, around the world, each and every day.
        \4\ Our Reserve community continues to answer our nation's call to
    duty with large numbers of volunteer Reservists providing essential
    support to Combatant Commanders. 46 percent of the Air Force's
    strategic airlift mission and 23 percent of its tanker mission
    capability are provided by Reserve Airmen. We currently have over 450
    C-17, C-5, KC-135, and KC-10 personnel on active duty orders supporting
    the air refueling and airlift requirements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Air Force Reserve is a repository of experience and expertise
    for the Air Force. Air Force Reserve Airmen are among the most
    experienced Airmen in the Air Force. Air Force Reserve officers average
    roughly 15 years of experience, and enlisted members average 14 years
    of experience, compared to 11 years and 9 years for Regular Air Force
    officers and enlisted, respectively. In fact, roughly 64 percent of Air
    Force Reserve Airmen have prior military experience.
        Reserve Airmen are a cost-effective force provider, comprising
    nearly 14 percent of the total Air Force authorized end-strength at
    only 5.3 percent of the military personnel budget. Put differently, Air
    Force Reserve Airmen cost per capita is 27.7 percent of that of Regular
    Air Force Airmen, or roughly 3.5 Reserve Airmen to one Regular
    Airman.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Fiscal year 2008 budget, figures derived from ABIDES (Automated
    Budget Interactive Data Environment System), the budget system
    currently in use by the Air Force and recognized as the official Air
    Force position with respect to the Planning, Programming and Budget
    Execution (PPBE) system. Inflation data used for any constant dollar
    calculations were based on average Consumer Price Index for All Urban
    Consumers (CPI-U) rates for the past 10 years: roughly 2.6 percent
    average annual rate of inflation. Medicare Eligible Retirement Health
    Care (MERHC) is an accrual account used to pay for health care of
    Medicare-eligible retirees (age 65 and beyond). Cost per capita figures
    were derived dividing cost of Selected Reserve program by Selected
    Reserve end-strength. When MERHC figures are included, the cost of Air
    Force Reserve Airmen to Regular Air Force Airmen increases to 30.4
    percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, we cannot take for granted the high level of commitment
    our Reservists have thus far demonstrated. We must do our best to
    ensure their continued service. Accordingly, we are undertaking
    enterprise-wide actions to make Air Force Reserve service more
    predictable.
        In the Air Force Reserve, we are revising our management structures
    and practices to eliminate redundancies associated with mobilizing and
    deploying Reservists to meet Combatant Commanders' requirements. The
    intent is to create an integrated process that will be more responsive
    to the needs of Reservists, provide them greater predictability, make
    participation levels more certain, and ultimately provide Combatant
    Commanders with a more sustainable operational capability. This is
    still a work in progress.
        At the Pentagon, the Air Force Reserve is examining its processes
    to improve Reserve interaction among the Air Force Headquarters staff
    to better support the Chief of Air Force Reserve, the Chief of Staff of
    the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Air Force in discharging their
    service responsibilities. Through the Air Reserve Personnel Center, the
    Air Force Reserve is also taking action to improve Reserve and Air
    National Guard personnel administrative and management capabilities.
    Collectively, these actions will contribute to the overall health of
    the strategic reserve and improve the sustainability of the Air Force
    Reserve and the Air Force operational capability required by the
    warfighters in this new century.
              preserve the care and viability of the reserve triad
        Reservists have relationships with three basic entities: family,
    civilian employer, and military employer--what I like to call ``The
    Reserve Triad.'' Helping our Airmen preserve these relationships is
    critical to our sustainability. In this Year of the Air Force Family,
    our policies and our actions must support the viability of these
    relationships--especially the one Reservists have with their families.
    Open communication about expectations, requirements, and opportunities
    will provide needed predictability and balance among all three
    commitments.
        To that end, we are now consistently and actively surveying Reserve
    and Regular Airmen to better understand why they come to serve and why
    they stay. We are continually learning and gaining a better
    understanding of attitudes toward service and issues associated with
    employers and family. From their feedback, I can better advocate for
    benefits that help us recruit and retain Airmen for the Air Force
    Reserve.
        Military services must be flexible: capable of surging, refocusing,
    and continuously engaging without exhausting resources and people. That
    is sustainability. Approaching fiscal year 2011 and beyond, it is
    imperative that we preserve the health of our strategic Reserve and
    improve our ability to sustain our operational capability. Going
    forward, we need to continuously balance capabilities and capacity
    against both near-term and long-term requirements.
        Clearly, in a time of constricted budgets and higher costs, in-
    depth analysis is required to effectively prioritize our needs. We must
    understand the role we play in supporting the warfighter and
    concentrate our limited resources in areas that will give us the most
    return on our investment. Optimizing the capability we present to the
    warfighter is a top priority, but we must simultaneously support our
    Airmen, giving them the opportunity to have a predictable service
    schedule and not serve more than they can sustain.
                  broaden total force initiative opportunities
        As weapons systems become increasingly expensive and more capable,
    their numbers necessarily go down. Aging platforms are being retired
    and not replaced on a one-for-one basis. The Air Force is required to
    make the most of its smaller inventory. To this end, the Air Force
    Reserve, Air National Guard, and Regular Air Force are integrating
    across the force, exploring associations wherever practical. The Air
    Force is aggressively examining all Air Force core functions for
    integration opportunities.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ The Air Force uses three types of associations to leverage the
    combined resources and experience levels of all three components:
    ``Classic Association,'' ``Active Association,'' and ``Air Reserve
    Component Association.''
        Under the ``Classic'' model, so-called because it is the first to
    be used, a Regular Air Force unit is the host unit and retains primary
    responsibility for the weapon system, and a Reserve or Guard unit is
    the tenant. This model has flourished in the Military Airlift and Air
    Mobility Commands for over 40 years. We are now beginning to use it in
    the Combat Air Forces (CAF): our first fighter aircraft ``Classic''
    association at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, attained Initial Operational
    Capability in June of 2008. This association combined the Regular Air
    Force's 388th Fighter Wing, the Air Force's largest F-16 fleet, with
    the Air Force Reserve's 419th Fighter Wing, becoming the benchmark and
    lens through which the Air Force will look at every new mission. The
    477th Fighter Group, an F-22 unit in Elmendorf, Alaska, continues to
    mature as the first AFR F-22A associate unit. This unit also achieved
    Initial Operating Capability in 2008 and will eventually grow into a
    two-squadron association with the Regular Air Force.
        The Air Force Reserve Command is establishing its first
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group Association at
    Langley AFB, Virginia, this year. This Group and assigned Intelligence
    Squadrons of Reserve Airmen will partner with the Regular Air Force to
    provide operational command and control of units delivering real-time,
    tailored intelligence to combat forces engaged in missions in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, with data derived from theater Predator/Reapers, Global
    Hawks and U-2s, in partnership with the Total Force team. The Air Force
    has also programmed additional associate intelligence squadrons for
    Beale and Langley Air Force Bases for distributed support to global ISR
    operations to include USEUCOM, and USPACOM theaters. Once these units
    have reached full operational capability, Air Force Reserve
    exploitation and analysis surge capacity of Remove Piloted Aircraft
    (RPAs) will be approximately 10 percent of the Air Force's capability
    based on 65 orbits. Additional Command and Control Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability is being stood up with an
    AFRC associate Air Forces Forces Command (AFFOR) unit at Beale AFB,
    California, to support USPACOM and one at Hurlburt AFB, Florida to
    support USSOCOM global Special Operations Forces. These new
    capabilities create a strategic reserve force ready to respond to the
    call of our nation, capable of being leveraged as operational crews
    ready and willing to support the Regular Air Force in everyday missions
    around the world. This model has proven itself and is the basis for the
    growth of associations over the last 5 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the past 40 years, we have established a wide variety of
    associate units throughout the Air Force, combining the assets and
    manpower of all three components to establish units that capitalize on
    the strengths each component brings to the mix. We recently partnered
    with Air Mobility Command to create three more active associate flying
    squadrons in 2010 and beyond. About 500 Regular Airmen will associate
    with Air Force Reserve flying units at Keesler AFB, Mississippi (C-
    130J); March Air Reserve Base, California (KC-135); and Peterson AFB,
    Colorado (C-130H) by 2012.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Under the ``Active'' model, the Air Force Reserve or Guard unit
    is host and has primary responsibility for the weapon system while the
    Regular Air Force provides additional aircrews to the unit. The 932nd
    Airlift Wing is the first ever Operational Support Airlift Wing in the
    Air Force Reserve with 3 C-9Cs and 3 C-40s. Additionally, the Air Force
    Reserve will take delivery of an additional C-40 in fiscal year 2011,
    appropriated in the fiscal year 2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster
    Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. This additional C-40 will
    help to replace the 3 C-9Cs, which are costly to maintain and fly. To
    better utilize the current fleet of C-40s at the 932nd, the Air Force
    created an Active Association. We also are benefitting from our first
    C-130 Active Association with the 440th AW at Pope AFB.
        Under the ``Air Reserve Component (ARC)'' model, now resident at
    Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station (ARS) in New York, the Air Force
    Reserve has primary responsibility for the equipment while the Guard
    shares in the operation of the equipment and works side by side with
    the Reserve to maintain the equipment. The Air National Guard has
    transitioned from the KC-135 air refueling tanker to the C-130,
    associating with the 914th Reserve Airlift Wing. The 914th added four
    additional C-130s, resulting in 12 C-130s at Niagara ARS. This ARC
    Association model provides a strategic and operational force for the
    Regular Air Force while capitalizing on the strengths of the Air
    National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Additionally, in this case it
    provides the State of New York with the needed capability to respond to
    state emergencies.
        The Air Force Reserve has 9 host units and is the tenant at 53
    locations. There are currently more than 100 integration initiatives
    being undertaken by the Air Force and Air Reserve Components.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But associations are not simply about sharing equipment. The goal
    is to enhance combat capability and increase force-wide efficiency by
    leveraging the resources and strengths of the Regular Air Force, Air
    National Guard, and Air Force Reserve while respecting unique component
    cultures in the process. To better accommodate the Air Force-wide
    integration effort, the Air Force Reserve has been examining its four
    decades of association experience. With Regular Air Force and Air
    National Guard assessment teams, we have developed analytical tools to
    determine the optimal mix of Reserve, Guard, and Regular forces in any
    given mission. These tools will give the Air Force a solid business
    case for associating as we go forward.
                           air force reserve manpower
        The Air Force is balancing Reserve forces across the full spectrum
    of conflict. We are leveraging the experience of Reservists to
    alleviate stressed career fields. And we are improving our ability to
    retain experienced Airmen by providing them a means to stay in the
    service following any life-changing decisions they make regarding full-
    time participation. Over the next decade, the Air Force Reserve will
    grow into many new mission areas, including nuclear enterprise,
    intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, unmanned aerial systems,
    space, and cyberspace.
        However, rebalancing a force can take time, and the fight is now.
    To meet the more pressing needs of the Air Force, such as easing strain
    on stressed career fields and taking on new mission sets, the Air Force
    Reserve is growing by 2,100 Airmen in fiscal year 2010. This will bring
    Air Force Reserve authorized end-strength to 69,500. By fiscal year
    2013, Air Force Reserve end-strength is planned to grow to 72,100. As
    mentioned earlier, the Air Force Reserve is truly a cost-effective
    operational force; making up nearly 14 percent of total Air Force end
    strength at a cost of just over 5 percent of the Military Personnel
    budget.
        These manpower increases are placing a premium on recruiting highly
    qualified and motivated Airmen and providing them the necessary
    training. The Air Force Reserve recruiting goal for fiscal year 2010 is
    10,500. While we met our goal of 8,800 new Airmen for fiscal year 2009
    in August, nearly 2 months before the end of the fiscal year, our
    forecast models indicate we will continue to face challenges in both
    recruiting and retention.
        Each of these measures--Total Force Integration (TFI), expanding
    into new mission areas, rebalancing of forces, and, where needed,
    increasing manpower--will help the Air Force more closely align force
    structure to current and future DOD requirements, as well as provide
    increased capability to the combatant commanders.
                        air force reserve modernization
        The Air Force Reserve is an organization of extraordinary working
    people, wedded to the fabric of our great Nation. Our Citizen Airmen
    support all Air Force mission areas in air, space, and cyberspace. They
    are trained to the same standards and readiness as their Regular
    Component peers and are among the most highly-experienced members of
    the United States Air Force.
        A number of trends continue to influence dependence on Air Force
    Reserve forces to meet the strategic and operational demands of our
    nation's defense: sustaining operations on five continents plus surge
    efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the resulting wear and tear on our
    aging equipment; increasing competition for defense budget resources;
    and increasing integration of the three Air Force components.
        The Air Force leverages the value of its Reserve Components through
    association constructs in which units of the three components share
    equipment and facilities around a common mission. Increasing
    integration of all three Air Force components requires a holistic
    approach be taken when modernizing. To ensure our integrated units
    achieve maximum capability, the precision attack and defensive
    equipment the Air Force Reserve employs must be interoperable not only
    with the Guard and Regular Component, but the Joint force as well.
        As Chief of the Air Force Reserve, I am dedicated to ensuring that
    Air Force Reservists have the training and equipment available to them
    required to provide for our Nation's defense. I appreciate the
    attention and resources provided to the Reserve thus far, and I ask for
    your continued support.
        The National Guard Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) appropriation
    has resulted in an increase in readiness and combat capability for both
    the Reserve and the Guard. For fiscal year 2010, the Air Force Reserve
    Command received $55 million in NGREA appropriations. This resulted in
    the ability to purchase critical warfighting requirements for Reserve-
    owned equipment including critical upgrades to targeting pods, aircraft
    defense systems for C-5s and C-130s, and personnel protective equipment
    like security forces tactical weapons. These new capabilities are
    directly tied to better air support for our Soldiers and Marines in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. NGREA funding has helped the Air Force Reserve to
    remain relevant in today's fight as well as the ability to remain ready
    and capable in future conflicts. We truly appreciate and thank you for
    your support with this critical program.
        military construction (milcon) and infrastructure modernization
        Along with challenges in modernizing our equipment, we face
    challenges modernizing our infrastructure. During the fiscal year 2011
    budget formulation, both the Regular Air Force and the Air Force
    Reserve took risk in military construction appropriation in order to
    fund higher priorities. Over time, this assumption of additional risk
    has resulted in a continuing backlog exceeding $1 billion for the Air
    Force Reserve. I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to
    sincerely thank you for the $112 million that we received in last
    fiscal year's military construction appropriation. This allowed us to
    address some of the most dire needs that exist in our backlog.
        We will continue to work within the fiscal constraints and mitigate
    risk where possible to ensure our facilities are modernized to provide
    a safe and adequate working environment for all of our Airmen.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, I am excited to have
    these roles as Chief of the Air Force Reserve and Commander of the Air
    Force Reserve Command. I take pride in the fact that when our Nation
    calls on the Air Force Reserve, we are trained and ready to go to the
    fight. As a strategic reserve, over 68,500 strong, we are a mission-
    ready reserve force serving operationally throughout the world every
    day with little or no notice.
        As we approach fiscal year 2011 and beyond, it is clear the Air
    Force Reserve will play an increasingly vital role in meeting national
    security needs. The actions we initiated in 2009 and those we advance
    in 2010 will preserve the health of the Air Force Reserve but also help
    Congress address the more pressing issues we will face as a Nation in
    the years to come.
        I sincerely appreciate the support of this Committee for the
    appropriation and legislation it provides to our readiness and combat
    capability. I desire to continue working with each of you on the
    challenges facing the Air Force Reserve, the Air Force, and Our Nation.
    Thank you.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        The subcommittee is very pleased, looking over the record
    of recruiting and retention. A few years ago, it was pretty
    bad. Now all of you have improved it. Retention is good. For
    example, in the Air Force, you have 20 percent retention along
    the first-termers. And the Marines, 20 percent of your forces
    are now on deployment, and yet, they're coming in. What's your
    secret?
        General Stultz. Sir, I'll lead off. As I mentioned earlier,
    today I command almost 208,000 soldiers. I'm authorized
    205,000. That means I've got 3,000 more than I actually need in
    my ranks at this point. And the reason I have that is because
    of what you just said, the success of our recruiting and the
    success of our retention. And as people wondered about, ``Are
    we asking too much of our Reserve components?'' this
    operational tempo that we're under, with multiple deployments
    of many of our soldiers, I remind them that everyone that's in
    my ranks either enlisted or reenlisted since 9/11. They knew
    what they were getting into. They know what they're staying
    for.
        And I think, sir, that the soldiers and sailors and airmen
    and marines that we have joining our forces today are joining
    because, one, they feel a duty to their country; number two,
    they're seeking to make something of themselves that they're
    proud of; and three, they just feel good about what they're
    doing. And if we just provide them the support for them and
    their families, we provide them the support for their
    employers, as we've discussed before, so that they know they
    have a job to come back home to, and then we give 'em
    predictability, they'll stick with us.
        Chairman Inouye. Admiral.
        Admiral Debbink. Chairman Inouye, I would definitely echo
    everything that General Stultz has said, and I would just offer
    some numbers for perspective.
        In our officer ranks, our attrition has dropped from
    approximately 18 percent to less than 12 percent; in our
    enlisted ranks, from the mid-20s down to the mid-teens. And I
    do believe that the primary cause for all of this is the real
    and meaningful work that we're giving our sailors on a daily
    basis. And to the extent that we can continue doing that, which
    is not a problem in today's very operational tempo, but as we
    look past the overseas contingency operations into the future,
    and working hard to identify what we call the ``periodic and
    predictable part-time work of the Navy'' so we give these
    sailors continued access to real and meaningful work, I would
    predict that we'll continue to see this strong retention.
        Chairman Inouye. General Kelly.
        General Kelly. Sir, if I could just add, I think it's the
    product we offer, and the product we offer, regardless of what
    uniform they wear, is service to the Nation. There was a time
    when there were vastly larger numbers of young men and women
    that were willing to step forward. We don't have as many
    anymore, but we have just enough out there that come in with a
    smile on their face and want to serve. As long as, I think--and
    I'm new at this business--but, it seems to me, as long as we
    strike the right balance between deployments, family, benefits,
    predictability, and the Nation keeps faith--which, to date,
    certainly the Nation has kept faith with all of these
    warriors--as long as the Nation continues to keep faith with
    us, I don't think we'll have much in the way of problems.
        Chairman Inouye. General Stenner.
        General Stenner. Mr. Chairman, I'll just take off from that
    very last statement. If the Nation continues to keep faith, we
    will continue to be able to provide the capabilities in each of
    our services.
        I have statistics that show that we've asked the questions,
    ``Why do you join?'' and then, ``Why do you stay?'' The number
    one answer on every single one of those is: patriotism. They
    want to serve their Nation, as has been said up here.
        I will add to what has been said--and I agree with
    everything that my partners have articulated--is that I think
    that we have kept faith, as a Nation, with some of the work
    that has been done to ensure we had parity of benefits. And a
    lot of that work over the last several years to ensure that the
    healthcare systems for folks who are fighting side by side, are
    equal and right and just. The GI bill, sir, has been an
    absolute huge retention-and-recruiting tool, especially when
    you can pass those benefits to families.
        Everything that has been done to make sure that all three
    components--Active, Guard, Reserve--have this kind of equality
    and fight side by side, doing the meaningful work that has been
    mentioned, they want to go. The benefits are equal. The
    patriotism piece is felt. The Nation keeps faith. And our folks
    are amazing people and will continue to serve.
        Chairman Inouye. All of you have problems with equipment
    shortfalls. But, with the Army, I note that it's about $6
    billion. And why is the Army always underfunding the Reserves?
    Is there a reason for that?
        General Stultz. Senator, I don't think it's because they
    don't like us.
        I think we face the challenge of transformation,
    modularity, and a changing enemy. And just as was given
    testimony by the previous panel about the amount of equipment
    that has been flowing in our force, you can look at it from a
    variety of numbers. You can look at it today and say, ``The
    Army Reserve is somewhere between 75 and 80 percent equipped,
    the best we've ever been.'' We've gone from somewhere in the
    range of about 61 to 62 percent, when I first got here, now to
    almost 80 percent.
        But, I can tell you, we're still short $6.7 billion in
    equipment if we're looking to the future of what the Army
    Reserve looks like by fiscal year 2016. And we're short
    somewhere to the tune of about $11 billion if you look at what
    we're short, in terms of the actual modernized equipment that
    we need by that time.
        And so, one would say, ``Well, you're getting
    shortchanged.'' And that's not exactly the case, because what's
    happening is, we're transforming.
        When I took over this position and looked at the force of
    the Army Reserve, I said, ``We don't have the operational force
    that we need for the future. We've got to transform.'' And
    within the 205,000 end strength that we had, we went in and
    converted somewhere to the tune of about 25,000 spaces into new
    capabilities. And that is, we took down the legacy structure
    that we had--a lot of administrative overhead--and we stood up
    transportation, military police, civil affairs, medical, all
    that structure, which now is coming onto the books as new
    structure within the existing 205,000, but it also comes with a
    bill for new equipment that wasn't planned in the past, because
    that structure wasn't being recognized.
        And so, I think one of the challenges we've got today is,
    we've got to continue to press for the equipment. And Congress
    and the American people have to understand it's not because
    we're wasting the money we're getting--and we appreciate
    everything we're getting--we're continuing to transform the
    Reserve into an operational force, with new capabilities, as
    the Army modernizes and modularizes. And so, that bill just
    continues to--I won't say ``grow,'' but it continues to be out
    there, because we're always trying to play catchup to the
    newest capabilities we need, and the equipment that goes with
    them.
        That being said, we have partnered very closely with the
    Army and the Army Guard to make sure that any soldier or any
    unit that goes into combat is best equipped, is best trained.
    Where we're lagging behind is, we don't have the right
    equipment back here, in all instances, to train on, for those
    soldiers back here that are getting ready to go.
        And that's our next step, and we've got to do a better job
    of getting that equipment. We've got equipment back here, in
    that 80 percent on-hand that is allowable substitute, but it's
    not that piece of equipment he's going to operate when he gets
    to Iraq or Afghanistan; it's a substitute item. What I need is
    to get the modernized item back here so that he's training on
    the same piece of equipment he's going to operate when he gets
    into theater.
        Chairman Inouye. I realize that, in the bureaucratic
    discipline, all of you are called upon to tell us that
    everything is fine, that we have all the equipment we need and
    the budget is fine. But, I, too, served in the military at one
    time, and I know what shortfalls can do. So, I'm asking all of
    you to submit to the subcommittee what you feel are shortfalls
    in equipment and what you feel is necessary for you to carry
    out your mission and improve your performance. So, I would hope
    that you could respond to that.
        [The information follows:]

        As we transition into a fully modernized operational force we
    continue to encounter and successfully tackle many challenges, among
    them equipping a modernized Army Reserve (AR). The AR's force structure
    is predominantly composed of Combat Support and Combat Service Support
    units, as such to effectively complete our mission, now and into the
    future we must not only ensure we fully equip our formations with the
    required quantities of equipment but we must also strive to equip them
    with the most modern and capable version available.
        The AR supports the Army's fiscal year 2011 President's budget
    which reflects the Army's highest priorities. In addition to the Army's
    fiscal year 2011 President's budget, the Army submitted a list of war-
    related items where additional resources would enhance existing
    programs. The list, totaling $358.7 million, includes programs that
    support the AR.
      --Civil Affairs/Psychological Operations (CA/PsyOps) equipment for
            Tactical Local Area Network (TACLAN) and peripheral systems for
            Information operations and Irregular Warfare. 80 percent of the
            CA units and 84 percent of the PsyOps units reside in the AR.
            $55 million for TACLAN equipment will greatly enhance the AR
            CA/PsyOps units' ability to perform their wartime mission.
      --NAVSTAR GPS: Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR). Of the $51.2
            million request, $10.8 million will go toward filling 4,000 of
            6,000 AR DAGR shortfall.
        The budget as submitted by the President will allow the Navy
    Reserve to carry out its mission as part of Navy's Total Force.

           AIR FORCE RESERVE UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS LIST (PROCUREMENT)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Qty       Item Cost      Total Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C-130 Large Aircraft Infra-Red        21      $3,000,000     $63,000,000
     Countermeasure System (LAIRCM)
    A-10/F-16 Helmet Mounted              39         155,000       6,045,000
     Integrated Targeting (HMIT)...
    C-130 Secure Line of Sight/           63         350,000      22,050,000
     Beynold Line of Sight (SLOS/
     BLOS).........................
    C-5 Aircraft Structural Issues.        6      11,000,000      66,000,000
    C-5 Large Aircraft Infra-Red           9      10,000,000      90,000,000
     Countermeasure System (LAIRCM)
    F-16 Center Display Unit.......       24         208,333       5,000,000
    AFRC ATP Procurement & Spiral         54       1,000,000      54,000,000
     Upgrade.......................
    C-130 Aircraft Armor...........       79         200,000      15,800,000
    C-130 Modular Aerial Spray       ( \2\ )         ( \2\ )      20,000,000
     System (MASS) (Request is for
     3600 Appropriation--
     Developmental) \1\............
    C-130 Modular Aerial Spray             6       2,670,000      16,020,000
     System (MASS) (Follow-on
     Procurement Appropriation--
     Prior 3600 Funds Required)....
    C-130 Crash Resistant                 76         250,000      19,000,000
     Loadmaster Seats..............
    KC-135 Large Aircraft Infra-Red       15       1,000,000      15,000,000
     Countermeasure System (LAIRCM)
     Light.........................
    C-130 NVIS Windows (Installs)..       64          15,625       1,000,000
    C-17 Armor Refurbishment and          17         117,647       2,000,000
     Replacement...................
    Security Forces Weapons &        ( \3\ )         ( \4\ )       5,500,000
     Tactical Equipment............
    Trunked Land Mobile Radio        ( \3\ )         ( \4\ )       3,900,000
     (Carswell)....................
    F-16 Simulation Training Device        2       1,100,000       2,200,000
     Upgrade.......................
    F-16 Combined AIFF with Mode 5/       16         380,000       6,080,000
     S for RVSM & Autonomous ID
     capability....................
    F-16 All WX A-G Precision Self-       54       2,222,222     120,000,000
     Targeting Capability..........
    A-10 On Board Oxygen Generating       54         204,703      11,053,962
     System (OBOGS)................
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Total....................  .......  ..............     543,648,962
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ One Item Developmental Appropriation.
    \2\ Not available.
    \3\ Various.
    \4\ Various items.

                         INTEGRATION WITH ACTIVE FORCES

        Chairman Inouye. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I want to be on the record
    as seconding the motion and the suggestion that you've just
    made. And looking over the notes in preparation for the
    hearing, that was one thing that stood out. In looking at the
    management responsibilities that you gentlemen have, and the
    responsibilities that you have of transition to becoming more
    and more of an Active component of our military force
    structure, rather than a traditional Reserve component that's
    just called upon from time to time to join the force; you're in
    the force every day, in terms of training and mobilization
    plans, equipment, upgrades, on and on. And I can appreciate the
    fact that that's a tough, tough job, particularly since most
    folks think they are part-timers, in the Reserves.
        I was a Reserve officer, and, you know, I would put on the
    uniform from time to time, and go on Active Duty for a short
    period of time. One of the most enjoyable experiences was being
    an instructor at Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode
    Island. I thoroughly enjoyed that. I worked a good deal with
    the Navy that, during--when law school wasn't meeting, I'd get
    to go back on Active Duty and be an instructor, because it was
    building up for the Vietnam challenges and the things that were
    going on right then. That was a new program, they were trying
    to supplement their teaching complement with Reserve officers.
    Well, that was terrific for me. I didn't have to go work in a
    law firm as a clerk or something for a summer job.
        But, I wonder, are we making the adjustments? Do we need to
    do something, like provide funding specifically dedicated for
    these purposes of reorganizational changes that have to be
    made, and resetting the force, so that you can operate
    seamlessly as an Active Duty force, at a moment's notice?
        General Kelly. Well, sir, from the Marine Corps
    perspective, just talking about these reset issues and the
    equipment issues and all, I think we're unique, in that our
    Reserve units, as they're spread around the country, have a
    training allowance to work with, and that is sufficient for
    them to keep up with their training. And then, of course, as
    they get closer and closer to deploying to Afghanistan or Iraq,
    once mobilized, they get all their equipment and move to
    training sites and get ready to go. So, from my perspective, if
    the Marine Corps has got a problem, then I have the same
    problem. And, of course, the reset--Commandant, I think, has
    testified in this subcommittee, and others, that our reset and
    reconstitute bill, Marine Corps-wide, is something in the
    neighborhood of $13 billion. If you address that, you address
    my issues. But, again, I think I'm a little bit unique than the
    other services are, I believe.
        Senator Cochran. General.
        General Stenner. Senator Cochran, I will tag onto that,
    saying that we are probably also, as an Air Force, more closely
    aligned, and the equipment that we have, we share, in the
    association models. So, when the Air Force recapitalizes, all
    three components recapitalize. But, I will tell you that
    there's an awful lot of changing of mission sets right now. And
    some of the things that are going on with intelligence,
    surveillance, reconnaissance, cyberspace, space missions, the
    things that happen when you are deployed in place, so to speak,
    at home station, require a good bit of infrastructure
    modification. And in a lot of cases, with those new missions,
    and the high tech that comes with them, there comes a bill. So,
    the old facilities don't marry up. The infrastructure, the
    facilities, sustainment, restoration (FSRM) dollars that we
    need on a continuing basis to keep those facilities going, and,
    in some cases, the Milcon necessary to transition to new
    mission, are both as important to us, as an Air Force, as the
    recapitalization piece that goes into that.
        And the NGREA dollars we leverage to facilitate an
    expeditious recapitalization is also, of course, very, very
    important to us, as well.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral.
        Admiral Debbink. Senator, I would offer that, as our CNO
    has stated, we are one Navy today, with an Active component and
    a Reserve component. And that type of integration has driven us
    to the point that we work very closely with all of our
    procurement. Couple of examples might be, for example, anytime
    the Navy needs to fly logistics anywhere, it flies on Navy
    Reserve aircraft. Now, it just says ``Navy'' on the side, but
    they're actually Navy Reserve aircraft. Anytime our special
    operations forces over in Afghanistan get on a helicopter at
    night, it's a blended squadron of Active and Reserve getting
    onto those HH-60s. And so, that's a fully supported mission. We
    stood up our fourth riverine force. We're in process of doing
    so right now. And that'll be also a blended mission, Active and
    Reserve.
        I think the real key to all of these procurement accounts
    is what we list as our second strategic focus area, and that is
    to provide valued capabilities. And if we are doing that as a
    Reserve component, the resourcing will follow, to the extent
    that it can, with the overall constraints on the budget.
        Senator Cochran. General.
        General Stultz. I guess I get to be the naysayer.
        I think the challenge we face today is, we have
    operationalized the Army Reserve. We are using the Army Reserve
    as part of the total force on a repeated basis, and we have
    developed a cyclical model, called our Army Force Generation
    Model, that says--the Army is on this same model, where--1 year
    forward, 2 years back home; the Reserve is 1 year forward, 4
    years back home. And that means that you go through a cycle of
    progressive readiness, where you're building capability so
    that, when you come into that available window, you're trained,
    ready, and equipped. That means that each year in that cycle,
    you are required increased support for equipment, increased
    support for training dollars, because there's more expected of
    you to get ready.
        The problem is, our budget and our funding is based on the
    Army Reserve you came into; one weekend a month, 2 weeks in the
    summertime. It's not based on this operational model. And so,
    everything that we're funding today, in most cases, to put the
    units through that model--and we do, and we get 'em out, best
    trained, best qualified, ready to go--is based on overseas
    contingency operation dollars or supplemental dollars that
    we've gotten.
        What we have to do is, we've got to get those dollars
    identified and put them into the base budget of the Army and
    the Army Reserve as requirements for the future, because we're
    going to be in an extended period of conflict. And when we have
    put so much capability in our Reserve components today--the
    Army Reserve that I have today accounts for 60 percent of the
    Army's medical capability. Over 80 percent of its civil affairs
    capability. At least one-third or more of the engineer,
    logistics, and transportation capability. And if you combine us
    with the National Guard, 75 percent of the engineer capability
    of the Army is in the Reserve components. You cannot fight an
    extended conflict without reliance on the Reserve as part of
    that operational force. Yet, we haven't built the budget model
    to allow it to do that.
        And I think that's the challenge, as we're looking forward
    into the 2012-17 years, is that we've got to put that into the
    budget. And the Army has to figure out how to accommodate that,
    because we know we're going to be in a period of, you know,
    limited budget increases. But, we're going to have to--if we
    operationalize the Reserve--and, in my opinion, we don't have a
    choice--then we've got to put those dollars required for
    training, for equipping, all that, into the base budget. And
    that training has to be, not just at a training center
    somewhere, where you send 'em for that 2 week, 3 week, or
    whatever, period of training, it's also got to be the training
    capability when they're in their home station, that they're
    getting meaningful training.
        You know, soldiers tell me today, ``Don't waste my time.
    You know, if you're going to have me come to a weekend drill,
    make it meaningful.'' And we've got soldiers now that are
    coming back from their second and third deployment, and the
    last thing they're going to accept is for us to send 'em to a
    Reserve unit on a Saturday and sit 'em in a classroom. They
    want something meaningful. They've been there, they've done
    that. They want that piece of equipment that they've just been,
    in theater, operating; not coming back home and looking at that
    30-year-old truck that they're saying, ``We don't use that
    anymore.''
        So, that's the challenge. Yes, sir, we've got to get more
    resourcing into our budgets for the Reserve component if we're
    expected to use it as an operational force, which I think we
    don't have an option; it is part of that force.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
    leadership and your service.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Chairman Inouye. And we thank you very much, gentlemen, for
    your testimony this morning. And we thank you for your service
    to our Nation. And we thank the men and women of your command
    for their service to our Nation.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
            Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                       transition to operational reserve
        Question. General Stultz, the Army Reserve continues to transition
    from a strategic to an operational reserve. Do you believe the Army is
    adequately resourcing the Reserve to make this transition?
        Answer. The Army is committed to maintaining a trained and ready
    Reserve Component force as full participants in the ARFORGEN process.
    Steady state funding to achieve this goal is a topic for our fiscal
    year 2012 budget deliberations. The Army National Guard and the Army
    Reserve, like the Active Army, currently rely on Overseas Contingency
    Operations funding to resource readiness for the current fight
    including pre-mobilization training and reintegration activities. We
    anticipate working with the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve to
    come to a consensus position on this issue.
        Question. What are the biggest challenges still remaining?
        Answer. The Army and Army Reserve is currently evaluating the
    resource requirements to achieve an ``operational reserve'' in the
    fiscal year 2012-17 POM. Decisions on fill level for full time staff,
    funded training days, and type of training will all drive the cost of
    operationalizing the reserve component. The Army has not yet validated
    the $1.5 billion training cost estimate and anticipates there are cost
    impacts beyond training that must be evaluated.
        Question. General Stultz, the transition to the operational reserve
    has increased the need for full time support personnel. The Army was
    supposed to conduct an analysis 2 years ago to reevaluate the Reserve's
    full time support requirements but, so far, these studies have failed
    to produce actionable results. What is delaying this decision?
        Answer. Creating a sustainable operational Reserve Component
    requires competition for scarce resources. The Army has validated the
    requirements reflected in the 2005 report and the optimal solution is
    100 percent manning of the validated requirement. However, given
    funding constraints and the past 8 years experience, the Army Reserve
    has proven we can provide trained and ready units, within the current
    required timeframes, with our current level of Full-Time manning
    augmented by a substantial level of Full-Time Equivalents using ADOS to
    build readiness in ARFORGEN and support RTC/CSTC requirements. That is
    why we have supported FORSCOM's operational model as the minimum
    critical requirement for the 2012-17 POM.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Dirk J. Debbink
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              continuum of service
        Question. Admiral Debbink, the Navy Reserve has initiated a program
    called the Continuum of Service which would allow sailors to easily
    transition between active and reserve service. This is a novel approach
    to the idea of military service. What is the status of this program and
    has it been successful so far?
        Answer. Continuum of Service (CoS) is a Total Force imperative and
    one of my three Strategic Focus Areas for the Navy Reserve. CoS
    reflects the reality of our Navy--as our Chief of Naval Operations,
    Admiral Gary Roughhead, states, ``we are one force today. One Navy,
    with an Active Component and a Reserve Component.'' This is what CoS is
    about--bringing together our active component (AC) and reserve
    component (RC) to provide an integrated and balanced Force to meet
    current and emerging challenges in the most cost-effective way
    possible, while concurrently honoring all our Sailors who desire to
    serve our country to the best of their ability.
        We have been very successful with the implementation of our CoS
    strategy since we launched it in fiscal year 2009. As barriers to
    seamless movement between the AC, the RC and civilian service are
    removed, our ability to deliver operational flexibility and strategic
    depth at the best value to the Navy increases dramatically. The CoS
    philosophy of recruiting Sailors once and retaining for life through
    variable and flexible service options is providing Sailors a career
    continuum of meaningful and valued work.
        CoS is forcing us to think differently and make major changes in
    the way we do business, including changes to regulations, policy and
    law. We now have systems and business processes in place to ease the
    transition between components. For example, AC Sailors can now choose
    to affiliate with the Selected Reserve while still on active duty,
    eliminating the requirement to be re-recruited into the RC upon leaving
    active service. At the Naval Personnel Command, a Career Transition
    Office (CTO) was established to support optimized assignment of
    personnel into available Navy active and reserve billets, decreasing
    transition processing times and error rates while increasing reserve
    Sailor transition and affiliation rates. We started with officers
    transitioning from AC to RC, and immediately realized positive results
    by nearly doubling Navy Veteran officer affiliation rates from 28
    percent to 53 percent. We have recently expanded the program to include
    enlisted Sailors transitioning from AC to RC. In the future, the CTO
    will handle all officer and enlisted transitions from AC to RC and RC
    to AC, except mobilizations.
        Foremost among my list of priorities is to field a Total Force
    Future Pay and Personnel System (FPPS). The Navy and Navy Reserve
    currently have separate pay and personnel systems, designed and built
    in an era when Sailors rarely mobilized or transitioned between
    components. FPPS would support the timely and seamless transition on
    and off active duty without the existing delays and confusion regarding
    pay and benefits. The development of FPPS is the Navy Reserve's top
    priority for 2010.
                       career intermission pilot program
        Question. Currently reservists have numerous opportunities to
    transition to active service but only a small number of active duty
    sailors, who are part of a pilot program, have opportunity to make a
    short term transition to the reserve. Do you see this pilot program
    expanding for active duty sailors?
        Answer. Our Continuum of Service (CoS) initiatives provide several
    ways for Sailors to transition back and forth between components over
    the course of a career. Navy Personnel Command's Career Transition
    Office engages Sailors nearing the end of their active service
    obligation, aiding and incentivizing them toward affiliation with the
    Reserve Component.
        Navy's Career Intermission Pilot Program, authorized by Congress in
    the fiscal year 2009 NDAA, is just one of the ways to transition
    between components. It provides a one-time temporary transition from
    active duty to the Individual Ready Reserve for up to 160 service
    members during the timeframe from 2009-2012, to pursue personal or
    professional growth outside the service while providing a mechanism for
    their seamless return to active duty. At the end of the program
    participation, the member returns to active duty service with an
    adjusted Pay Entry Base Date, or lineal number, to reflect service time
    commensurate with their peers and to ensure continued promotion
    opportunity. Based on the Congressional authorization, similar programs
    are currently being developed by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force
    for summer 2010 and the Department intends to request permanent
    authority for this program in the fiscal year 2013 NDAA.
        The limited number of active duty sailors who are participating in
    the pilot program to date may reflect the current economic environment,
    as well as other factors which we are assessing. We feel it is
    important to offer our Sailors multiple avenues to transition between
    components to accommodate individual circumstances. Though any one
    program may not seem to be significant, the opportunities represented
    by the aggregate of our CoS programs are one of the main tenets of our
    ``Top 50 Organization'' emphasis.
                navy and marine corps reserve officer recruiting
        Question. Admiral Debbink and General Kelly, over the last several
    years both the Navy and Marine Reserves have struggled with officer
    recruiting. The Marine Reserve is now back to its authorized end
    strength but the Navy Reserve is still facing a serious officer
    shortage, due to years of low recruiting. Have you shared strategies
    for attracting and retaining reserve officers? What measures are being
    considered by the Navy Reserve to address remaining shortages?
        Answer. Due to the different target populations for Navy Reserve
    and Marine Corps Reserve Officer Recruiting, General Kelly and I have
    not engaged in detailed strategy discussions for attracting and
    retaining reserve officers. However, the Chief of Naval Personnel and I
    have a shared vision of implementing initiatives and programs to have
    all Reserve communities ``healthy by 2014.''
        Navy Reserve Recruiting difficulties are mostly concentrated in
    recruiting personnel with highly sought-after skills--both in the
    military and in the private sector--and capturing our warfare qualified
    Navy veterans. High retention within the active component has limited
    the pool of veteran officers and has increased our reliance on Direct
    Commission Officers to meet annual recruiting goals. Over the last
    couple of years, our primary challenge has been in recruiting Reserve
    Medical Officers, where our goal increased 43 percent in fiscal year
    2010 alone. Another challenging officer community is Special Warfare/
    Special Operations, a community that is in high demand supporting
    overseas contingency operations.
        Our primary recruiting challenge for fiscal years 2010 and 2011
    will be in the Navy Veteran (NAVET) market. As more Navy Officers opt
    to remain on active duty, which is truly good news for Navy, the NAVET
    goal is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. Despite historical
    lows in RC officer attrition, increasing Reserve Component (RC)
    retention will help alleviate the some of the shortfalls in specific
    communities and pay-grades. Navy has several measures and initiatives
    in varying stages of implementation to improve RC officer manning
    including: (1) expansion of lateral transfer opportunities, (2)
    flexible mobilization policy for medical professionals, and (3)
    implementation of a RC officer retention bonus. Improving RC officer
    retention, increasing and expanding our DCO program, and capturing a
    larger percentage of the NAVET market, are all elements of our strategy
    to attract and retain officers to meet our goal of getting healthy by
    2014.
        Question. Admiral Debbink, how is the shortage of officers,
    particularly in critical specialties, affecting the readiness of the
    Naval Reserve?
        Answer. Overall, the shortage of officers in the Navy Reserve has a
    limited affect on the readiness of our Force. However, we do have
    significant shortages of officers in two major categories: Healthcare
    Professionals in Critical Wartime Specialties (to include Medical
    Corps, Dental Corps, Nurse Corps, and Medical Service Corps); and
    critical undermanned non-healthcare designators (to include SEALs,
    Civil Engineer Corps, Supply Corps and Explosive Ordinance Disposal
    (EOD) officers). Each of these communities is undermanned and faces
    possible shortfalls in meeting dwell time targets, placing those
    communities under continuous stress.
        During fiscal years 2007-2009, high mobilization demand had a
    direct (though not necessarily causal) relationship to high officer
    attrition, particularly for junior officers. The Navy is considering
    options for better managing demand for critical Reserve Component (RC)
    specialties, including adjusting Total Force deployment schedules to
    improve Reserve mobilization dwell times, and deleting or not filling
    some Overseas Contingency Operations requirements that would require
    unacceptable dwell times, resulting in additional stress on the Active
    Component as well as the Joint Force. Additionally, the use of
    incentive programs has increased Navy's ability to assess officers and
    increase retention in these stressed communities, but there are still
    projected shortfalls in some communities for several years.
                                     ______

            Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General John F. Kelly
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                   marine corps reserve--strain on the force
        Question. General Kelley, the Marine Corps Reserve is maintaining a
    high operational tempo with nearly one-fifth of the force mobilized
    this year. Over 20,000 Marine reservists have been deployed more than
    once since 2001. This must put a huge strain on your reservists, their
    families, and employers. How is this high operational tempo affecting
    morale?
        Answer. In my travels across the numerous sites and facilities that
    comprise MARFORRES, I routinely encounter Marines from all walks of
    life and military job specialties. For the most part, they are a well
    seasoned force of combat veterans whose pride in their accomplishments
    serving this nation may be exceeded only by the level of their morale.
    They have a strong desire to stay in the fight, to be part of the Total
    Force Marine Corps even as hostilities in the current conflicts start
    to wane. That they still are willing to stand strong while having to
    balance civilian employment in addition to family concerns is a
    testament to their patriotism and esprit de corps. We certainly
    recognize the costs associated with the current operations but have
    mitigated them to a large degree with the use of our Force Generation
    Model, which provides needed predictability for the Marines, their
    families, and their employers.
        Question. General Kelley, the active duty Marine Corps has now
    completed its end strength growth. Will this reduce the operational
    tempo for the Marine Reserve?
        Answer. The Marine Corps Total Force--Reserve and Active
    Components--are now in balance and both are approaching the
    Commandant's desired dwell time. So long as we are involved in a major
    overseas contingency operation this balance will be maintained. To the
    specific question, Yes, I expect the tempo will be reduced to the
    benefit of the Operational Reserve. This should stabilize our dwell
    time to meet or exceed the desired one to five ratio, and add to our
    already established unit deployment predictability for our Reserve
    Marines, their families, and their employers. It will allow us to
    continue to use the MARFORRES Force Generation Model to ensure our
    Reserve units are ready to answer the nations call in the face of any
    future contingency or requirement. We have achieved a very favorable
    balance with the Active Force at 202,000 and the Reserve Force at
    39,600, allowing the Operational Reserve to maintain its place as an
    integral and enduring part of the Total Force.
                                     ______

       Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Charles E. Stenner, Jr.
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                          air force reserve--retention
        Question. General Stenner, after several years of low retention,
    the Air Force Reserve has completely turned around its retention
    levels, improving retention by over 20 percent for First-Term Airmen.
    What is driving the improved retention and what are you doing to ensure
    that high retention continues?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve's continued recruiting and retention
    success is due to a variety of factors, but one of the most concrete is
    the support we have received in recent years from the President and
    Congress. By enhancing incentives for service, they have recognized the
    critical contributions of Reservists and rewarded Reservists for that
    service. As a highly trained, experienced, and cost effective strategic
    reserve force, our members serve proudly, providing operational
    capability on a daily basis. In return, Congress (at the urging of the
    Reserve Officer Association and other support organizations) has
    provided numerous improvements in benefits our Reservists receive.
    These include flexibility in terms of service requirements, competitive
    pay, improved retirement benefits, inactive duty training (IDT) travel
    pay, Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefit, affordable TRICARE for
    members of the Selected Reserve, targeted pay for critical career
    fields, and reducing the age a retired Reservist may begin receiving
    retirement benefits based on their service participation.
        To ensure our continued retention, I frequently seek feedback on
    the issues important to Reservists and then I act to address their
    concerns. One of the methods I use to solicit feedback from our
    Reservists is a process known as the Reserve Internal Communication
    Assessment Group (RICAG). In fact, one incentive initiated based on
    information from a RICAG, the TRICARE Retired Reserve program, is
    expected to begin this fall.
        Another factor important to Reservists, their families, and
    employers is predictability. We continue to improve the predictability
    and sustainability of deployments and participation in contingency
    operations, making it easier for members to volunteer, mobilize, and
    deploy. These enhancements are important steps in maintaining the Air
    Force Reserve's high retention rates which are critical to sustaining
    our professional Reserve force.
        Question. General Stenner, the Combat Air Force restructure is just
    starting, are you concerned about its affect on retention levels?
        Answer. The Combat Air Force restructuring plan enables the Air
    Force to move manpower authorizations to emerging and priority missions
    such as manned and unmanned surveillance operations and F-35 training
    or operational missions. Within this realignment, the Air Force Reserve
    will continue to offer citizen Airmen the opportunity to serve and
    support all mission sets across the spectrum of air, space and cyber.
    In part, through normal attrition (due to separations, retirements,
    etc.) and with Air Force Reserve end-strength increasing to
    approximately 72,100 Airmen, the Air Force Reserve is putting the right
    Airmen in the right jobs to meet mission requirements. This realignment
    will not affect the overall retention for the Air Force Reserve.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
    will reconvene on Wednesday, April 14, at 10:30 a.m., at which
    time we will meet in closed session to receive testimony on
    fiscal year 2011 budget request for intelligence activities.
        The subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., Wednesday, March 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, April 14.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Feinstein, Bond, and
    Shelby.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Missile Defense Agency

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PATRICK J. O'REILLY,
                DIRECTOR

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. I'm pleased to welcome Lieutenant General
    Patrick O'Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA),
    before the subcommittee to discuss the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request for missile defense.
        The request before us today continues the administration's
    efforts to achieve three goals: sustaining homeland defense
    against intercontinental ballistic missiles; increasing focus
    on defense against regional threats; and procuring and fielding
    proven technologies.
        In fiscal year 2011, MDA's budget requests totaled $8.4
    billion, a $500 million increase over fiscal year 2010. And I'm
    pleased to note that the request includes increases of $300
    million for ground-based missile defense (GMD), $245 million
    for aegis ballistic missile defense, and $160 million for
    theater high altitude defense over the levels approved by
    fiscal year 2010.
        These near-term programs are providing missile defense
    assets today, a capability that this subcommittee strongly
    supported for many years. However, even these near-term
    programs have challenges. First, the GMD program had a failed
    intercept test last January that is still under review.
    Industrial-based challenges threaten the continued production
    of the ground-based interceptor missiles. And there is concern
    over whether the program has enough test articles to ensure its
    reliability out to 2032.
        Second, because of the continued success and steadfast
    progress of the aegis BMD system, the administration is now
    demanding more of the program, which presents new risks and new
    challenges. The aegis program is involved in several
    simultaneous efforts, concurrently developing multiple upgrades
    to the standard missile, upgrading ships, conducting intercept
    tests, and starting the aegis ashore program to deploy land-
    based versions of the system in Europe.
        Furthermore, fiscal year 2010 is the last year of the
    standard missile block IA production, even though we have not
    yet begun to test the next block upgrade. At a time when the
    combatant commanders are clamoring for more aegis missiles on
    their deployed ships, this seems like a risky proposition. And
    it is of particular concern, considering the test's schedule
    delays of the new missile.
        Finally the terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD)
    program has demonstrated remarkable achievements over the past
    few years. Accordingly, MDA is now being called on to more
    rapidly procure and deploy THAAD batteries to the Army and
    conduct more rigorous and demanding tests of the system.
        And so, I look forward to the hearing today on the progress
    of these three programs that provide the foundation for missile
    defense for the United States and our friends and allies around
    the globe.
        In addition, MDA has many other programs that support the
    current and future missile defense architecture that we will
    discuss today.
        The vice chairman is now involved in another subcommittee,
    so may I call upon Senator Shelby. Do you have anything?
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing that you've called.
    And I look forward to hearing from General O'Reilly.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to stay for the
    entire hearing, but I wanted to be here and welcome the
    General. And I will put my statement in the record.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. Your statement will be accepted for the
    record and the subcommittee has also received statements from
    Senators Cochran and Bennett which will also be included in the
    record.
        [The statements follow:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        I would like to personally thank you, Lieutenant General
    O'Reilly, for appearing before this subcommittee to discuss our
    nation's missile defense. The defense of our great nation
    against nuclear or some other type of missile attack is a very
    important mission, and you are key to executing that mission. I
    look forward to discussing this important topic with you today.
                                    ------

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased in joining you in welcoming
    Lieutenant General O'Reilly to testify before our subcommittee
    today.
        Providing for the Nation's defense is an important and
    basic responsibility, and a functional, capable missile defense
    system is a key component of our national defense strategy as
    adversarial nations continue to pursue the capability to launch
    mid and long range rockets and missiles.
        As Iran continues to pursue a nuclear capability, and as
    nuclear and missile technology continues to proliferate, we
    need to ensure efforts to modernize our missile defense system
    continue to address these growing threats. I am pleased to see
    that this budget recommends increased funding for missile
    defense programs, but I know there are still many challenges in
    making sure we meet the needs of the warfighter and stay one
    step ahead of emerging threats.
        General O'Reilly, I look forward to hearing your testimony
    today to help inform the subcommittee as we consider the fiscal
    year 2011 funding needs for the Department of Defense.
                                    ------

                Prepared Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, I thank you for holding this
    hearing to examine our nation's missile defense programs, and
    appreciate the dedicated interest you direct toward this
    critical work. General O'Reilly, please accept my appreciation
    and that of my constituents for the fine work you are doing at
    the agency.
        We live at a time when there is talk of a ``potential'' or
    ``growing'' missile threat from another nation almost every day
    in the news, on the Internet, and on the television. Suffice it
    to say, the MDA's mission to ``deploy . . . an effective
    National Missile Defense system capable of defending the
    territory of the United States against limited ballistic
    missile attack'' is more important now than ever.
        It's no small thing--as some have described the challenge
    of intercepting an enemy missile, to ``hit a bullet with a
    bullet.'' Doing so requires developing a smart system that can
    identify and develop technologies worthy of taxpayer funding,
    and equal to meet the high charge given to the MDA. Given the
    ever-evolving threat environment, my interest lies in seeing
    that the MDA's plans to protect our nation now and in the
    future are adequate for the demands of our national security,
    and are based in proven concepts and technologies, rather than
    theory alone or unrealistic expectations. In addition, I am
    eager to hear how the agency plans to address industrial
    concerns for the production of solid rocket motors. For better
    and worse, the Federal government (i.e. the administration),
    doesn't always act as the monolithic whole that the outside
    world often perceives. Specific agencies pursue their various
    agendas, often without realizing how their individual decisions
    will affect the condition of others. Such unintended
    consequences could be mitigated if not largely avoided if the
    administration, taking into consideration procurement at NASA,
    DOD, and MDA, would provide a comprehensive, strategic
    response.
        While I'm fully aware of the many challenges already on
    your plate, I hope that you will energetically continue to find
    solutions to all of the agencies challenges as you work to
    promote the security of our nation. I look forward to our
    discussion and hearing your testimony.

        Chairman Inouye. General, it's your show, sir.

          SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PATRICK J. O'REILLY

        General O'Reilly. Good morning, Chairman Inouye and other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        It is an honor to testify before you today on the Missile
    Defense Agency's activities to continue developing and fielding
    an integrated, layered ballistic missile defense system to
    defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and
    friends.
        Under the oversight and direction of the Department of
    Defense's Missile Defense Executive Board, the Missile Defense
    Agency proposes an $8.4 billion fiscal year 2011 program that
    is balanced to achieve the six policy goals in the Ballistic
    Missile Defense Review report and the combatant commanders' and
    services' missile defense needs, as stated in the latest U.S.
    Strategic Command's prioritized capabilities list.
        First, defense of the homeland against limited attack: We
    continue to upgrade the ground-based midcourse defense system
    to increase reliability, survivability, ability to leverage a
    new generation of missile defense sensors, and testing to
    accredit our simulations. Missile fields in Alaska are in an
    optimum location to intercept missiles from either northeast
    Asia or the Middle East. The purchase of five additional
    ground-based interceptors and the production of components to
    support extensive reliability testing and missile refurbishment
    will sustain our production capacity until 2016 and critical
    component manufacturing beyond 2020.
        Second, defense against regional threats: By 2015, we plan
    to buy 436 SM-3 IA and IB interceptors, 431 THAAD interceptors,
    14 AN/TPY-2 radars, 9 THAAD batteries, and have 38 ballistic
    missile defense-capable ships available.
        Our regional missile defenses are adaptable to the unique
    circumstances of each combatant command. For example, we
    determined, based on updated intelligence estimates, that our
    previous plan for the defense of Europe could be rapidly
    overwhelmed, and thus made ineffective, by the large number of
    Iranian medium-range ballistic missiles today. Additionally,
    the previous program did not cover most of southeastern Europe
    that is exposed to today's ballistic missile threats, would not
    have been available till 2017, and would have not been
    adaptable to changes in future threats to Europe.
        Therefore, we plan to deploy a larger number of
    interceptors in Europe in four phases as the missile threats
    from the Middle East evolve. The first two phases, in 2011 and
    2015, respectively, provide protection against short- and
    medium-range ballistic missiles. The third phase, in 2018,
    provides protection against intermediate ballistic missiles.
    And the fourth phase, in 2020, provides capability to intercept
    intercontinental ballistic missiles from the region in which
    they are launched.
        Third, prove the ballistic missile defense system works: We
    have submitted a comprehensive integrated master test plan,
    signed by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the
    services' operational test agencies, and the Commander, U.S.
    Strategic Command, to ensure we fly our missiles before we buy
    them.
        The two greatest challenges we face in developing missile
    defense is acquiring cost-effective, reliable targets and
    improving quality control of all products. Over the past year,
    we've initiated a new target acquisition strategy to increase
    competition, improve quality control, reduce costs, and provide
    backup targets, starting in 2012.
        However, the precise performance of missile defense systems
    requires stringent manufacturing standards. Until we complete
    planned competitions, including the greater use of firm fixed-
    price contracts and defect clauses, we have to motivate some
    senior industry management through intensive inspections, low
    award fees, insuring--or issuing cure notices, stopping the
    funding of new contract scope, and documenting inadequate
    quality control, to influence future contract awards.
        Fourth, hedging against threat uncertainty: In accordance
    with warfighters' priorities, we are focusing our future
    technologies to develop more accurate and faster tracking
    sensor platforms to enable early intercepts, enhance command
    and control networks to rapidly fuse sensor data to handle
    large raid sizes, develop a more agile SM-3 interceptor to
    destroy long-range missiles, to enhance discrimination of
    reentry vehicles from other objects, and to develop high-energy
    laser technologies.
        Fifth, develop new fiscally sustainable capabilities over
    the long term: The Missile Defense Agency is complying with the
    Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 by establishing
    and managing six baselines: cost, schedule, technical, tests,
    contract, and operational baselines, increasing service in
    COCOM participation and increasing emphasis on the competition
    in all phases of a program's acquisition lifecycle. We are
    reviewing over $37 billion of contracts for competition over
    the next 2 years.
        Six, expand international missile defense cooperation: We
    are currently engaged in missile defense projects, studies, and
    analysis with many countries including Japan, Poland, the Czech
    Republic, Israel, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, South
    Korea, NATO, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia,
    and Kuwait. Additionally, Poland and Romania have agreed to
    host our aegis ashore sites, and we cooperatively developed the
    SM-3 IIA interceptor with Japan.
        We also continue to support expert dialogue on cooperative
    efforts with the Russian Federation, whose surveillance radars
    would enhance our ability to monitor ballistic missile
    development and flight testing in southwest Asia.

                              THE NEW START TREATY

        Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the new
    START Treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of
    missile defense programs. Unless they have new START-
    accountable first stages, which we do not plan to use, our
    targets will no longer be subject to START constraints which
    limited our use of air-to-surface and waterborne launches of
    targets which are essential for cost-effective testing of
    missile defense interceptors against medium- and intermediate-
    range ballistic targets in the Pacific area. In addition, under
    new START, we will no longer be limited to five space-launch
    facilities for target launches.
        Additionally, the new START Treaty does not constrain
    deployment of ballistic missile defense. Article V, section 3
    of the treaty prohibits the conversion of intercontinental or
    sea-based launch ballistic missiles--launchers--to missile
    defense launchers and vice versa, while grandfathering five
    former intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos at
    Vandenberg Air Force Base, already converted for ground-based
    interceptors.
        MDA never had a plan to convert additional ICBM silos at
    Vandenberg. Moreover, we determined that if more interceptors
    were to be added at Vandenberg Air Force Base, it would be less
    expensive to build a new ground-based interceptor missile
    field, which is not prohibited by the treaty.
        Regarding submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers,
    some time ago, we examined the concept of launching missile
    defense interceptors from submarines, and found it unattractive
    and an extremely expensive option. As the subcommittee knows,
    we have a very good and significantly growing capability for
    sea-based missile defense on aegis-capable ships.
        In conclusion, MDA is teamed with the combatant commanders,
    services, other DOD agencies, academia, industry, and our
    international partners to address the challenges of managing,
    developing, testing, and fielding capabilities to deter the use
    of ballistic missiles and effectively destroy them, once
    launched.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to answering
    the subcommittee's questions.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Patrick J. O'Reilly
        Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, other distinguished
    Members of the Committee. It is an honor to testify before you today on
    the Missile Defense Agency's support to the Ballistic Missile Defense
    Review (BMDR) and our $8.4 billion fiscal year 2011 budget request to
    continue our mission to develop and field an integrated, layered,
    Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to defend the United States,
    its deployed forces, allies, and friends against ballistic missiles of
    all ranges and in all phases of flight. This budget request reflects
    the strategy and policy stated in the BMDR report and the prioritized
    missile defense needs of our Combatant Commanders and the Services as
    stated in the latest U.S. Strategic Command's (USSTRATCOM) Prioritized
    Capabilities List (PCL).
        The Missile Defense Agency has been operating in accordance with
    the principles outlined in last year's Weapons System Acquisition
    Reform Act. This includes establishment of formal baselines for the
    system component managers, Service participation through the
    USSTRATCOM-led Warfighter Involvement Process, and increased emphasis
    on competition at all phases of a program's acquisition life cycle. All
    of these steps, I believe, will maximize the return on the taxpayer's
    investment dollar.
        Under the oversight and direction of the Missile Defense Executive
    Board (MDEB), chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L), MDA proposes a fiscal
    year 2011 program that is balanced to achieve the six strategy and
    policy goals documented in the BMDR report:
      --Defend the homeland against a limited ballistic missile attack;
      --Defend U.S. forces, allies, and partners against regional threats;
      --Deploy new systems only after effectiveness and reliability have
            been determined through testing under realistic conditions;
      --Develop new capabilities that are fiscally sustainable over the
            long term;
      --Develop flexible capabilities that can be adapted as threats
            change; and
      --Expand international cooperation.
                 defense of the homeland against limited attack
        The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system forms the
    foundation of our homeland missile defense against limited ICBM attack
    today. We continue to upgrade GMD to increase reliability and
    survivability and expand the ability to leverage new BMDS sensors as
    well as test GMD to accredit our simulations. Since the beginning of
    fiscal year 2009, MDA has delivered five new GBIs, upgraded Fire
    Control and Command Launch Equipment software, completed construction
    of a second GBI missile field at Fort Greely, Alaska, and delivered a
    new silo and an additional In-Flight Interceptor Communication System
    Data Terminal at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Additionally,
    we are completing the missile defense upgrades to the Upgraded Early
    Warning Radar (UEWR) in Thule, Greenland, and we have transferred
    operation of the Cobra Dane Early Warning Radar and the Beale and
    Fylingdales UEWRs to the Air Force. We are continuing planning and
    design work to upgrade the Clear, Alaska Early Warning Radar.
        We are requesting $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011 for GMD to
    continue our GBI refurbishment and reliability sustainment programs to:
    help sustain the fleet to 2032 and support a service life extension
    decision around 2027; procure an additional 5 GBIs; complete Missile
    Field 2 in a 14-silo configuration to accommodate a contingency
    deployment of eight additional GBIs; upgrade GMD Fire Control ground
    system software to ensure GMD leverages BMDS increased discrimination
    and tracking capability as sensor, data fusion and battle management
    network matures; and complete the installation of a second GMD command
    and control node at Fort Greely, Alaska. Additionally, we will continue
    operations and sustainment of the Sea-Based X-band radar (SBX) platform
    to prepare for transfer of the SBX operations to the U.S. Navy in 2012.
    Finally, we will continue development of technologies to enhance
    Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) variants to protect our homeland in the
    future by having the capability to intercept long-range ballistic
    missiles early in flight in the regions from which they were launched.
    To validate this concept, the Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L)
    requested the Defense Science Board independently assess the viability
    of developing capability for early intercept of ICBMs. Our GMD
    sustainment, refurbishment and test strategy gives us the flexibility
    to adjust to the uncertainty in the future ICBM threat. Although, we
    experienced a GBI vendor production break after the last procurement of
    GBIs in 2006, the purchase of 5 additional GBIs, and supplying
    ``limited life'' GBI components for refurbishments will sustain our
    production capacity until 2016 and beyond. We will conduct stockpile
    surveillance of GBIs by testing all limited life components as GBIs are
    refurbished through 2032. Data collected from future GMD flight tests,
    results from the aging surveillance program, and future intelligence
    estimates regarding the pace of ICBM growth will inform decisions on
    the need to procure additional GBIs.
                        defense against regional threats
        Our fiscal year 2011 budget request balances the war fighter's
    needs to develop new capabilities and grow our missile defense
    capacity. An integrated deployment of Aegis BMD and Terminal High
    Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) forms an effective, layered, regional
    missile defense. The Aegis BMD is a mobile system, designed to defeat
    short- to intermediate-range missiles above the earth's atmosphere, and
    the THAAD is a rapidly deployable system, designed to engage short- to
    medium-range missiles both above and within the Earth's atmosphere.
    Aegis has more than twice the engagement range of THAAD. Additionally,
    Patriot Advanced Capability 3 can add an additional layer and point
    defense against Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs).
        We are developing regional missile defense elements that can be
    adapted to the unique circumstances of each Combatant Command region.
    For example, we plan to deploy missile defenses in Europe in four
    phases as missile threats from the Middle East evolve over time. The
    Phase 1 capability (planned to begin deployment in 2011) will provide
    initial protection for southern Europe from existing short- and medium-
    range threats using sea-based interceptors and forward-based sensors.
    Phase 2 (2015) deploys the SM-3 IB interceptor at sea and at an Aegis
    Ashore/land-based SM-3 site. In collaboration with OSD Policy,
    USSTRATCOM, the Department of State, and United States European Command
    (USEUCOM), we are preparing to begin negotiations with Romania to
    locate an Aegis Ashore/land-based SM-3 site on its territory in 2015.
    Phase 3 (2018) employs SM-3 IIA on land and at sea to protect NATO
    from SRBM, MRBM, and IRBM threats. Poland has agreed to host this Aegis
    Ashore/land-based SM-3 site. The Phase 4 architecture (2020 timeframe)
    features the higher velocity land-based SM-3 IIB, a persistent sensor
    network, and enhanced command and control system to intercept large
    raids of medium- to long-range missiles from the Middle East early in
    flight.
        Since the beginning of fiscal year 2009, MDA has delivered 27 SM-3
    Block IA interceptors and upgraded 3 additional ships (for a total
    today of 20 Aegis BMD ships); upgraded the U.S.S. Lake Erie with the
    next generation BMD fire control software that increases the number of
    threat missiles that can be simultaneously engaged and more effectively
    uses data from missile defense sensors external to the ship. We have
    also delivered two THAAD batteries (the first unit is planned to be
    operationally accepted by the Army by the end of this year). We have
    separately deployed one U.S.-operated X-band AN/TPY-2 radar to Israel
    on a contingency basis. We have also installed C\2\BMC hardware and
    software upgrades at command and control nodes at U.S. Pacific Command,
    USSTRATCOM, U.S. Northern Command and USEUCOM and began C\2\BMC
    installation in the U.S. Central Command.
        We are requesting $1.6 billion for Aegis in fiscal year 2011. We
    will continue the design, qualification, and testing of the SM-3 IB
    interceptor; manufacture 30 SM-3 IB test and production verification
    interceptors (we plan to procure a total of 436 Aegis SM-3 IA and IB
    interceptors by 2015), and upgrade 3 additional Aegis BMD engagement
    ships (two Aegis BMD 3.6.1 destroyers and one 4.0.1 destroyer) for a
    total of 23 BMD capable ships by the end of fiscal year 2011 and 38 BMD
    capable ships by 2015. We will continue development and testing of the
    Aegis BMD 4.0.1 and 5.0 fire control system to launch SM-3 IB and IA
    interceptors against threat missiles when they are beyond the range of
    the ship's own radar. We also will continue the co-development of the
    SM-3 IIA interceptor with the Government of Japan to increase
    significantly the area defended by the Aegis BMD system with its 21-
    inch diameter rocket motors, two-color seeker, and increased kinetic
    warhead divert capability. We also will continue to design the first
    Aegis Ashore battery that will be installed for testing at the Pacific
    Missile Range Facility in 2012.
        We are requesting $1.3 billion for THAAD in fiscal year 2011. We
    plan to deliver the second THAAD battery (we plan to procure 6
    batteries by 2015), add a second launcher platoon to each battery to
    double the firepower to 48 interceptors, procure 67 interceptors (we
    plan to procure a total of 431 interceptors by 2015), and complete
    hardware and software upgrades to the communications suite to enable
    THAAD to use fused data from all BMDS sensors.
        We are requesting $455 million for sensors in fiscal year 2011. We
    plan to upgrade the AN/TPY-2 radar software to facilitate its use as a
    surveillance radar or as a THAAD battery fire-control radar, optimize
    the radar's ability to leverage assistance by external sensors, and
    support the contingency operations of AN/TPY-2 radars deployed in Japan
    and Israel. We will continue to develop a Concurrent Test, Training and
    Operations capability to provide operational BMDS sensors (including
    the UEWRs, Cobra Dane and Sea-Based X-band radars) the capability to
    conduct training and testing while continuing to provide on-line
    missile defense, upgrade AN/TPY-2 and Sea-Based X-band radar
    discrimination and dense track management software, and conduct ground
    and flight testing to support accreditation of sensor models and
    simulations.
        We are requesting $343 million for Command and Control, Battle
    Management and Communications (C\2\BMC) in fiscal year 2011. We plan to
    provide automated planners to aid a Combatant Command's deployment of
    BMD assets according to its concept of operations and conduct ballistic
    missile defense battles according to its tactics, techniques, and
    procedures. Furthermore, we will develop and deploy an upgraded version
    of our C\2\BMC hardware and software to provide new battle management
    functions that enable shoot-look-shoot tactics between layers of U.S.
    and international partners' missile defense assets, control multiple
    BMDS radars, correlate and combine sensor data from multiple sensors
    tracking the same threat into one system track, provide real-time
    awareness of the battle as it develops in accordance with a Combatant
    Command's concept of operations, and enable engagement coordination
    among BMDS elements in accordance with regional Area Air Defense Plans.
    Additionally, C\2\BMC will participate in and analyze results of ground
    and flight tests to support accreditation of models and simulations and
    support war games and exercises.
        MDA played a significant role in the conduct of the Ballistic
    Missile Defense Review. The agency provided technical analysis and data
    as required by the leaders of the review to support their effort to
    answer the questions posed by Congress. Preliminary analytical results
    were then presented to the departmental leaders, including the
    Secretary and Chairman, who then made recommendations to the President.
    Although MDA provided these architecture assessments, it is important
    to recognize the decision to deploy the recommended European PAA
    architecture was not based solely on detailed performance predictions.
    Rather, the decision to deploy an Aegis SM-3-based architecture to
    Europe was based on the need for a flexible defense against an evolving
    threat from the Middle East. First, the previously proposed European
    missile defense architecture lacked a sufficient number of interceptors
    to defend against the current and emerging numbers of medium-range
    ballistic missiles (MRBMs) being fielded by Iran. Simply put, with a
    notional two interceptor shot doctrine, the 10 GBI interceptors
    proposed for Poland would easily be overwhelmed by a raid size of 6
    threat missiles launched towards European targets. Second, with the
    European PAA, we can deploy a missile defense capability to Europe
    earlier than the previous Program of Record, with GBIs in Poland and an
    X-Band Radar in the Czech Republic. NATO Europe is threatened by a
    short-range and medium-range ballistic missile threat now, so this was
    an important variable in the decision. Upon the completion of testing
    in 2011, we could begin the deployment of proven capabilities to defend
    against the MRBM threat. Third, by creating a re-locatable, land-based
    version of our most capable regional missile defense system, the Aegis
    Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, Combatant Commanders could have
    the capability to adjust their missile defense architectures to address
    the uncertainty of future missile threats without the need to develop a
    new missile defense system. These systems can be deployed in any
    theater in a reasonably short period of time. Fourth, the increased
    defended areas and larger raid size capacity resulting from planned
    enhancements to the Aegis BMD system are expected to increase the cost-
    effectiveness of a European missile defense against the growing missile
    threat over this decade. Finally, while we currently have a limited
    defense system against potential Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
    (ICBM) threats originating in the Middle East or Northeast Asia, there
    is no technical reason to indicate that this system would not be
    further enhanced by the deployments envisioned in Phase 4 of the PAA.
    It is important to note that the missile defense capability needs
    identified in the BMDR are consistent with capability needs listed in
    the recently approved, independently developed, classified USSTRATCOM
    missile defense Prioritized Capability List.
               proving the ballistic missile defense system works
        A key tenet of the BMDR is to sufficiently test the capabilities
    and limitations of a missile defense system before we begin
    procurement, or we will ``fly before we buy.'' As such, missile defense
    projects are subject to production decisions by USD (AT&L).
    Additionally, we use the Services' standard material release and
    operational certification processes that also rely on developmental and
    operational test data prior to formally fielding initial capability.
    Both THAAD and AN/TPY-2 have production decisions by USD (AT&L) and
    Army Material Review Boards planned for this year. We are requesting
    $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2011 to provide targets and support to
    missile defense projects to test new capabilities under developmental
    and operational conditions, including the use of actual threat
    missiles, to support accrediting our models and simulations and
    production decisions by USD (AT&L). In collaboration with the Services'
    Operational Test Agencies, USSTRATCOM, and the Director, Operational
    Test & Evaluation, we submitted a comprehensive Integrated Master Test
    Plan (IMTP) in March that describes our plan through fiscal year 2015
    to conduct over 150 test events to obtain specific data necessary to
    accredit our models and simulations and support operational
    assessments. The IMTP also describes our testing to support European
    PAA deployment decisions. To support a Phase 1 decision in 2011, we
    have completed 10 Aegis BMD intercept tests of short range targets. We
    will conduct an Aegis BMD test against an intermediate-range ballistic
    missile target prior to the Phase 1 deployment. Likewise, there are
    system level ground tests, exercises, and simulations to test system
    effectiveness and interoperability. The IMTP also describes our testing
    of the two-stage GBI and several GMD intercept tests against long-range
    targets. I concur with the January 2010 DOT&E January assessment that
    ``if MDA can execute the IMTP as planned, successful VV&A of BMDS
    models and simulations should result, enabling quantitative and
    objective rather than subjective assessments of the BMDS capability in
    the future.'' I further agree with the DOT&E conclusion that
    ``objective assessments of the BMDS capability are still a number of
    years in the future.''
        Our recent flight test results have been mixed. From October 2008
    through today MDA achieved 5 of 7 successful hit-to-kill intercepts and
    a number of ``firsts'' in BMDS testing. In December 2008, the GMD
    system engaged an IRBM target launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska,
    using a GBI launched from VAFB in the most operationally realistic test
    to date that demonstrated our ability to fuse sensor data from five on-
    line sensors. Unfortunately, the target in that flight test failed to
    release countermeasures. In March 2009, with soldiers operating the
    system using tactics, techniques, and procedures developed by the U.S.
    Army, we conducted THAAD's first dual salvo endo-atmospheric engagement
    of a threat-representative separating ballistic target. The Navy
    conducted an intercept using an Aegis SM-2 Block IV (terminal defense)
    in February 2009, and we conducted an SM-3 IA intercept in July 2009.
    In October 2009, we supported Japan's intercept test of an SRBM using
    the Japanese destroyer JS MYOKO.
        Although we have had three intercepts out of three previous
    attempts using the GMD system, our newest variant of the kill vehicle,
    relying on data from the Sea-Based X-band (SBX) radar, failed to
    intercept a target in January 2010 during a flight test to measure
    GMD's performance at its maximum operational intercept range. The GBI
    launched successfully from VAFB and the newly designed LV-2 long-range
    target successfully flew for the first time out of the Reagan Test Site
    in the Kwajalein Atoll 7,500 km away. It was a very valuable test
    because we collected extensive data on the performance of the SBX and
    GBI, the advanced exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), and the target.
    We discovered new failure modes for the SBX, the EKV flew more than
    twice the distance it had flown in previous tests, and we collected
    significant new data on the EKV's ability to acquire, track, and
    discriminate the target. The failure investigation is expected to
    continue for several more months before root-cause is determined and
    verified. It is my intent to immediately correct any deficiency and
    repeat the test as soon as feasible. In contrast, the most recent
    attempt to conduct a THAAD test last December was of no value because
    of a target missile failure. The THAAD interceptor was not launched and
    the system was not exercised. Despite the cost of more than $40 million
    for that test and subsequent program delays, we gained no new
    information on the performance of the THAAD system.
        The two largest challenges to executing the U.S. missile defense
    program is acquiring a cost effective set of reliable targets and
    improving quality control. Over the past year we have initiated steps
    to acquire a new set of targets of all ranges, including Foreign
    Material Acquisitions, to verify the performance of the BMDS. Our new
    target acquisition strategy, initiated in fiscal year 2009, procures
    targets in production lots to increase competition, quality control,
    reduce costs, and ensures the availability of backup targets starting
    in 2012. For the next 3 years, we must continue to rely on an intensive
    inspection and oversight process to motivate mission assurance.
        Due to the precise nature of the operation of missile defense
    systems, very high standards of quality control and an enduring culture
    of disciplined mission assurance by the industry workforce is
    essential. We have had many successes in improving our prime contractor
    and supplier quality assurance. In each case, companies have been
    willing to identify shortfalls, invest in new capital assets and attain
    experienced leadership in changing cultures to establish the enduring
    discipline required to consistently deliver precision missile defense
    products. However, not all companies have sufficiently improved. Until
    we complete planned competitions, including the greater use of firm
    fixed price contracts, we will have to motivate greater attention by
    senior industry management through intensive government inspections,
    low award fees, the issuance of cure notices, stopping the funding of
    new contract scope, and documenting inadequate quality control
    performance to influence future contract awards by DOD.
                       hedging against threat uncertainty
        Missile defense technologies must be developed to adapt and upgrade
    our systems to counter future changing threats. In accordance with the
    PCL, we are focusing our future technologies in four areas: (1)
    developing more accurate and faster tracking sensors on platforms to
    enable early fire control solutions and intercepts; (2) developing
    enhanced command and control networks to link and rapidly fuse sensor
    data to handle large raid sizes of missile threats; (3) developing a
    faster, more agile version of our SM-3 interceptor to destroy long-
    range missiles early in flight; and (4) developing discrimination
    techniques to rapidly resolve Reentry Vehicles from other nearby
    objects. Additionally, we continue to research technologies for
    destroying boosting missiles with directed energy. We are developing
    more mature technologies for mid-term deployment decisions around 2015
    and conducting science and technology experiments for far-term (around
    2020) advanced capability deployment decisions.
        One of the highest priority capabilities requested by the war
    fighter community is a persistent and precise missile tracking
    capability. We are requesting $113 million in fiscal year 2011 for the
    Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) and Near Field Infra-Red
    Experiment satellite operations. This space operations work will
    demonstrate the utility of remote missile tracking from space and
    reduce the risk of integrating the remote tracking data of future
    satellites into missile defense fire control systems. MDA launched two
    STSS demonstration satellites on September 25, 2009. We continue
    testing and operating the two demonstration satellites, including
    cooperative tests with other BMDS elements, and demonstrating these
    satellites against targets of opportunity and scheduled tests involving
    targets. We are also requesting $67 million in fiscal year 2011 for a
    new program start, the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS),
    comprised of a network of remote tracking satellites, communications,
    and ground stations. Key attributes of the PTSS are its limited
    mission, uncomplicated design, lower costs, use of mature technologies,
    and integration with legacy data management and control systems to
    provide a persistent remote missile tracking capability of the areas of
    the earth that are of most concern for missile defense. Lessons learned
    from the two STSS demonstration satellites currently on orbit will
    inform decisions on the development of a prototype PTSS capability by
    the end of 2014. After validating the prototype design in ground
    testing in 2014, we plan to fly the first prototypes while we have
    industry teams compete to produce the remaining satellite constellation
    for initial constellation operations by 2018.
        We are also requesting $112 million for fiscal year 2011 for the
    development and testing of a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) based
    missile tracking sensor system, or Airborne Infrared (ABIR) sensor
    system, to track large raids of ballistic missiles early in flight. We
    are completing an analysis of the optimum RPV platform and sensors to
    integrate into an effective early missile tracking system.
        For fiscal year 2011, we are requesting $52 million for C\2\BMC
    enhancements to develop a net-centric, Service-oriented architecture,
    to rapidly fuse sensor data and provide data to distributed fire
    control systems to intercept enemy reentry vehicles early, optimize
    shoot-look-shoot opportunities, and economize the number of
    interceptors required to defeat a raid of threat missiles. We are
    pursuing enhanced C\2\BMC capabilities and experiments to integrate
    interceptor fire control systems with ABIR, STSS, and other new sensor
    technologies. We work closely with USSTRATCOM and the COCOMs to develop
    and deliver the optimum C\2\BMC architectures in their regions.
        We are requesting $41 million in fiscal year 2011 to develop
    components that increase the speed of our SM-3 family of interceptors
    with advanced divert capability, faster boosters, and lighter kill
    vehicles. We are studying the use of a derivative SM-3 IB kill vehicle
    and derivatives of the first and second stages of the SM-3 IIA
    interceptor as part of the development of the SM-3 IIB long-range
    missile interceptor.
        We are requesting $99 million for fiscal year 2011 to conduct
    continued research on high energy lasers. This past year we saw the
    significant accomplishments of the Airborne Laser Test Bed (ALTB) as it
    completed preparatory tests which ultimately led to two successful and
    historic experimental shoot-downs of a solid rocket on February 3,
    2010, and a boosting, liquid-fueled, Foreign Material Acquisition (FMA)
    target on February 11, 2010. We are preparing for another test against
    an FMA, at nearly twice the distance, later this spring. We will
    continue to investigate multiple high energy laser technologies to
    characterize their performance while validating the modeling and
    simulation of long range directed energy beam propagation and beam
    control. Additionally, we are currently supporting the USD (AT&L)/
    Director for Development, Research and Engineering (DDR&E)
    comprehensive review of all DOD high energy laser programs to establish
    a department wide program for developing and applying high energy laser
    capabilities. We anticipate this review will define the ALTB's role in
    the future development of high energy lasers.
       develop new, fiscally sustainable capabilities over the long term
        MDA's preferred approach to developing new missile defense
    capabilities is to evolve and upgrade existing capabilities to leverage
    the cost-effectiveness of utilizing existing Service training,
    personnel and logistics infrastructures. The fiscal sustainability of
    missile defense systems is largely determined by the cost of operations
    and sustainment. Therefore, MDA executes ``hybrid management'' of
    projects with the designated lead Services by embedding ``Service
    cells'' in MDA joint project offices to make design and development
    decisions associated with Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership,
    Personnel and Facilities (DOTLPF) to assure MDA products efficiently
    align with Service processes and operational concepts.
        MDA has established six baselines (cost, schedule, technical, test,
    contract, and operational baselines) to plan and manage the execution
    of missile defense projects. I approve the baselines of technology
    programs, but jointly approve with lead Service Acquisition Executives
    the baselines of MDA projects in product development. These baselines
    not only assist in our cost-effective management of MDA projects, but
    also provide visibility to the MDEB and Congress on the progress of our
    execution. The baselines of all of our projects are established in
    spring and will be submitted to Congress in a Baseline Acquisition
    Report (BAR) in June. Finally, these baselines will form the basis for
    USD (AT&L) production decisions.
                expand international missile defense cooperation
        As stated in the BMDR and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a key
    strategic goal is to develop the missile defense capacity of our
    international partners. We are currently engaged in missile defense
    projects, studies and analysis with over twenty countries. Our largest
    international partnership is with Japan. We are co-developing the SM-3
    IIA missile, studying future architectures, and supporting their SM-3
    IA flight test program. In Europe, we are participating in the NATO
    Active Layer Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) command and
    control program and war games, continuing technology research projects
    with the Czech Republic, and planning for the European PAA deployments,
    which include the installation of Aegis Ashore sites, one each in
    Romania and Poland. Collaboration with Israel has grown to involve the
    development and deployment of the Arrow Weapon System, which is
    interoperable with the U.S. missile defense system. MDA has completed
    and the United States is now in the final negotiation of an Upper Tier
    Project Agreement with Israel for cooperative development of an exo-
    atmospheric interceptor and amending the United States-Israel Arrow
    Weapon System Improvement Program agreement to extend the system's
    battle space and enhance its ability to defeat long-range ballistic
    missiles and countermeasures. MDA and Israel are also jointly
    developing the David's Sling Weapon System to defend against shorter
    range threats, to include some ranges that the PAC-3 system cannot
    engage. Additionally, MDA is active in supporting the Combatant
    Commands through international symposiums, bi-lateral and multi-lateral
    dialogs, planning, and analysis with Allies and international partners
    to help them understand the benefits of integrated missile defense in
    their regions.
                                   conclusion
        Missile defense is a key part of our national security strategy
    described in the BMDR to counter the growing threat of ballistic
    missile proliferation. The New START Treaty has no constraints on
    current and future components of the BMDS development or deployment.
    Article V, Section 3 of the treaty prohibits the conversion of ICBM or
    SLBM launchers to missile defense launchers, and vice versa, while
    ``grandfathering'' the five former ICBM silos at Vandenberg AFB already
    converted for Ground Based Interceptors. MDA never had a plan to
    convert additional ICBM silos at Vandenberg and intends to hedge
    against increased BMDS requirements by completing construction of
    Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely. Moreover, we determined that if more
    interceptors were to be added at Vandenberg AFB, it would be less
    expensive to build a new GBI missile field (which is not prohibited by
    the treaty). Regarding SLBM launchers, some time ago we examined the
    concept of launching missile defense interceptors from submarines and
    found it an unattractive and extremely expensive option. As the
    committee knows, we have a very good and significantly growing
    capability for sea-based missile defense on Aegis-capable ships.
        Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the New START Treaty
    actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense
    program. Unless they have New START accountable first stages (which we
    do not plan to use), our targets will no longer be subject to START
    constraints, which limited our use of air-to-surface and waterborne
    launches of targets which are essential for the cost-effective testing
    of missile defense interceptors against MRBM and IRBM targets in the
    Pacific area. In addition, under New START, we will no longer be
    limited to five space launch facilities for target launches.
        MDA is working with the Combatant Commanders, Services, other DOD
    agencies, academia, industry and international partners to address the
    challenges and difficulties of managing, developing, testing and
    fielding new military capabilities to deter use of ballistic missiles
    and effectively destroy them once launched. Implementing these war
    fighter priorities takes time, since the production time for a missile
    and radar is over 2 years and establishing and training a unit to
    create and deploy a military capability takes an additional year. Our
    fiscal year 2011 budget funds the war fighters' near-term priorities
    while building the foundation of a layered defense system with our
    partners and friends that can provide an adaptive, cost-effective
    strategy to counter ballistic missile proliferation in the future.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your
    questions.

        Chairman Inouye. General, last year, the President
    announced a shift in plans involving Europe and missile
    defense, and the cornerstone of this new approach is the so-
    called aegis ashore program. Can you give us an update on where
    we are at this moment?

                        PHASED ADAPTIVE APPROACH--AEGIS

        General O'Reilly. Yes, sir. We have, last year, completed
    an analysis of alternatives of different ways of providing the
    type of capability that the SM-3 missile offers. It has a range
    of well over 800 kilometers, and it has a defended area that is
    quite substantial--about twice what THAAD's is. And THAAD is
    about 10 times the area of--what a Patriot unit can protect.
    So, we're looking for that type of capability, and we
    identified that by simply taking the aegis system, the combat-
    proven aegis system, and moving it to the land and keeping as
    much of it as identical as possible, reducing developmental
    costs. At that point, it would give the combatant commanders
    and the Navy the opportunity to have the same system at sea as
    they have at land. They have a worldwide logistics data--or
    logistics base, training base, and the personnel to man these
    systems very quickly.
        So, we're very mature in the development of the aegis
    ashore. It has been tested and operated in a test-type
    configuration at White Sands, for shorter range, for over 10
    years. So, we're in a very good position, sir, to begin the
    integration of it and delivering the first test unit.
        Chairman Inouye. So, you're on schedule now.
        General O'Reilly. Yes, sir.

                             PARTNERSHIP WITH JAPAN

        Chairman Inouye. Now, one of our largest partners in
    defense is Japan, and you have been developing the standard
    missile block IIA upgrade with them. Can you update us on the
    status of this upgrade program and the partnership with the
    Japanese, overall?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, this program is in its fifth year of
    development. We have matured the components, both what the
    Japanese will develop and are developing and what the U.S.
    industry is developing. We have identified all of the steps
    that are necessary to have a successful integration. Our first
    flight test will be in 2014 and our first intercept will be in
    2015. We are in full agreement with the Japanese Government and
    have full support in this development. Within the next year, we
    will begin our discussions on the production arrangement
    between the United States and Japan.
        Chairman Inouye. So, the change in government there has not
    affected the progress of your partnership.
        General O'Reilly. No, sir. I have held several high-level
    reviews of this program with the Japanese Government since
    then, and they have indicated they are in full support and
    their commitments are solid.
        Chairman Inouye. I have several other questions to ask, but
    they're more technical in nature, so I will submit them to you,
    General.
        May I now call upon Senator Shelby.

                            GBI NUMBERS AND TESTING

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General O'Reilly, I have several questions for the record.
        You said that you need 52 GBI interceptors--30 in Alaska
    and 22 to be used for testing and spares. The GMD program
    manager stated that 19 of the 22 GBIs will be used in testing,
    through 2019. That will leave us with just three GBIs to
    conduct reliability flight testing through 2032--long span
    there. That would be one test every 4 years, so to speak. What
    kind of analysis have you done to the number of ground-based
    interceptors that you really need? This seems to be kind of
    stretching it.
        General O'Reilly. Sir, the--first of all, when the program
    manager made that comment, he is also referring to some
    missiles we have already procured for flight testing. But----
        Senator Shelby. Explain what you mean.
        General O'Reilly. We will procure 52 between now and the
    end of the GBI----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        General O'Reilly [continuing]. By the current plan--30 for
    operational capability, 4 for operational spares that--we don't
    have an exact number on those operational spares, we just use
    that as a hedge--and then 18 more will be used in testing. By
    2019, we will have tested 20 missiles, including the ones we've
    previously tested. We will have, at that point, two missiles
    plus the four operational spares. So, there's a total of six
    missiles to make a determination, over the last 10 years of the
    estimated life, if we don't extend the life.
        These--I will make the comment that these missiles were
    designed with an--a very large effort on its reliability and
    maintainability. And, just for example, those 30 missiles in
    the silos will be tested 4.3 million times over its 10-year or
    20-year period. So, we believe we have a very rigorous program
    to test the reliability, and we're going to remove the missiles
    from the silos about halfway through their life and replace
    their limited-life components, and test those. So, sir, we
    believe we're in a position to have very good insight into how
    these missiles are aging.
        Senator Shelby. You feel real comfortable with this and
    your plan?
        General O'Reilly. Yes, sir. And--but, we do have the
    procurement of five new GBIs----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        General O'Reilly [continuing]. Which will reopen the
    production lines, which--most of them have completed their
    previous production. So, we'll have five lines open through
    2016--will be qualified, in case we do find that there's a--
    circumstances where we need to go back to the industrial base.

                           AEGIS AND GMD COMPETITION

        Senator Shelby. General O'Reilly, we all like competition,
    because out of competition, generally, comes good products. And
    I think that's best for the taxpayer and the warfighter. Why
    would you recompete the GMD program, but attempt to sole-
    source, some people believe, the aegis ashore program?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, the decision----
        Senator Shelby. Is there a reason?
        General O'Reilly. Yes, sir. The decision process I have to
    go through is, Is there a competitive or alternate sources to
    produce a product whenever we're--need to acquire a new
    product? In the case of GMD, we put out a market survey, and
    the market survey indicated that there were several companies
    that were willing, and we deemed viable, to actually compete
    for GMD. In the case of aegis ashore, the concern was the
    timelines we are on to deliver the first test unit and the
    second one--the second unit, which will be the first one in
    Romania--or the one in Romania. That timeline required us to
    have--whoever the manufacturer is--to have extensive experience
    with the aegis weapon system, because we want it to be
    identical onshore as it is at sea. However, our intent is,
    after that point, to compete remaining aegis ashore sites.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.

                                   SM-3 COST

        I want to get into the SM-3 with you. The 2011 budget
    provides for the procurement of--as I understand it--of eight
    SM-3 block IBs. Now, it's my further understanding that MDA is
    still working on research and development for 30 SM-3 block IBs
    for testing. But, according to the Future Years Defense Program
    (FYDP), it appears that, in 2012, MDA expects to order 66 SM-3
    block IB missiles. That appears to be a pretty aggressive
    production increase from 2011 to 2012. Have you considered
    adding further funding for missile production in 2011 to even
    out the workload and decrease the cost per missile? Because, we
    are interested in quality, but we're interested in cost, too,
    aren't we?
        General O'Reilly. Yes, sir. We have considered that. The
    decision for the current delivery of the SM-3 IA missiles was
    made in 2008, because it takes 2 years to procure--to build a
    missile. So, if we had additional funding now added to the
    budget, it would not deliver additional IAs until 2013. So, I--
    we do have a recognized limitation in the number of missiles we
    have available to us. But, my ability to deliver missiles in 2
    years--by that time, as you said, sir, our plans are that we'll
    have the IB in full rate.
        On the question of rating, though--how quick we can ramp
    up--the first, second, and third stage of the SM-3 IB is
    identical to the IA.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        General O'Reilly. So, we are--what we're talking about is
    the front end, the kill vehicle itself. And so, we've--we do
    believe that that is achievable, given it's that one component
    of the missile which will be different.

                        START TREATY AND IRANIAN THREAT

        Senator Shelby. My last--I know my time's running out--but,
    General, a lot of us are concerned with aspects of the new
    START Treaty and its potential to limit the U.S.'s options to
    deploy missile interceptors. In addition, when the Obama
    administration decided to terminate third-site plans in Europe,
    Secretary Gates said the decision was based on intelligence
    findings that, and I'll quote, ``The threat of potential
    Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities have
    been slow to develop.''
        A new report issued just this month now states, and I'll
    quote, ``With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could
    probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile
    capable of reaching the United States by 2015.''
        With this report of Iran having an ICBM capability by 2015,
    third-site plans canceled, and a treaty that may potentially
    limit our response to attacks, How do you effectively plan to
    counter threats like this? And I'm glad that we have Senator
    Feinstein and Senator Bond on this subcommittee, because
    they're deep into the intelligence field on this.
        General O'Reilly. Yes, sir. Sir, what we recognized last
    year, going through the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, was
    the inherent uncertainty in intelligence estimates. If you go
    back over history, there is not a pattern that we can follow.
    So, our recognition was, we need, as the Secretary of Defense
    has determined, a hedge, in case we underestimate or
    overestimate the threat in, especially, the case of
    intercontinental ballistic missiles coming from countries that
    currently don't possess them. So, that is why the--we have
    proposed in this budget to continue completing missile field
    number 2 at Alaska, so we have eight additional silos than what
    I testified to last year. And we have also tested the two-stage
    GBI, or are going to test it in June. So, we're right on the
    verge of testing that missile. We have a--it's a--it's very
    close in design and--to the three-stage. So, we believe we will
    have the ability to have a second--or an additional shot
    opportunity with that missile, and additional silos, if needed,
    to replace a shot opportunity we were originally looking for in
    Europe.
        Senator Shelby. Don't you have to basically take the
    Iranian threat as real, as dangerous to this country?
        General O'Reilly. Yes, sir. We do. They're----
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General O'Reilly [continuing]. Them and other countries.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Dorgan.

                      START TREATY AND LIMITS TO RESPONSE

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Let me just say, though, that I think--my reading of the
    START Treaty is one that does not impose any limitations on our
    response to attacks. I know some are raising those questions. I
    don't believe the START Treaty does that at all. And, General,
    you're welcome to respond to that, if you wish.
        General O'Reilly. Sir, I've personally not found a single
    case where it does limit, other than prohibitions against plans
    we never considered doing, like converting silos.
        Senator Dorgan. I just--I mean, that there--I know there'll
    be some disagreement on the START Treaty, and I've already seen
    some. And my colleague just referenced some of the discussion.
    But I don't believe there's any limitation in our response to
    attacks.

                             AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM

        I want to make the point that we spend about $132 billion,
    as I understand it, on missile defense work since--I think in
    the last 25 years or so; $132 billion is a lot of money. I was
    particularly interested in the Airborne Laser Program, which I
    understand has now been descoped to a research and development
    program. Can you tell me, how much have we spent on airborne
    laser? Do we ever expect airborne laser will become a part of
    our future plans?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, we have spent over $5 billion on
    airborne laser since 2002, when it became part of the Missile
    Defense Agency. It previously was an Air Force program. We have
    successfully tested the intercept of a ballistic missile,
    earlier this year, for the first time. We accomplished many
    scientific historical breakthroughs in that work. We are
    planning to conduct another test next month, at twice the range
    of the last test. We destroyed the missile quicker than we
    calculated we would. So, everything indicates that our basic
    models, which were in debate, are fairly sound, and we will
    continue to validate our models and our simulations.
        There were operational concerns about the range of this
    particular laser and--compared to the range of surface-to-air
    missiles that we know exist around the world today. However,
    the airborne laser has proven to be a very valuable platform
    for testing this technology, because of the beam control in the
    front end of the missile and the aircraft, the way it's been
    designed to carry more than one laser. So, because of that, the
    coil laser, which is currently on board, that we tested, was a
    19--it was in the 1990s it was designed. Since then, our
    national labs have produced many compelling new technologies
    that they are demonstrating, that the Department is reviewing
    now, to also integrate onto the airborne laser for more testing
    over the next several years, to identify a laser that's got the
    standoff distances we're looking for.

                             CRUISE MISSILE DEFENSE

        Senator Dorgan. Well, let me send you some additional
    questions on that.
        Let me ask another question that has always intrigued me.
    Ballistic missile defense is important. You're working on it.
    There are several different plans for deployment. And I
    understand all that. The question is--let's assume that we get
    this up and installed, and we're going to feel safer, in terms
    of response to a ballistic missile attack. A far more likely
    attack, in my judgment, would be for a--from a cruise missile
    acquired by an adversary that--we have cruise missiles that are
    in far greater quantity than ballistic missiles. Is there a
    defense system for our country against cruise missiles? And if
    so, what is it?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, the prioritized capabilities list
    for missile defense that the Strategic Defense Command--or, the
    Strategic Command--STRATCOM--has provided, in March, to me is
    an integrated air and missile defense capabilities--prioritized
    capabilities list representing all the combatant commanders and
    the four services. And from that, they have indicated both
    needs for cruise missile, air-breathing, and missile defense.
    My charter, my responsibility is on the missile defense side.
    So, the services, right now, are doing the development for the
    cruise missile and the air-breathing threats.
        Senator Dorgan. But, isn't it the case that the ballistic
    missile defense activities have been far more robust than the--
    any activities to defend against cruise missiles? And I think
    it--the likelihood is 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now, it's much
    more likely an adversary would find some kind of a truck,
    whether that vehicle be land based or sea based or air based,
    to acquire a cruise missile and deliver a cruise missile with
    terrain-following guidance at 500 feet above the ground. And
    meanwhile, we've got a big ballistic missile defense system to
    protect against intercontinental ballistic missiles that go up
    into space and come down, and somebody's threatening our
    country with a nuclear warhead on a cruise missile. Isn't it
    the case that we have a much more robust activity on the one
    than we do on the other?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, I'm not in a position to comment on
    the development of the cruise missile capability. But I will
    tell you that on the aegis system, for example, and when we
    integrate with the Army's Patriot and lower-tier systems that
    do handle cruise missiles, in both those cases, we participate
    in ensuring that our capability that we develop for missile
    defense is also being used for those other mission areas.
        Senator Dorgan. All right.
        Well, I'm going to send you some additional questions,
    General. I'm very interested in what we're developing and the
    kind of protection that it affords. All of us worry that future
    adversaries or present adversaries can acquire increasingly
    sophisticated weaponry to threaten this country; there's no
    question about that. And I think there's a wide range of
    threats to protect against.
        Let me make one final point, Mr. Chairman, and that is, all
    of this costs a lot of money, and when any of us ever talk
    about the Federal budget deficit, that's--we also have to make
    the point that all of this ought to be paid for, year by year,
    one way or another, in a budgeting process. So, this is
    expensive, but nonetheless, very important for the country and
    its protection.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Bond.

                   MISSILE DEFENSE STRATEGY--EUROPEAN DEFENSE

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, General O'Reilly. Thank you for being here to
    discuss the $8.4 million--billion missile defense budget for
    fiscal year 2011.
        In light of the significant changes made last year to our
    strategy, I'm pleased to see that the President has taken a
    serious approach to missile defense by increasing his request
    by over $500 million. Our ability to protect the American
    homeland, American troops overseas, North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) allies, international partners, is tied
    directly to an effective global missile defense strategy.
    However, the President's announcement to alter our regional
    missile defense architecture in Europe to a phased adaptive
    approach gives me and several of my colleagues serious
    concerns. Breaking our previous missile defense treaties with
    Poland and the Czech Republic not only undermines two of our
    NATO allies, but puts at risk our ability to protect our
    friends and allies in Europe and the Middle East.
        In addition, Iran's capability to target our partners, to
    include the continental United States, with an intercontinental
    ballistic missile, or ICBM, is growing, both quantitatively and
    qualitatively. As a result, our ability to knock down a
    potential ICBM from Iran, whether aimed at the United States or
    a friend, like Israel, I'm afraid, may be degraded.
        Under the original missile defense plan in Europe, the
    third site in Poland was intended to provide a capability to
    knock down an ICBM from Iran by 2013. Now, that's subsequently
    slipped to 2017. General, in your testimony before the Armed
    Services Committee yesterday, you stated that it is reasonable
    to believe that Iran may have an ICBM by 2015. And Chair
    Feinstein and I, on the Intelligence Committee, are following
    that very closely. I won't comment on it, but that's what you
    said.
        I'm doing the math here, and it seems that the agreement to
    build, in Romania and Poland in 2015 and 2018, a new phased
    adaptive approach, weakens our missile defense strategy and our
    ability to protect our friends and allies in Europe and the
    Middle East. I'm equally uncertain that the new approach will
    provide 100-percent assurance to American families from
    continental--in the continental United States being vulnerable
    to an ICBM from Iran.
        We know that more shots at an ICM are better. So, with the
    third site in Poland gone, are you sure that that will--or, at
    least, for the near future--are you sure that that will not
    weaken our capacity to knock down an ICBM in the nearer term?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, first of all, I do recognize the
    uncertainty in the intelligence estimates that have been
    evident over the years on when ICBM capability will be
    available. As you say, sir, yesterday I said I could not deny
    that there would be a capability in 2015 if Iran is getting
    outside help and if they continue to develop that capability.
        The concern I had with the original proposal for the
    defense of Europe was, number one, the timelines haven't
    changed. I used to be responsible for delivering that--that it
    takes 5\1/2\ years, from the beginning to the end of a
    production of a missile field, another 6 months to integrate
    it. And the combatant command over there asked for another year
    to integrate that capability. So, when we were discussing,
    previously, of a 2013 capability, we were assuming a start
    years prior to where we are now, which the requirement for the
    ratification of the ballistic missile defense agreements in
    Poland and the Czech Republic were required before we could
    begin that work. So, what has happened to the delay that moved
    it to the 2017 timeframe was primarily driven by the
    ratification, which did not occur in either country.
        Second, the capability that we are developing--it became
    very evident that Iran--the concern is, number one, Will they
    have this capability? The other concern is, What quantity are
    they going to procure? And we have the capability, with 30
    operational GBIs, to handle--if you use the shot doctrine of
    two missiles against every one threat--of up to 15 being
    launched. The combatant commanders reviewed that. This was done
    with the Joint Chiefs to make an assessment on, Is that the
    right number, given the threat uncertainties at this time?
        But, as you also say, sir, we also recognize we're going to
    need, in the future, a large number of interceptors that are
    capable of intercepting ICBMs. And they found the most cost-
    effective approach would be to forward-base them on our ships
    and at our aegis ashore sites, so we can put larger numbers,
    much larger than we previously proposed.
        Senator Bond. I thank you, sir.

                          RUSSIA AND THE START TREATY

        Next, I have concerns the administration will be compelled
    to slow down its phased adaptive missile approach defense in
    Europe if Russian threat--Russia threatens to pull out of the
    START agreement. In particular, as the Senate Armed Services
    Committee hearing brought out yesterday, the Russian Defense
    Minister has outlined his own interpretation of START by
    stating unequivocally that a linkage between increased missile
    defenses in Europe that impede Russia's nuclear efforts will
    shape its ability to effectuate START. To what extent we--he
    plans to modify it, we can only imagine.
        But, under the new arrangement, it seems to me that Russia
    feels it has the ability to back out of START if they don't
    like the way our missile defense architecture is growing in
    Europe.
        Given recent actions by Russia, I would change President
    Reagan's theory for dealing with Russia to ``Verify, but don't
    trust.'' And I would like to know whether you feel that this
    indication by Russia is a threat that will--that they will get
    out of the START Treaty if we carry forward with some of the
    things that we're doing.
        General O'Reilly. Sir, we believe it is in the national
    interest of the Russian Federation to complete this treaty
    agreement, and in our national interest. But, on the hand--
    either side could back out, and both sides have made unilateral
    statements that they reserve that right, but that's recognized
    in the treaty.
        From a legal perspective that I rely on with the Department
    of Defense lawyers, I have no legally binding restrictions,
    under the new treaty, to curtail any of my developmental work
    in missile defenses, nor have I been given any instructions to
    even consider that.
        Senator Bond. I--the assumption that backing out of the
    treaty would not be in Russia's ``national security interest''
    concerns me. I don't think we can afford to hedge our bets of
    what Russia, or, for that matter, Iran, China, North Korea, may
    or may not do. I think we deserve a robust missile defense
    strategy that fosters trust and security, and not shape our
    actions to please Russia, which is not, in my view, interested
    in securing our national defense. So, I would urge you to
    continue to pursue, aggressively, all of the means available to
    assure that we do have the defenses that would be necessary, in
    a timely fashion, to protect our critical allies, as well as
    our country--our continental United States.

               START TREATY--UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA COOPERATION

        And I thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    congratulations on becoming a grandfather.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. I think that's wonderful.
        General, let me just compliment you on your testimony. You
    were very straightforward and very direct, and I just want you
    to know that it's very much appreciated.
        Just to follow up on Senator Bond's comments--and he and I
    work closely together on the Intelligence Committee--I had the
    opportunity to go to Geneva in November, with Senator Kyl, and
    to meet with both the Russian team and our team during these
    negotiations and spend some time with Ambassador Antonov. Two
    days ago, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the
    Federation Council, Mikhail Margelov, and also the vice
    chairman, met with me. This is the body that would ratify the
    treaty. It's the upper house. The Duma is the lower house. And
    so, it must go to the Federation Council. I had a very positive
    meeting with him, and really felt that there was a new voice in
    Russia. Now, this, of course, is the civilian voice, not the
    military voice. But, a real understanding of what was trying to
    be achieved, in terms of building trust and confidence between
    our two countries and, I think, a recognition that this is a
    different era and that all of these nuclear weapons, and the
    size of them, and the numbers of them, really do present
    jeopardy to both countries' in the long term. So, I was very
    heartened by that response.
        I have read the treaty. I have read the preamble. I have
    read our reaction to it. And just so that the record is clear,
    let me ask this question. Does anything in the proposed treaty
    interfere with your plans regarding missile defense?
        Senator Shelby. No, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        What is your interpretation of the new treaty and related
    unilateral statements made by Russia and the United States,
    with respect to missile defense? Are they similar to what was
    made before the first START Treaty?
        General O'Reilly. It is my understanding they are. As was--
    has been mentioned before, that we have had similar unilateral
    presentations made by both countries in many of our previous
    treaties, such as the ABM Treaty, which we pulled out of, and
    we saw it wasn't in our national interest, because it did
    interfere with our plans to defend ourselves from the growing
    proliferation of missiles, which we saw. So, no, I don't see
    anything distinctively different.
        I do think this is an opportunity, though. As you said,
    Senator, I have said many times, in Moscow and other capitals
    around the world, with engaging with the Russians, that we do
    have opportunities to work with them, because the missile
    threat--proliferation of missiles--threatens them as it
    threatens us. And there are great opportunities for us to
    cooperate in sharing our sensor data, our future research and
    development, and our command and control activities and
    exercises, in order to build confidence, between both sides,
    that we're not threatening each other, but we are building
    ourselves a defense against the proliferation of these
    missiles.

                                  START TREATY

        Senator Feinstein. What advances in missile defense
    technology do you think would prompt the Russians to threaten
    to withdraw from the treaty?
        General O'Reilly. My understanding is that they thought it
    would undermine the strategic balance between our offensive
    capability and their offensive capability.

                  EUROPEAN LAND-BASED VERSUS SEA-BASED DEFENSE

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I think that's correct.
        Let me switch to a--different areas. A lot has been
    discussed in the media about the decision to shift the focus
    from a European land-based defense strategy to a medium-term
    sea-based strategy. Now, as a result, the Navy--our Navy--will
    assume a significant burden in providing the necessary ships,
    missiles, radars, and related components to really be a
    credible deterrent against enemy threats and to provide the
    required defense against actual attacks. Have we assumed new
    risks in continental Europe or here in the United States by
    shifting the emphasis away from a ground-based system to a sea-
    based defense?
        General O'Reilly. During our review last year--and we
    worked extensively with the Navy--the Department of Defense
    made the determination that there was a need to continue a
    ground-based capability that had greater range than our mobile
    systems do, such as THAAD. And in that case, we determined the
    aegis ashore, which is taking Navy capability and putting it
    into a semi-permanent location that could be moved at a later
    date and that is flexible against threats. But, we do have that
    capability.
        On top of that, though, the Navy also agreed to be the lead
    service to man and equip and train those operations on the
    shore. That, in fact, gives the Navy greater capability,
    because, while the larger pool of common missiles for them to
    manage between sea and at land, and also for their personnel,
    who today the--most of the aegis assignments are at sea, and
    this gives the Navy leadership the opportunity to rotate
    between land assignments and sea assignments. And there's a
    tremendous economical benefit of having one capability work
    both at land and at sea.
        We're also increasing our number of aegis ships that have
    ballistic missile defense capability. Last year's budget was
    for 27 ships. This year we're proposing 38 ships to also
    address that issue.

                                LAND-BASED AEGIS

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        What land-based requirements remain in Europe for the
    implementation of the new sea-based missile system?
        General O'Reilly. The countries of Poland and Romania have
    both indicated that they would be willing to host our aegis
    ashore system. So, as we increase the capability for aegis at
    sea with newer missiles that we currently have in development,
    including the one with the Japanese, we will have that
    capability on the land, and that will provide very large
    protection over Europe. We believe, with the--our estimates and
    our technical evaluations indicate, with the latest missile for
    aegis, the aegis SM-3 IIB, from those two sites alone, you can
    protect all of NATO.
        Senator Feinstein. So--and I am extrapolating here, and
    please disabuse me of the notion if it's incorrect--you are
    essentially saying that this new system offers a much better
    umbrella of protection.
        General O'Reilly. For the threats to Europe, it definitely
    provides a much greater protection. Our concern was, we--with
    the previous approach was, we would never be in a position, or
    we would not be in a position, to defend the United States,
    anyway, from Europe, because of our commitments under NATO to
    defend the European cities if they were attacked with short-
    range or medium-range missiles that do exist today. We wouldn't
    have those 10 missiles available to defend the United States.
    So, we believe that the approach we have taken assures us to
    have capability to defend our homeland, but also greater
    protection over Europe, especially in southeastern Europe today
    that is under the threat of ballistic missiles from the Middle
    East.
        Senator Feinstein. Is it fair to interpret that answer as
    ``yes''?
        General O'Reilly. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And thank you, General O'Reilly, for your testimony. It's
    been very helpful.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                       aegis standard missile acquisition
        Question. I continue to be impressed by the success of the Aegis
    missile defense program. I am concerned, however, that MDA is stopping
    production of the SM-3 Block IA missile prematurely. The Navy and the
    Combatant Commands want more of these missiles deployed, but there are
    just not enough. This Committee provided funding to buy 6 additional
    Block IA missiles in fiscal year 2010, but due to the continued delay
    in testing of the follow-on missile, there will be a production gap
    that compounds the shortage of fielded missiles. I understand that you
    are looking at alternatives for extending production of the Block IA
    missile. Can you please update us on the progress of those plans?
        Answer. In developing the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the
    Missile Defense Executive Board (MDEB) balanced the need for building
    missile inventory with continuing capability development of the next
    version of the SM-3. The SM-3 Block IA production line is in the final
    phases of production before shifting to the Block IB. The SM-3 Block IA
    unique suppliers begin going out of qualification in May/June 2010 (see
    figure 1 of attachment 1). First discussed in 2008, it was determined
    that this approach was acceptable and appropriately balanced risk.
        Discussion.--The first flight test of the SM-3 Block IB (``FTM-
    16'') is in late March 2011. If a decision were made to continue SM-3
    Block IA production, there are a range of options for maintaining a
    production line and vendor base for the SM-3 missile, numbered 1 to 4
    below. These options range from buying spare parts to procuring
    additional SM-3 Block IAs.
        As of the date of this response, unique SM-3 Block IA vendors have
    not had work for over 6 months and are losing qualification. Loss of
    supplier qualification will add $53.5 million additional cost to the
    numbered options below to execute if orders are planned by the end of
    CY 2010.
      --Procure only spare parts in quantities which preserve supplier
            qualifications, fiscal year 2010 estimated additional cost of
            $60-70 million for 12 SM-3 Block IA ``KV kits.'' These KV kits
            would be full ``pulse mode'' capable and could be used to swap
            out the first eight SM-3 Block IA KVs that were limited to
            ``sustain mode'' operation or provided to the U.S. Navy as
            additional spares for SM-3 Block IA requalification. If
            ordered, these additional missiles would sustain the vendor
            base through May 2011.
      --Combine with fiscal year 2010 additional procurement funding ($57.6
            million), procure 10-12 more SM-3 Block IA, fiscal year 1010
            estimated additional cost of $60-80 million, plus $10 million
            of fiscal year 1010 RDT&E to re-host Central Processing Unit
            (CPU)2. Ordering 10-12 more missiles would sustain the vendor
            base through May 2011.
      --Procure a mix of new missiles and KV kits to refurbish missiles;
            fiscal year 2010 estimated additional cost of $120-150 million,
            plus $10 million of fiscal year 2010 RDT&E to re-host CPU2.
            This option is a hybrid of the first 2. It would sustain the
            vendor base through October 2011.
      --Procure 36 more SM-3 Block IA missiles to keep vendors qualified
            over a longer term; estimated additional cost of $345-375
            million, including $15 million RDT&E fiscal year 2010 to re-
            host CPU2 and conduct design verification tests of other parts.
            This would require a modification to our existing SM-3 Block IA
            Justification and Authorization (J&A). This option would
            continue SM-3 Block IA into fiscal year 2012.
                   theater high altitude area defense (thaad)
        Question. I understand that there is a Failure Review Board
    investigating a faulty component on the THAAD interceptor. Due to the
    faulty part, THAAD production is on hold. What is the current impact to
    the program, and how will it affect delivery of the THAAD batteries to
    the Army?
        Answer. The THAAD program has completed the manufacturing for all
    THAAD fire control and launcher ground components for the first two
    THAAD batteries. However, THAAD production interceptor deliveries have
    been delayed.
        During November 2009, in-process test failures were experienced
    within an optical switch during production of ignition system
    components for the initial lot of THAAD tactical interceptors. A
    Failure Review Board (FRB) was convened to assess the cause of these
    failures. The FRB concluded that the current switch design is sensitive
    to contamination introduced during the manufacturing process. The
    switch vendor completed implementation of production contamination
    reduction processes and procedures and reopened the optical switch
    production line on May 11, 2010. The current production schedule for
    the first THAAD interceptor projects a first quarter fiscal year 2011
    delivery.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
        Question. What are the 2011 plans for the Airborne Laser research
    and development program? What are some of the compelling new high
    energy laser technologies that have been or may be demonstrated?
        Answer. The Airborne Laser Test Bed (ALTB) is the subject of a
    SECDEF-directed study by the Director of Defense Research and
    Engineering (DDR&E), Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and
    High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office (HEL JTO) to shape the future
    of the platform. The study is due to the DEPSECDEF in June 2010 and
    will describe the best use of the ALTB in flight and ground tests to
    characterize high-energy laser beam propagation and to further
    investigate emerging high energy laser technologies in their
    implementation environment.
        Two new laser technologies are the Enhanced Track Illuminator Laser
    (ETILL) technology for kilowatt-class laser tracking, and the Diode
    Pumped Alkali Laser (DPAL) technology which has the potential for
    scaling to megawatt-class power.
        ETILL is a kilowatt class replacement for ALTB's current Track
    Illuminator Laser (TILL) for improved active tracking of targets at
    extended ranges. ETILL is 2.5 times more powerful than the TILL and has
    4-5 times better beam quality, enabling an approximate 400 percent
    increase in tracking range. ETILL is the first cryogenically cooled
    diode-pumped solid state laser designed to operate in an aircraft
    environment. The system is currently entering laser performance testing
    and could be integrated onto ALTB within 1 year.
        DPALs are a new class of lasers that combine the benefits of solid
    state and gas lasers. DPALs are electrically powered like solid state
    lasers, but have a gas lasing medium that can be flowed for scaling to
    higher power while maintaining good beam quality. Unlike the Chemical
    Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) High Energy Laser (HEL) currently used on
    the ALTB, the gas in a DPAL would be contained in a closed cycle so
    that no chemicals would be consumed or required for operation. DPALs
    can convert electrical energy to laser energy very efficiently. DPALs
    have been demonstrated with output powers in the hundreds of watts and
    DPAL scaling to the multi-kilowatt power level in the laboratory is
    scheduled to be demonstrated by the end of 2010 at the Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory. Subsequent scaling to a megawatt-class
    DPAL in the laboratory would require several more years.
        Question. What is the Department of Defense's long term strategy
    and financial budget for this platform?
        Answer. Consistent with the SECDEF's direction, the Airborne Laser
    Test Bed (ALTB) will transition to a directed energy test bed to
    conduct high energy laser experimentation. The ALTB is the subject of a
    SECDEF-directed study by the Director of Defense Research and
    Engineering (DDR&E), Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and
    High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office (HEL JTO) to shape the future
    of the platform. The study is due to the DEPSECDEF in June 2010 and
    will describe the best use of the ALTB in flight and ground tests to
    characterize high-energy laser beam propagation and to further
    investigate emerging high energy laser technologies in their
    implementation environment. This report will serve as the basis for a
    long-term strategy for ALTB.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. Who is the DOD lead for cruise missile defense? Summarize
    what is currently being done to protect our deployed forces and our
    homeland against the cruise missile threat.
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency is chartered to develop
    ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Services are responsible
    for the development of defenses against cruise missile and air-
    breathing threats. DEPSECDEF on July 22, 2008 designated USSTRATCOM as
    the Air and Missile Defense Integrating Authority.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. In an interview with Deputy Under Secretary of the Air
    Force for Space Programs Gary Payton, published in Space News on April
    19, 2010, Dep. Under Secretary Payton concluded that the President's
    new direction for NASA would have a small, but manageable, impact on
    Navy and Air Force ballistic missiles, and only a ``trivial impact'' on
    DOD space launch capacity.
        Do you share Deputy Under Secretary Payton's conclusions? What
    impacts do you believe the President's new direction for NASA has on
    the Department's space and missile programs?
        Answer. MDA is working closely with the Air Force, NASA and other
    members of the Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) Interagency Task Force (IATF)
    to develop a consolidated assessment of the impact of NASA's new
    direction on the industrial base and develop a roadmap which is due to
    Congress in June 2010.
        Question. Which major ongoing Department of Defense programs
    promote continued development of solid rocket motor development?
        Answer. For large SRM (>40 inch diameter), there are currently no
    development efforts among the Services and agencies in the FYDP.
    However, MDA is developing a 21 inch diameter (small) solid rocket
    motor for the SM3 IIB second stage and possibly third stage.
        Question. What is the long-term plan to sustain the high-tech solid
    rocket motor industrial base?
        Answer. MDA's long-term plan to sustain the high-tech Solid Rocket
    Motor (SRM) Industrial Base (IB) includes supporting the SRM IB Inter-
    Agency Task Force (IATF) development of a SRM sustainment plan. MDA
    believes that we need:
      --To work with industry to ``right size'' and align capacity to
            reality;
      --To ensure long-term viability of small and large SRMs (missile
            defense and tactical systems);
      --To closely monitor the already fragile critical sub-tier supplier
            base; and
      --Propose plans to retain SRM expertise and facilities for future
            contingencies.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                      israeli cooperative program support
        Question. General O'Reilly, the United States and Israeli
    governments have been working together to develop an upper-tier
    component for the Israeli missile defense program. I understand the
    Israelis are pursuing the enhanced version of Arrow, Arrow-3, and are
    required to meet knowledge points to measure their progress. Can you
    give us an update on Israel's progress in relation to meeting those
    knowledge points?
        Answer. The Arrow-3 development program continues to make
    significant progress. Three Knowledge Points (KPs) have been
    successfully completed, two KPs have been executed and are under review
    by MDA, and three additional KPs are scheduled to be executed by the
    first quarter of fiscal year 2011. A Critical Design Review is
    currently scheduled for June 2010.
        MDA prepared a classified report on Arrow-3 Knowledge Points which
    was delivered to Congress by the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) on April 12, 2010. The
    report provides detailed information on the knowledge points, schedule,
    and assessment of program milestones.
        MDA has provided a separately required Arrow-3 Knowledge Point
    Report to Congress that is currently under review within the
    Department. This report will provide the most current KP status
    information and delivery is expected by the end of June 2010.
                                sea-based assets
        Question. General O'Reilly, it appears that there is an
    insufficient inventory of Ballistic Missile Defense capable Aegis-class
    ships to implement the President's Phased Adaptive Approach strategy
    for missile defense in Europe and the Middle East and to address
    concerns in other parts of the world, including North Korea. Earlier
    this year, Admiral Walsh, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, indicated
    that the U.S. Pacific Fleet had a decline in ship inventory due to
    supporting missions in Iraq, Africa, and battling increased incidents
    of piracy.
        General, given this decline in ship inventory in the Pacific and
    other regions and the increased demand associated with the President's
    new strategy, how has the Missile Defense Agency and the Navy been
    working to alleviate the shortfall in Ballistic Missile Defense capable
    ships? Is there any consideration being given to building or modifying
    meaningful numbers of additional Ballistic Missile Defense capable
    Destroyers to address these shortfalls in a timely fashion?
        Answer. Yes, MDA and the U.S. Navy plan to increase the number of
    BMD capable ships from 21 today to 38 by the end of 2015 as stated in
    the Additional Requirements for Investment in Aegis Ballistic Missile
    Defense Report to Congress (RTC) dated April 2010. In support of this
    plan, Navy has requested a transfer $15 million of fiscal year 2010
    funds to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to accelerate the number of
    Aegis BMD ships. The reprogramming package was forwarded to Congress in
    April 2010. In order to further complete these accelerated BMD ship
    upgrades the Navy has also requested the transfer of $74 million in
    President's budget 2011 from the Navy to MDA.
             nato--active layered theater ballistic missile defense
        Question. General O'Reilly, the Quadrennial Defense Review released
    earlier this year stresses a focus on building partnerships with
    overseas allies. I understand we are beginning to integrate different
    components from various NATO allies to form a tiered active ballistic
    missile defense system. Can you highlight the United States'
    contribution and cost for this effort and does it replace what we
    already have established with these allies?
        Answer. MDA has been working with NATO for more than a decade. Over
    the years, the MDA and NATO have worked collaboratively on developing
    documentation and demonstrating interoperability. This ongoing work has
    gained significant momentum since NATO established the Active Layered
    Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense Programme Office (ALTBMD PO) in 2005.
    This work is the foundation of the efforts to develop interoperable
    missile defense capabilities with our NATO allies.
        Specifics include:
      --Current MDA budget for this is fiscal year 2010: $2.75 million;
            fiscal year 2011: $3 million; fiscal year 2012: $3 million.
      --MDA and the ALTBMD PO jointly developed Interface Control Documents
            (ICDs) for real-time and non-real-time information exchange.
        --Real-time ICDs document the exchange of situational awareness
                information between NATO Air Command and Control System and
                the U.S. C\2\BMC, Aegis BMD, and Patriot systems.
        --Non-real-time ICDs document the exchange of planning and tasking
                information between U.S. and NATO missile defense command
                and control systems.
      --MDA and NATO have conducted bi-lateral testing of real-time
            information exchange between C\2\BMC, Aegis BMD, and Patriot
            systems and a prototype of the NATO Air Command and Control
            System.
      --Non-real-time exchange of planning and tasking information has been
            demonstrated between the U.S. C\2\BMC planner and the NATO
            planning and tasking tool (PlaTo).
      --MDA and NATO ALTBMD PO are developing the necessary testing
            infrastructure.
        --International Point of Presence (IPOP) laboratory serves as the
                U.S. interface between NATO missile defense Integration
                Test Bed in The Hague, The Netherlands and U.S. missile
                defense laboratories.
        The United States and NATO have begun discussions for a Memorandum
    of Agreement regarding modifications at Ramstein, AFB, to be the
    operational communications interface point. Information exchange
    between U.S. Phased Adaptive Architecture systems (via C\2\BMC) and
    ALTBMD systems will occur between the U.S. teleport on Ramstein and the
    NATO General Communication System at Ramstein. The United States has
    built bi-lateral communications enclaves for several Host Nations.
    Expanded connectivity with Allies is anticipated to be via Ramstein.
        A strong foundation has been documented, built and tested for
    interoperability between U.S. and Allied forces. Our current efforts do
    not replace what we have established with our NATO allies; it leverages
    our past efforts with the existing and planned NATO command and control
    systems. Subsequent work will build upon this foundation.
                                sm-3 missile gap
        Question. General O'Reilly, I understand a major component of the
    Missile Defense Phased Adaptive Approach strategy involves the use of
    Ballistic Missile Defense-capable Aegis ships equipped with SM-3
    missiles. I have been informed that while the Missile Defense Agency
    continues developing the newest and more capable version of the SM-3
    missile, the Block IB, the main production line for the current
    version, the Block IA, is shutting down. What are the costs associated
    with restarting the production line for the updated SM-3 missile once
    the line for the old missile has been shut down, and have you or do you
    plan to budget for these additional costs?
        Answer. The overall production line for the Standard Missile-3 (SM-
    3) missile will not shut down. The last SM-3 Block IA is scheduled for
    delivery in fiscal year 2012, at which time the SM-3 production line
    will transition from the Block IA configuration to the Block IB
    configuration, completing in 2013. In the interim time period, we will
    cease procuring unique Block IA parts and start buying unique Block IB
    parts. After Calendar Year 2010, the majority of Block IA unique
    suppliers will be out of qualification. The SM-3 Block IB production
    line will require some new, different test equipment and assembling
    processes.
        There is no cost to restart the SM-3 production line as work on the
    line (either production or transition) never ceases. The cost
    associated with transitioning the SM-3 production line is $55 million
    over 3 years. President's budget 2011 contains a portion of that cost.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
        Question. General O'Reilly, at the present time, only two U.S.
    companies produce solid rocket motors for all of our nation's needs,
    and only one company manufactures their most key ingredient: the
    oxidizer. These three companies support all missile defense programs,
    plus all strategic missiles, military, and commercial space lift
    capabilities, NASA human spaceflight systems, and the entire cadre of
    tactical missiles available to today's war fighter. Since the early
    1990s, NASA has served as the anchor tenant for this industry,
    providing a stable backbone to offset the often inconsistent production
    requirements of military and commercial programs. However, demand for
    products made by the solid rocket motor industry has been in steady
    decline for many years, and is right now experiencing a further
    dramatic drop with the completion of the Minuteman III Propulsion
    Replacement Program, the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the
    termination of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and the production
    slowdown of Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors. Now, NASA has
    announced the cancellation of the Constellation program. This will have
    a significant impact on industry's ability to continue to safely,
    reliably, and affordably produce solid rocket motors to meet our
    nation's needs. What plans has the Missile Defense Agency made to
    sustain this industry, to continue to meet current deployed and future
    anticipated missile defense needs? I recognize that, in response to
    direction from the Congress last year, that the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense is developing a roadmap on how to best sustain this
    industry. What inputs have you or your agency provided to that ongoing
    study? Have you had any conversations with other government agencies,
    such as NASA, about the need to sustain this industry, and if so,
    please share with us any concerns you may have expressed about the
    impact of NASA's decision on your ability to meet current and future
    missile defense requirements?
        Answer. MDA's long-term plan to sustain the high-tech Solid Rocket
    Motor (SRM) Industrial Base (IB) includes supporting the SRM IB Inter-
    Agency Task Force (IATF) development of a SRM Sustainment Plan. MDA
    believes that we need:
      --To work with industry to ``right size'' and align capacity to
            reality;
      --To ensure long-term capability to produce small and large SRMs
            (missile defense and tactical systems); and
      --To closely monitor the already fragile critical sub-tier supplier
            base.
        MDA is working closely with the OSD Solid Rocket Motor (SRM)
    Industrial Base (IB) Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) on the development
    of an integrated roadmap that includes DOD, MDA and NASA requirements.
    MDA's participation in the IATF Working Group (IWG) involves hosting
    the IWG meetings, participating in industry site visits and assessments
    and

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. The subcommittee will stand in recess
    until Wednesday, May 12, and at that time we'll receive
    testimony from the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air
    Force to discuss the Air Force's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request.
        We'll be in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Wednesday, April 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 11:01 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Dorgan, Murray, Cochran,
    Bond, Bennett, and Brownback.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. All right. First, I would like to
    apologize for our lateness. We had a few votes.
        This morning, we welcome back the Honorable Michael Donley,
    Secretary of the Air Force, and General Norton Schwartz, the
    Air Force Chief of Staff. And we thank you for being here as
    the subcommittee reviews the Air Force's budget request for
    fiscal year 2011.
        For fiscal year 2011 the Air Force is requesting $150
    billion in base budget. This funding level is an increase of
    $15.3 billion over last year's enacted budget, excluding
    funding appropriated in fiscal year 2010 supplemental.
        The Air Force is also requesting $20.8 billion for overseas
    contingency operations for fiscal year 2011, and $6.1 billion
    for the remainder of fiscal year 2010, primarily to fund the
    surge operations in Afghanistan.
        The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasized the
    need to prevail in today's wars, while building the
    capabilities to deal with future threats. The fiscal year 2011
    budget request is consistent with these goals.
        The Air Force's budget supports its highest priorities,
    which are to strengthen air, space, and cyber capabilities to
    help win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the Air
    Force continues to invest in intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR) programs. These assets, such as the MC-12
    Liberty aircraft and Reapers and Predator unmanned aerial
    vehicles (UAV's) are significantly improving the situational
    awareness of our forces in the area.
        Success in getting timely information to the warfighter
    directly depends on having the manpower available to pilot the
    vehicles and to provide actionable intelligence. The Air Force
    will allocate more than 3,600 employees to support the
    processing, exploitation, and dissemination of intelligence
    collected by manned and remotely piloted vehicles by the end of
    fiscal year 2011. The Air Force will be operating 50 continuous
    combat air patrols with remotely piloted vehicles in the
    theater.
        And the subcommittee is pleased with the way the Air Force
    has rapidly increased the intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance capabilities to meet high theater demands, and
    interested in how these assets will become part of the enduring
    force structure.
        While fully engaging in the present conflicts, the Air
    Force is also aggressively addressing deficiencies in the older
    mission, the nuclear enterprise. The Air Force implemented a
    number of measures to strengthen stewardship of its nuclear
    arsenal, including the creation of Air Force Global Strike
    Command in August 2009. This action was a significant step in
    revitalizing the commitment to high safety and compliance
    standards in this critical mission.
        The budget also portrays the Air Force preparing for the
    future. Funds are requested to initiate the new tanker program
    and begin the requirements work for the new, next-generation
    bomber.
        So, too, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program is funded
    consistent with the Department's most recent cost, schedule,
    and performance assessments. These are all important
    recapitalization efforts.
        The budget also contains substantial investment in space
    and space-related systems, including both major satellite
    programs and small efforts, like the Operation Ally Responsive
    Space Program, which focuses on rapid and innovative
    technologies.
        Looking to the future, the Air Force has a number of
    challenges, from modernizing aircraft and other equipment to
    ensuring that there is adequate manning for growing missions,
    such as cybersecurity, ISR, and the acquisition workforce.
        The subcommittee is interested in understanding how the Air
    Force is addressing these challenges. Yesterday, the Air Force
    announced its force structure plans for 2011. We hope our
    witnesses will address the proposed changes and their impact on
    the force capability and readiness.
        So, gentlemen, we sincerely appreciate your service to our
    Nation, and recognize the dedication and services made dearly
    by the men and women of our Air Force. We could not be more
    grateful for what those who wear our Nation's uniform do for
    our country each and every day.
        And I look forward to our testimony this morning. And your
    full statements will be included in the record.
        And at this moment, the vice chairman is still at the
    voting chamber, so I will call upon Senator Bond, if he has any
    statement to make.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I asked
    him to be sure and start the timer, because I've got a lot to
    say, but I join with you in welcoming Secretary Donley and
    General Schwartz. We welcome you back to the subcommittee.
    Thank you for your service.
        Mr. Secretary, I especially want to thank you for attending
    the launch of the Senate Aerospace Caucus last week with
    Senator Murray.
        We believe the American aerospace industry has made our
    Nation the global leader in the civil aviation sector, and has
    helped produce the strongest military in the world. Despite its
    importance, not only to our military and to our economy, we all
    recognize the industry faces several challenges.
        And Senator Murray and I look forward to working with you
    and the rest of the Aerospace Caucus to elevate the awareness
    about the challenges and the efforts to protect a strong and
    competitive American aerospace industrial base.
        But, in addition to that, I am very much concerned about
    the ability of the Air National Guard to continue to operate
    amid the looming shortfalls and the age of our aircraft.
        Mr. Secretary and General, let me dive right in. I am
    afraid we are looking at a backdoor base realignment and
    closure (BRAC) on the Air Guard. In my view, no progress or
    proactive steps have been taken to address, substantively, the
    looming tactical airpower (TACAIR) bathtub in the Air Guard.
    That's first.
        All I continue to hear about are plans to reduce the size
    of the Air Force and the Air Guard. The Air Guard cannot be
    expected to give up aircraft and missions in the near term,
    only to be told they will eventually be provided with new,
    still undefined missions later, or be told that the Joint
    Strike Fighter replacements are coming, when we all know they
    will not be available in time. Such a leap of faith will result
    in the atrophy of a number of Air Guard units that won't be
    able to train or recruit without viable replacement missions or
    aircraft.
        But, I'm afraid that's exactly what we are doing. That's
    why I've labeled it, I believe appropriately, as a ``backdoor
    BRAC'' of Air National Guard units. This backdoor BRAC will
    threaten our ability to police our Nation's skies, a roll of
    the dice with our national security that I'm not willing to
    take, and I don't think anybody here should.
        Further, I don't subscribe to the overall line of thinking
    that we have to accept a smaller Air Force. It's my strong view
    the falsehood is being driven by a thorough--not by a thorough
    analysis of foreseeable threats and requirements, but by self-
    fulfilling Pentagon budget studies and the extreme cost
    overruns and scheduling delays of a major program like JSF.
        Delays in cost growth from the JSF are sucking all the
    oxygen and resources out of other procurement needs. That
    results in our pilots flying aircraft that are, in many
    instances, older than they are. That ought to be unacceptable
    for the world's greatest superpower.
        In addition, the threat to the Air Guard and their critical
    missions to defend our Nation's skies, going down the current
    path is a threat to our defense industrial base. The Air Force
    long-term budget contains few new programs of the kind required
    to retain engineers and designers that will preserve our air
    dominance in the years to come.
        Secretary Gates killed or scaled back almost 50 major U.S.
    defense programs last year, but still poured billions more into
    a program that has had a Nunn-McCurdy breach--a big-time
    breach, a huge cost overrun on the JSF. Without other new
    programs, aerospace engineering and design skills will atrophy.
    With the atrophy of the defense industrial base which we've
    been seeing since the 1990s, innovation will be stifled and a
    lack of competition will lead to higher price tags for new
    platforms that will be procured in smaller numbers. Does that
    sound familiar?
        With the threats to our long-term and short-term security
    emanating from all over the globe, and for places where 4.5
    aircraft could meet the needs, I think it's important to
    maintain a quantitative edge, as well as it's important to
    maintain a quality edge. As capable as an F-22 is, it cannot be
    in three places at once.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you and await the questions.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Leahy.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And because of the new Supreme Court nominee, I have to go
    to meet up with her. But, I am delighted to see Secretary
    Donley and General Schwartz here.
        I have some questions I will submit for the record, with
    the Chairman's----
        Chairman Inouye. It will be.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. Permission, Mr. Secretary, on
    community basing, especially the initiative in Burlington,
    Vermont.
        I'm very interested in knowing the answers. I hope that you
    could call me with the answers, or that your staff could work
    with mine to provide a response.
        And, of course, the so-called fighter bathtub issue that's
    looming over the Guard--Senator Bond and I are cochairs of the
    Senate National Guard Caucus, and we're both concerned about
    that.
        So, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will submit those
    questions for the record.
        I'm delighted to see Secretary Donley here. We've had a
    chance to chat on other occasions. It's great to be here with
    him, and also with General Schwartz, who I've talked with on
    other occasions.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I know that the Air Force has been through a couple of
    years of some--2 or 3 years of some real turbulence and
    difficulties and embarrassments, and so on. And I just want to
    observe that I think the Secretary and the Chief have taken
    action to provide some stability. And I think things are on
    track in the Air Force. I appreciate, very much, their
    leadership.
        And even while saying that, I don't want to cast aspersions
    on some of the others. I understand the captain of the ship is
    responsible for all that goes on in the ship, but the Air Force
    has had some good leadership over time, and I appreciate the
    willingness of the Secretary and the Chief to serve.
        Let me just say, I think the least surprising development
    in the last decade was: If you go to war and wage war for 8
    years halfway around the world, and don't pay for one penny of
    it, but just put it all on emergency spending, don't ask the
    taxpayers to pay for it; charge it all as emergency spending--
    that someday you're going to run up against defense with no
    gate. And that's what Secretary Gates, I think, was saying the
    other day.
        This country can't continue to do that. Its fiscal policy
    is absurd. We know better than this. And so, it puts an
    enormous pinch on services like the Air Force.
        My colleague raised a point about the new fighter. I mean,
    I think it is the case that all of us are concerned about the
    per-unit costs of the planes we're buying. It's not just
    planes. It's every piece of equipment for the military. The
    per-unit cost continues to go up, up, and up. And that's a
    great concern.
        But, I think Secretary Gates is saying the right things
    publicly, and with some courage. We've got to address all of
    these issues. This will not be a time, going forward, like the
    time that we've just seen. And wherever--whatever someone
    needs, ``It's fine. We'll just pay for it and charge it.''
        Let me also say that I visited Creech Air Force Base last
    Friday, and had briefings on the unmanned aerial vehicles
    (UAVs). And it's very interesting to me, as it has always been,
    that that represents, in many ways, the future of the Air
    Force. I mean, we fly, as you--all of us know, fighter missions
    out of the most unusual places in this country, real time, with
    unmanned aerial vehicles, halfway around the world, with the
    most sophisticated satellite, and so on. It's pretty
    unbelievable.
        And I also think that much of what we're going to be
    discussing, going forward, is what this new paradigm--this new
    unmanned aerial vehicle system means, in terms of how we fight,
    how we train, and all of those issues.
        And I just want to say, General Schwartz, the folks that
    you have at Creech, the commander and others, are really first-
    rate. And I had a chance to observe those who are flying the
    UAVs, and I came away mightily impressed, as I always do, but
    especially, I think--it's the first place where we've had these
    unmanned aerial vehicle operations, I think, starting maybe 8,
    9 years ago. But, it's an extraordinary place.
        So, I have a few questions. I'm not sure I'm going to be
    able to stay for all of it, today. But, I thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for inviting the Secretary and the Chief.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        The vice chairman.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    convening the hearing.
        I join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses at this
    hearing. They have very important responsibilities in managing
    the Air Force and making sure that we are protecting our
    national security interests with the best there is. And we
    appreciate that very much.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Murray.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for having
    this hearing.
        And, Secretary Donley, I join with Senator Bond in thanking
    you for joining us for our first meeting of the Aerospace
    Caucus. It's extremely important that we begin to look at long-
    term planning to make sure that we maintain our aerospace
    industry in this country, for all the reasons that are
    important to our military, as well as our economy and in the
    future. And I appreciate your participation in that.
        I do have a number of questions, and I will use those
    during my question time.
        And again, welcome, to both of you.
        And thank you for having this hearing.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        And now, Mr. Secretary.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY

        Mr. Donley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee.
        It is truly an honor to be here today representing almost
    680,000 Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve airmen and Air Force
    civilians. I'm also honored to be here with General Schwartz,
    who has been a tremendous partner and a tireless public
    servant, especially over the past couple of years, in addition
    to a very long and distinguished career, prior to this
    assignment.
        I'm pleased to report, today, that America's Air Force
    continues to make progress in strengthening our contributions
    as part of the joint team and the overall excellence that is
    the hallmark of our service.
        We're requesting $150 billion in our baseline budget, and
    $20.8 billion in the overseas contingency operations
    supplemental appropriation to support this work.
        In the past year, and planning for the future, we've
    focused on balancing our resources and risk among the four
    objectives outlined by Secretary Gates in the 2010 QDR.

                          FOUR OBJECTIVES IN 2010 QDR

        First, as the chairman noted, we must prevail in today's
    wars. Your Air Force understands the gravity of the situation
    in Afghanistan. And, as we continue to responsibly draw down
    our forces in Iraq, we are committed to rapidly fielding the
    needed capabilities for the joint team, such as surging ISR
    assets into the theater and maximizing air mobility to
    accelerate the flow of forces into Afghanistan.
        Second, we must prevent and deter conflict across the
    spectrum of warfare. And as we assess potential implications of
    the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and the new Strategic Arms
    Reduction (START) Treaty, we continue concentrating on the
    safety, security, and sustainment of two legs of the Nation's
    nuclear arsenal.
        Last year, we stood up the Air Force Global Strike Command,
    and we now have realigned our intercontinental ballistic
    missile (ICBM) and nuclear capable bomber wings under the
    control of a single commander. We also realigned
    responsibilities to the Nuclear Weapons Center to consolidate
    the management of all our nuclear weapon sustainment
    activities.
        And to increase our engagement across the world, we're
    building partner capacity, in Afghanistan and Iraq especially,
    and developing a training framework that emphasizes light
    attack and mobility that can benefit other nations.
        Third, we must prepare to defeat adversaries and to succeed
    in a wide range of conflicts. We need to ensure we're providing
    the right capabilities with our strategic airlift and ISR
    platforms, and ensure that our space-based assets continue to
    deliver needed capabilities into the future.
        In addition, the last two decades of sustained operations
    have strained our weapons systems. We continue to determine
    which aircraft we will modernize and sustain, and which we must
    retire and recapitalize. One of our primary efforts includes
    retiring and recapitalizing many of our legacy fighters and
    tankers, and replacing them with the F-35 and the KC-X.
        These decisions require tough choices as well as the
    ability to quickly field systems that meet warfighter needs at
    an affordable price. Because acquisition underpins this effort,
    we're continuing our work to recapture excellence in this area,
    as well. And in the past year, we've made significant strides
    in reforming our internal processes. We've added more program
    executive officers and are growing our acquisition workforce by
    several thousand professionals over the next 5 years.
        Finally, we need to preserve and to enhance our All
    Volunteer Force. Airmen are our most valuable resource, and
    they have performed superbly in every mission and deployment
    they've undertaken.

                          YEAR OF THE AIR FORCE FAMILY

        With the understanding that their families serve alongside
    them, in July of last year, the Chief of Staff, the chief
    master sergeant of the Air Force, and I began a year-long focus
    on our men and women, and their families. This ``Year of the
    Air Force Family'' recognizes their sacrifices and looks to
    determine how we can better support, develop, house, and
    educate them. As this effort draws to a close later this
    summer, we're determining which programs are performing well,
    and where we can do better.
        Mr. Chairman, your Air Force is performing exceptionally
    well in supporting the current fights; responding to growing
    demands and shifting personnel priorities on short notice. But,
    we're increasingly stressed inside the continental United
    States. Rebuilding nuclear expertise will require continued
    determination and patience. And we are taking more risk in
    nondeployed force readiness. And, as you mentioned, Mr.
    Chairman, we're facing significant challenges in modernization
    and in our infrastructure.
        At the same time, however, we are developing and fielding
    new technologies and capabilities that bode very well for our
    future. I can tell you, after a recent trip to the U.S. Central
    Command area, that we are recruiting and training some
    incredible airmen. General Schwartz and I can, again, confirm
    that the Air Force is blessed with an outstanding civilian and
    military leadership team to help us address these challenges.
        Our priorities are clear. We must make the most of those
    resources available to balance capability against risk,
    balancing winning today's wars against preparing for
    tomorrow's. We need to prevail in today's fights, and we
    continue to add capability in every way possible to help ensure
    the success of ongoing conflicts. We must prevent and deter
    future conflict, where we can, and continue to be prepared for
    and succeed across this full spectrum of conflict. And finally,
    we must continue to preserve our airmen and their families, for
    they are truly our hedge against an uncertain future.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We're very grateful for the subcommittee's support in this
    work, and we look forward to working with you and to answering
    your questions today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael B. Donley
        The Air Force Posture Statement presents our vision of Global
    Vigilance, Reach and Power as a vital component of the Joint team,
    defending our National interests, and guided by our core values of
    Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do.
                                  introduction
        Today, the United States confronts a dynamic international
    environment marked by security challenges of unprecedented diversity.
    Along with our Joint partners, the Air Force will defend and advance
    the interests of the United States by providing unique capabilities to
    succeed in current conflicts while preparing to counter future threats
    to our national security. Over the last year, the Air Force made great
    strides in strengthening the precision and reliability that is our
    hallmark.
                                strategic focus
        This year offers an opportunity to fully integrate our Service
    posture with a new National Security Strategy, the Department of
    Defense Quadrennial Defense Review, and strategic reviews of the
    Nation's space, nuclear, and ballistic missile defense postures.
    Balance is the defining principle linking this budget request to our
    strategic guidance.
        In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Secretary of Defense
    established four U.S. defense objectives to guide our current actions
    as well as to plan for the future: prevail in today's wars, prevent and
    deter conflict, prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide
    range of contingencies, and preserve and enhance the all-volunteer
    force. In accordance with this guidance, the Air Force developed the
    2011 budget request to enhance our capabilities to meet these
    objectives, while balancing risk appropriately. As the future security
    environment will require a range of agile and flexible capabilities,
    investments for today's conflict will also support our efforts to
    prepare, prevent, and prevail, and preserve well into the future.
        Prevail in Today's Wars.--Our investments in intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well as airlift, command and
    control, and building partner capacity reinforce the prominence of this
    priority in our budget request. In addition, nearly 30,000 deployed
    Airmen daily provide key capabilities in direct support of combat
    operations.
        Prevent and Deter Conflict.--The Air Force made significant
    resource and cultural investments in reinvigorating our portion of the
    Nation's nuclear deterrence over the past 18 months. We are now
    institutionalizing these successes to ensure the highest standards
    across the nuclear enterprise. Our initial investments in a family of
    long-range strike capabilities mark our commitment to sustaining power
    projection capabilities for the next several decades.
        Prepare to Defeat Adversaries and Succeed in a Wide Range of
    Contingencies.--This priority directly reflects the Air Force emphasis
    on balancing our commitments to today's conflicts against preparing for
    mid- and long-term risks. Awarding a contract this year to recapitalize
    our aging tanker force is our top acquisition priority. Similarly, the
    F-35 will be the workhorse of the fighter force for decades to come.
    Our investment in this program is timed with other modernization
    initiatives and divestment plans to ensure sufficient capabilities are
    available to deter and defeat potential enemies.
        Preserve and Enhance the All-Volunteer Force.--Preserving and
    enhancing our all-volunteer force provides the foundation required for
    our flexible and agile posture. This budget reflects a commitment to
    enhancing our force through education and training, while also
    bolstering the overall quality of life of Airmen and their families.
                             strategy to resources
        As we prepared the budget request described by this Posture
    Statement, we structured our resource choices by balancing the twelve
    Air Force Core Functions across the near- and long-term. When
    considered together, the Core Functions encompass the full range of Air
    Force capabilities, and serve as the framework for this Posture
    Statement. While this document describes the core functions
    individually, we recognize their inherent interdependence within not
    just the Air Force, but also within the Joint force and the whole of
    government.
        Air Force Core Functions.--Nuclear deterrence operations; air
    superiority; space superiority; cyberspace superiority; global
    precision attack; rapid global mobility; special operations; global
    integrated ISR; command and control; personnel recovery; building
    partnerships; and agile combat support.
                         nuclear deterrence operations
        Since its inception, the Air Force has served as a proud and
    disciplined steward of a large portion of the Nation's nuclear arsenal.
    We steadfastly maintain and secure nuclear weapons to deter potential
    adversaries, and to assure our partners that we are a reliable force
    providing global stability.
        The first Air Force priority during the last 2 years has been to
    reinvigorate the stewardship, accountability, compliance, and precision
    within the nuclear enterprise. This mission demands perfection. Last
    year we reorganized our nuclear forces, consolidating responsibility
    into a clear chain of command. All nuclear operations are under the
    command of the Air Force Global Strike Command and all sustainment
    activities are controlled by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center. We
    also added a fourth B-52 squadron to enhance nuclear surety through
    greater mission focus. We continued these advancements in fiscal year
    2010 by reassigning Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and
    nuclear bomber forces to Air Force Global Strike Command as it proceeds
    toward full operational capability.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request continues to invest in
    sustaining the Air Force's ICBM and bomber fleets. We will invest $295
    million across the FYDP to replace fuzing mechanisms, and to sustain
    test equipment and environmental control systems for the aging, but
    capable, Minuteman III ICBM weapon system.
        As we begin work to develop a future Long Range Strike capability,
    we recognize the need to continue investing in our legacy bomber
    fleets, including nearly $800 million for modernization. This budget
    request provides the B-52, initially designed in the early 1950s, with
    an internal precision-guided weapons capability, a new radar, and a
    modern and effective anti-skid system. This request funds modernization
    of B-2 analog defensive systems to ensure continued survivability
    against increasingly capable air defense systems. Additionally, the UH-
    1N replacement program supporting missile launch complexes is on track
    and we anticipate initial operating capability by fiscal year 2015.
                                air superiority
        Air superiority is a necessary precondition for most U.S. military
    operations. American ground forces have operated without fear of enemy
    aircraft since 1953. Although we operate in uncontested airspace in
    current conflicts, we cannot assume this will be the case in the
    future. The emergence of modern air defenses challenges the ability of
    the Air Force to achieve air superiority. Potential adversaries are
    leveraging readily accessible technologies by modifying existing
    airframes with improved radars, sensors, jammers, and weapons. In
    addition, several nations are pursuing fifth-generation aircraft
    capable of all-aspect, low-observable signatures, and fully integrated
    avionics and sensors. Adversary nations are also turning to advanced
    surface-to-air missiles to augment or even substitute for aircraft
    modernization efforts. The proliferation of these sophisticated and
    increasingly affordable weapons presents an area denial capability that
    challenges our legacy fleet. As the range of potential threats evolves,
    the Air Force will rely on the F-22 Raptor as the workhorse of the air
    superiority fighter force for the foreseeable future. Complementing our
    187 modernized F-22s, we will continue to rely on F-15C/D aircraft to
    provide an important component of our air superiority capability.
        Our fiscal year 2010 budget included plans to accelerate the
    retirement of some legacy fighter aircraft to pave the way for a
    smaller but more capable fighter force. As we work with the Congress to
    execute this important plan, we continue to aggressively modernize our
    air superiority fleet, including upgrading fielded F-22s to ensure
    fleet commonality with current deliveries. Additionally, we began
    modernizing 176 F-15Cs with the new APG-63(v)3 Active Electronically
    Scanned Array (AESA) radar. Along with these modifications, we are
    continuing the development and procurement of the AIM-9X and AIM-120D
    air-to-air missiles.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $12.5 billion in the FYDP to
    sustain America's air superiority advantage. To continue F-22
    modifications, this request includes $1.34 billion to continue fleet
    commonality upgrades, improving reliability and maintainability, and
    adding training enhancements for the fleet. Building on the multi-role
    nature of our most advanced aircraft, this request also includes $1.19
    billion to add precision attack capabilities such as the Small Diameter
    Bomb. The Air Force will also continue the development and procurement
    of air-to-air munitions and defenses for the F-22 such as the AIM-9X,
    AIM-120D, and electronic warfare capabilities. To sustain our legacy
    aircraft viability, we included $92 million to continue the upgrades
    and modifications to the new F-15 AESA radar. Recognizing that
    Electronic Warfare remains an integral part of air superiority, we
    request $251 million in fiscal year 2011 for upgrades to the EC-130H
    Compass Call fleet. This request includes the conversion of an
    additional EC-130H, as well as a combined flight deck and mission crew
    simulator to increase training capacity.
                               space superiority
        America's ability to operate across the spectrum of conflict relies
    heavily on space capabilities developed and operated by the Air Force.
    We support the Joint force by developing, integrating, and operating in
    six key mission areas: missile warning; space situational awareness
    (SSA); military satellite communications; positioning, navigation and
    timing; space access; and weather.
        To enhance space support to the Joint force, we are increasing
    communications capability in fiscal year 2010 through two satellite
    communications programs, the Wideband Global Satellite (WGS) program to
    replace the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS), and
    Advanced Extremely High Frequency system for protected communications.
    We launched the second and third WGS satellites in fiscal year 2010;
    each WGS satellite provides the equivalent capacity of the entire
    legacy DSCS constellation. Additionally, the second on-orbit Space-
    Based Infrared System Highly Elliptical Orbit payload was fully
    certified by United States Strategic Command to perform strategic
    missile warning. Finally, spacelift remains the backbone for national
    security space with a record 64 consecutive successful missions.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for $10.9 billion will improve
    our stewardship of space with investment in space and space-related
    support systems. With these resources, we will field several first-of-
    their-kind systems--Global Positioning System Block IIF, Space Based
    Space Surveillance System, and Advanced Extremely High Frequency
    satellite communications system. This request proposes $1.2 billion for
    the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, $1.8 billion for the
    Space Based Infrared System, and $1.3 billion for GPS. We also included
    $135 million for Joint Space Operation Center Mission System to improve
    SSA capabilities, and $94 million for the Operationally Responsive
    Space program to pursue innovative capabilities that can be rapidly
    developed and fielded in months rather than years. We request $577
    million to fully fund WGS to meet combatant commander bandwidth
    requirements. Moreover, we will continue to maintain SSA ground-based
    systems and explore space-based capabilities to ensure our continued
    freedom to operate in this domain.
                             cyberspace superiority
        Cyber threats ranging from individual hackers to criminal
    organizations to state-sponsored cyber intrusions can challenge access
    to, and use of, this domain. Although the freedom to operate in the
    cyber domain is a precondition for our increasingly networked force,
    many of our potential adversaries are similarly adopting information-
    enabled technology, rendering them vulnerable to cyber attack as well.
    Threats to freedom of access to the cyber domain present both
    challenges and opportunities.
        In fiscal year 2010 we continued the development and
    institutionalization of cyberspace capabilities and integration into
    the Joint cyberspace structure. The newly activated 24th Air Force, the
    first Numbered Air Force dedicated to cyberspace operations, recently
    achieved initial operational capability and has been designated the Air
    Force component for the sub-unified U.S. Cyber Command. We are also
    focusing on cyber personnel by normalizing the cyber career path and
    adding technical education courses.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request reflects a continued commitment
    to cyber superiority. We request $31 million for expanded rapid cyber
    acquisition capabilities to keep pace with dynamic adversaries and
    fast-paced advances in technology. In support of the national cyber
    effort, this budget request dedicates $104 million to support
    operations and leased space for headquarters staff at the sub-unified
    U.S. Cyber Command. Additionally, we propose adding $15 million and
    additional manpower over the next 5 years to increase the investigative
    and law enforcement aspects of cyberspace defense.
                            global precision attack
        Global Precision Attack is the ability to hold any target at risk,
    across the air, land, and sea domains. Many of our global precision
    attack forces are meeting the current requirements of ongoing
    contingency operations by performing precision strike and intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support roles. In the longer
    term, however, the proliferation of area denial and anti-access
    capabilities will challenge the ability of current fourth-generation
    fighters and legacy bombers to penetrate contested airspace.
        The Air Force budget request in fiscal year 2010 recognized these
    developments and continued improvements to aircraft and weapons
    capabilities. This year, we will take delivery of 10 F-35s for
    developmental testing and to train test pilots. We are also modernizing
    legacy fighter aircraft to maintain sufficient capability and capacity
    until the F-35 fleet is fully operational, and are continuing to
    develop programs for preferred air-to-ground weapons. Upon completion
    of the required reports to the Congress later this year, we will
    implement the planned reduction of 257 legacy fighters. We have had
    mixed results in test drops of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator;
    however, we are closely monitoring the progress of this important
    capability, and future successes likely will result in a reprogramming
    request to accelerate its development in fiscal year 2010. Finally,
    continued development of the second increment of the Small Diameter
    Bomb will give the Air Force even greater capability and flexibility.
        Our $14.4 billion Global Precision Attack request for fiscal year
    2011 reflects a balanced approach across the portfolio, prioritizing
    investment in fifth-generation aircraft while sustaining legacy
    platforms as a bridge to the F-35.
    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
        The multi-role F-35 is a critical element of the Air Force's future
    precision attack capability. In addition to complementing the F-22's
    world class air superiority capabilities, the F-35 is designed to
    penetrate air defenses and deliver a wide range of precision munitions.
    This modern, fifth-generation aircraft brings the added benefit of
    increased allied interoperability and cost-sharing across services and
    partner nations.
        Working in close collaboration with DOD, the F-35 program team
    realized a number of accomplishments over the last year, to include the
    first flight of the first optimized conventional take-off and landing
    (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) variant--aircraft AF-1.
        Despite these important accomplishments, the program is
    experiencing program challenges as it transitions from development to
    production. Last year, DOD conducted multiple, independent reviews to
    assess the impact of these challenges on the program's cost, schedule,
    and technical performance. The results were consistent with a previous
    fiscal year 2008 DOD independent assessment that projected a cost
    increase and schedule slip.
        The challenges being experienced are not unusual for this phase of
    a major program. However, we are disappointed by the contractor's
    failure to deliver flight test aircraft as scheduled during the past
    year. The result of the late deliveries will be a delay in the flight
    test program. Although there appear to be recent improvements, the
    contractor also has been experiencing assembly inefficiencies that must
    be corrected to support higher production rates.
        In response to the challenges still facing the program and the
    findings of the independent reviews, we have taken numerous management
    actions to reduce risk. Most significantly we have determined that it
    is prudent to adjust the schedule and funding to levels consistent with
    the most recent independent estimates. These cost and schedule
    adjustments require that we initiate the process to confirm the program
    is in breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act criteria, and details will be
    reported later this spring.
        The F-35 is our largest and most important program and we are
    dedicated to successfully delivering these aircraft to both the United
    States and to our international partners in this effort. The Air Force
    fiscal year 2011 budget includes $5.6 billion for continued development
    and procurement of 22 CTOL production aircraft.
    Long-range Strike
        Investments in our B-52 and B-2 fleets sustain nuclear deterrence
    operations as well as conventional global precision attack capabilities
    in the near-term, but we are adding research and development funds to
    accelerate development of enhanced long-range strike capabilities.
    Building upon insights developed during the Quadrennial Defense Review
    (QDR), the Secretary of Defense has ordered a follow-on study to
    determine what combination of Joint persistent surveillance, electronic
    warfare, and precision-attack capabilities will be best suited to
    support U.S. power projection operations over the next two to three
    decades. The study will examine both penetrating platforms and stand-
    off weapon options. As part of this assessment, the Air Force is
    reviewing options for fielding survivable, long-range surveillance and
    strike aircraft as part of a comprehensive, phased plan to modernize
    the bomber force. Additionally, the Navy and the Air Force are
    cooperatively assessing alternatives for a new Joint cruise missile.
    Finally, the Department of Defense also plans to analyze conventional
    prompt global strike prototypes and will assess the effects that these
    systems, if deployed, might have on strategic stability.
                             rapid global mobility
        The Air Force is committed to providing unmatched airlift and air
    refueling capability to the nation. Air Force mobility forces provide
    an essential deployment and sustainment capability for the Joint force,
    delivering personnel, equipment, and supplies necessary for missions
    ranging from conflict to humanitarian relief.
        We are releasing the Request for Proposal for a KC-X replacement
    tanker in early 2010, and will aggressively work toward awarding a
    contract later this year. Additionally, we completed the successful
    operational testing of the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engine
    Program (RERP) and will induct two more C-5Bs into low-rate initial
    production. For tactical airlift, we recently concluded a test of our
    Direct Support airlift concept and continue to work with the Army to
    rapidly and smartly transfer the C-27J program to the Air Force.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget reflects a balanced approach across the
    tanker and airlift portfolios, which prioritizes recapitalization of
    the oldest aircraft while ensuring the continued viability of the
    legacy fleet. Investments in tanker capability are heavily weighted
    towards the KC-X program--our top acquisition priority--and represent
    $11.7 billion in the FYDP. However, while moving aggressively to
    recapitalize the tanker fleet, we must also ensure the continued health
    of legacy aircraft. This budget request includes $680 million in the
    FYDP for airspace access modifications and sustainment of the KC-10 and
    KC-135 fleets.
        The Air Force Airlift budget request is focused on meeting mobility
    requirements in the most cost efficient way possible, recapitalizing
    only the oldest airlift aircraft. To ensure continued access to all
    airspace, this budget continues to modernize and modify C-5s and C-
    130Hs through Avionics Modernization Programs, and upgrades C-5B/Cs
    with RERP. To complete the recapitalization of C-130Es, we request $1.8
    billion over the next 5 years to procure 24 C-130Js. Additionally, in
    accordance with the preliminary results of the Mobility Capabilities
    and Requirements Study 2016, and subject to authorization by the
    Congress, we intend to retire some of the oldest, least capable C-5As
    and C-130H1s. We have also requested $38.9 million in fiscal year 2011
    to transition from C-17 procurement to sustainment.
                               special operations
        Air Force special operations capabilities play a vital role in
    supporting U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and geographic
    combatant commanders. As the Department of Defense increasingly
    develops irregular warfare capabilities, the Air Force is investing in
    special operations airlift, close air support, foreign internal
    defense, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
    capabilities.
        In fiscal year 2010 we focused on growing and recapitalizing the
    special operations aircraft inventory. By the end of the fiscal year,
    three MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft will be modified with the Precision
    Strike Package to provide additional armed overwatch capability for SOF
    forces. Additionally, we will deliver the 16th of 50 CV-22s.
        This fiscal year 2011 budget proposal includes $6.7 billion through
    the FYDP to continue growing and recapitalizing the Air Force Special
    Operations Command (AFSOC). In fiscal year 2011 we will procure five
    additional CV-22s and five MC-130Js for $1.1 billion. This request also
    includes $1.6 billion in the FYDP to start recapitalizing our AC-130H
    aircraft. We will rapidly recapitalize these aging aircraft through the
    procurement of 16 additional MC-130Js, modified with the proven
    Precision Strike Package. In fiscal year 2011 we will also increase
    AFSOC's manpower by 258 personnel by fiscal year 2015 to support the
    addition of 16 fixed-wing mobility and two rotary-wing aircraft.
             global intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
        The Air Force continues to rapidly increase its Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability and capacity to
    support combat operations. Air Force ISR provides timely, fused, and
    actionable intelligence to the Joint force, from forward deployed
    locations and globally distributed centers around the globe. The
    exceptional operational value of Air Force ISR assets has led Joint
    force commanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa to
    continually increase their requests for these forces. To help meet this
    demand, the Air Force currently has more than 90 percent of all
    available ISR assets deployed.
        In fiscal year 2010, we are quantitatively and qualitatively
    increasing aircraft, sensors, data links, ground stations, and
    personnel to address emergent requirements. Over the last 2 years, the
    Air Force increased the number of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA)
    fielded by 330 percent. We invested in a Wide Area Airborne
    Surveillance (WAAS) system for new and existing MQ-9s to provide up to
    50 video streams per sensor within a few years. By the summer of fiscal
    year 2010, a quick reaction capability version of WAAS known as Gorgon
    Stare will provide 10 video streams per MQ-9. Any ROVER-equipped ground
    force will be able to receive any of these feeds. We also added four
    RQ-4s, and graduated our first class of RPA-only pilots. Early in
    fiscal year 2010, we proposed a shift in the nomenclature from
    ``unmanned aircraft systems'' (or UAS) to ``remotely piloted aircraft''
    as part of normalizing this capability within the Air Force manpower
    structure and culture. We will also maintain our current JSTARS-based
    Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capability as we begin an
    Analysis of Alternatives to determine the future of GMTI.
        To complement remotely piloted capabilities, we are deploying MC-
    12W Project Liberty aircraft to the theater as fast as they can be
    delivered from the factory. This program progressed from ``concept to
    combat'' in a record 9 months, and has a deployed maintenance
    availability rate well above 90 percent.
        Because analysis transforms data into actionable intelligence, we
    are shifting approximately 3,600 of the 4,100 manpower billets
    recaptured from the early retirement of legacy fighters to support RPA
    operations, and the processing, exploitation, and dissemination of
    intelligence collected by manned and remotely piloted aircraft. We also
    doubled the number of ISR liaison officers assigned to deployed ground
    forces to ensure the seamless integration of ISR collection and
    exploitation assets.
        Our fiscal year 2011 budget proposal reflects the Joint force
    emphasis on ISR capacity, and builds on progress made in fiscal year
    2010. The Air Force will reach 50 RPA continuous, combat air patrols
    (CAPs) in theater by the end of fiscal year 2011. The budget request
    increases MC-12W funding to normalize training and basing posture, adds
    Wide Area Airborne Surveillance capability, and increases the total
    number of our RPA platforms to enable fielding up to 65 CAPs by the end
    of fiscal year 2013. As we request additional RQ-4 Global Hawks for
    high altitude ISR, we also intend to continue operating the U-2 at
    least throughout fiscal year 2013 as a risk mitigation effort. We will
    sustain our ISR processing, exploitation, and dissemination in the
    Distributed Common Ground System, providing critical distributed
    analysis without having to forward deploy more forces.
                              command and control
        Theater-wide command and control (C\2\) enables efficient and
    effective exploitation of the air, space, and cyber domain. The Air
    Force maintains significant C\2\ capabilities at the theater level.
    However, the highly decentralized nature of irregular warfare also
    places increased demands on lower echelons of command. Matching the
    range and flexibility of air, space, and cyberspace power to
    effectively meet tactical requirements requires a linked C\2\ structure
    at all echelons.
        This year, we are expanding our efforts to provide C\2\ at the
    tactical, operational, and strategic levels. In fiscal year 2011, the
    Air Force is requesting $30 million across the FYDP to fund equipment
    and assured communications for U.S. Strategic Command's Distributed
    Command and Control Node (DC\2\N), U.S. Northern Command's National
    Capital Region--Integrated Air Defense (NCR-IADS), and U.S. Africa
    Command's expanding air operations center. Tactically, we are
    increasing training pipelines for Joint Terminal Attack Controllers
    (JTACs), establishing an Air Liaison Officer career field, fielding
    advanced video downlink capabilities, and adding airborne radio and
    datalink gateways to improve the connectivity of air support operations
    centers and JTACS.
        In fiscal year 2011, the Air Force request also includes
    modernization and sustainment of both airborne and ground-based C\2\
    systems. For Air Force airborne C\2\, we request $275 million for the
    E-3 Block 40/45 upgrade program. This upgrade modernizes a 1970s-era
    computer network, eliminates many components that are no longer
    manufactured, and adds avionics to comply with Global Air Traffic
    Management standards. To improve ground-based tactical air control
    operations, we are increasing manpower in the control and reporting
    centers and investing $51.5 million with the U.S. Marine Corps for a
    follow-on ground-based radar capability supporting air and missile
    defense. This Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR)
    will be the future long-range, ground-based sensor for detecting,
    identifying, tracking, and reporting aircraft and missiles.
                               personnel recovery
        Personnel recovery (PR) remains an important commitment the Air
    Force makes to the Joint force. The increased utilization of military
    and civilian personnel in support of Overseas Contingency Operations
    (OCO) has dramatically increased the number of individuals who may find
    themselves isolated. This has in-turn created an increasing demand for
    Air Force rescue forces beyond the combat search and rescue mission.
    Air Force PR forces are fully engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the
    Horn of Africa, accomplishing crucial medical and casualty evacuation
    missions for U.S. and Coalition military and civilian personnel.
        This year, we will continue to surge critical personnel recovery
    capability to the field, and will start replacing the aging fleet. To
    bring the fleet back to its original size of 112 HH-60Gs, we will put
    the first four operational loss replacement aircraft on contract.
    Additionally, we will deliver the first two HC-130J tanker aircraft,
    starting the replacement of the 1960s-era HC-130P fleet.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request continues the replacement of
    operational losses and modernization of aging equipment. This request
    funds the last eight HH-60G operational loss replacement aircraft by
    the end of fiscal year 2012. Additionally, we begin the process of
    recapitalizing the remaining fleet with the inclusion of $1.5 billion
    to procure 36 HH-60G replacement aircraft in the FYDP. We also continue
    our recapitalization of the HC-130P/N fleet with HC-130J aircraft.
    Finally, we request $553 million in funding throughout the FYDP for the
    Guardian Angel program, which will standardize and modernize mission
    essential equipment for our pararescuemen.
                             building partnerships
        The Air Force continues to seek opportunities to develop
    partnerships around the world, and to enhance long-term capabilities
    through security cooperation. In the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
    area of responsibility, deployed Airmen are working with our Afghan and
    Iraqi partners to build a new Afghan National Army Air Corps and Iraqi
    Air Force to strengthen the ability of these nations to uphold the rule
    of law and defend their territories against violent, non-state actors.
    We are also working to further partnerships with more established
    allies with programs like the Joint Strike Fighter. Similarly, the
    third and final C-17 procured under the 12-nation Strategic Airlift
    Capability program was delivered in October 2009, helping to address a
    chronic shortage of strategic airlift among our European Allies.
        In fiscal year 2011, we will expand our capabilities to conduct
    building partner capacity (BPC) operations with partner air forces.
    Past experience has shown us that we are more effective trainers when
    we operate the same platforms as our partners. To increase our
    interoperability, the Air Force requests resources to prepare to field
    the Light Mobility Aircraft (LiMA) in fiscal year 2012 and the Light
    Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft in fiscal year 2013. These
    aircraft will provide effective and affordable capabilities in the two
    most critical mission areas for partner air forces: lower-cost airlift
    and light strike/reconnaissance training. Additionally, we will
    continue to foster BPC capability in our Contingency Response Groups.
    This request also includes $51 million to continue investing in the
    Strategic Airlift Capability program. Finally, we programmed $6.4
    million annually across the FYDP for PACIFIC ANGEL humanitarian
    assistance missions in support of U.S. Pacific Command theater
    objectives.
                              agile combat support
        Agile combat support underpins the entire Air Force, from the
    development and training of Airmen to revitalizing processes in the
    acquisition enterprise. In terms of core functions, agile combat
    support reflects the largest portion of the Air Force budget proposal,
    totaling approximately $42 billion for personnel and training,
    installation support, logistics, and acquisition.
        Airmen and Families.--Over the last year we stabilized end
    strength. Retention rates have exceeded expectations, but we continue
    to progress toward our end strength goal of 332,200 active duty Airmen.
    In addition to stabilizing our end strength, we are also modernizing
    our training programs and aircraft. To better partner with the Joint
    and Coalition team, we will provide our Airmen with cultural and
    regional expertise and appropriate levels of foreign language training.
    We are also expanding foreign language instruction for officer
    commissioning programs at the Air Force Academy and in ROTC,
    encouraging cadets to take foreign language coursework and participate
    in language immersion and study programs abroad. This expanded training
    includes enhanced expeditionary skills training to prepare Airmen for
    deployment. Finally, as part of our effort to modernize training
    systems, we have established a program office to start the process of
    replacing the T-38 trainer with an advanced trainer capable of teaching
    pilots to fly the world's most advanced fighter aircraft.
        Recognizing that family support programs must keep pace with the
    needs of Airmen and their families, we initiated the Year of the Air
    Force Family in July 2009. We plan to add enough capacity to our child
    development centers to eliminate the child care space deficit by the
    end of fiscal year 2012, provide better support to exceptional family
    member programs, and add 54 school liaison officers to Airmen and
    Family Readiness Centers to highlight and secure Air Force family needs
    with local school administrators.
        The Air Force continues to expand its efforts to improve the
    resiliency of Airmen and their families before and after deployments.
    This year we expanded deployment-related family education, coupling it
    with psychological screening and post-deployment health assessments.
    Additionally, we offer access to chaplains who provide pastoral care,
    and counselors and mental health providers trained in post-traumatic
    stress treatment at every base. We plan to further enhance support in
    2010 by promoting and encouraging mental health assistance, and by
    providing at-risk deployers with tailored and targeted resiliency
    programs. To support this increased effort, we will enhance mental
    healthcareer field recruiting and retention through special pays and
    targeted retention bonuses.
        Acquisition Excellence.--The Air Force continues to make progress
    within the Acquisition Improvement Plan. In 2009, we hired over 2,000
    personnel into the acquisition workforce and continued contractor-to-
    civilian conversions. The Air Force institutionalized early
    collaboration with acquisition system stakeholders, senior acquisition
    leadership certification of requirements, cost estimation improvements,
    and an improved budgeting process to enhance the probability of program
    successes. The multi-functional independent review teams conducted over
    113 reviews, ensuring acquisition selections are correct and
    defendable. As part of our recent acquisition reorganization, we
    created 11 new program executive officer positions to reduce the span
    of control and increase their focus on program execution. These
    enhancements demonstrate our commitment to restoring the public's trust
    in the Air Force's ability to acquire the most technologically advanced
    weapon systems at a competitive cost. In the near-term, this more
    rigorous approach to acquisition is likely to identify problems and
    programmatic disconnects. In the medium- and long-term, it should yield
    significant improvements in Air Force stewardship of taxpayer
    resources.
        Energy.--As part of our institutional effort to consider energy
    management in all that we do, the Air Force requests $250 million for
    energy and water conservation projects in fiscal year 2011. This
    investment will ensure we meet the President's efficiency goals by
    2015. In fiscal year 2010, the Air Force finalized an energy plan that
    directs the development and use of reliable alternative energy
    resources, and reduces the life-cycle costs of acquisition programs.
    Additionally, the plan recognizes that aviation operations account for
    over 80 percent of the energy used by the Air Force each year, and
    directs Airmen and mission planners to continue managing aviation fuel
    as an increasingly scarce resource.
        Military Construction.--The Air Force $1.3 billion military
    construction request is austere, but provides funding for new
    construction aligned with weapon system deliveries. Additionally, the
    budget request sustains our effort to provide quality housing for
    Airmen and their families. Finally, the Air Force remains focused on
    completing its BRAC 2005 program and continuing the legacy BRAC
    programs as well as the environmental clean-up at legacy BRAC
    locations.
        Strategic Basing.--In 2009, the Air Force implemented a Strategic
    Basing Process to ensure basing decisions are made in a manner that
    supports new weapon system acquisition and delivery schedules as well
    as organization activation milestones. The newly established Strategic
    Basing Executive Steering Group directs these actions to ensure a
    standard, repeatable, and transparent process in the evaluation of Air
    Force basing opportunities. We are currently using this process to
    conduct an enterprise-wide look at F-35 basing options.
        Logistics.--Air Force requirements for weapon system sustainment
    funding continue to grow as aircraft age. In the long term, the
    increasing requirements for sustaining an aging aircraft fleet pose
    budget challenges and force trade-offs. We protected direct warfighter
    support, irregular warfare capabilities, and the nuclear enterprise.
    Since this year's budget includes a simultaneous OCO submission along
    with a base budget, the Air Force optimized its flying hour program
    funding to support only the peacetime flying hours we can fly, given
    the number of deployed Airmen and aircraft supporting Overseas
    Contingency Operations. Due to the volatile nature of fuel prices,
    reprogramming may be necessary to cover increased fuel costs. Over the
    longer term, enactment of the Department of Defense's legislative
    proposal for the Refined Petroleum Products Marginal Expense Transfer
    Account would reduce disruptions to operations and investment programs
    by providing the Department of Defense flexibility to deal with fuel
    price fluctuations in the changing economy. The Air Force maintained
    its commitment to transforming logistics business practices, including
    total asset visibility and associated information technology, by
    protecting funds associated with fielding the first increment of the
    Expeditionary Combat Support System.
                            readiness and resourcing
        Our efforts over the last year continued to stress both people and
    platforms. Nearly 40,000 of America's Airmen are deployed to 263
    locations across the globe, including 63 locations in the Middle East.
    In addition to deployed Airmen, nearly 130,000 Airmen support combatant
    commander requirements from their home station daily. These Airmen
    operate the Nation's space and missile forces, process and exploit
    remotely collected ISR, provide national intelligence support, execute
    air sovereignty alert missions, and contribute in many other ways. To
    date, the Air Force has flown over 50,000 sorties supporting Operation
    Iraqi Freedom and almost 66,000 sorties supporting Operation Enduring
    Freedom. During this time the Air Force delivered over 1.73 million
    passengers and 606,000 tons of cargo, employed almost 1,980 tons of
    munitions, and transported nearly 70,000 total patients and 13,000
    casualties from the USCENTCOM area of responsibility. In doing so,
    Airmen averaged nearly 330 sorties per day.
        To support the efforts of Airmen and to recruit and retain the
    highest quality Air Force members, this fiscal year 2011 budget request
    includes $29.3 billion in military personnel funding, to include a 1.4
    percent pay increase. Our active component end strength will grow to
    332,200 Airmen as the Reserve Component end strength increases to
    71,200, and the Air National Guard end strength remains 106,700 in
    fiscal year 2011. Our recruiting and retention is strong, but we
    request $645 million for recruiting and retention bonuses targeted at
    critical wartime skills, including command and control, public affairs,
    contracting, pararescue, security forces, civil engineering, explosive
    ordnance disposal, medical, and special investigations.
                                    summary
        The Air Force's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget of $119.6 billion
    achieves the right balance between providing capabilities for today's
    commitments and posturing for future challenges. The Air Force built
    this budget to best achieve the four strategic priorities outlined in
    the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review: (1) prevail in today's wars; (2)
    prevent and deter conflict; (3) prepare to defeat adversaries and
    succeed in a wide range of contingencies; and (4) preserve and enhance
    the All-Volunteer Force.
        Balancing requirements for today and tomorrow determined our
    recapitalization strategy. We chose to improve our existing
    capabilities whenever possible, and to pursue new systems when
    required. This recapitalization approach attempts to keep pace with
    threat developments and required capabilities, while ensuring
    stewardship of national resources. In developing this budget request,
    we also carefully preserved and enhanced our comprehensive approach to
    taking care of Airmen and Air Force families.

        Chairman Inouye. General Schwartz.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, CHIEF OF STAFF
        General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, members of
    the subcommittee, I'm proud to be here representing your Air
    Force with Secretary Donley.
        And let me begin by reaffirming that the United States Air
    Force is fully committed to effective stewardship of the
    resources that you and the Nation place in our trust. Guided by
    integrity, service, and excellence, our core values, America's
    airmen, I think, are performing courageously every day with
    precision and with reliability on behalf of the American
    people.
        And this budget request supports these airmen and our
    continuing efforts to rebalance the force, to make difficult
    decisions on what and how we buy, and to sustain our needed
    contributions to the joint team.

                           AIR FORCE FIVE PRIORITIES

        Secretary Donley and I established five priorities shortly
    after taking office to ensure that the entire force was focused
    on the right objectives. Most of our initial efforts centered
    on reaffirming our long-established standards of excellence,
    and recommitting ourselves to areas where our focus had waned.
    I am pleased to report to you today that our dedicated and
    talented airmen broadly understood our intent, and have
    delivered in meaningful fashion.
        Although these initial priorities were not designed to
    change from year to year, our progress in the nuclear
    enterprise is such that we can now shift our efforts to
    sustaining the progress that we've made. Thus, our first
    priority is to continue to strengthen excellence in our nuclear
    enterprise.
        The rigor of our nuclear surety inspections demonstrates a
    renewed commitment to the highest levels of performance. We
    must, and we will, do even more to ensure 100-percent precision
    and reliability in nuclear operations and logistics as close to
    100 percent of the time as such a human endeavor will allow.
        For our second priority--and that is partnering with the
    joint and coalition team to win today's fight--Secretary Donley
    mentioned several ways that--in which our airmen are providing
    critical air and space power for the joint and coalition team.
    Your airmen are also performing admirably wherever and whenever
    our joint teammates require, including providing battlefield
    medical support and evacuation, ordnance disposal, convoy
    security, and much more.
        Our third priority remains to develop and care for our
    airmen and their families. We initiated the ``Year of the Air
    Force Family,'' shortly after our testimony last year, in
    recognition of the vital role that our families fulfill in
    mission accomplishment. Although their sacrifice is perhaps
    less conspicuous, their efforts are certainly no less noble,
    and their contributions are no less substantial.
        Modernizing our inventories, our organizations, and our
    training--our fourth priority--is among the most difficult
    tasks that our service has undertaken in these last 18 months.
    In order to achieve the balance that Secretary Gates envisioned
    for our force, we are compelled to decision and to action. This
    budget represents a continuation of that effort. We set forth a
    plan last year to accelerate the retirement of some of the
    older fighter aircraft.
        This year we are not retiring any additional fighters, but
    we are transitioning from some of our oldest and least capable
    C-130s and C-5s. We will modernize, where we can; but, where
    modernization no longer is cost effective, we will pursue
    recapitalization. KC-X is one such example.
        With the delivery of the request for proposal (RFP), our
    top acquisition effort, to procure the next generation
    refueling aircraft, passed another significant milestone. A
    similar imperative is the F-35. I want to underscore Secretary
    Donley's comment by noting that this weapons system will be the
    workhorse driving our Air Force and our joint team forward.
        Long-range strike is the last program that I number among
    our top initiatives. The Air Force fully supports the
    development of the family of systems providing both penetrating
    and standoff capabilities for the next two or three decades, as
    described in the QDR.
        And finally, recapturing acquisition excellence--our fifth
    priority--is now only beginning to pay dividends with our
    acquisition improvement plan at the heart of our reform effort.
    While promising, the initial successes must continue for a
    number of years before we can declare victory on this front. We
    are fully aware that we must wring every bit of capability and
    value that we can from the systems that we procure; and so,
    this effort will require a sustained focus on acquisition
    excellence.
        Mr. Chairman, the Air Force will continue to provide our
    best military advice and stewardship, delivering global
    vigilance, reach, and power for America. Thank you for your
    continued support of the Air Force, and particularly for our
    airmen and their families.
        Sir, I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, General Schwartz.
        Because of the change in our time schedules, regretfully, I
    would have to impose a 5-minute rule. And I'll begin with the
    questioning.
        Mr. Secretary, because of emerging requirements on UAVs and
    cybersecurity missions, which will require thousands of trained
    personnel, how do you propose to meet this challenge of
    bringing together all these highly trained personnel?
        Mr. Donley. Mr. Chairman, this has been a tremendous
    challenge that the Air Force has stepped up to do. Our end
    strength is planned to be stable at about 330,000, but inside
    that Active Duty end strength, we are making the internal
    adjustments necessary to man the ISR systems and the
    intelligence support as it comes online.
        Most recently, we had proposed, and the Congress had
    approved last year, with some caveats, the reduction in fighter
    force structure, which we had laid on the table last year. That
    early retirement of about 250 legacy fighters allowed us to
    free up the manpower to put into the intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance area. And so, it is those
    internal adjustments, identifying career fields that are--where
    we have excess strength, and trying--and diverting that into
    areas that are growing--is a significant priority for us.
        Chairman Inouye. So, you're getting most of your personnel
    internally?
        Mr. Donley. Yes. The--we are. Of course, we continue to
    assess and recruit new airmen every year; that's part of our
    normal operation. But, we are redirecting expertise, inside the
    Air Force, to these new missions.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you.
        If I may now ask General Schwartz: There's a growing
    concern that there'd be a lack of missile warning satellite
    coverage because of continued delays in the Space-Based
    Infrared High Program (SBIRS). And, as you know, the Air Force
    terminated the third-generation missile warning program in
    fiscal year 2011. How do you plan to mitigate this potential
    gap in coverage?

                                 SBIRS PAYLOADS

        General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, we have two SBIRS payloads
    on--that's the Space-Based Infrared System--payloads on orbit
    as we speak. And we intend to launch two more in the not-too-
    distant future to address General Chilton's requirement for
    warning, and so on.
        The bottom line is that we believe we have a stable
    program, and one that will satisfy, with some margin, General
    Chilton's needs.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        May I now call upon Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
    leadership of our subcommittee, and for convening this
    important hearing.

                        LEASING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

        Mr. Secretary, I've been informed that Australia, Germany,
    and France are leasing unmanned aerial vehicles to support
    their intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance mission in
    theater which continue to grow. Has the Air Force considered
    leasing, on a short-term basis, unmanned aerial vehicles to
    meet this demand, like many of our North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) allies are doing?
        Mr. Donley. My understanding is that we have done that in
    very limited situations. Our allies took this approach for
    different reasons; in part, the urgent need that they had for
    these capabilities, and the need for them to take a bit longer
    time working through their internal defense and appropriations
    processes inside their governments. So, those were the
    motivations, as I understand it, behind their approach to
    leasing.
        Generally speaking, we prefer to buy. When one does a
    lease, a major and significant issue is indemnification for
    loss. And in our case, we had access to the manufacturers and
    the capability to buy this capability; we intend to keep this
    capability over a longer term. Generally speaking, buying,
    depending on the circumstances, tends to be less expensive than
    leasing over the long term. So, we have taken the course that
    we should buy and own these capabilities.
        Senator Cochran. Okay. Thank you.
        General Schwartz, I understand that the combatant
    commanders outside of Central Command have requirements for
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that are not
    being met. Would the Air Force consider leasing UAVs to meet
    this demand until requirements in the Central Command area of
    operation are reduced?
        General Schwartz. Sir, we have a mandate to get to 50 24-
    hour orbits by the end of 2011. And the Secretary has mandated
    that we grow to 65 at the end of 2013. That is as much as we
    can do, both from a resource, a talent, and a manpower point of
    view. And so, my recommendation would be not to pursue lease.
        We are maximizing the production, for example, of the
    Reapers. And so, that will be the backbone of our remotely
    piloted aircraft (RPA) fleet, going forward. And given that's
    the case, we think we are on, sort of, the maximum performance
    glidepath, here, to growing the capabilities so that we can
    satisfy the needs of other combatant commanders, whether that
    be in the Pacific or the Horn of Africa or elsewhere.
        Senator Cochran. General, your prepared statement indicates
    that the Air Force continues to modernize the air superiority
    fleet, including the F-15s, specifically. Could you describe
    the operational benefits of the F-15E radar modernization
    program; and tell us whether the Air Force has considered
    accelerating this effort?

                           F-15E RADAR MODERNIZATION

        General Schwartz. Sir, there are a couple of initiatives,
    both for the E-model F-15 as well as the air superiority F-15Cs
    and F-15Ds. One of the things that the reduction in the fighter
    force structure allowed us to do was to reallocate resources to
    the remaining aircraft, the so-called ``Golden Eagles,'' if you
    will, where we will modify the radars with the active
    electronically scanned array capabilities. This technology is
    clearly superior to the mechanically scanned radars that the
    airplanes currently possess--greater service volume, greater
    ability to track multiple targets, and so on. In addition,
    installing an infrared search-and-track capability on the
    Golden Eagles, which they do not currently possess, are two
    examples of how we are improving the legacy birds that will
    stay with us for a while.
        With respect to the F-15E model and its radar, its major
    mission is air-to-ground, and the electronically scanned array
    radar for that platform will not only permit better targeting
    of ground targets, but also moving targets, which is a
    significant advantage with that installation.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, that my additional questions be
    submitted to the witnesses.
        Chairman Inouye. Without objection, so ordered.
        Senator Bond.
        Senator Bond. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman.

                             4.5 GENERATION FIGHTER

        Gentlemen, following my opening comments, I believe we can
    harness savings by putting more missions, not less, into the
    cost-effective Air Guard and procuring a blend of fifth-
    generation and highly capable, more affordable, and proven 4.5
    generation fighters. That would ensure our Nation has at least
    two competing production lines.
        It's obvious that the situation has only grown more dire,
    as evidenced by the Nunn-McCurdy breaches, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) reports, and the joint estimate
    team (JET) study findings since you last told me, at this
    subcommittee, that, ``All options are on the table,'' to
    address this shortfall.
        General Schwartz, with shortfalls growing, and the
    inordinate delays of the key JSF program, with the cost going
    from an originally projected $55 million per copy to somewhere
    between $135 and $150 million, and the situation getting worse,
    why have you taken the 4.5 generation option off the table as a
    means of addressing these shortfalls?
        General Schwartz. Sir, the simple answer is that acquiring
    a 4.5 generation capability that will last as long, in the
    force structure, as a generation-5, seems to me--not the most
    prudent way to approach this problem. We have a limited pool of
    resources. And it is our sense, sir, that we should not
    dissipate that limited pool of resources, which we would prefer
    to devote to generation-5 capability, vice purchasing
    generation-4.5 that will last just as long.
        Instead, we believe that it is more prudent to extend the
    service life of certain elements of our existing fleet at some
    10 to 15 percent of the cost of purchasing new, and maintaining
    our commitment to the F-35; which, as I suggested earlier--we
    believe will be the backbone of tactical aviation, not just for
    the Air Force, but for the Navy, Marine Corps, and our
    international partners as well.
        Senator Bond. General Schwartz, I've heard questions about
    whether the JSF can even operate off of a carrier. There is a
    need right now. We have a shortfall right now. You could get,
    perhaps, three or more 4.5 generations for replacing some of
    the F-35s you're waiting to buy, if they ever complete their
    tests. But, when you talk about service-life extension, I'm not
    willing to buy the 14th Street Bridge again.
        The P-3C life-extension program terminated due to excessive
    costs. Same for the A-63. Same for the F-14A. The SH-60R cost
    increased from $4 billion to over $12 billion. The UH-1 and the
    AH-1 cost increased from $2.78 billion to $8.78 billion. And I
    think it's far better if you need those 4.5 to need to buy
    those.
        Let me address one very urgent question that the Guard has.
    Approaching the C-130 seems to be done in a vacuum. The Air
    Force identified the mobility capabilities and requirements
    study as the reason for reduction in the tactical airlift
    aircraft. But so--like many other self-fulfilling studies, it
    ignored the homeland defense mission and the role that the
    Air--C-130s play as a key element of the strategy.
        Additionally, the Air Force has admitted the plan was to
    accelerate the early retirement of E models. My understanding--
    and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that the Air Force has
    45 C-130 aircraft at Little Rock, and the Air Force has 15 C-
    130 that will not have any restriction for over 3 years.
        Without prior planning, I believe the Air Force could
    recapitalize the fleet and meet all training needs for the 3
    years, without Banana Republic iron-swapping of aircraft for
    the Air Guard.
        Mr. Donley, I appreciate your reply to Senator Leahy and
    me. I believe that any temporary movement of aircraft is
    unrealistic.
        Can either of you tell me whether options like conducting
    the training at Guard C-130 units, where savings could be
    harnessed and which would take advantage of the experience of
    the Guard, were considered before making this swap that I have
    heard from so many people was unwarranted and unjustified?

                                 C-130 TRAINING

        General Schwartz. Sir, perhaps the Secretary will want to
    capitalize. Let me give you a little background on this.
        The training--the way the airplanes are distributed in our
    Air Force is as follows: Those aircraft that will be staying
    with us--and that is the C-130H model--H2, H2.5, H3s--are
    predominately--in fact, 77 percent of those aircraft reside in
    the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. And the
    thinking was, given that we were going to recapitalize the
    remainder of the fleet, with the J model over time, that it
    made sense for the Air National Guard to assume the training
    mission for that body of our capability--for the H-model
    capability.
        Now, I will acknowledge, sir, that we didn't do as thorough
    a job as we should have in articulating the rationale for this
    earlier on.
        We now have a solution, which the Secretary responded to
    you on, which makes the Schoolhouse mission at Little Rock Air
    Force Base an Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve combined
    mission, something for which, as you suggest, they are very
    well qualified to perform, and to do it with airplanes from a
    number of units around the country, on loan. As we
    recapitalize, we grow the Js and reduce the Hs, so that the
    need for that Schoolhouse will subside over time, and the
    aircraft will return to their host units. Importantly, it will
    be--largely, because of the way the force is distributed, it is
    the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve that will benefit
    from this approach.
        So, sir, that is the background on this. Again, I
    acknowledge that we did not reach out as well as we should have
    to explain what the logic was to the Adjutants General and
    others. And we'll do better in that respect, sir.
        Mr. Donley. I'd just like to reinforce that, in working
    through the second round of this problem, which we did in the
    last couple of months, and which I've responded to you on in a
    letter--the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard led
    that work. So, they went through a number of options for how to
    best accommodate the early retirement of C-130s, to take a
    stronger role in running the Schoolhouse at Little Rock Air
    Force Base, and to do that in a way that was, we felt, least
    disruptive to the individual Air National Guard units. And I
    believe we worked through a successful conclusion on that.
        Senator Bond. Thank you.
        Mr. Donley. And we also had the benefit, in that solution,
    not only retiring the Active Duty C-130s, but being able to
    reapply the Active Duty manpower to higher priority missions,
    such as those the chairman mentioned.
        Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies----
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Bond [continuing]. For going over.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        General Schwartz, I noticed that Colonel Keith Zuegel is
    sitting behind you. And he's retiring this month, I believe.
    And I just wanted to say, on behalf of the subcommittee, that
    he's, I think, been the chief of your Liaison Office for some
    long while and, I think, done a great job working with the
    subcommittee.
        So, Colonel Zuegel, good luck in your retirement.
        General Schwartz. He is a great example of the talent that
    we have in our Air Force, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask you about two things. And I'll
    just ask both of them, and then perhaps both of you could
    respond.
        One is: you're going to stand up about 25 more combat air
    patrol units across the country, for UAVs. And I notice some of
    them are going to bases that house fighters and bombers. I also
    notice that is not necessarily the requirement for a combat air
    patrol unit. Some might think, in a kind of an old-fashioned
    way, that there has to be a merger. But, we also have combat
    air patrol units in areas that don't have fighters and bombers,
    who do just as well.
        And, I guess what I would ask--and you know why I'm asking,
    because we have one--a terrific base, with substantial
    capability to house additional missions, and that's the Grand
    Forks base--that you take a look at--and you probably already
    do this, but take a look at, how do you minimize the need for
    Milcon as you place these units? Because you've got some
    capacity, particularly the Grand Forks Air Force Base, as
    you're moving tankers out; the opportunity for another combat
    air patrol unit up in that area, or two, is a great
    opportunity.
        So, that's number one. I understand why some will counsel
    you, ``Put it near fighters and bombers'' others will say,
    ``Completely unnecessary.''
        Second, my colleague from Missouri asked about the Joint
    Strike Fighter, and all of us who have been so supportive of
    that are also disappointed, in the sense that--as I calculate
    it--what we were told--I was on this subcommittee in 2002, and
    we were told--I guess, 2001--that the estimated cost was going
    to be $50 million per copy. And the latest estimate--an
    independent group formed by the Pentagon estimated 80 to 95.
    Well, taking the midrange of that--this is 2002 dollars, now--
    that's about a 75-percent increase in the per-unit cost for a
    Joint Strike Fighter. I mean, that's really alarming. Because
    what happens is, there's this relentless march in increased
    costs that is just going to break the back of the Air Force and
    the Pentagon if we don't get some handle on it.
        So, the simple question is: Why? What accounts for a 75-
    percent projected per-unit cost of the Joint Strike Fighter?
    Because it was heralded to us as something that was
    ``Nirvana,'' it was going to serve over the range of services,
    ``We're going to build enough of them to have the per-unit
    costs substantially down.'' But, it turns out now, in a very
    few short years, as we're just starting to produce, that the
    cost has just climbed way beyond that which is reasonable.
        So, the question is: Why?

                        JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER UNIT COSTS

        Mr. Donley. Mainly this is time. It's a function of time.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, I'm talking about 2002 dollars, as
    estimated by the independent group----
        Mr. Donley. Yes, sir. This means there have been delays,
    internal to the program, which add years--or months and then
    years to the projected schedule of the program, which then add
    years to the end of the program. So, you carry the program
    further out.
        Senator Dorgan. And what has caused the delays?
        Mr. Donley. A variety of issues have caused that. We've had
    too many engineering hours, which have not come down as the
    manufacturer works through the transition from development to
    production. They have fallen behind in the flight testing,
    because they haven't produced the initial jets on the planned
    schedule. Then they've fallen behind on the test program, so we
    have to work through the production issues. And then we have to
    slip the test program and add money for development.
        So, this was the work that was done by the Department over
    the winter to restructure this program. It was a top-to-bottom
    scrub. It was really the product of a 2-year effort. When the
    Chief and I came in, there was already an independent estimate
    going on on this program. And Secretary Gates made the correct
    decision to make adjustments in the fiscal year 2010 program,
    adding money for development--over $400 million, as I recall,
    just in fiscal year 2010.
        By the time we got to the end of calendar year 2009, we'd
    had two rounds of independent estimates, and we stepped up to
    the fact that the program was not executing as it needed to.
    And this was, really, the strategic-level decision to
    restructure the program.
        Senator Dorgan. Did we miss some early-warning flags here
    on this subcommittee? Because I don't remember sitting and
    listening to the fact that we're going to--we may end up having
    a 75-percent increase in per-unit cost for the one--for the
    Joint Strike Fighter. I mean, is this just laid in our lap all
    at once?
        Mr. Donley. If I can be bold, here, from a staff-level
    perspective, I don't believe there were surprises. The program
    had challenges and was falling behind in some areas.
        The issue was whether or not to believe the program office
    and the contractor, that they had a fix for those shortfalls.
    And really it was just in the last 2-year period where we had
    independent eyes on it. We determined we were not going to take
    a promissory note for a ``get-well plan'' that was not
    materializing. So, we decided to make a huge adjustment in the
    program at that time.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, could I just--I know my time
    is expired, could I ask for a 1-minute response on the combat
    air patrol units in one of the best air bases in America, the
    Grand Fork Air Force Base?
        General Schwartz. Senator Dorgan, let me explain two
    things.
        First of all, the rationale for co-location with other
    fighter or bomber combat Air Force units. This is a human-
    capital question. And the issue is, how do we groom combat
    leaders that understand both the traditional kinds of
    capabilities that we've fielded for decades, and the new? And
    how do you integrate remotely piloted and traditionally manned
    aircraft in the right kind of packages?
        This is the logic behind, fundamentally, the notion of co-
    location in some locations. It is not a major point driver in
    terms of our evaluation of installations. I would argue that
    the availability of facilities is--on a point basis--a greater
    consideration. But, the logic was to give some deference to our
    need to grow airmen commanders who understand all aspects of
    our portfolio, and can apply them, as required.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The President's budget for this year, 2011, doesn't include
    any investments in military construction at Fairchild Air Force
    Base. And I wanted to ask you why.
        I was just out at the base, Fairchild, in April; had a
    chance to tour, take a look at all that's going on there, and
    talk directly with the base community. And there are a lot of
    facilities at Fairchild that are in need of upgrades, and some
    aren't even sufficient to meet the needs of a 21st century Air
    Force.
        Can you explain, Mr. Secretary, why there's no military
    construction investment in Fairchild this year?

                        AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

        Mr. Donley. Very simply, we have chosen to take risk in
    infrastructure. We have underfunded our military construction
    and facility infrastructure, for several years running now. And
    I believe our Air Force budget is--we'll get you the exact
    numbers, is less than $2 billion a year at this point.
        [The information follows:]

        Our fiscal year 2011 Air Force military construction
    (Milcon) and facility infrastructure budget is $4.6 billion
    ($1.5 billion for Milcon and $3.1 billion for facility
    sustainment, restoration, and modernization).

        Mr. Donley. So, it is at low levels, and has been for
    several years. As we confront other resource challenges inside
    the budget, pressures of varying kinds--it just--it costs a
    whole lot more in the future. Do we have a long-term
    recapitalization plan for our bases?
        Mr. Donley. Ma'am, I would just say that there's a
    difference between military construction and facility
    maintenance. And we have maintained the Department standard on
    facility maintenance. Primarily, we focus the limited military
    construction dollars on a new mission. Remotely piloted
    aircraft is a case in point. And we don't have, apparently, in
    this case--and we'll confirm that--a new mission at Fairchild
    Air Force Base.
        Senator Murray. Well, let me ask directly about that. In
    the past, we've heard promises that the first KC-X tankers will
    come to Fairchild. That was walked back. The men and women who
    serve at Fairchild have a great proven track record with our
    tankers, and they're ready and willing to fly the KC-X. Have
    you yet prioritized which squadrons need to have their aircraft
    replaced first, based on their maintenance records, Mr.
    Secretary?

                                  KC-X BASING

        Mr. Donley. I've not. Let us get you an answer for the
    record on this specific question.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Murray, as you know, the Air Force now uses the
    Strategic Basing Process to make all future basing decisions.
    The result of this process will not be directly linked to the
    existing tanker inventory or any future retirements of the KC-
    135 fleet. Actual basing decisions will be made in an
    incremental fashion to align with aircraft deliveries,
    typically 2 years in advance of delivery.

        Mr. Donley. In general, we have not yet had to make the
    decision on the initial beddowns for KC-X tankers. But, we did
    include, in the request for proposal (RFP) that is now out and
    a matter of public record, a representative list of bases that
    were continental U.S. bases and overseas bases to which tankers
    could be bedded down. And we did that for the purposes of the
    evaluation. And Fairchild Air Force Base is included in that
    list.
        Senator Murray. Right.
        Well, with respect to the tanker, I wanted to ask you, with
    bids not due, now, until July 9, this is starting to sound like
    a fairly compressed bid evaluation timeline for the Air Force.
    It's really important that the Air Force has enough time to
    make a full and fair assessment of the bids that come in, and
    then that that decision will be held up under scrutiny, as we
    all know.
        And I'm very concerned about this discussion of a projected
    contract start date of November 12, when there's no projected
    award date, that I know of, yet. And the entire acquisition
    process now continues to be hampered by delays.
        Mr. Secretary, how can the Air Force talk about tentative
    start dates when they haven't projected an award date yet, and
    seem sort of uncertain about when that will be?
        Mr. Donley. Based on our experience in this RFP and
    previous ones, the judgment was it's best, at this point, not
    to exactly try to pin down when the contract award would be, or
    when the source selection would be completed. We'll leave that
    to the source-selection authority. They have, I think, ample
    time to review the proposals, which are due July 9, 2010. So,
    we think there are several months for reviews. And there are, I
    would say, multiple reviews--independent reviews, as well--that
    need to be factored in.
        But, we did feel, as a matter of record for the RFP, that
    it is important to tell the contractors, all offerors, when we
    think a contract award would be made, so that they have a firm
    date at which they need to be prepared to proceed.
        Senator Murray. Well, my understanding is, November 12 is
    the contract start date, not the award date.
        Mr. Donley. Yes.
        Senator Murray. And you have not----
        Mr. Donley. That's correct.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. Given them an award date yet.
        Mr. Donley. That's correct. ``Contract start date'' was the
    term.
        Senator Murray. And you believe that that'll give you
    enough time?
        Mr. Donley. We believe so.
        Senator Murray. Okay.

             WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION RULING IN TANKER COMPETITION

        I also wanted to ask you about the World Trade Organization
    (WTO) ruling that Airbus has received illegal trade-distorting
    subsidies, for years. And, in particular, the World Trade
    Organization found that the A-330, which is the very airframe
    that they planned to use in this tanker competition, has been
    built using illegal subsidies. Now, I continue to be very
    troubled that DOD is awarding this contract--it's taxpayer
    funded, $35 billion competition.
        Without accounting for the billions of dollars in illegal
    subsidies that Airbus has received, I want to know how you can
    assure American taxpayers that they won't be spending money now
    to support an illegally subsidized company that one part of our
    Government, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), has
    already declared harmful to American jobs.
        Mr. Donley. We have, in the Department of Defense, worked
    through this issue with the U.S. Trade Representative and the--
    --
        Senator Murray. Have you been personally briefed by the
    Trade Rep?
        Mr. Donley. We've had conversations with the Trade
    Representative, yes. And the judgment inside the executive
    branch, not just the Air Force or DOD, but working with our
    interagency partners, is that it would not be appropriate for
    the Department of Defense, in a single contract action, to take
    action representative of a WTO-level decision.
        Senator Murray. If one company is bidding against a company
    that has been subsidized, our taxpayers are essentially
    fighting against a country rather than a company.
        Mr. Donley. The WTO has an appeal process, which still
    needs to play out. There is, as you know, an additional suit in
    front of the WTO that involves a countersuit. And there are
    appeal processes that are laid out in WTO procedures. As a
    Government, we need to follow those appeal processes, which
    eventually get to the point of making tradeoffs and making
    determinations on how to affect the results of the appeal
    process at the end----
        Senator Murray. Well, I understand the end result of a
    ruling. But, again, the A-330 is what they said has been
    illegally subsidized. So, I'm sure we'll----
        Mr. Donley. I understand.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. Have more conversations----
        Mr. Donley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. About it as we move forward.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And, gentlemen, welcome. Appreciate your good work.
        And you know what I'm going to talk about, which is the
    Solid Rocket Booster Program. I believe that this
    administration has made a very serious mistake in restructuring
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And
    you say, ``Well, why do we care, in a defense hearing?'' It's
    because it has to do with the industrial base of solid rockets.
        And regarding the Minuteman, specifically, I'd like to know
    if the Office of the Secretary of Defense had any conversations
    with NASA, or the Air Force had any conversations with NASA,
    before the President announced his intention to shut down solid
    rocket production?

                        NASA AND SOLID ROCKET PRODUCTION

        Mr. Donley. I'm not aware that the Air Force was consulted
    specifically on the NASA decisions.
        Senator Bennett. Well, you're deliberately--you're very
    definitely affected by this. And do you have any plans to
    sustain the industry in order to continue to meet current
    deployed and future anticipated strategic spacelift and
    tactical missile needs, because you can't meet those needs with
    liquid rocket--or liquid-fueled rockets?
        Mr. Donley. We do understand the challenge. And we do not
    have an answer, at this moment, as to how we intend to proceed.
    The Air Force has had discussions, at a couple of levels, with
    the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and with NASA
    officials at the highest levels. I've talked to Administrator
    Bolden and I've talked to General Carlson at NRO. We have
    recognized this as something we need to work together, going
    forward. We don't have answers right now, but we have folks
    that are focused on this challenge.
        Senator Bennett. Well, both the chairman and the vice
    chairman know of my strong interest in this. I'm glad to know
    you recognize that you have a challenge, independent of what
    may happen with NASA.
        And I'm going to be working with Senator Mikulski to see
    what I can do to see to it that there is a delay in the
    decision, as far as the President is concerned, because I think
    we have to solve the question of, How does the Defense
    Department cover its needs in solid rockets if NASA goes ahead
    with what I consider to be a very ill-considered decision on
    the part of the President?
        Do you see any increased risk if the Minuteman motors--stop
    the production of Minuteman motors, 19 years short of the
    planned operational status of that particular missile?
        Mr. Donley. In general, Minuteman has been a very reliable
    system for us, and it continues to test well. But, we do know
    that we have challenges ahead with respect to maintaining a
    warm base. And we're not satisfied with the bridging solution
    that we had developed here, over the last couple of years,
    which takes us through 2011. So, we need to find a way forward
    for fiscal year 2012 and beyond on this subject.
        Senator Bennett. I agree with that, absolutely.
        And anything you can do to weigh in with the
    administration--you say you're talking to the Administrator of
    NASA, and that's fine. But, life being what it is, I don't
    think that's where the decision was made.
        Frankly, I--I won't put words into his mouth, and I won't
    give any suggestion of his intentions, but strictly my own
    opinion is that--let us say, ``a generic NASA Administrator''
    concerned primarily for the survival of his organization would
    not have approved this. And I think it's a decision that was
    made at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and dictated
    to this particular NASA Administrator. So, conversations with
    the NASA Administrator may not be productive in this area.
        And I would urge you to have conversations with whatever
    ``elves'' within the administration you deal with, over at OMB,
    because I think that's where the decision was made--or whoever
    the masters are. And that the NASA Administrator's being a good
    soldier--or good airmen, depending on where he went to
    college--and carrying out orders. But, this is a very serious
    kind of question.
        And I just would close, Mr. Chairman, with this
    observation. Do you know where the term ``Minuteman'' came
    from? It came from the initial rockets that were created in our
    days, race with Sputnik and afterwards, that were liquid fuel.
    And to get those things fired up, get them launched, took
    hours. And suddenly we had a ``Minuteman'' that could be fired
    within minutes, because it had a solid rocket motor, rather
    than a liquid rocket motor, and could go immediately.
        And now, we're in the process of eliminating our industrial
    base of solid rocket motors. And you may not have any Minuteman
    left over if we go back, by virtue of the decision at NASA, to
    an industrial base that is given entirely to liquid rocket
    motors.
        I've made my speech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    your indulgence.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Brownback.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm glad to hear that history about Minuteman. I didn't
    know that piece. I wanted to go back to ``Day-man,'' I guess,
    on this----
        Senator Bennett. Six-hour-man.
        Senator Brownback. Six-hour-man.
        Secretary, I want to follow up with what Senator Murray had
    asked. This is obviously a major issue for my State and the
    tanker contract. And I've been frustrated about the lack of
    being able to consider the illegal subsidy. And we've had many
    discussions about this, you know, with Secretary Murray--or
    with Senator Murray.
        For the military, if every step of appeal were exhausted,
    and the World Trade Organization found that Airbus had
    illegally subsidized the A-330 that they had bid, and this was
    conclusive, and all the appeals are done, would you consider
    that in the bid--the base bid of the contract?

             WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION RULING IN TANKER COMPETITION

        Mr. Donley. I wouldn't commit to that at this point,
    because I think our answer would be, we would be working with
    the U.S. Trade Representative, and he would be working--he or
    she would be working through that WTO process to arrive at the
    appropriate specific steps to be taken at the end of that
    process. And this is why the internal judgment to the
    administration is that it would premature to take any
    particular action, at this point, on this program.
        Senator Brownback. Doesn't that invite other countries to
    do very similar actions to get our military contracts, whether
    it be ships or virtually anything of a military contract?
        Mr. Donley. I wouldn't speculate on what motivations might
    be from other companies to do this. I would simply say and I
    don't know that this would completely satisfy your concern but,
    both of the offerors involved here are international companies.
    We need to think through very carefully, as a nation, how we
    operate in the WTO and in the international marketplace, with
    respect to imports and exports, and goods and services
    provided. At the same time there are concerns about bringing
    onshore competitors to U.S. industrial-base partners. We also
    have to recognize that our international companies here in the
    United States want to sell abroad----
        Senator Brownback. Well, I----
        Mr. Donley [continuing]. And we have to have doors open for
    that as well, as do----
        Senator Brownback. And can be sued under the WTO, as well,
    abroad. But, I--it seems like, to me, if you're a foreign
    country, and you're reading the tea leaves on this, and we--
    frankly, I think we've bent over backwards to try to get Airbus
    to bid on this. And we've held it open extra length of time.
    And certainly citizens in my State are livid about what the
    military is doing to try to give this to Airbus, with the--you
    know, with the extra--holding it open a longer period of time,
    do all these steps.
        But, at least on this illegal-subsidy piece, if we don't
    fix that hole, I would think other countries would say, ``You
    know, the United States builds ships. Why don't we subsidize
    our way into shipbuilding. Well, let's get some of these
    contracts. These are great contracts. Why don't we do''--
    there's just a whole series of ones, to the point that I think
    we should put, in statutory form, that if there is a subsidy,
    as determined by WTO, that that's considered into the base
    price of the bid. Whether it's a U.S. company or a foreign
    company that does something like that--and I'm particularly
    targeted at foreign companies--but, to give us some teeth and
    to make some clarity on a major issue that I think you're
    inviting more foreign companies, or others, to figure ways to
    subsidize to get major U.S. military contracts. And I think
    we'd be wise to just put that in statutory form.
        Mr. Donley. Without responding directly to that proposal, I
    would just offer that in the context of the KC-X RFP, our
    approach to this is to hold the U.S. taxpayers harmless from
    any penalties that might be assessed on one manufacturer or
    another as we go through this WTO process. So, if there are
    penalties somewhere along the line, that we do not pay for
    those in the KC-X program.
        General Schwartz. And, Senator, if I may, just to clarify,
    there was no change in the requirements for the platform. The
    decision to extend was, in my view, largely in the interest of
    a competitive scenario. But, I can assure you, there was no
    change in the requirements.
        Senator Brownback. Well, if you award this to Airbus, after
    this step--extraordinary step of extending the time period--and
    it's a $35 billion contract, and it's a subsidized platform,
    which we all know is a subsidized platform--I think you're
    going to have some very irritated people in the United States
    of America. So, I would hope that wouldn't be the case. And I
    hope we can give you some statutory clarity on figuring the
    subsidy price into these military contracts.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Because of the conflict that's on our Senate schedule,
    several members have not been able to attend. And they have
    questions; they've asked me to submit them to you. And it
    should be obvious that all of us have other questions to ask.
        So, without objection, I will be submitting to you, Mr.
    Secretary and General, questions for your responses.
        And in behalf of the subcommittee, I thank you for your
    testimony this morning. And we want to thank you and the men
    and women in your command for their service to our Nation.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                 Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael B. Donley
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. Secretary Donley, to meet emerging requirements, the Air
    Force is quickly expanding its unmanned aerial vehicle and
    cybersecurity missions. It is adding thousands of highly trained
    personnel to these career fields in a short time. How is the Air Force
    managing the manpower challenges associated with these new missions?
        Answer. The Air Force has programmed actions to source the manpower
    required to grow its remotely piloted aircraft fleet operational
    capability to 50 combat air patrols (CAPs) by fiscal year 2011, with
    existing manpower identified in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget
    request. We are also in the process of identifying existing, lower-
    priority manpower authorizations for realignment to the 65 CAP
    requirements by 2013 as part of our fiscal year 2012 budget submission.
    Specific intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance career field
    impacts are under study.
        In order to develop and institutionalize cyberspace capabilities
    and to better integrate them into the Joint cyberspace structure, the
    Air Force funded manpower in the fiscal year 2010 President's budget to
    establish a Cyber Numbered Air Force (24 Air Force). Furthermore, the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request reflects a continued Air Force
    commitment to cyber superiority as we sourced manpower for fiscal year
    2011 to support enhanced Network Attack capabilities.
        Question. Secretary Donley, what do you see as the role of the Air
    National Guard and Air Force Reserve in UAV and cybersecurity
    operations? Is the high operational tempo of these mission sets
    compatible with the civilian responsibilities of our Guardsmen and
    Reservists?
        Answer. Both the Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve
    play significant roles in our ongoing overseas contingency operations
    providing critical support to our Joint Force Commanders.
        With respect to remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operations, the ANG
    has four MQ-1 Predator squadrons providing two combat air patrols each
    and one MQ-9 Reaper squadron providing one combat air patrol in the
    U.S. Central Command theater of operations. Although each ANG unit was
    programmed to provide only a single combat air patrol (CAP), as a
    result of the increasing demand for this capability, each MQ-1 unit was
    mobilized in 2008 to provide an additional CAP. As of July 2009, the
    mobilization expired; however, the ANG voluntarily elected to maintain
    their additional CAPs allowing the active component to focus its
    efforts elsewhere, such as increasing RPA training capacity.
        In addition to the combat support each unit is providing, some
    units are providing RPA maintenance and flying training capability. The
    California ANG stood up a maintenance training unit in 2008, graduating
    approximately 600 Active, Guard and Reserve students each year and a
    flying training unit in 2009, producing approximately 40 Active, Guard
    and Reserve RPA aircrews (pilots and sensor operators) each year. The
    New York ANG provides maintenance training for the MQ-9, while the
    Nevada ANG provides both combat and flying training support by
    augmenting RPA personnel at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada.
        As we continue to expand our RPA efforts, we anticipate increased
    ANG participation within the next few years at 4-6 additional
    locations.
        The Air Force Reserve is supporting warfighter efforts with an Air
    Force Special Operations Command MQ-1 squadron at Nellis Air Force
    Base, Nevada, and we will be standing up an RQ-4 Global Hawk Reserve
    squadron at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota. We are also
    examining different possibilities for expanding Reserve participation
    in the MQ-1 and MQ-9 communities as we continue to our planned growth
    to 65 MQ-1/9 CAPs by the end of fiscal year 2013.
        With respect to cyber security operations, eight Air National Guard
    units currently provide cyber capabilities that meet combatant
    commander and Air Force requirements. For example, the 262nd Network
    Warfare Squadron of the Washington ANG provides vulnerability
    assessments of Air Force networks to bolster security and prevent
    attacks. Additionally, Air Force Reserve personnel augment several
    active duty cyber units, working in the same duty positions as their
    active duty counterparts.
        Question. Is the high operational tempo of these mission sets
    compatible with the civilian responsibilities of our Guardsmen and
    Reservists?
        Answer. Yes. For RPAs, aside from takeoff and landing, the Air
    Force operates our MQ-1/9 and RQ-4 aircraft via satellite data link
    from stateside locations. This capability has significantly reduced the
    number of personnel needed to deploy, lessening the impact on our Guard
    and Reserve forces. While the operations tempo remains high, a majority
    of our Guard and Reserve support has come from volunteerism. When the
    ANG's mobilization expired in July 2008, each of our ANG MQ-1 squadrons
    requested to maintain their surge CAP in addition to the single CAP
    they were programmed to provide. Additionally, despite being at war,
    our Guard and Reserve units conducting RPA operations have been able to
    maintain their civil support commitments during other contingency
    operations such as floods, fires and earthquakes.
        For the cyber security mission, steady-state support to the Air
    Force, as well as mobilizations--whether voluntary or involuntary--have
    historically not resulted in adverse impacts to ANG personnel or their
    ability to meet obligations to civilian employers. In addition,
    Guardsmen and Reservists are often employed by some of the most high-
    tech companies in America such as Cisco, EDS, Microsoft, Siemens and
    Symantec who also engage in cybersecurity of the nation's
    infrastructure. Both the military and civilian sectors benefit by
    having these professionals work in both environments.
        Question. Secretary Donley, Lieutenant General Wyatt, the Director
    of the Air National Guard alerted us to the fact that 80 percent of its
    F-16 fighters begin reaching the end of their service life in 7 years.
    Retiring these aircraft will almost eliminate the Air National Guard
    fleet dedicated to the Combat Aviation and Air Sovereignty Alert
    missions. With delays in the F-35 program now documented, it appears
    that the Air Force is taking some risk in the size of the fighter
    inventory. How will you ensure that enough aircraft are available for
    the important homeland security mission?
        Answer. Defense of the homeland is the DOD's highest priority
    mission. The Air Force will continue to steadfastly support Operation
    Noble Eagle (ONE) through the Total Force concept as it has since 9/11.
    ONE requirements are currently driven by the April 2009 CJCS Execute
    Order (EXORD) and May 2009, U.S. Pacific Command EXORD, and are sourced
    through provisions of the Secretary of Defense approved Global Force
    Management process. While ONE is a Joint mission, the Air Force has
    historically performed the overwhelming majority of ONE fighter
    missions. The Air Force has sufficient fighter inventories to execute
    ONE based on the current requirements.
        Question. Secretary Donley, is the Air Force looking at new
    missions for the Air National Guard? Are additional association
    relationships with active Air Force units planned?
        Answer. We continually examine our force structure needs to fill
    new or emerging missions with the best Total Force solutions. The Air
    National Guard is contributing to RPA, cyber, space and other key
    mission areas. Our desired end state is a leaner, more capable and more
    efficient Air Force leveraging the strengths of both our active and
    reserve components, and we will continue to look to implement associate
    units when the business case and operational requirements support it.
        Question. Secretary Donley, there is $325 million in the fiscal
    year 2011 budget request for the NPOESS (``EN-POSE'') weather satellite
    program. As you know, the White House ended the program this fiscal
    year. What is your plan for the follow-on satellite program and the
    fiscal year 2011 funds?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) stakeholders are in the
    final stages of determining how best to proceed to meet DOD needs and
    requirements for this mission using the $325 million in research,
    development, testing, and evaluation funding in fiscal year 2011. The
    DOD restructure options are still being studied, however the budgets
    for the various options conform reasonably well to that of the Future
    Years Defense Program profile. The DOD is building acquisition
    timelines, conducting follow-on program risk assessments, assessing
    industrial base impacts, and determining the level of fiscal year 2011
    funding required, in consultation with the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration. The DOD expects to provide a more detailed strategy by
    late-summer this year.
        Question. Last fall, the Air Force stood up the Global Strike
    Command, bringing the Air Force's intercontinental ballistic missiles
    and nuclear-capable bombers under one command for the first time since
    the days of the Strategic Air Command. This is the culminating event on
    the Nuclear Roadmap created to revitalize the nuclear enterprise.
    Secretary Donley, could you bring us up-to-date on the status of that
    initiative and tell us what is next?
        Answer. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) is on schedule to
    achieve full operational capability by September 30, 2010. The command
    assumed the ICBM mission from Air Force Space Command on December 1,
    2009 and the B-52/B-2 bomber mission from Air Combat Command on
    February 1, 2010. AFGSC has developed new command guidance/policies; is
    actively engaged in the no-notice/limited-notice nuclear surety
    inspection process, is an active participant in U.S. Strategic Command
    exercises; and is aggressively working to fill all manpower vacancies,
    particularly in the civilian workforce.
        Going forward, command priorities include implementing the
    provisions of the Nuclear Posture Review, ensuring long-term
    sustainment of the aging ICBM fleet, and reviewing implications and
    anticipated enforcement of the New Start Treaty when it is ratified.
        Question. Secretary Donley, the budget requests $66 million for a
    new program procuring 15 Light Mobility Aircraft. This new initiative
    expands your mission which, given the emphasis by Secretary Gates on
    reducing defense expenditures, appears unusual. Could you elaborate on
    the benefits of this program and why it is a wise investment now?
        Answer. LiMA will enable the United States to demonstrate, train
    and perform lower-cost airlift operations to and from austere areas,
    working in concert with Partner Nations (PN) with limited capacity and
    capability to perform aviation functions. Primary benefits from this
    approach include reduced wear and tear on larger, more expensive U.S.
    mobility aircraft, increased airlift capability in austere regions with
    sparse infrastructure, and a right-tech aircraft that represents the
    types of capabilities a PN can afford to acquire, maintain and operate.
    The result of this approach is the United States will demonstrate the
    utility of LiMA to a PN, thus facilitating Theater Strategic and
    Campaign Plan objectives and enhancing our long term capabilities
    through security cooperation.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. Air Force leadership has come out on the record opposing
    the F136 alternate engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter. Two
    aspects of sole-sourcing the F-35 engine are troubling, and DOD leaders
    have not addressed them yet.
        First, the F135 engine has never competed against the F136 engine,
    and under the current DOD plan, it never will. While the prime contract
    for the F-35 was fully and fairly competed, the sub-contract for the
    engine was selected as an element of the prime without any competition.
    Competition would determine which engine is technically superior and it
    would drive down costs, which is something this program desperately
    needs. Second, the F-35 will eventually comprise 95 percent of our
    strike aircraft fleet.
        If that doesn't qualify as a need for a redundant second engine,
    then what does? What happens to our operational flexibility if the
    fleet is grounded for engine problems? Such occurrences have happened
    before, such as with the Harrier jet. But never before have we had a
    grounding of such a broad multi-service, multinational program. Is now
    really the time to accept that kind of risk? Wouldn't the Air Force
    agree that this issue is not just a matter of trading up-front costs
    for future savings, but also a matter of operational risk and
    effectiveness?
        Answer. The Air Force supports Secretary Gates' conclusion to not
    pursue a second engine. Maintaining two engine suppliers will result in
    increased development, production, and support costs in the near term.
    The Department of Defense (DOD) consistently emphasizes its opposition
    to a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter because continued
    funding of the F136 would divert funds from other important defense
    needs. In the middle of two wars, the DOD has higher priority uses for
    the $2.9 billion that would be required to take the F136 to full
    competition. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that having two engines
    will create enough long-term savings to outweigh the significant near-
    term investment. The Air Force does not consider a single source engine
    for the F-35 to be an unacceptable increase in operational risk. The
    DOD currently maintains two tactical aircraft programs, the F-22A and
    the F-18, each of which utilize a single source engine provider. Both
    programs have solid safety records, and the DOD is satisfied with the
    engines for both programs. Over the years, significant advancements in
    engine design, testing, production, and sustaining engineering have
    enabled the DOD to manage the risks associated with single engine
    systems without having to ground an entire fleet.
        We believe any benefits that might accrue from continued funding of
    the F136 extra engine would be more than offset by excess cost,
    complexity and risk. A single source engine for the F-35 provides the
    best balance of cost and risk for the DOD's needs in the current
    resource-constrained environment.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
        Question. The USAF has developed a process for quantitative and
    qualitative analysis to determine the best bed down locations for
    future F-35 acquisitions. This process has been referred to as
    transparent, repeatable, and defendable.
        What is the process for appeal if a unit believes the score is
    inaccurate?
        Answer. As part of the process, major command staffs responded to
    the data call from the lead major command using data sources maintained
    by each installation. This data was used to create a rank-order list of
    bases. Military judgment was then applied to identify a smaller
    candidate base list.
        Typically a unit is unaware of scores derived during the basing
    process since this occurs at the Headquarters Air Force and this
    information is not shared with installation commanders. If a unit
    believes the data used and resultant scores are inaccurate, they can
    appeal through their major command to then be resolved at the
    Headquarters Air Force level.
        Question. Why, if this is a transparent process, is the USAF
    withholding the scores from public scrutiny?
        Answer. The Air Force Air Force policy throughout the basing
    process has been to provide the Members of Congress the scores for
    installations within their state as well as a relative ranking of each
    installation within the top, middle, or bottom third of the scoring
    range. Installation scores were used to create a rank-order list of
    bases. Military judgment was then applied to identify a smaller
    candidate base list. This candidate list was released to Congress on
    October 29, 2009, and briefings have been provided to congressional
    members and their staff when necessary to explain how the scores were
    derived without revealing the scores of other installations.
        Question. What role did the nations Adjutants General have in this
    process?
        Answer. The Air Force strategic basing process does not include
    direct participation of the Adjutants General. Participative and
    representational roles are reserved for the major commands, which in
    this case, includes the Air National Guard and Headquarters Air Force.
    Base specific information was obtained from major commands and unit
    records, screened by the major command and eventually incorporated into
    analysis by Air Combat Command, the lead major command for F-35A
    basing. The information was then brought to Headquarters Air Force
    senior leaders through the Strategic Basing-Executive Steering Group
    for consideration.
        Question. Were the Adjutants General given an opportunity to
    comment on quantitative scores before the USAF leadership applied
    qualitative analysis?
        Answer. No. The Air Force strategic basing process does not include
    the direct participation of the Adjutants General. Participative and
    representational roles are reserved for the major commands, which in
    this case includes the Air National Guard and Headquarters Air Force.
    The Director of the Air National Guard is fully integrated in the
    basing process and in constant communication with the Adjutants
    General. Base specific information was obtained from major commands and
    unit records, screened by the major command and eventually incorporated
    into analysis by Air Combat Command, the lead major command for F-35A
    basing. The information was then brought to Headquarters Air Force
    senior leaders for their consideration.
        Question. What role did the Director, Air National Guard (DANG)
    have in the qualitative analysis?
        Answer. Air National Guard representatives from the National Guard
    Bureau and the Air Staff participated in the deliberations of the
    Basing Request Review Panel, the first step in the Air Force Strategic
    Basing Process. The Deputy Director, Air National Guard participated in
    the Strategic Basing-Executive Steering Group as it formulated options
    for Chief of Staff and my discussion, review and decision. The
    Director, Air National Guard or his representative participated in
    discussions with us to a final decision regarding which bases were
    identified as training and operations candidate bases.
        Question. Given that he is likely in the best position to know the
    Air National Guard units and locations, was the DANG provided an
    opportunity to shape or influence the USAF leadership's best judgment?
        Answer. Yes. The Deputy Director, Air National Guard participated
    in the Strategic Basing-Executive Steering Group as it formulated
    options for the Secretary and the Chief of Staff discussion, review and
    decision. The Director, Air National Guard also participated in
    discussions with the Chief of Staff and me prior to a final decision
    regarding initial basing locations for the F-35.
        Question. The Wisconsin National Guard submitted a detailed
    analysis of the score for the 115th FW, Madison, Wisconsin, which
    outlines factual errors. This analysis was delayed as the Wisconsin
    National Guard was unable to obtain its score from the USAF through the
    NGB.
        Why did the USAF insist that the NG obtain base scores only through
    congressional delegations?
        Answer. Air Force policy throughout the basing process has been to
    provide only the Members of Congress the scores for installations
    within their state as well as a relative ranking of each installation
    within the top, middle, or bottom third of the scoring range. Base
    specific information was obtained from major command and unit records,
    screened by the major command and eventually incorporated into analysis
    by Air Combat Command, the lead major command for F-35A basing, then
    brought to the Pentagon for consideration by Headquarters Air Force
    senior leaders. Typically a unit is unaware of scores derived during
    the basing process since this occurs at Headquarters Air Force and this
    information is not shared with installation commanders (Active, Guard
    or Reserve). Briefings have been provided to congressional members and
    their staff when necessary to explain how the scores were derived
    without revealing the scores of other installations.
        Question. The WI NG requested correction in five areas amounting to
    nine points. To date, there has been no resolution--what is the current
    status?
        Answer. Although agreement was reached to revise the quantitative
    score, the score change was not enough to significantly affect the
    115th Fighter Wing's relative standing. The Air superiority alert
    mission was considered in the qualitative assessment as positive, but
    was not a driving factor that eliminated any one base as a candidate
    location.
        Question. The WI NG points out that the base score did not
    correctly identify the 115th FW as an ASA home alert location--a
    criteria identified by the USAF as probative in the qualitative
    analysis. If the quantitative score is inaccurate and qualitative
    indicators are not identified, how can the USAF be sure that this unit
    was fairly assessed?
        Answer. Although agreement was reached to revise the quantitative
    score, the score change was not enough to significantly affect the
    115th Fighter Wing's relative standing. The Air superiority alert
    mission was considered in the qualitative assessment as positive, but
    was not a driving factor that eliminated any one base as a candidate
    location.
        Question. How did ASA alert affect the final determination for
    future F-35 bed down locations?
        Answer. The air superiority alert mission was considered in the
    qualitative assessment as positive, but it was not a driving factor
    that eliminated any one base as a candidate location.
        Question. What were the qualitative scores for the other bases in
    the top third? We specifically request the full scoring sheets for
    comparative analysis.
        Answer. Air Force policy throughout the basing process has been to
    provide only the Members of Congress the scores for installations
    within their state as well as a relative ranking of each installation
    within the top, middle, or bottom third of the scoring range. Base
    specific information was obtained from major command and unit records,
    screened by the major command and eventually incorporated into analysis
    by Air Combat Command, the lead major command for F-35A basing, then
    brought to the Pentagon for consideration by Headquarters Air Force
    senior leaders. Typically a unit is unaware of scores derived during
    the basing process since this occurs at Headquarters Air Force and this
    information is not shared with installation commanders (Active, Guard
    or Reserve). Briefings have been provided to congressional members and
    their staff when necessary to explain how the scores were derived
    without revealing the scores of other installations.
        Question. Assuming that the USAF leadership moved some lower
    scoring units above units with higher scores in the basing decision,
    what was the justification for this best military judgment?
        Answer. Lower scoring units (installations) were not moved above
    higher scoring installations. The Air Force produced a rank ordered
    list of installations using quantifiable criteria. Beginning with the
    top-ranked installation, the Air Force reviewed each in rank order,
    applying military judgment to identify candidates that could meet
    mission requirements. An installation could be eliminated from
    consideration as a result of military judgment.
        There were three possible outcomes after military judgment factors
    were considered. These outcomes were: Yes--an installation is a
    candidate within timing window; not yet--an installation is not a
    candidate within timing window; no--an installation is currently
    incompatible with requirements.
        As an example, military judgment factors were developed to assist
    uniquely qualified and experienced senior Air Force leaders in
    identifying candidate installations for basing F-35A aircraft
    programmed for delivery through the fiscal year 2017 timeframe. These
    factors included: Plans and Guidance; Global Posture; Building
    Partnerships; Total Force; Beddown Timing; Force Structure; Training
    Requirements and Efficiencies; Logistics Supportability; and Resources/
    Budgeting.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                          maintenance in the air force
        Question. For many of its logistics and sustainment functions
    including activities such as supply chain management, product support
    integration, and maintenance, repair and overhaul activities the
    Department of Defense can select from private sector contractors a well
    as organic public depot facilities. Please provide to the Committee a
    description of the methodology employed by the Air Force in making cost
    comparisons between organic public sector facilities and private sector
    contractor providers for the purpose of workload assignment for the
    provision of logistics and sustainment function including but not
    limited to supply chain management, product support integration, and
    maintenance, repair and overhaul work. In particular, please explain to
    the Committee what accounting systems and principles the Air Force uses
    to ensure full cost accounting for both public and private sector
    entities in making decisions regarding the assignment of this logistics
    and sustainment related work.
        Answer. The methodology employed by the Air Force in making cost
    comparisons between organic public sector facilities and private sector
    contractor providers resides as a subset of the overall decisionmaking
    tool codified in Air Force Instruction 65-509 Business Case Analysis,
    and Air Force Manual 65-510 Business Case Analysis Procedures. The
    business case method prescribed in these regulations provides a
    credible, defendable, repeatable and transparent process by which
    decision makers are supported with documented, objective analysis.
        The Air Force has a Source of Repair Assignment Process that
    includes a review of statutory compliance and requires best value
    analysis. The first consideration for workload assignment is whether
    the workload is required to be organic for purposes of meeting 10
    U.S.C. 2464, the statute which directs workload into an organic
    facility for purposes of meeting Core maintenance capability
    requirements, and/or 10 U.S.C. 2466, the statute requiring that no more
    than 50 percent of total funding allocated to depot maintenance be
    performed in the private sector. After an assessment that the workload
    is not required to meet either of these statutes, we then perform best
    value assessment. There are three fundamental factors in this best
    value assessment that are used for the basis of evaluation and eventual
    decision between organic and contract. These factors are costs,
    benefits, and risks, each supplying its own specific subset of criteria
    and variables for analysis and decisionmaking.
        For accounting, the Air Force annually publishes standard composite
    rates in Air Force Instruction 65-503 including pay and benefits for
    military and civilian personnel. The Air Force directs these rates be
    used when preparing business case analyses. Additionally, there are
    other overhead costs categories being added to these rates per
    Directive-Type Memorandum 09-007, ``Estimating and Comparing the Full
    Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower and Contract Support''.
                     f-35 aircraft for lackland afb, texas
        Question. Please explain the Air Force's F-35 stationing plan to
    the Committee. In particular, please address any plans to station F-35
    aircraft at Lackland AFB, Texas.
        Answer. The Air Force is using a repeatable, transparent Strategic
    Basing Process to identify locations for the F-35. Air Combat Command,
    as the lead major command, developed basing criteria which were
    approved by Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and
    released to Congress in September 2009. These criteria were applied to
    determine candidate base lists for the initial increments of F-35
    training and operational bases which were provided to Congress in
    October 2009. The environmental impact analysis process is now underway
    and we anticipate releasing preferred basing alternatives in August
    2010, with a Record of Decision announced by spring 2011. Lackland AFB,
    Texas is not one of the candidate bases being considered for this round
    of F-35 basing decisions, but will be considered in future rounds of F-
    35 basing.
                  newer aircraft for texas air national guard
        Question. Please explain the Air Force's plan to replace the Texas
    Air National Guard's aging F-16 aircraft with newer airplanes at some
    point in the future.
        Answer. The Air Force currently has no plans to replace or retire
    the Texas Air National Guard F-16 Block 30 aircraft within the current
    Future Years Defense Program.
                long range persistent strike development program
        Question. Please explain the long range strike capability that the
    Air Force seeks to develop within its Long Range Persistent Strike
    Development Program?
        Answer. During the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a Secretary of
    Defense-directed tiger team was established to complete an in-depth
    study of long-range strike--including the long range strike platform
    (LRSP) need, requirement, and technology. The team's conclusions were
    supportive of pursuing a new LRSP platform, but identified the need for
    additional analysis to explore options for reducing costs and
    accelerating fielding timelines. Based upon the need for additional
    analysis, the Secretary of Defense chartered a subsequent study to
    examine a broader array of long-range strike issues and options
    including the appropriate mix of long range strike capabilities;
    upgrades to legacy bombers; manned and unmanned force structure
    numbers; stand-off and penetrating platform ratios; stand-off cruise
    missile requirements; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
    demands; airborne electronic attack requirements; and conventional
    prompt global strike needs. The study results are expected to be
    available in the fall of 2010.
        Although the specific LRSP performance requirements are still being
    developed, a general description of the desired attributes includes:
      --Range and survivability to overcome adversary anti-access
            strategies and persistence in denied area environments;
      --Flexible, mixed payloads to engage mobile and hard targets; and
      --Visible deterrence capability across the spectrum of conflict.
        We continue our work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    and the combatant commanders to define the requirements for long range
    strike and to help determine the composition of the long range strike
    family of systems that will best meet our Nation's needs for this
    critical and enduring mission.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
        Question. Considering the issue of balance, in your discussion of
    ``Global Precision Attack,'' you briefly mention the DOD's plans to
    assess conventional prompt global strike prototypes which were
    referenced in the 2010 QDR. However, given the recent recession, the
    market for small turbofan engines has markedly declined, calling into
    question the long term affordability based on decreased industrial
    capacity.
        In the context of your long-range strike capabilities, what is your
    estimation of the significance of the role global strike platforms
    could play? Can you discuss what steps could/should be taken to prepare
    the way for prompt global strike initiatives in relation to this
    technology?
        Answer. Global precision strike capabilities leverage the inherent
    range, flexibility, and lethality of airpower to hold targets at risk
    around the globe. To ensure their continued viability, we will continue
    to work toward a ``family of systems'' that provides the necessary
    flexibility and agility. Non-nuclear prompt global strike is a unique
    capability that could be used against a specific set of targets in
    limited numbers. It is not intended to be a substitute for other long
    range strike capabilities but rather to complement them as one
    component in the long range strike family of systems. The 2010 Nuclear
    Posture Review highlighted the importance of developing non-nuclear
    prompt global strike capabilities that could prove valuable in
    defeating time-sensitive threats. The Department of Defense is
    currently studying the appropriate mix of long-range strike
    capabilities, including non-nuclear prompt global strike. This follow-
    on analysis will build upon the capabilities identified in the 2010
    Quadrennial Defense Review and Nuclear Posture Review allowing the Air
    Force to make specific recommendations in the fiscal year 2012
    President's budget request.
        The Office of the Secretary of Defense is managing a defense-wide
    account, which includes Air Force, Army, Navy and DARPA projects, aimed
    at developing a Prompt Global Strike capability based on hypersonic
    technology. DARPA's hypersonic technology vehicle is an unmanned,
    rocket launched, maneuverable hypersonic air vehicle with no onboard
    propulsion system. Its propulsion is provided by the launch vehicle, a
    Minotaur IV Lite. The Conventional Strike Missile is an Air Force's
    concept for Prompt Global Strike based on DARPA technology development.
    This concept currently involves a strategic sized solid rocket booster
    to allow for a global range capability. The small turbofan engine was
    not a candidate in the Conventional Prompt Global Strike analysis of
    alternatives and is not likely to participate in future discussions due
    to mission range requirements.
        Question. At the present time, only two U.S. companies (ATK and
    Aerojet) produce solid rocket motors for all of our nation's needs, and
    only one company (American Pacific) manufactures their most key
    ingredient. These three companies support all strategic missiles,
    missile defense programs, military and commercial space lift
    capabilities, NASA human spaceflight systems, and the entire cadre of
    tactical missiles available to today's war fighter. However, demand for
    products made by the solid rocket motor industry has been in steady
    decline for many years, and is right now experiencing a further
    dramatic drop with the completion of the Minuteman III Propulsion
    Replacement Program (PRP), the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the
    termination of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), the production
    slowdown of Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors, and the
    Missile Defense Agency's planned transition from a proven solid rocket
    motor-based systems to an unproven liquid propulsion-based system. I
    also understand that prices across weapons systems that are designed
    around the advantages that solid rocket fuel offers--especially the
    capability to have fuel loads that will respond instantly to a launch
    command--will increase given the current course.
        What plans has the Air Force made to sustain this industry, in
    order to continue to meet current deployed and future anticipated
    strategic, space lift, and tactical missile needs? Has the Air Force
    considered the pending price impact on your widely deployed tactical
    systems? Do you know if the other services are aware of this
    approaching issue?
        Answer. The Air Force leverages research and development projects,
    joint and individual production programs, and the focused efforts of
    program managers to assist in supporting key elements of the aerospace
    industrial base needed to respond to the current and emerging global
    environment. For example, with respect to the industrial base for solid
    rocket motors, the fiscal year 2010 President's budget request calls
    for the production of nearly 700 air-to-air tactical missiles. These
    are joint programs supporting the Air Force and the Navy.
        In the case of large (greater than a 40-inch diameter) solid rocket
    motors, the Air Force has been closely monitoring this segment of the
    solid rocket motor industrial base for a number of years. This year,
    the Air Force initiated a phased study and analysis to develop a risk-
    based investment strategy focused on sustaining the Minuteman III
    system through 2030. Further, an interagency task force, including
    representation from the Department of Defense (the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Missile Defense
    Agency) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will
    offer solid rocket motor industrial base sustainment recommendations to
    the Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to Congress.
        At this time there is no impact to deployed tactical Air-to-Air or
    Air-to-Ground Missiles.
        Yes, other Services are aware. An interagency task force, that
    includes representation from the Department of Defense (the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile Defense
    Agency) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has been
    formed to assess the solid rocket motor industrial base and provide
    recommendations to the Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to
    Congress.
        Question. Air Force officials have testified before Congress about
    the potential concern that prices for the propulsion systems for the
    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) might double in price.
        How does the Air Force plan on managing a 200 percent price
    increase to the EELV program and what impact will that have on our
    ability to meet our strategic space requirements?
        Answer. The Air Force will continue to fund EELV to meet assured
    access to space and National Space Transportation Policy requirements.
        The exact increases to EELV launch vehicle costs are not yet known.
    The Air Force has developed preliminary estimates that incorporate
    increasing subcontractor costs. The significant reduction in demand
    within the spacecraft industry has caused subcontractors to rely on the
    EELV program as their primary customer. As a result, EELV bears the
    burden for much of these key suppliers' overhead costs
        In response to these estimates, the Commander, Air Force Space
    Command and the Director, National Reconnaissance Office chartered a
    tiger team to recommend a revised way ahead for the EELV program. Among
    the items the tiger team is evaluating is a more flexible and
    transparent contract structure that increases program and industry
    stability.
        In addition, collaboration is ongoing with the Department of
    Defense, the Office of the Director, National Intelligence, the Air
    Force, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to explore
    synergistic community solutions where possible.
        Question. In fiscal year 2009, with much support from this
    committee, the Air Force initiated a Minuteman solid rocket motor warm
    line program, with production continuing in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
    year 2011. However, the future years defense program (FYDP) provided
    this year shows close out of this warm line effort in fiscal year 2012.
    While the Minuteman III system is now expected to be deployed through
    2030, its solid rocket motors--produced in the early 2000s--were only
    designed to last 20 years, and actually have a maximum demonstrated
    life of only 17 years. There is no way to avoid the fact that the
    Minuteman solid rocket motors will need to be replaced prior to 2030.
    The Air Force has requested approximately $43 million in fiscal year
    2011 for ICBM procurement. However, it is my understanding that the
    funding will only purchase three solid rocket motor sets, but six are
    needed to maintain proper certification to build such systems.
        How does the Air Force plan to sustain the industrial base during
    the time until any next generation system begins development? If this
    program is to be closed out in fiscal year 2012, how does the Air Force
    plan to sustain the Minuteman system's readiness through 2030?
        Answer. The Air Force is currently reevaluating the overall
    Minuteman (MM) III Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) Warm Line concept in order
    to help sustain the strategic SRM industrial base. If the current MM
    III SRM production capability is allowed to lapse, any requirement for
    follow-on MM III SRM production would include the time and costs
    required to reinstate such a capability. The Air Force, in coordination
    with industry, has determined what those costs and timelines would be
    and would include these factors in long-range planning efforts. This
    year, the Air Force initiated a phased study and analysis to develop a
    risk-based investment strategy focused on sustaining the MM III system
    through 2030. Further, an interagency task force, including
    representation from the Department of Defense (the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Missile Defense
    Agency) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will
    offer solid rocket motor industrial base sustainment recommendations to
    the Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to Congress.
        In 2009 the Air Force completed the Minuteman III Propulsion
    Replacement Program designed to extend the life of the weapon system to
    2020. The Air Force is evaluating options to ensure solid rocket motor
    reliability and supportability to 2030 in conjunction with its
    evaluation of the Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) Warm Line
    concept in relation to sustaining the strategic SRM industrial base. If
    the current Minuteman III SRM production capability is allowed to
    lapse, any requirement for follow-on production would include the time
    and costs required to reinstate that capability. The Air Force, in
    coordination with industry, has determined these costs and timelines
    and will include these factors in mid- to long-range planning efforts.
    Further, an interagency task force, that includes representation from
    the Department of Defense (the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
    Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile Defense Agency) and the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, has been formed to offer solid
    rocket motor industrial base sustainment recommendations to the
    Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to Congress.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to General Norton A. Schwartz
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. General Schwartz, to meet emerging requirements, the Air
    Force is quickly expanding its unmanned aerial vehicle and
    cybersecurity missions. It is adding thousands of highly trained
    personnel to these career fields in a short time. These new missions
    are currently very much in demand. Are you concerned about how the high
    operational tempo is affecting the morale of the airmen in these career
    fields?
        Answer. We are always concerned about the morale and welfare of our
    Airmen operating in high operational tempo environments. With respect
    to remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), we have experienced unprecedented
    growth as a result of the increasing demand for the capability these
    systems provide. Initially we had to make some tough choices that had
    an impact on our Airmen, but recently we have implemented initiatives
    that will ``normalize'' the RPA enterprise and reduce the overall
    operational tempo. The two major initiatives are developing specific
    career fields for RPA aircrews and increasing our training capacity.
    These efforts are already mitigating the stress the high operational
    tempo has placed on our manpower infrastructure. As we continue to
    normalize RPA operations, the stresses will be reduced further.
        With respect to cyber security, last year we activated Twenty-
    Fourth Air Force and aligned critical cyber capabilities under Air
    Force Space Command. These actions enhanced our capability to conduct
    the full spectrum of military cyberspace operations for U.S. Cyber
    Command and the combatant commanders, while improving our ability to
    operate and defend Air Force networks. We are not significantly
    expanding the number of Airmen performing cyber missions and current
    operational tempo is not adversely affecting morale. However, we are
    making a concerted effort to ``operationalize'' cyber by enhancing
    formal training and implementing certification processes to develop a
    corps of cyberspace professionals. These organizational and force
    development changes will greatly enhance the Air Force's cyber
    capabilities.
        Question. General Schwartz, there is growing concern that there
    could be a lack of missile warning satellite coverage due to the
    continued delays in the Space-based Infrared High program. The Air
    Force terminated the third generation missile warning satellite program
    in fiscal year 2011. What is your plan to mitigate a potential gap in
    coverage?
        Answer. The Air Force response is classified and will be provided
    under separate cover.
        Question. Over the last 2\1/2\ years, $5.3 billion has been
    provided through the Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Reconnaissance
    Task Force to increase our knowledge of our enemies in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The fiscal year 2011 request includes an additional $2.6
    billion for this purpose. But the President and the Secretary of
    Defense have stated that we intend to withdraw another 50,000 troops
    from Iraq by this fall and will begin drawing down our Afghanistan
    force in mid-2011.
        General Schwartz, could you explain the need for more ISR
    capability for Afghanistan while our troops are expected to begin their
    withdrawal at the same time?
        Answer. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) has
    proven to be a critical force multiplier for our ground forces. With
    fewer eyes and ears on the ground as the combat forces are withdrawn,
    ISR will become even more important to ensure our remaining troops are
    in the right place at the right time and prepared for the threats they
    will face. Consequently, the Air Force has surged ISR to support U.S.
    Central Command requirements and will continue to adjust ISR capability
    to the theater as those requirements change.
        Additionally, the investments we have made and continue to make in
    improving our ISR capabilities are not limited strictly to operations
    within the U.S. Central Command area of operations. The funds we have
    expended, and are requesting this year, are intended to procure systems
    that can be deployed to any theater to meet warfighter ISR
    requirements.
        Question. General Schwartz, the fiscal year 2001 budget requests
    approximately $200 million for the next generation bomber, while the
    Quadrennial Defense Review states that the Air Force is reviewing
    options to modernize the bomber force. What is the status of this
    review and when will the Congress be informed of the next generation
    bomber acquisition strategy?
        Answer. The Air Force is performing analysis to ensure we fully
    understand how all potential long range strike options contribute to
    the country's future national defense and the National Military
    Strategy before significant funds are committed. During the 2010
    Quadrennial Defense Review, a Secretary of Defense-directed tiger team
    was established to complete an in-depth study of long-range strike,
    including the Long Range Strike Platform (LRSP) need, requirement, and
    technology. The team's conclusions were supportive of pursuing a new
    LRSP platform, but identified the need for additional analysis to
    explore options for reducing costs and accelerating fielding timelines.
    Based upon the need for additional analysis, the Secretary of Defense
    chartered a subsequent study to examine a broader array of long-range
    strike issues and options including the appropriate mix of long range
    strike capabilities; upgrades to legacy bombers; manned and unmanned
    force structure numbers; stand-off and penetrating platform ratios;
    stand-off cruise missile requirements; intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance demands; airborne electronic attack requirements; and
    conventional prompt global strike needs. RAND is supporting the
    analysis and the study results are expected to be available in the fall
    of 2010.
        Question. General Schwartz, the Air Force plan to cut 18 aircraft
    from the Air National Guard in fiscal year 2011 by retiring 6 C-130Es
    and transferring 12 C-130Hs to the active component raised some
    concerns. The media reported that the Air National Guard was not
    consulted on this plan. I understand that further discussions are now
    taking place within the Air Force. Could you please tell the Committee
    about the issues prompting the restructure and your current solution?
        Answer. As supported by the requirements identified in the recently
    released Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS 16),
    the Air Force is reducing excess mobility C-130 force structure by
    accelerating the retirement of the C-130Es and retiring some of the
    oldest C-130Hs. This created a shortfall of legacy C-130H aircraft for
    the Formal Training Unit (FTU) at Little Rock AFB, Arkansas. The fiscal
    year 2011 President's budget request proposed the transfer of 18 Air
    Reserve Component C-130Hs to the Active Duty to cover this shortfall
    and support the FTU. This plan was developed as part of the Air Force's
    Corporate Process, which included representation from the Air National
    Guard (ANG) and the Air Force Reserve (AFR). The Air Force, in close
    partnership with the ANG and the AFR, continued to analyze the best
    solution to address the FTU issue even after the fiscal year 2011
    President's budget was developed. The Air Force, including its Total
    Force partners, refined the original fiscal year 2011 President's
    budget request to meet the needs of the C-130 schoolhouse while
    factoring in state mission concerns. The new proposal would allow the
    ANG and AFR to retain ownership of the 18 C-130Hs but still support the
    training needs of the FTU--with the C-130 schoolhouse transitioning
    from an Active Duty run program to an Air Reserve Component run
    program.
        Question. General Schwartz, we understand that the Air Force was
    concerned about having too much of the C-130 force in the Guard and
    Reserves. Can you shed some light on what problem is being solved with
    the proposed shift of aircraft to the active component?
        Answer. As supported by the requirements identified in the Mobility
    Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS 16), the Air Force is
    reducing excess mobility C-130 force structure by accelerating the
    retirement of the C-130Es and retiring some of the oldest C-130Hs. This
    created a shortfall of legacy C-130H aircraft for the Formal Training
    Unit (FTU) at Little Rock AFB, Arkansas. The fiscal year 2011
    President's budget request proposed the transfer of 18 Air Reserve
    Component C-130Hs to the Active Duty to cover this shortfall and
    support the FTU. This plan was developed as part of the Air Force's
    Corporate Process, which included representation from the Air National
    Guard (ANG) and the Air Force Reserve (AFR). The Air Force, in close
    partnership with the ANG and the AFR, continued to analyze the best
    solution to address the FTU issue even after the fiscal year 2011
    President's budget was developed. The Air Force, including its Total
    Force partners, refined the original fiscal year 2011 President's
    budget request to meet the needs of the C-130 schoolhouse while
    factoring in state mission concerns. The new proposal would allow the
    ANG and AFR to retain ownership of the 18 C-130Hs but still support the
    training needs of the FTU--with the C-130 schoolhouse transitioning
    from an Active Duty run program to an Air Reserve Component run
    program.
        Question. General Schwartz, the Joint Cargo Aircraft program is now
    an Air Force responsibility rather than a joint Army-Air Force program.
    Along the way, the previously validated requirement of 78 aircraft
    dropped to 38 aircraft. In testimony last year, several witnesses
    suggested that the JCA requirement may get a re-look during the
    Quadrennial Defense Review. Could you tell us what has happened with
    respect to the JCA requirement?
        Answer. In April 2009, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    transferred the Joint Cargo Aircraft program to the Air Force, set the
    C-27J buy at 38 aircraft, and directed the Air Force to assume the
    Army's time sensitive/mission critical direct support airlift mission.
    The Secretary of Defense's intent was for the Air Force to use the new
    C-27J and existing C-130 aircraft to accomplish this mission.
        The Mobility Capability Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16)
    established the C-130 tactical fleet size at 335 but did not assess
    fleet requirements to perform the direct support mission. Air Mobility
    Command, working with the U.S. Army and others, recently chartered a
    RAND study to better define the direct support mission and detail the
    required direct support fleet given a baseline of 38 C-27Js. Initial
    results of the RAND study are expected in the fall of 2010.
        Question. General Schwartz, what is the status of the basing plan
    for these aircraft?
        Answer. The Air Force is using a repeatable, defendable and
    transparent Strategic Basing Process to identify locations for the C-
    27J. The National Guard Bureau, as the lead agency, developed training
    and operations basing criteria, which were approved by Secretary of the
    Air Force and myself and released to the Congress in April 2010. These
    criteria will be applied to create C-27J training and operations
    candidate base lists that will ultimately be approved by the Secretary
    and myself in July 2010. We anticipate releasing the preferred basing
    alternatives in December 2010 and completing the environmental impact
    assessment process by spring 2011.
        Question. The budget requests $66 million for a new program
    procuring 15 Light Mobility Aircraft. This new initiative expands your
    mission which, given the emphasis by Secretary Gates on reducing
    defense expenditures, appears unusual.
        General Schwartz, do you see any difficulty in manning new
    expeditionary units for this aircraft?
        Answer. The Air Force began deliberate planning to support the
    procurement of 15 Light Mobility Aircraft in the fiscal year 2011
    President's budget request which included adding civilian end strength
    to assist with the acquisition/procurement. The Air Force is currently
    finalizing the operations and associated military support manpower
    requirements as part of the process for building the fiscal year 2012
    defense budget utilizing existing skill sets already resident in the
    inventory.
        Question. General Schwartz, is this initiative duplicative with the
    Special Operations Command Foreign Internal Defense air advisory units?
        Answer. The Light Mobility Aircraft program is additive, not
    duplicative. It is designed to bring an aviation ``building partner
    capacity'' capability to general purpose forces. These aircraft will
    help partner nations with emerging air forces develop a basic airlift
    capability that will provide government presence, mobility, and other
    essential capabilities to the host nation. The capability to train,
    advise and equip partner nations' air forces has traditionally been a
    mission in Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC); specifically
    the 6th Special Operations Squadron. Although we have expanded the
    ability for this mission to be conducted in AFSOC--in past and coming
    years--we realize that the demand for this capability outpaces our
    ability to increase the mission within the special operations forces
    solely. As a result of this realization, and in compliance with the
    2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, we are fielding light mobility
    aircraft in general purpose force units.
        Question. General Schwartz, is there an operational role for these
    aircraft for resupplying American and coalition forces? Does this share
    a capability niche with the Joint Cargo Aircraft?
        Answer. While the LiMA and the C-27J will share some capabilities,
    including the ability to operate from short, rough, unimproved landing
    surfaces, the aircraft will perform two distinct missions. LiMA will
    primarily train Partner Nations in Air Mobility operations, while the
    C-27J will provide a dedicated airlift platform for U.S. and coalition
    forces. LiMA will enable the United States to acquire aircraft that are
    not only affordable, but also the right technology for many of our
    partner nations.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. The decision in the Air Force fiscal year 2011 budget to
    pull C-130s from the Air Guard and Reserve into the active duty Air
    Force is troubling. One explanation offered for this decision was that
    these airframes were part of a legacy air mobility fleet of the least
    capable and oldest aircraft. However, no explanation was offered as to
    why the Air Force has chosen to stock the Air Guard and Reserve with
    its oldest aircraft.
        Why aren't such airframes evenly spread across the components,
    rather than given mostly to the Guard and Reserve?
        Answer. The Air Force's original fiscal year 2011 request to move
    18 C-130s from the Air Reserve Component (ARC) to the Active Duty
    enabled retirement of the oldest C-130Es, most of which resided within
    the Active component. Since then, the Air Force and ARC have
    accelerated a previously discussed approach to pass the C-130 legacy
    training requirement to the ARC. This plan eliminates the need to
    transfer ownership of the 18 aircraft in question to the Active
    component. Finally, both the Active and Reserve components possess a
    mix of older and newer C-130s.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. General Schwartz, NASA is proposing to rely on an
    emerging commercial space sector to meet future space exploration and
    launch needs, and I am informed that the Air Force has explored
    commercial launch services in the past with mild success.
        How has the commercial industry evolved with spacelift
    capabilities? More importantly, have you looked at government test
    facilities involvement to ensure that commercial industry maintains the
    necessary level of safety and reliability in launching national
    security space assets?
        Answer. The United Launch Alliance (ULA) is currently the sole U.S.
    provider of medium-lift to heavy-lift launch vehicles through the
    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. ULA provides the
    Atlas V and Delta IV families of launch vehicles for national security
    space payloads. While EELV initially targeted a projected large
    commercial demand, the commercial launch market did not materialize and
    now the U.S. Government is driving the market for medium-lift to heavy-
    lift launch vehicles. A small number of EELVs have been procured
    commercially outside of the Air Force program office, such as the
    Intelsat-14 launch on an Atlas V on November 23, 2009, and by NASA for
    the NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites.
        Emergent commercial launch providers for medium-class payloads,
    such as the Space X Falcon 9 and Orbital Taurus II, are receiving NASA
    funding via Commercial Orbital Transportation System contracts. The
    first launch demonstration flight for Falcon 9 was on June 4, 2010. The
    first planned launch of the Taurus II is in late June 2011.
        A number of U.S. Government test and range facilities support
    commercial space flight. The EELV program used NASA's Plum Brook
    facility for payload fairing qualification; Arnold Engineering
    Development Center for upper stage engine testing; and Edwards AFB,
    California for Delta IV main engine testing. ULA continues to use
    NASA's Stennis Space Center for main engine final assembly and test.
    Additionally, all ULA launches, government and commercial, utilize the
    Air Force spacelift range facilities at the Eastern Range (Cape
    Canaveral AFS, Florida) and the Western Range (Vandenberg AFB,
    California). The testing and qualification performed at these
    government facilities are key contributors to the proven reliability of
    the EELV launch vehicles.
        It is our understanding that Space X employs organic facilities to
    meet their test needs while Orbital plans to use the Stennis facility
    for main engine final assembly and test. To meet their launch needs,
    Space X operates at the Air Force's Eastern and Western Ranges and
    Orbital is building launch facilities at NASA's Wallops Flight
    Facility. We are not aware of any other specific plans for these
    companies to use government facilities.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
        Question. The Air Force is currently looking into the concept of
    light attack aircraft and may request funds to purchase these aircraft
    in the future. Does the Air Force plan on using light attack aircraft
    solely to train foreign militaries or are there plans for the Air Force
    to develop its own light attack fleet?
        Answer. The 15 light attack aircraft will be used for building
    partnership capacity training. A competitive acquisition strategy will
    be used to procure the 15 light attack continental U.S. based training
    aircraft in fiscal year 2012. The Air Force currently has no plans to
    develop an organic light attack fleet.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. This subcommittee will next meet on
    Tuesday, May 18, at 10 a.m., in a closed session, at which time
    we'll be briefed on issues concerning the United States Pacific
    Command and the United States European Command.
        We will now stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:14 a.m., Wednesday, May 12, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Dorgan, Feinstein, Murray,
    Specter, Cochran, Bond, Hutchison, and Bennett.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. This morning, the subcommittee welcomes
    Dr. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, and Admiral Mike
    Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to testify
    on the administration's budget for fiscal year 2011. We welcome
    you and thank you for joining us.
        The administration has requested $540 billion for base
    budget for the DOD for fiscal year 2011, an increase of $18
    billion over the amount enacted last year. Additionally, the
    administration has requested $159 billion in supplemental
    funding for overseas contingency operations in the next fiscal
    year, roughly equal to the supplemental funding requested for
    the current fiscal year.
        The base budget for DOD has nearly doubled in the last 10
    years, and since 2001, we have spent close to $1 trillion on
    post 9/11 combat operations. Those are staggering numbers, to
    say the least, and warrant some judicial scrutiny on behalf of
    both the warfighter and the taxpayer.
        Mr. Secretary, last year, you set out to reform the
    Pentagon's budget, and particularly by seeking greater balance
    in our force structure between competing requirements for
    irregular and conventional warfare. This year's budget request
    continues this effort. One key theme you have emphasized in
    recent months is the need to provide an institutional home in
    the Department for the warfighter engaged in the current fight.
        We would agree with that, but as you well know, much of the
    critical force protection equipment that is used in the theater
    today has been funded outside the regular budget and is being
    managed by newly created and ad hoc organizations that we
    understood were to be temporary in nature. Yet even after
    several years at war, these task forces still haven't
    transitioned to regular Defense Department operations. The Mine
    Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Task Force; the
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force; the
    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Organization; and the
    Helicopter Survivability Task Force come to mind.
        Last year, you even created a senior integration group to
    oversee efforts by these task forces. These organizations are
    not only largely funded with supplemental appropriations, they
    remain apart from the regular acquisition process and enjoy
    considerable flexible authorities, some of which are being
    interpreted quite broadly, to say the least.
        Mr. Secretary, when we met last year, you indicated to us
    that some of these task forces would disappear. So we would
    appreciate an update from you with respect to the transition
    plans.
        At the same time, conventional threats to our national
    security remain. We need only look at words spoken and actions
    taken in recent weeks by North Korea, Iran, and China to be
    reminded that our national security challenges go beyond those
    of irregular warfare. There is grave concern that with the
    current emphasis on irregular warfare capability, we could be
    losing sight of the conventional threats and degrading our
    ability to counter them.
        And finally, Mr. Secretary, in light of our Nation's fiscal
    challenges, you recently stated that military spending should
    expect to receive harsher scrutiny. You mentioned large and
    small weapons systems, a review of Defense Department
    operations, and also the challenge of providing healthcare for
    our soldiers and veterans, quoting President Eisenhower's
    truism that, ``The patriot today is the fellow who can do the
    job with less money.''
        As you can imagine, those statements raise a few questions.
    So we hope you will take this opportunity to elaborate a bit
    further about what you have in mind.
        But before proceeding, Mr. Secretary, I would like to call
    upon our vice chairman for any comments he wishes to make.
        Senator Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I am pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished
    panel of witnesses at the hearing this morning. We are
    reviewing the Defense Department's 2011 budget request.
        Mr. Secretary, I hope you can give the subcommittee your
    assessment of the timing of when the fiscal year 2010
    supplemental appropriations will be needed to support combat
    operations. When you briefed the Senators last month, you
    suggested that the supplemental appropriations bill would be
    needed prior to Memorial Day. The Senate passed a supplemental
    appropriations bill last month. The funding level approved by
    the Senate was within the funding level requested by the
    administration.
        But we have seen no movement to enact this legislation by
    the other body, and I am concerned that we are well past
    Memorial Day, and any insights you can give us now as to what
    we face because of the lack of supplemental funding might be
    helpful and help generate a little more emphasis on the
    timeliness of the action by the Congress.
        So we thank you for being here, and we look forward to your
    testimony.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        The show is yours, Mr. Secretary.

                   SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES

        Secretary Gates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran,
    members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you to discuss the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2011 for the Department of Defense.
        I first want to thank you, as always, for your support of
    the men and women in the U.S. military for these many years. I
    know they are uppermost in your thoughts as you deliberate on
    these budget requests.
        Our troops are part of an extraordinary generation of young
    Americans who have answered their country's call. They have
    fought our country's wars, protected our interests and allies
    around the globe, and they have demonstrated compassion and
    dedication in the face of tragedy and loss.
        The budget requests being presented today include $549
    billion for the base budget, a 3.4 percent increase over the
    last year, or 1.8 percent real growth after adjusting for
    inflation, reflecting the administration's commitment to
    modest, steady, and sustainable real growth in defense
    spending.
        The base budget request was accompanied and informed by the
    2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which establishes
    strategic priorities and identifies key areas for needed
    investment. The 2010 QDR and fiscal year 2011 request build
    upon the substantial changes that the President made in the
    fiscal year 2010 budget to allocate defense dollars more wisely
    and reform the Department's processes.
        The base budget reflects these major institutional
    priorities. First, reaffirming and strengthening the Nation's
    commitment to care for the All-Volunteer force, our greatest
    strategic asset. Second, rebalancing America's defense posture
    by emphasizing both the capabilities needed to prevail in
    irregular conflicts and the capabilities that likely will be
    needed in the future. And third, continuing the Department's
    commitment to reform of how the Department does business,
    especially in the area of acquisition.
        Building on the reforms of last year's budget, the fiscal
    year 2011 request takes additional steps aimed at programs that
    were excess or performing poorly. They include terminating the
    Navy EPX intelligence aircraft; ending the Third Generation
    Infrared Surveillance Program; canceling the Next Generation
    CGX Cruiser; terminating the Net-Enabled and Control Program--
    Command and Control Program; ending the Defense Integrated
    Military Human Resources System due to cost overruns and
    performance concerns; completing the C-17 program and closing
    the production line as multiple studies in recent years,
    including an outside study mandated by the Congress in 2008,
    show that the Air Force already has many more of these aircraft
    than it needs; and ending the second engine for the F-35 Joint
    Strike Fighter (JSF), as whatever benefits might accrue are
    more than offset by excess costs, complexity, and associated
    risks.
        Let me be very clear. I will continue to strongly recommend
    that the President veto any legislation that sustains the
    continuation of the C-17 or the F-35 extra engine.
        And given some recent commentary, let me be explicit. It
    would be a very serious mistake to believe the President would
    accept these unneeded programs simply because the authorization
    or appropriations legislation includes other provisions
    important to him and to this administration.
        These reforms all require political will and a willingness
    to make hard choices. We are already beginning the next step in
    this process of reform as we prepare the fiscal 2012 budget.
    Last month, I called on the Pentagon to take a hard, unsparing
    look at how the Department is staffed, organized, and operated.
    This initiative is not designed to reduce the defense top line.
    I believe the current top line is the minimum needed to sustain
    a military at war and to protect our interests in the years to
    come in an ever more unstable and dangerous world.
        Rather, my goal is to significantly reduce our overhead
    costs in order to free up the resources needed to sustain our
    force structure, to modernize, and to create future combat
    capabilities while living within the current top line. To this
    end, the Department has recently set a goal to find more than
    $100 billion in overhead savings over the next 5 fiscal years,
    starting in fiscal year 2012. No organization within the
    Department, including my own office, will be excluded from
    these efforts. All of the savings will be applied to fund
    personnel and units, force structure, and investment in future
    capabilities.
        As a matter of principle and political reality, the
    Department of Defense cannot come to America's elected
    representatives and ask for budget increases each year unless
    we have done a better job--indeed, done everything possible--to
    make every dollar count.
        Finally, in order to support ongoing operations, we are
    also requesting $159 billion in fiscal year 2011 to support
    overseas contingency operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan
    and Iraq, plus $33 billion for the remainder of this fiscal
    year to support the added financial costs of the President's
    new approach in Afghanistan.
        The commitments made and programs funded in the OCO and
    supplemental requests demonstrate this administration's
    determination to support our troops and commanders at the front
    so they can accomplish their critical missions and return home
    safely.
        I discussed the Defense Department's portion of the fiscal
    year 2010 supplemental request before this subcommittee in
    March and sought its approval by spring to prevent costly and
    counterproductive disruptions to the Department's operations. I
    am becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of progress
    on the supplemental and strongly urge Congress to complete its
    work on the request as quickly as possible.
        I appreciate the Senate's action on this request, but if
    the supplemental is not enacted by the July 4th congressional
    recess, we will have to begin planning to curtail defense
    operations. Such planning is disruptive, can be costly, and
    especially in time of war, and I ask your help in avoiding this
    action.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and members of
    this subcommittee again for all you have done to support our
    troops and their families, especially in light of the
    unprecedented demands that have been placed upon them. I
    believe the choices made in these budget requests reflect
    America's commitment to see that our forces have the tools they
    need to prevail in the wars we are in, while making the
    investments necessary to prepare for threats on or beyond the
    horizon.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Robert M. Gates
        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you to discuss the President's budget
    requests for fiscal year 2011. I first want to thank you for your
    support of the men and women of the U.S. military these many years. I
    know they will be uppermost in your thoughts as you deliberate on these
    budget requests. Our troops are part of an extraordinary generation of
    young Americans who have answered their country's call. They have
    fought this country's wars, protected our interests and allies around
    the globe, and they have demonstrated compassion and dedication in the
    face of tragedy and loss.
        The budget requests being presented today include $549 billion for
    the base budget--a 3.4 percent increase over last year, or 1.8 percent
    real growth after adjusting for inflation, reflecting this
    administration's commitment to modest, steady, and sustainable real
    growth in defense spending. The base budget request was accompanied and
    informed by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, which establishes
    strategic priorities and identifies key areas for needed investment.
    The 2010 QDR and fiscal year 2011 request build upon the substantial
    changes that the President made in the fiscal year 2010 budget to
    allocate defense dollars more wisely and reform the department's
    processes.
        The base budget request reflects these major institutional
    priorities:
      --First, reaffirming and strengthening the nation's commitment to
            care for the all-volunteer force, our greatest strategic asset;
      --Second, rebalancing America's defense posture by emphasizing both
            the capabilities needed to prevail in irregular conflicts, and
            the capabilities that likely will be needed in the future; and
      --Third, continuing the department's commitment to reform how DOD
            does business, especially in the area of acquisitions.
        Building on the reforms of last year's budget, the fiscal year 2011
    request takes additional steps aimed at programs that were excess or
    performing poorly. They include: Terminating the Navy EP(X)
    intelligence aircraft; ending the Third Generation Infrared
    Surveillance program; canceling the next generation CG(X) cruiser;
    terminating the Net Enabled Command and Control program; ending the
    Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System due to cost overruns
    and performance concerns; completing the C-17 program and closing the
    production line, as multiple studies in recent years show that the Air
    Force already has more of these aircraft than it needs; and ending the
    second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as whatever benefits
    might accrue are more than offset by excess costs, complexity, and
    associated risks.
        Let me be very clear: I will continue to strongly recommend that
    the President veto any legislation that sustains the continuation of
    the C-17 or the F-35 extra engine. And given some recent commentary, it
    would be a serious mistake to believe the President would accept these
    unneeded programs simply because the authorization or appropriations
    legislation includes other provisions important to him and this
    administration.
        These reforms all require political will and a willingness to make
    hard choices. We are already beginning the next step in this process of
    reform as we prepare for the fiscal 2012 budget. Last month I called on
    the Pentagon to take a hard, unsparing look at how the department is
    staffed, organized and operated. This initiative is not designed to
    reduce the defense topline. I believe the current topline is the
    minimum needed to sustain a military at war and to protect our
    interests in the years to come in an even more unstable and dangerous
    world. Rather, my goal is to significantly reduce our overhead costs in
    order to free up the resources needed to sustain our force structure,
    modernization, and future combat capabilities while living within our
    current topline.
        To this end, the department has recently set a goal to find more
    than $100 billion in overhead savings over the 5 fiscal years starting
    in fiscal year 2012. No organization within the department, including
    my own office, will be excluded from these efforts. All of the savings
    will be applied to fund personnel in units, force structure, and
    investment in future capabilities. As a matter of principle and
    political reality, the Department of Defense cannot go to America's
    elected representatives and ask for budget increases each year unless
    we have done everything possible to make every dollar count.
        Finally, in order to support ongoing operations, we are also
    requesting $159 billion in fiscal year 2011 to support Overseas
    Contingency Operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus $33
    billion for the remainder of this fiscal year to support the added
    financial costs of the President's new approach in Afghanistan. The
    commitments made and programs funded in the OCO and supplemental
    requests demonstrate this administration's determination to support our
    troops and commanders at the front so they can accomplish their
    critical missions and return home safely.
        I discussed the Defense Department's portion of the fiscal year
    2010 supplemental request before this committee in March, and sought
    its approval by spring to prevent costly and counterproductive
    disruptions to the department's operations. I am becoming increasingly
    concerned about the lack of progress on the supplemental, and strongly
    urge Congress to complete its work on the request as quickly as
    possible. I appreciate the Senate's action on this request, but if the
    supplemental is not enacted by the July 4th Congressional recess, we
    will have to begin planning to curtail defense operations. Such
    planning is disruptive, especially in time of war, and I ask your help
    in avoiding this action.
                        care for our all-volunteer force
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $138.5 billion for
    military pay and allowances, an increase of $3.6 billion--or 2.6
    percent--over last year. This includes an increase of 1.4 percent for
    military basic pay, which will keep military pay increases in line with
    those in the private sector. This amount funds bonuses and other
    incentives to meet recruiting and retention quality and quantity
    goals--especially for our most critical skills and experience levels.
    The military deserves generous pay because of the stress and danger
    these jobs entail. In recent years, the Congress has added 0.5 percent
    to the administration's requested military pay raise--an action that
    adds about $500 million a year to our budget now and in future years,
    and reduces the funds available for training and equipping the force.
    In this time of strong recruiting and retention, I urge the Congress to
    approve the full requested amount for the fiscal year 2011 military pay
    raise but not to add to the request.
    Wounded, Ill, and Injured
        This budget supports the department's intense focus on care for our
    wounded, ill, and injured military members. As I've said before, aside
    from winning the wars themselves, this is my highest priority. Key
    initiatives include:
      --Achieving a seamless transition to veteran status for members
            leaving the military and increased cooperation between the
            Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs;
      --Ensuring a high standard at facilities caring for wounded warriors,
            including first-rate hospitals and the Army's Warrior
            Transition Units;
      --Enhancing case management of individuals transitioning to civilian
            life--especially those needing long-term care;
      --Establishing a better Disability Evaluation System--to create a
            simpler, faster, more consistent process for determining which
            members may continue their military service and helping them
            become as independent and self-supporting as possible; and
      --Working with the VA to create Virtual Lifetime Electronic Records
            to improve veteran care and services by improving the
            availability of administrative and health information.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $2.2 billion for
    enduring programs for our wounded, ill, and injured. It also includes
    $300 million to complete the Army's Warrior Transition complexes and
    new medical facilities in the Washington, DC, capital region. The $2.2
    billion for these programs is $100 million more than the fiscal year
    2010 enacted amount and is more than double the fiscal year 2008 level
    of $1 billion.
    Military Health System
        The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $50.7 billion for the Unified
    Medical Budget to support the Military Health System that serves 9.5
    million eligible beneficiaries. Over the past decade, U.S. healthcare
    costs have grown substantially, and defense health costs have been no
    exception, more than doubling between fiscal year 2001 ($19 billion)
    and fiscal year 2010 ($49 billion). These costs are expected to grow
    from 6 percent of the department's total budget in fiscal year 2001 to
    more than 10 percent in fiscal year 2015.
    Military Family Support Programs
        The department remains fully committed to providing assistance to
    our troops and their families in light of the unprecedented demands
    that have been placed on them. Our men and women in uniform and their
    families have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. The
    budget reflects the department's policy of shifting money to the base
    budget for enduring programs so that they will not disappear as war
    funding declines. The fiscal year 2011 base budget includes $8.1
    billion for a variety of family-support programs vital to the morale
    and well-being of our military members and their families--an increase
    of $450 million over last year. The OCO request includes $700 million
    for family support--bringing the total to $8.8 billion.
    Build and Sustain Facilities
        The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $18.7 billion to fund critical
    military construction and family housing requirements, including
    substantial funding to recapitalize many department schools for
    children of service members.
        The fiscal year 2011 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) investment
    funding of $2.4 billion is less than prior years because most of the
    funding needed to implement the 2005 round of BRAC decisions has
    already been appropriated for 24 major realignments, 24 base closures,
    and 765 lesser actions--all of which must be completed by September 15,
    2011, in accordance with statute.
        We have requested $14.2 billion to modernize the department's
    facilities; to support the recently completed growth in the Army and
    Marine Corps; to support the relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa
    to Guam; and to recapitalize medical facilities and schools for
    servicemembers' children.
                   rebalancing the force--the wars we are in
        Achieving our objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq has moved to the
    top of the institutional military's budgeting, policy, and program
    priorities. We now recognize that America's ability to deal with
    threats for years to come will largely depend on our performance in the
    current conflicts. The fiscal year 2011 budget request took a number of
    additional steps aimed at filling persistent shortfalls that have
    plagued recent military efforts, especially in Afghanistan.
    Rotary-Wing Aircraft
        To increase these capabilities, this request includes more than
    $9.6 billion for the acquisition of a variety of modern rotary-wing
    aircraft, including the creation of two Army combat aviation brigades
    by fiscal year 2014. The goal is to train 1,500 new Army helicopter
    pilots per year by 2012.
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request continues efforts to increase
    ISR support for our fighting forces. The ISR Task Force was formed in
    April 2008 to generate critical operational ISR capacity--primarily in
    Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then, the department has worked to secure
    substantial funding to field and sustain ISR capabilities. In the
    fiscal year 2011 budget, that includes: $2.2 billion for procurement of
    Predator-class aircraft to increase the Combat Air Patrols (CAPs)
    available to deployed forces from 37 to 65 by 2013; and doubling
    procurement of the MQ-9 Reaper over the next few years.
    Electronic Warfare (EW)
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request supports the QDR's call for
    better EW capabilities for today's warfighters. The Navy procurement
    budget includes $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2011 and $2.3 billion in
    fiscal year 2012 for the addition of 36 EA-18G aircraft, with 12
    procured in fiscal year 2011 and 24 in fiscal year 2012. These
    resources and capabilities will help fill an imminent EW shortfall that
    has been consistently highlighted by the combatant commanders as one of
    their highest priorities.
    Special Operations Forces (SOF)
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $6.3 billion for USSOCOM--
    nearly 6 percent higher than in fiscal year 2010. The department plans
    to call for SOF funding to increase sharply over the next several
    years, including an increase of about 2,800 personnel in fiscal year
    2011.
                rebalancing the force--preparing for the future
        The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $189 billion for total
    procurement, research, and development. This investment reflects the
    fact that the United States needs a broad portfolio of military
    capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible
    spectrum of conflict, including conventional conflict with the
    technologically advanced military forces of other countries. To meet
    the potential threats to our military's ability to project power, deter
    aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners in environments
    where access to our forces may be denied, this budget request includes
    substantial funds for conventional and strategic modernization.
    Tactical Aircraft--JSF
        The fiscal year 2011 budget funds programs to develop and buy
    superior aircraft to guarantee continued air dominance over current and
    future battlefields, most importantly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
    (JSF). The fiscal year 2011 base budget includes $10.7 billion for
    continued development of the F-35, and for procurement of 42 aircraft.
    An additional JSF is purchased in the OCO budget.
        I know the JSF program is of great interest and concern to this
    committee. In response to what I consider to be unacceptable delays and
    cost overruns over the past year, this department has taken a number of
    steps to substantially restructure this program.
        First, the JSF program is now based on numbers--cost and schedule
    estimates--from the Joint Estimating Team (or JET), an independent body
    known for its rigorous and skeptical assessments.
        Based on the new JET estimates, we reduced the number of aircraft
    being purchased concurrent with testing and development. While delaying
    full-scale production was not a welcome development--to put it mildly--
    it was important to avoid a situation where a problem discovered in
    testing would lead to expensive retrofits of aircraft, the most common
    reason for delays and cost overruns in these kinds of programs.
    Correspondingly, we have added more aircraft to the testing regime,
    which we believe will reduce the projected delay from 30 months to 13.
    These changes amount to a brutally realistic assessment of cost and
    schedule--one that I believe should stand the test of time and the
    legitimate scrutiny of the Congress and the American taxpayer.
        Furthermore, with regard to accountability, I have replaced the JSF
    program manager and elevated that position to a three-star billet while
    withholding more than $600 million in performance fees from the lead
    contractor. It is important to remember that the JSF's cost- and
    schedule-related issues--and I regard them as serious, to be sure--are
    problems primarily related to program administration and management,
    not the technology and capability of the aircraft. The Joint Strike
    Fighter will do everything the military services need it to do, and
    become the backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation.
    Mobility and Tanker Aircraft
        The fiscal year 2011 budget continues to support development of a
    new aerial refueling tanker. The KC-X, the first phase of KC-135
    recapitalization, will procure 179 commercial derivative tanker
    aircraft to replace roughly one-third of the current aerial refueling
    tanker fleet at an estimated cost of $35 billion. Contract award is
    expected in the summer of 2010 and procurement should begin in fiscal
    year 2013. To support this long-range effort, $864 million has been
    requested for research into the next-generation tanker.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget ends production of the C-17, supports
    shutdown activities for production of new aircraft, and continues the
    modification of existing C-17s. With the completion of the program, the
    United States will have 223 of these aircraft, more than enough to meet
    current and projected requirements.
    Shipbuilding
        The fiscal year 2011 budget reflects the department's formulation
    of a realistic, executable shipbuilding plan through the Future Years
    Defense Program (FYDP). Overall, the fiscal year 2011 budget includes
    $25.1 billion for fiscal year 2011 procurement of new ships, equipment
    and research and development into future construction--including $15.7
    billion for Navy shipbuilding and conversion activities. It reinforces
    the ongoing transition to a naval force that can meet the needs of
    today's warfighters and reduce reliance on very costly and increasingly
    vulnerable large surface combatants in the future. The fiscal year 2011
    request and planned out-year funding would allow the department to:
      --Build a new aircraft carrier every 5 years;
      --Shift large-deck amphibious ship production to a 5-year build cycle
            to maintain a long-term force structure of nine large-deck
            aviation ships to support amphibious operations;
      --Stabilize near-term production quantities for the Littoral Combat
            Ship (LCS) and the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) to support
            irregular warfare operations;
      --Produce two attack submarines per year beginning in fiscal year
            2011 and continue development of a new strategic deterrent
            submarine; and
      --Build three Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships--one ship per year
            in fiscal year 2011, fiscal year 2013, and fiscal year 2015.
    Ground Forces Modernization
        The fiscal year 2011 budget advances restructuring of the Army's
    Future Combat Systems (FCS), principally through Brigade Combat Team
    (BCT) modernization. The fiscal year 2011 request for BCTs is $3.2
    billion, mostly for research and development.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget also supports the development of a new
    ground-vehicle program to replace aging systems. The new program will
    take into account the hard battlefield lessons of recent years,
    especially with respect to threats posed by improvised explosive
    devices (IEDs), and will include a role for the MRAP and M-ATV vehicles
    that have been so important in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Space and Cyber Capabilities
        Just about all of our military forces--land, sea, and air--now
    depend on digital communications and the satellites and data networks
    that support them. The role of space and satellites has never been more
    crucial to military operations--from GPS-guided munitions and
    navigation to missile defense and communications. The fiscal year 2011
    budget continues to strengthen U.S. capabilities in space, with $599
    million allocated to procure Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF)
    satellites instead of the Transformational Satellite, which was
    cancelled in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
        With cheap technology and minimal investment, adversaries operating
    in cyberspace can potentially inflict serious damage on our command and
    control, ISR, and precision strike capabilities. The fiscal year 2011
    budget continues to fund the recruiting and training of new experts in
    cyber warfare begun in fiscal year 2010, and supports the stand up of a
    new U.S. Cyber Command.
    Ballistic Missile Defense
        The Department of Defense continues to pursue missile-defense
    systems that can provide real capability as soon as possible while
    taking maximum advantage of new technologies. In accordance with the
    2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, our goal is a missile-defense
    program that balances capabilities and risks in order to deter
    aggression; project power and protect U.S. and allied interests; and
    respond to warfighter requirements.
        This year's base budget request includes $9.9 billion total for
    missile defense--almost $700 million more than last year, mostly for
    the Missile Defense Agency.
        This includes funding for:
      --Enhanced missile defenses for deployed forces, allies, and partners
            to defend against regional threats--including THAAD battery
            ground components and interceptors, as well as the conversion
            of additional Aegis ships.
      --The ``Phased Adaptive Approach'' for missile defense: a flexible,
            scalable system to respond to developing threats. This has
            particular applicability to Europe, where the new approach
            allows us to adapt our systems more rapidly as new threats
            develop and old ones recede. In the short-term, we will be able
            to provide immediate coverage and protection by deploying
            current and proven systems such as the Aegis and SM-3.
      --A viable homeland defense against rogue threats--including ground-
            based interceptors at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg AFB,
            California.
      --Expansion of the flight-test program to test capabilities against
            medium, intermediate, and long-range threats.
      --Investments in break-through technologies to improve our ability to
            counter threats during the boost phase while focusing on the
            most promising new technologies.
    Nuclear Weapons
        The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) released in April outlined the
    policy framework for achieving the President's objectives to reduce
    nuclear weapons with a long-term goal of elimination; and maintain a
    safe, secure, and effective arsenal as long as these weapons exist. It
    also provides steps to strengthen deterrence while reducing the role of
    nuclear weapons. The President's budget requests for the Defense and
    Energy departments reflect several priorities established in our
    review: Funding to sustain a nuclear triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy
    bombers under the New START Treaty; and increased National Nuclear
    Security Administration funding for infrastructure, warhead life
    extension, and science and technology.
        Maintaining an adequate stockpile of safe, secure and reliable
    nuclear warheads requires a reinvigoration of our nuclear weapons
    complex, that is, our infrastructure and our science, technology and
    engineering base. To this end, the Department of Defense is
    transferring $4.6 billion to the Department of Energy's National
    Nuclear Security Administration through fiscal year 2015. This transfer
    will assist in funding critical nuclear weapons life-extension programs
    and efforts to modernize the nuclear weapons infrastructure. The
    initial applications of this funding along with an additional $1.1
    billion being transferred for naval nuclear reactors are reflected in
    the Defense and Energy Departments' fiscal year 2011 budget request,
    which I urge the Congress to approve. These investments and the Nuclear
    Posture Review strategy for warhead life extension represent a credible
    modernization plan to sustain the nuclear infrastructure and support
    our nation's deterrent.
    Building Partner Capacity
        In a world where arguably the most likely and lethal threats will
    emanate from failed and fractured states, building the security
    capacity of partners has emerged as a key capability--one that reduces
    the need for direct U.S. military intervention, with all of its
    attendant political, financial, and human costs. To provide more
    resources, predictability, and agility to this important mission, the
    department will seek an increase in Global Train and Equip authority in
    the fiscal year 2011 budget to $500 million--authority that includes
    coalition activities to support current operations.
                        reforming how dod does business
        President Obama is committed to ending unneeded and troubled
    programs and achieving a better balance between capabilities needed to
    succeed in current conflicts and capabilities needed to prepare for the
    conflicts we are most likely to see in the future.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request builds on the reforms of last
    year by ending a number of unneeded or troubled programs:
      --Next Generation Cruiser CG(X).--Cancelled due to concerns about
            costs and utility in future combat scenarios. Any resulting
            capability gap will be filled by an enhanced Navy destroyer
            program.
      --Navy Intelligence Aircraft EP(X).--This Navy-planned EP-3
            replacement was cancelled because of cost and its redundancy
            with other technologies and systems.
      --Third Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS).--This sensor system
            was cancelled because there are better alternatives.
      --The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS).--
            DIMHRS has been in development for over 10 years and cost $500
            million--with little to show and limited prospects.
      --Net Enabled Command and Control (NECC).--This joint program has had
            cost overruns and performance shortfalls.
    JSF Alternate Engine
        One of the tougher decisions we faced during this budget process
    was whether or not to formally add the alternate engine to the Joint
    Strike Fighter program. It has been the position of this department
    since 2007 that adding a second JSF engine was unnecessary and too
    costly.
        Over the past year, as part of our thorough review of the overall
    JSF program, we took a fresh look to determine whether the second
    engine option had reached a point in funding and development that
    supported a different conclusion. We considered all aspects of this
    question and, in the end, concluded that the facts and analysis simply
    do not support the case for adding an alternate engine program. There
    are several rationales for this conclusion:
        First, even after factoring in Congress' additional funding, the
    engine would still require a further investment of $2.5 billion over
    the next 5 years.
        Second, the additional costs are not offset by potential savings
    generated through competition. Even optimistic analytical models
    produce essentially a break-even scenario.
        Third, the solution to understandable concern over the performance
    of the Pratt & Whitney program is not to spend yet more money to add a
    second engine. The answer is to get the first engine on track. Further,
    the alternate engine program is 3 to 4 years behind in development
    compared to the current program, and there is no guarantee that a
    second program would not face the same challenges as the current
    effort.
        Fourth, split or shared buys of items, particularly from only two
    sources, do not historically produce competitive behavior since both
    vendors are assured some share of the purchase. Another reality is that
    the JSF is designed to support a wide diversity of military customers,
    including the Navy, Marine Corps, and overseas buyers, many of whom are
    unable or unwilling to purchase from two engine manufacturers.
        For all these reasons, we are firm in our view that the interests
    of the taxpayers, our military, our partner nations, and the integrity
    of the JSF program are best served by not pursuing a second engine.
        I believe most proponents of this program are motivated by the
    genuine belief that a second engine is the right thing to do. And we
    have been engaging the Congress in this discussion and sharing with
    them our facts and analysis. However, we have reached a critical point
    in this debate where spending more money on a second engine for the JSF
    is unnecessary, wasteful, and simply diverts precious modernization
    funds from other more pressing priorities. Accordingly, should the
    Congress add more funds to continue this unneeded program, I will
    continue to strongly recommend that the President veto such
    legislation.
    C-17
        The fiscal year 2011 request completes the C-17 program and begins
    shutting down the production line. At present, we have 194 C-17s (plus
    111 C-5s) in our strategic airlift fleet. By the end of this fiscal
    year, the department will have procured 223.
        Three department studies completed over the past 5 years have
    concluded that the U.S. military has more than enough strategic airlift
    capacity, and that additional C-17s are not required. Some factors to
    consider:
      --In 2004, the Air Force Fleet Viability board determined that the
            fleet of C-5As--the oldest variant--will remain viable until at
            least 2025. The Air Force and the manufacturer believe that the
            C-5 fleet will remain viable until 2040. And ongoing
            modernization and refurbishment efforts are intended to
            increase the reliability, availability, and maintainability of
            the C-5 fleet;
      --Despite the demands of the current military campaigns, the existing
            C-17 fleet is not being ``burned up.'' With the exception of
            2003--when there were only 111 aircraft in the fleet that were
            being surged to begin the Iraq war--the annual use of the C-17
            inventory has been within program limits; and
      --While it is true that the C-17 can land places where the C-5
            cannot, of the 200,000 landings made by C-17s since 1997, less
            than 4 percent were in places that were not accessible to the
            C-5.
        In summary, for these and other reasons, the department has
    concluded that the current C-17 is more than sufficient to meet the
    military's airlift needs. Should Congress add funds to continue this
    program, I will strongly recommend a Presidential veto.
    Acquisitions
        The department is implementing initiatives that will increase the
    numbers and capabilities of the acquisition workforce, improve funding
    stability, enhance the source-selection process, and improve contract
    execution. Our intent is to provide the warfighter with world-class
    capability while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
        To operate effectively, the acquisition system must be supported by
    an appropriately-sized cadre of acquisition professionals with the
    right skills and training to perform their jobs. To address these
    personnel deficiencies, DOD will increase the number of acquisition
    personnel by 20,000 positions--from about 127,000 in fiscal year 2010
    to about 147,000 by fiscal year 2015. We will be making significant
    increases in training and retention programs in order to bolster the
    capability and size of the acquisition workforce.
    Civilian Workforce
        The fiscal year 2011 budget funds a pay raise of 1.4 percent for
    DOD civilians--the same as the military pay raise. The request includes
    funding to transition out of the National Security Personnel System
    (NSPS)--as directed by the fiscal year 2010 National Defense
    Authorization Act.
        About 225,000 DOD employees are covered by NSPS. These employees
    must convert to a successor statutory personnel system. The fiscal year
    2011 budget includes $23 million to implement NSPS transition and $239
    million for estimated higher civilian pay for employees transitioning
    out of NSPS.
        The request supports the DOD plan, announced last year, to grow its
    civilian workforce by in-sourcing--replacing contractors with DOD
    civilian employees. DOD is on track to reduce the number of support
    service contractors from the current 39 percent of our workforce to the
    pre-2001 level of 26 percent, and replace them with full-time
    government employees. DOD will hire as many as 13,400 new civil
    servants in fiscal year 2010, and another 6,000 in fiscal year 2011, to
    replace contractors and up to 33,400 new civil servants in place of
    contractors over the next 5 years. This includes 2,500 acquisition
    personnel in fiscal year 2010 and 10,000 through fiscal year 2014.
    Fiscal Year 2010 Supplemental Request
        As the President stated, the goal of the United States in
    Afghanistan and Pakistan is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda
    and to prevent its resurgence in both countries. The international
    military effort to stabilize Afghanistan is necessary to achieve this
    overarching goal. Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if
    not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of Al Qaeda and its affiliates
    operating along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I believe the strategy
    announced by the President represents our best opportunity to achieve
    our objectives in a part of the world so critical to America's
    security.
        The fiscal year 2010 supplemental requests $33 billion to support
    the President's buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan for the rest of
    this fiscal year and fund other related requirements, including $1
    billion for Iraqi security forces. The Department of Defense urges the
    Congress to approve this Supplemental by July 4th for our troops in the
    field.
        The fiscal year 2010 Supplemental includes $19 billion to support
    an average troop level in Afghanistan of 84,000 U.S. troops--16,000
    higher than the 68,000 assumed in the enacted fiscal year 2010 budget.
    Troop levels are expected to reach 98,000 by September 30, 2010. The
    additional troops will consist of: Two Army counterinsurgency Brigade
    Combat Teams (BCTs); an Army Training BCT; a USMC Regimental Combat
    Team (RCT); and enablers such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams.
        The supplemental also includes $1.1 billion--on top of the $11.3
    billion already enacted--to field and sustain critically important
    lifesaving MRAPs and M-ATVs for troops already there and for the
    additional forces being deployed this fiscal year.
    Fiscal Year 2011 Overseas Contingency Operations
        To fund military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in fiscal year
    2011, we are requesting $159.3 billion, comprised of these major
    categories:
      --Operations ($89.4 billion).--Incremental pay for deployed troops,
            subsistence, cost of mobilizing Reserve Component personnel,
            and temporary wartime end-strength allowances.
      --Force Protection ($12 billion).--Body armor, protection equipment,
            and armored vehicles to protect forces--including the rapid
            deployment and sustainment of MRAPs and M-ATVs.
      --IED Defeat ($3.3 billion).--To develop, procure, and field measures
            to defeat improvised explosive devices threatening U.S. and
            coalition forces.
      --Military Intelligence ($7 billion).--To enhance U.S. intelligence
            capabilities and operations including ISR.
      --Afghan Security Forces ($11.6 billion).--To build and support
            military and police forces capable of conducting independent
            operations and providing for Afghanistan's long-term security.
      --Iraqi Security Forces ($2 billion).--To continue building and
            sustaining Iraq's efforts to defend its people and protect its
            institutions as the United States removes troops by the end of
            2011.
      --Coalition Support ($2 billion).--Reimbursements and logistical
            sustainment for key cooperating nations supporting U.S.
            military operations.
      --Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) ($1.3 billion).--To
            provide flexible funds for commanders in the field to finance
            urgent humanitarian and reconstruction needs.
      --Reconstitution/Reset ($21.3 billion).--To fund the replenishment,
            replacement, and repair of equipment and munitions that have
            been consumed, destroyed, or damaged due to ongoing combat
            operations. This request includes funding to procure one Joint
            Strike Fighter aircraft to replace the combat loss of an F-15.
      --Military Construction ($1.2 billion).--To expand the logistical
            backbone and operational foundation for our fighting forces.
      --Temporary Military End Strength ($2.6 billion).--To support
            temporary end-strength increases in the Army and Navy for
            ongoing military operations.
      --Non-DOD Classified Programs ($5.6 billion).--To fund non-DOD
            classified activities that support ongoing military
            operations--the President's counter-terrorism strategy in
            Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the drawdown of U.S. forces in
            Iraq.
    Iraq Force Levels
        This request supports the President's goal of a responsible
    drawdown of U.S. forces and transfer to full Iraqi responsibility and
    control. Troop levels in Iraq are projected to decrease to 50,000 by
    August 31, 2010. Further reductions will occur in accordance with the
    U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. The projected forces levels would be: Six
    Advisory and Assistance Brigades (AABs) by August 31, 2010; and six
    AABs for the first part of fiscal year 2011, decreasing to
    approximately four AABs (approximately 35,000 personnel) in Iraq by the
    end of fiscal year 2011.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and members of this committee for
    all that you have done to support our troops and their families. I
    believe the choices made and priorities set in these budget requests
    reflect America's commitment to see that our forces have the tools they
    need to prevail in the wars we are in while making the investments
    necessary to prepare for threats on or beyond the horizon.
        Thank you.
    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, U.S. NAVY, CHAIRMAN,
                JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

                               BUDGET SUBMISSION

        Admiral Mullen. Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran,
    distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for the
    chance to discuss the state of our military, as well as the
    President's fiscal year 2011 defense budget submission.
        As always, I greatly appreciate your extraordinary support
    of the men and women of the United States armed forces, their
    families, and the communities that do so much to help them. In
    particular, I thank you for your passing the fiscal year 2010
    supplemental request.
        Our men and women in uniform are well equipped, well
    trained, well paid, and receive the finest medical care in the
    world due in no small part to your dedication and stewardship.
    I am here today to secure your continued support.
        Secretary Gates has walked you through the major components
    of the budget submission, and I will not repeat them. Let me
    leave you, rather, with three thoughts worth considering as you
    prepare to debate the details.
        First, there is a real sense of urgency here as we work to
    win the wars we fight. We have more than 200,000 troops
    deployed in harm's way right now and another 150,000 or so
    deployed in support of other security commitments around the
    world.
        For the first time since 2003, we have more troops in
    Afghanistan than in Iraq, where we remain on pace to draw down
    to roughly 50,000 troops by the end of August. The bulk of the
    30,000 additional forces the President authorized for
    Afghanistan are in country, and the remainder, less than
    10,000, will arrive in the next 2 months.
        These forces are now and will continue to be focused on
    operations in the central Helmand Valley, and Marjah and
    Kandahar specifically. You have, I am sure, been keeping
    abreast of what we are trying to achieve there, but I think it
    is important here to just summarize.
        Kandahar is the birthplace of the Taliban insurgency. It is
    far--it is from there that they have tried to spread their
    influence across Afghanistan, and it is from there that they
    desire to rule once again. I think it is safe to say that they
    still believe in their cause.
        In and around Kandahar they train, equip, plan, and
    intimidate. Just the other day, in a village not far away,
    these people lynched a small boy of 7, claiming he was a spy
    for the coalition.
        I know very well that in a counterinsurgency you fight not
    for the territory, but for hearts and minds. But it is from
    Kandahar that the Taliban attempt to control the hearts and
    minds of the Afghan people. It is my belief that should they go
    unchallenged there and in the surrounding areas, they will feel
    equally unchallenged elsewhere. As goes Kandahar, so goes
    Afghanistan.

                               SECURITY OUTPOSTS

        Afghan and coalition efforts there have already begun.
    Indeed, they have been underway for several months, consisting
    primarily of what we call shaping activities--kinetic strikes
    against Taliban targets and their facilities, as well as
    meetings with tribal elders aimed at securing their support.
    You saw President Karzai down there just this past weekend,
    holding a share of his own and completing the effort of getting
    local backing.
        We turn now to the all-important task of improving
    security. With Afghans in the lead, we will bolster a police
    presence at security outposts and checkpoints in and around the
    city. We will establish freedom of movement along the Ring Road
    and build a bypass south of Kandahar. And we will better
    control access to the city itself along its main arteries.
        None of this will be easy. None of this will be bloodless,
    as events last week grimly attest. But all of it will depend
    heavily on the continued growth and development of competent
    and well-led Afghan national security forces, as well as
    tangible and achievable political outcomes. Securing Kandahar--
    or rather securing the people of Kandahar--is not a military
    objective. It is a social, political, and economic objective
    for which other agencies and other nations are needed and
    through which Afghan leadership will be vital.
        I am comfortable with the progress to date and the
    sequencing that we are following. But I am also mindful of the
    need to monitor our progress continually, to stay flexible, and
    to adjust accordingly.
        That leads me to the second thing I would like you to
    consider--proper balance. Winning our current wars means
    investment in this hard-won irregular warfare expertise, a core
    competency that should be institutionalized and supported in
    coming years. But we still face traditional threats from
    regional powers who possess robust regular and in some cases
    nuclear capabilities, and so we must also maintain and sustain
    our conventional advantages.
        In the air, this means sufficient strike aircraft and
    munitions capable of assuring air superiority. At sea, it means
    having enough ships and enough sailors to stay engaged globally
    and to keep the sea lanes open. On the ground, it means
    accelerating the modernization of our combat brigades and
    regiments. On the whole, it means never having to fight a fair
    fight.
        Again, it is about balance, about deterring and winning the
    big and small wars, the conventional and the unconventional--
    two challenges, one military.

                               ADVOCACY PROGRAMS

        But where balance is probably most needed is in the
    programs and policies concerning our most important resource,
    our people. And that is my final point. This budget builds upon
    the superb support you and this Department have provided our
    troops and their families, stretched and strained by nearly
    constant combat, many of them on their fifth, sixth, and some
    even their seventh deployments.
        Our men and women are, without question and almost
    inexplicably, the most resilient and battle-ready force in our
    history. We are turning away potential recruits, so good is our
    retention and so attractive are our career opportunities. Yet
    we keep seeing an alarming rise in suicides, marital problems,
    prescription drug addictions, and mental health problems within
    our ranks.
        Deborah and I meet regularly with young troops and their
    spouses. And though proud of the difference they know they are
    making, quite frankly, many of them are worried about their
    futures, their livelihoods, their children.
        And so, you will see in this budget increases for family
    support and advocacy programs, and you will see a boost in
    warfighter and family services to include counseling, military
    spouse employment, and care for our wounded, ill, and injured.
    We are also pushing to dramatically increase the number of
    mental health professionals on staff and advance our research
    in traumatic brain injuries and post traumatic stress.
        We know the strain of frequent deployments causes many
    problems. But we don't know yet fully nor understand fully how
    or to what extent. So even as we work hard to increase dwell
    time, time at home, aided in part by the additional temporary
    end strength you approved last year for the Army, we will work
    equally hard to decrease the stress of modern military service.
        Indeed, I believe, over time, when these wars are behind
    us, we will need to look closely at the competing fiscal
    pressures that will dominate discussions of proper end strength
    and weapons systems. A force well suited for long-term
    challenges and not necessarily married to any current force
    planning construct will remain vital to our national security.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Admiral Michael G. Mullen
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, distinguished members of the
    Committee; it is my privilege to report on the posture of the United
    States Armed Forces.
        I begin by thanking you for your support of our servicemen and
    women, their families, and the communities that do so much to help
    them. We can never repay them for their sacrifices, but we can support
    them. As leaders, we necessarily debate the best course of action to
    secure our nation in a dangerous world. But our servicemen and women do
    not hesitate. When the decision is made, they go where they are needed
    most, where dangers must be confronted and adversaries defeated. I'm
    humbled as I visit them around the world, defending our nation in very
    trying conditions. They care deeply for this country, and they care
    most that they have the nation's clear backing. The support of the
    Congress and the American people remain essential to their strength and
    resolve. I am grateful for your unwavering recognition of the service
    of our forces and their families.
        Today's Armed Forces are battle-hardened, capable, and ready to
    accomplish the nation's missions. They are the most combat experienced
    yet most compassionate force we have ever fielded, and continue to
    learn and adapt in ways that are truly remarkable. They are the best I
    have ever seen. I thank the Committee for taking the time to understand
    the stresses, strains and concerns of our service members. Your
    continuing legislative support of our Armed Forces makes all the
    difference.
                                key developments
        Over this past year, our wartime focus has shifted to Afghanistan
    and Pakistan. As I have testified before the Congress on many
    occasions, the threats to our national security from al Qaeda and
    affiliated movements based in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region remain
    real and persistent. We require a stable and reasonably secure
    Afghanistan and Pakistan--inhospitable to al Qaeda's senior leadership,
    capable of self defense against internal extremist threats, and
    contributors to regional stability.
        Our increasing focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan confirmed the
    border region to be al Qaeda's center of gravity. It also showed the
    situation to be more dire than previously understood. The Afghan-
    Taliban's post-2005 resurgence produced a widespread paramilitary,
    shadow government and extra-judicial presence in a majority of
    Afghanistan's 34 provinces. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the Pakistan
    Taliban) showed itself to be a bold and audacious enemy of the
    Pakistani people, ruthlessly seizing control of Swat in the late spring
    of 2009 and conducting a brutal series of attacks across the nation in
    recent months. Multiple Pakistani military operations against the
    Taliban that began last year have reversed their territorial gains.
    Throughout this year, we have constantly and carefully reviewed our
    objectives for the region. The decision to authorize an additional
    21,500 American forces into Afghanistan in early 2009, followed by the
    President's commitment of 30,000 additional forces in December set
    conditions to reverse Afghan-Taliban gains. It will also enable the
    government of Afghanistan to build the security and governance
    necessary to eliminate the insurgency as a threat. With a new
    leadership team, appropriate resources, improved organization, and a
    better strategy, we are confident of success against al Qaeda and the
    Taliban. Success will not come easily or swiftly, but we will succeed.
    The hardest work to achieve our regional aims remains ahead of us,
    especially the last part of 2010 and into 2011.
        Al Qaeda's central leadership has suffered significant losses over
    the past several years, to include the likely death of one of their
    founders, Sheik Sa'id al-Masri. Though its operational capacity has
    declined, al Qaeda's senior leaders remain committed to catastrophic
    terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies, as
    evidenced by the intended attack against New York City that was
    disrupted in Denver and the recent failed attempt to detonate a
    vehicle-borne bomb in Times Square. Actions in the Pakistan-Afghanistan
    border area, in Iraq, and elsewhere have met with marked success. That
    said, al Qaeda sought new approaches to plot attacks. The failed
    Christmas Day airline bombing attempt over Detroit was crafted by and
    ordered from those in Yemen's growing safe havens. Both incidents
    demonstrate the resolve of al Qaeda and its ever-evolving strategy.
    While the danger remains real, like-minded governments and people
    around the world--including those in the Muslim community--increasingly
    reject al Qaeda, its affiliates and what they stand for. Most want a
    brighter future for their children and grandchildren, not al Qaeda's
    endless war and intolerance. They see daily evidence that al Qaeda and
    its affiliates deliberately target and kill thousands of innocent
    Muslims in cold blood. They know al Qaeda continues a ruthless and
    deadly campaign against innocent people in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
    Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Indonesia, and elsewhere. Continued progress
    against violent extremism will require enhanced, but prudent,
    partnerships with key governments and movements, including consistent
    efforts to counter al Qaeda's bankrupt message.
        The actions of the Iranian government are of grave and growing
    concern. Tehran's leadership remains on a trajectory to acquire a
    nuclear capability--an issue of global concern--in defiance of
    international demands and despite widespread condemnation. Iran's
    government continues to support international terrorist organizations,
    and pursues a coercive and confrontational foreign policy. These
    efforts exist alongside growing divisions between elements of the
    government and between the government and the people. These events and
    conditions risk further destabilizing an already unstable region.
        Established threats also demonstrated they could flare at any
    moment, testing our resolve and dedication to long-standing allies.
    North Korea's violation of the Armistice Agreement by sinking of a
    Republic of Korea corvette illustrates the dangerous nature of that
    still ongoing conflict. We must be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder
    with free countries and face down aggression when the situation demands
    it.
        The unpredictable has also galvanized our military, requiring a
    significant force commitment in Haiti, making it one of our most
    significant humanitarian missions in history. Nearly 20,000 American
    troops deployed to support the Government of Haiti, the United Nations,
    USAID and over 20 American and international aid agencies from January
    through the late spring. From port openings, to security and
    distribution of supplies, U.S. Southern Command's military Joint Task
    Force performed admirably. Furthermore, your military was called on to
    help contain one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of
    the United States. From aircraft moving personnel and equipment as well
    as spraying dispersant, to imagery, sonar and communication support,
    the Department of Defense has provided whatever equipment and
    technology has been requested. Over 1,500 National Guardsmen are
    currently assisting with the oil spill, and the Administration has
    authorized up to 17,500 National Guard troops from Gulf Coast states to
    respond as needed.
        Several recent policy initiatives have provided the military with
    new direction. We concluded negotiations with Russia for a START
    follow-on treaty, which will reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles while
    maintaining U.S. deterrence. As I have testified, I strongly endorse
    this treaty and ask you to ratify it. We also completed the Nuclear
    Posture Review, with significant implications for the military's
    nuclear posture. And, as mandated by the Congress, we have reviewed
    current and future threats and developed appropriate strategies in the
    Quadrennial Defense Review, which supports the President's recently
    released National Security Strategy. This Security Strategy rightly
    sharpens our focus on countering weapons of mass destruction and
    proliferation of such weapons, particularly to terrorist groups.
    Achieving all the goals of these new policy initiatives will require
    improvement in both our conventional and nuclear forces. We look
    forward to working with the Congress to forge a common understanding of
    the threats our nation faces, and how best to counter them.
        Recent events have reminded us of the importance of sustaining
    strong alliances. Our NATO allies and other non-NATO partners expanded
    support in Afghanistan over the past year. We now work there with more
    than 40 countries and over 40,000 international troops. Although the
    world avoided a widespread economic depression in 2009, many of our
    partners remain financially challenged and may spend less on combined
    security and stabilization efforts. Our close alliance with Japan, in
    particular, suffered strain around basing rights in Okinawa, but we
    seek to move forward with them in implementing a plan. The recent DPRK
    torpedo attack reinforced the importance of a robust U.S. military
    presence on the Korean Peninsula and in the broader region. As we stand
    by our close allies, I am confident that we can work through these
    issues, but it is a reminder that we should neither take our strongest
    allies for granted, nor underestimate the persistent tensions and
    threats.
        Against this backdrop, the strategic priorities for the military
    remain unchanged from my last annual testimony before Congress:
    defending our interests in the broader Middle East and South/Central
    Asia; ensuring the health of the Force, and balancing global strategic
    risk. With your ongoing help and support, we continue to address each
    of these priorities.
     defend our interests in the broader middle east and south/central asia
        The Broader Middle East and South/Central Asia, remains the most
    dangerous region of the world.
        Our main effort within the region has changed. The government of
    Iraq is taking firm control of its own security. We have shifted our
    priority to Afghanistan and Pakistan, long under-resourced in many
    ways. That shift in focus includes the movement of some quarter of a
    million troops and their equipment in and out of the CENTCOM theater in
    the space of several months. This is a herculean logistics effort, but
    one we are successfully executing. Afghanistan is approaching parity
    with Iraq for the first time since 2003 as the location with the most
    deployed American forces.
        Despite this surge, the security situation in both Afghanistan and
    Pakistan remains serious. The Afghan-Taliban have established shadow
    governments--featuring parallel judicial, taxation and local security/
    intimidation systems--in a majority of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.
    Attacks by the Taliban have become far more numerous and more
    sophisticated. We are now establishing conditions--with military forces
    and expanded civilian agency presence--to reverse the Taliban's
    momentum. Yet we face both a resilient Taliban insurgency and an Afghan
    public skeptical of their government's good will, capacity and
    capability.
        As of mid-June 2010, we have moved roughly 20,000 troops to
    Afghanistan, with the remainder of the 30,000 increase arriving as
    rapidly as possible over the summer and early fall, making a major
    contribution to reversing Taliban momentum this year. The remainder of
    these forces will join some 90,000 U.S. forces and more than 40,000
    Coalition forces already in Afghanistan--all of which have undertaken a
    fundamental shift in how they are being employed across the country.
    Our troops are now focused on protecting key population centers--
    separating them from the intimidation and influence of the Taliban.
    Simultaneously, they are training and partnering with Afghan security
    forces to enable Afghans to assume lead security for their own country
    as soon as possible. The recent peace jirga was an important Afghan-led
    step in this process. The next 12 months must be the time to reverse
    insurgent momentum and assess partnership progress.
        The brave men and women we charge to implement this fundamental
    shift in Afghanistan security strategy need the strong support of this
    Congress. We need your assistance in key areas like funding for Afghan
    National Security Forces, who will ultimately bring about success and
    security. In the short term, the Commander's Emergency Response Program
    is needed to adequately protect the population, and enhanced special
    construction authorities and equipment procurement accounts will be
    critical to putting enough force on the ground to make a difference.
        The border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan is the epicenter
    of global terrorism. This is where al Qaeda plans terrorist attacks
    against the United States and our partners--and from where the Taliban
    leadership targets coalition troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan's ongoing
    military operations against extremists in these areas are critical to
    preventing al Qaeda and associated groups from gaining ground.
        In Pakistan, the extremist threat, a fractious political system,
    economic weakness and long-standing tensions with India continue to
    threaten stability. We are working to rebuild our relationship with
    Pakistan and re-establish trust lost between our two countries. We aim
    to demonstrate to Pakistan--in both our words and our actions--that we
    desire a long-term relationship. The recent Strategic Dialogue with
    Pakistan, hosted by the State Department and supported by the Defense
    Department, reflects the value both our countries place on the
    friendship and support of the other. Our recent concerns with
    Pakistan's approach to U.S. visa requests is further testimony to the
    challenges of the relationship; and, it will affect increased capacity
    for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, to include support for
    development projects. The State Department's Pakistan Counterinsurgency
    Capability Fund and the DOD's Coalition Support Funds allocated for
    Pakistan are essential components of our support to this critical ally.
    Enhanced contact and engagement between Pakistan and the United States
    is a critical component of a maturing, long-term partnership. Thus, we
    are focusing on expanded military education exchange programs, joint
    training opportunities and especially Foreign Military Sales and
    Foreign Military Financing. The State Department budget requests
    additional funds for these critical partnership endeavors.
        South Asian security tensions and political dynamics significantly
    impact our objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The longstanding
    animosity and mistrust between Pakistan and India complicates regional
    efforts. Yet India and Pakistan must both be our partners for the long
    term. Bilateral military relationships are an essential component in a
    wide array of cooperative activities. We must recognize this and
    address it as part of our policy. While we acknowledge the sovereign
    right of India and Pakistan to pursue their own foreign policies, we
    must demonstrate our desire for continued and long-term partnership
    with each, and offer our help to improve confidence and understanding
    between them in a manner that builds long-term stability across the
    wider region of South Asia. As part of our long-term regional approach,
    we should welcome all steps these important nations take to revive a
    process to resolve their differences over Kashmir.
        While Afghanistan and Pakistan remain the critical terrain, we must
    remain vigilant in denying al Qaeda unfettered physical safe havens
    elsewhere across the Broader Middle East and South Asia, including
    Northern and Eastern Africa. These efforts will not require tens of
    thousands of American troops. Instead, we can work quietly and
    persistently with regional allies and Coalition partners to deny al
    Qaeda territory from which to plot, train, and project global terror
    operations. Similarly, we continue to undertake collaborative,
    supporting efforts with like-minded governments across the broader
    Middle East. We work to help the Yemeni government build the
    information base and the military capacity necessary to combat the al
    Qaeda threat within its borders. We applaud Yemeni efforts to confront
    al Qaeda operatives, and continue to offer Sana'a the support necessary
    to achieve this aim. We have worked with the concerned neighbors of
    Somalia to contain the worst aims and objectives of the Islamic Courts
    Union and al Shabaab. This must continue. In these areas--as well as
    others including Indonesia and the Philippines--our military engages
    with willing partners in a manner detrimental to al Qaeda's
    aspirations. We undertake these partnerships in conjunction with those
    from American intelligence, diplomatic and economic organizations. I
    must stress that in today's environment, training and equipping partner
    security forces to defend and protect their own territory and coastal
    waters is a core national security objective. We appreciate Congress'
    continuing support for these important undertakings.
        The Iranian government continues to be a destabilizing force in the
    region. Tehran's leadership remains on a trajectory to acquire a
    nuclear capability, in defiance of its international obligations.
    Indeed, the United Nations just declared Iran had sufficient fissile
    material to build two nuclear devices. A nuclear Iran could spark a
    regional arms race or worse. It will be profoundly destabilizing to the
    region, with far-ranging consequences that we cannot fully predict.
    Tehran also continues to provide a range of support to militant
    organizations, including HAMAS and Hizbollah, fomenting instability
    outside its borders. Its increasingly reckless nuclear and foreign
    policy agenda is now playing out against the backdrop of a slowing
    economy and profound internal turmoil. I remain convinced that
    exhaustive--and if necessary coercive--diplomacy with Iran remains the
    preferred path to prevent these grave outcomes. Iran faces an
    increasingly clear choice--cooperate with the international community
    or face consequences. To this extent, the Joint Chiefs, Combatant
    Commanders, and I support all efforts to steer the government of Iran
    off of its hazardous course. However, as with any potential threats to
    our national security, we will have military options ready for the
    President, should he call for them.
        Iraq continues to progress, although more is needed. U.S.
    partnership with Iraqi security forces has been fundamental to this
    progress since 2005. Al Qaeda is still present and has carried out
    several large-scale attacks. Iraqi Security Forces and government
    leaders responded to them vigorously yet professionally. Further, the
    Iraqi people show no renewed appetite for the brutal tactics of Al
    Qaeda; I believe Iraqis are now more focused on developing their
    economy than domestic security threats. Politically, the March 2010
    elections were assessed as legitimate and were largely free of
    violence. Though the government transition has been drawn out beyond
    our original planning assumptions, there has been no degradation in the
    security situation.
        In turn, U.S. Forces--Iraq (USF-I) will draw down to roughly 50,000
    and end our combat mission by August 31, 2010, as highlighted by our
    recent turnover of the Green Zone to the Iraqi government. Our security
    partnership will then shift to training, advising, and supporting Iraqi
    security forces, including continued participation in NATO's Training
    Mission--Iraq. More broadly, the U.S. military will transition from a
    supported to a supporting effort in Iraq as we normalize relations. The
    State Department and other civilian agencies will increasingly be the
    face of U.S. efforts in Iraq. The U.S. military will strongly support
    their leadership. We appreciate the inclusion of the Equipment Transfer
    Provision in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. These
    transfers are a critical component of America's continuing actions as a
    reliable partner in Iraq's assumption of a responsible and Baghdad-led
    security future.
                              health of the force
        Our nation's security is founded upon a well-trained, well-equipped
    all volunteer force. We must care for our people and their families,
    reset and reconstitute our weapon systems, and take on new initiatives
    that increase wartime effectiveness.
    Care for our People
        Our servicemen and women, their families, and their communities are
    the bedrock of our Armed Forces. Their health, resilience and well-
    being are at the heart of every decision I make. Frankly, investing in
    our people remains the single greatest guarantee of a strong military.
    Competitive pay, selective bonuses, expanded access to mental
    healthcare, continued health benefits for tens of thousands of our
    Wounded Warriors--those with seen and unseen wounds--and their families
    are critical to this investment.
        Our military families and communities continue to play a unique and
    growing role in our national security fabric, one not seen in more than
    a generation. They support us and sustain us in ways we do not yet
    fully understand. They deserve the admiration and support of a grateful
    nation. My conversations with spouses and children around the world
    tell me these concerns center on caring for those affected by these
    wars, child care, education, health and employment issues.
        We remain competitive in attracting the country's best talent. For
    the first time in the history of the All Volunteer Force, the Active
    Duty, Guard and Reserve components all exceeded annual recruiting goals
    for 2009. This success was reflected in the quality of our recruits as
    well as their numbers. Ninety-six percent of our accessions earned a
    high school diploma or better. Each Service also met or exceeded its
    2009 retention goals. Our ability to recruit and retain underscores the
    fact that this is the best military I have seen in my 42-year career.
    While competitive pay is a critical factor in this success, it does not
    stand alone. Other critical ``people'' programs supported by the
    Congress--like the new GI Bill, adequate housing, access to quality
    schooling for military children, adequate child care, and attractive
    family support centers--come together to make the harsh burdens of
    military life acceptable.
        We must not forget the challenges that this excellent All Volunteer
    Force faces every day. More than 8 years of wartime operations have
    come at a cost. Most Army brigade combat teams are preparing for their
    fourth major deployment since 9/11, with some of them preparing for
    their fifth--unprecedented in our history. The Marines Corps is in the
    same boat--their deployments are shorter but more frequent, and their
    pace is grueling. Our people spend less time at home, and this shorter
    dwell time between deployments does not allow for respite or for
    training along the entire spectrum of military operations. Our
    irregular warfare expertise--hard won over the last 8\1/2\ years--has
    come at a price. Conventional war fighting skills have atrophied and
    will require attention. Yet this overdue attention will have to wait.
    The gains we anticipate from the coming draw-down in Iraq will be
    absorbed by our necessary efforts in Afghanistan for at least 2 more
    years. Resetting the force requires significant effort and sustained
    commitment now and post-conflict. We will continue to rely heavily on
    our Navy and our Air Force.
        Dwell time--the ratio of time deployed to time home--remains a
    concern, and one we must manage closely this year and into 2011. Dwell
    time for the Army is at 1:1.2 and the Marine Corps is slightly better
    at 1:1.5. We will not see significant dwell time improvements across
    all services until 2012. Deployment rates for Special Operations Forces
    (SOF) and other low-density, high-demand specialties also remain very
    high. While our force is strong and resilient, these trends cannot
    continue indefinitely.
        The challenges remain significant, but are manageable thanks to the
    support of Congress for increased end-strengths in the Army and Marine
    Corps. We are only now starting to feel the positive impact from these
    2007 authorized increases in the baseline force--stabilizing deployment
    rates and dwell times. Coupled with the additional temporary increase
    of 22,000 troops within the Army, Congressional support for our wartime
    military manning needs has been critical.
        The stresses of protracted war extend beyond the deployments
    themselves. Our number of dead and wounded continues to rise, as does
    the strain on their families and their communities. Other social costs
    of war--divorce, domestic violence, depression, and post-traumatic
    stress syndrome--are unacceptably high and continue to increase. We
    have much more to do.
        Suicide deserves special attention. Despite our best efforts, 2009
    witnessed a record level of suicides, with increases in both the Active
    and Reserve components. We have not begun to study suicides among
    family members and dependents. While there is not one cause for
    increased service-member suicides, we know enough to be certain that
    better prevention training programs for leadership, for at-risk service
    members, and robust funding and attention toward sober study of the
    problem are absolutely necessary.
        We should provide a lifetime of support to our veterans. I urge you
    to continue funding the programs supporting those that have sacrificed
    so much, including those aimed to reduce veteran homelessness and that
    focus on rural healthcare options. The demands on our active and
    veterans care services will continue to grow, and require the attention
    found in this budget. Yet we must conceive of Wounded Warrior Support
    in a manner that goes beyond the traditional institutions. Public,
    private, and individual sources of help represent a ``sea of goodwill''
    towards our veterans. Our focus must be more on commitment than
    compensation; and more attuned to transition and ability than upon
    disability. Our veterans want the opportunity to continue to serve, and
    we should enable that opportunity.
    Reset and Reconstitute
        My concerns about the health of our force go beyond our people. Our
    systems and capabilities are under extraordinary stress as well. The
    high pace of operations is consuming our capital equipment much faster
    than programmed. The Air Force and Navy have been essentially
    performing non-stop, global operations for 19 years, since Operation
    Desert Storm. The Army and Marine Corps have had the majority of their
    combat forces and equipment in the combat theater of operations for
    nearly 6 years. The unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan and Iraq causes
    extensive wear and tear, especially on our ground vehicles,
    helicopters, and supporting gear.
        The demands of the current fight mean we must increase capacity in
    several areas, including rotary wing, ISR, electronic warfare and SOF.
    We sustain necessary rotary wing capacity through the addition of two
    active Army Combat Aviation Brigades, continued production of the tilt-
    rotor V-22, as well as our helicopter force, and a seventh SOF
    helicopter company. I support this budget's rebalancing in favor of
    more commercial airborne ISR capabilities for Combatant Commanders.
    This budget continues increasing the number of unmanned combat air
    patrols, coupled with the ability to fully exploit the intelligence
    coming from these platforms. We should expand current technologies to
    fill electronic warfare shortfalls and develop next-generation
    technologies for manned and unmanned aircraft.
    New initiatives
        Too many of our processes and programs remain geared to a peacetime
    clock, but several new initiatives focused on supporting our war
    efforts show promise. I strongly support the Afghanistan/Pakistan Hands
    program and ongoing initiatives that increase the number and skill of
    our civil affairs and psychological operations personnel. I also
    strongly back the USAF's initiative to use light aircraft for enhanced
    capacity building of key allies and partners for light mobility and
    attack.
        Our current acquisition process remains too unwieldy and
    unresponsive. Adding 20,000 more acquisition experts by 2015 will help,
    as will increasing the rigor and efficiency of our internal processes.
    Stability in our programs, comprehensive design reviews, better cost
    estimates, more mature technology and increased competition will make
    the process more responsive. Once fielded, our systems are the finest
    in the world, because of the experienced and capable program managers
    and engineers building them. We need more of managers and engineers,
    and they need better support and leadership.
        Finally, I am growing concerned about our defense industrial base,
    particularly in ship building and space. As fiscal pressures increase,
    our ability to build future weapon systems will be impacted by
    decreasing modernization budgets as well as mergers and acquisitions.
    We properly focus now on near-term reset requirements. However, we may
    face an eroding ability to produce and support advanced technology
    systems. Left unchecked, this trend would impact war fighting
    readiness. The Department, our industry leaders, and the Congress need
    to begin considering how to equip and sustain the military we require
    after our contemporary wars come to an end.
                        balancing global strategic risk
        Balancing global risk requires sustained attention to resetting the
    force. It also means making prudent investments to meet the challenges
    of an increasingly complex and challenging worldwide security
    environment. As the President recently noted, it is the United States
    that has helped underwrite global security with the blood of our
    citizens and the strength of our military. America's interests are
    global, and our military must secure these interests. Where possible,
    we will act first to prevent or deter conflict. When necessary, we will
    defeat our enemies. And whenever able, we will work in concert with our
    many allies and partners.
        For many decades, but especially since 1989, U.S. conventional
    overmatch has guaranteed our security and prosperity, as well as that
    of our many allies and partners. We have helped protect expanding
    global commons. We have seen the likelihood of conventional war between
    states drop. And we have used the tools designed for war not against
    human adversaries, but instead to support humanitarian operations. Most
    recently in Haiti, but elsewhere over the past 60 years, the military's
    unmatched capacity to transport goods and services have provided relief
    in the face of tragic natural disasters. In short, many nations have
    benefited from an extraordinarily capable and ready U.S. military, even
    as we have defended our own interests.
        That capability must continue to span the full range of military
    operations. But in this post-Cold War era--one without a military near-
    peer competitor--we should not be surprised that adversaries will
    choose asymmetric means to confront us. They will seek to use both old
    and new technology in innovative ways to defeat our advantages.
    Terrorism will remain the primary tactic of choice for actors to
    conduct warfare ``on the cheap''. Both state and non-state actors will
    seek weapons of mass destruction through proliferation. Increasingly,
    states will attempt to deny our ability to operate in key regions,
    through the development and proliferation of ballistic missile systems,
    or by exploiting space and cyberspace. Taken together, these are
    diverse threats that require a broad set of means.
        Winning our current wars means investment in our hard won irregular
    warfare expertise. That core competency must be institutionalized and
    supported in the coming years. However, we must also stay balanced and
    maintain our advantage in the conventional arena. In the air, this
    advantage requires sufficient strike aircraft and munitions capable of
    assuring air superiority and holding difficult targets at risk. At sea,
    we require sustained presence and capacity supported by a robust ship
    building program. On the ground, we must accelerate the modernization
    of our combat brigades and regiments. Without question, these are
    expensive undertakings. But our present security challenges demand
    them.
        While maintaining our conventional edge, we also must address the
    safety and surety of our nuclear forces, even as we seek to reduce
    them. Our Nuclear Posture Review provides the guidance and vision on
    how to accomplish this laudable and historic goal. We must invest in
    our nuclear infrastructure and modernization programs in order to
    ensure our smaller nuclear force is safe, secure, and reliable.
        Countering weapons of mass destruction means investing in new
    research, securing nuclear materials, and preparing a layered defense.
    Improving our ability to neutralize and render safe critical targets is
    vital. We maintain the ability to respond to their use against our
    citizens. But while improving responsiveness to the use of such weapons
    is critical, it is more important to counter their proliferation and
    deter their use. I advocate diverse investments in nuclear forensics
    and expanding our biological threat program, in addition to continuing
    investment in the highly effective counter-proliferation programs that
    are central to our success in this critical endeavor. These relatively
    small funds will have a disproportionately large positive impact on our
    security.
        The ability of potential adversaries to challenge our freedom of
    movement and the peaceful use of the global commons has grown in recent
    years. Anti access-technologies and capabilities are proliferating,
    which could prevent us from deterring conflict in some regions. We must
    preserve our ability to gain access even when political, geographical
    or operational factors try to deny us the same. This requires funding
    for improvements to our missile defense capabilities, expanded long
    range and prompt global strike systems, and hardened forward bases.
        Threats in cyberspace are increasing faster than our ability to
    adequately defend against them. Cyber attacks can cripple critical
    infrastructure, impose significant costs, and undermine operational
    capabilities. Meanwhile, space-based systems critical to our global
    awareness and connectivity are aging and have proven vulnerable. A
    determined enemy could degrade existing space systems, significantly
    impacting our strategic intelligence and warning capabilities, as well
    as global positioning and communication. I welcome your support for the
    recently stood-up U.S. Cyber-Command (CYBERCOM) and its associated
    funding.
        Rising states present both a strategic challenges as well as
    strategic opportunities. China's economic strength, military
    capability, and global influence continue to grow. While our military
    relations continue to develop, we seek much more openness and
    transparency from China regarding the pace and scope of its
    conventional and nuclear force modernization. We also believe that
    China can--and should--accept greater responsibility for and partner
    more willingly to safeguard global prosperity and security. We are
    looking to China to join us in reacting to the Cheonan sinking in ways
    that make clear to North Korea that its aggressive behavior is
    unacceptable. We seek for Beijing to work more collaboratively when
    determining fair access to transportation corridors and natural
    resources. China also should demonstrate greater clarity in its
    military investments. Absent a more forthcoming China in these critical
    areas, our military forces must prudently consider and plan based on
    known Chinese capabilities and actions, in addition to its stated
    intentions. As we work with Beijing to establish a continuous military-
    to-military dialogue to reconcile uncertainties and generate
    confidence, we will pursue common interests in agreed upon areas such
    as counter-piracy, counter-proliferation, search and rescue,
    humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. As a Pacific Rim nation
    with longstanding interests throughout the area, we will continue to
    play a vigorous regional role.
        Our present dialogue with Russia is multi-faceted. It acknowledges
    points of contention as well as opportunities to ``reset'' our
    relationship on a positive trajectory. We welcome Moscow's cooperation
    in reducing the number and role of strategic nuclear weapons. These
    discussions have been constructive, and I believe the resulting treaty
    will benefit the United States, Russia, and the world. Moscow has also
    helped us establish a supplemental logistics distribution line into
    Afghanistan. Russia also helped our diplomats pressure Iran, and we
    look toward Moscow to do even more in this process. On the other hand,
    Russia continues to reassert a special sphere of influence with its
    neighbors. The Russian military is simultaneously modernizing its
    strategic forces and many conventional forces.
        North Korea continues to present a security challenge in Asia, as
    evidenced by the recent sinking of a Republic of Korea corvette. Today,
    Pyongyang continues to pursue intercontinental ballistic missile
    technologies, develop nuclear technologies, and export weapons in
    contravention of international norms on nonproliferation, and of two
    United Nations Security Council resolutions. It also maintains an
    unfortunate and threatening posture toward our ally the Republic of
    Korea, and an unhelpful disposition toward our ally Japan.
        Of course, we can best defend our interests and maintain global
    order when we partner with like-minded nations. By forging close
    military-to-military relations with an expanding number of nations--
    providing training, equipment, advice, and education--we increase the
    number of states that are interested and capable of partnering with us.
    While tending to long-term allies, we should also cultivate our
    relationships with other liked-minded powers around the world. Making a
    small investment now will pay dividends in reducing our security burden
    and global risk.
        We must also continue to work with our traditional Allies. NATO
    remains the most successful alliance in history, and our NATO Allies
    serve side by side with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Our
    obligations under Article 5 remain clear, and our commitment to
    defending against threats--wherever they may originate--to our security
    and that of our Allies is unwavering.
        We need full funding of Defense Theater Security Cooperation
    programs, and the many security assistance programs managed by the
    Department of State, particularly the International Military Education
    and Training program. Preventative strategies require providing foreign
    partners with the capacity to promote stability and counter-terrorism.
    With your help, we have made considerable strides in adapting our tools
    for security force assistance, but more is needed. I urge your
    continued support of the Global Train and Equip initiatives (under 1206
    authorities) as well as funding for special operations to combat
    terrorism (under 1208 authorities).
        The majority of threats facing the United States require integrated
    interagency and international initiatives. Supporting interagency
    cooperation programs, to include expanding the number of exchanges
    between the Department of Defense and other Executive Agencies, will
    improve interagency capacity to meet future security threats as well.
    Please urge your colleagues who oversee the Department of State to
    fully fund Secretary Clinton's requests. I ask the Congress to promote
    legislation that increases the expeditionary capacity of non-military
    Executive Agencies. Our future security concerns require a whole of
    government effort, not just a military one.
                                   conclusion
        This past year witnessed significant achievements by America's men
    and women in uniform. Their efforts and sacrifices--as part of a
    learning and adapting organization--have sustained us through more than
    8 years of continuous war. Thanks to them we are in position to finish
    well in Iraq. Thanks to them, we can begin to turn the corner in
    Afghanistan and Pakistan. In conjunction with our many partner nations,
    they've provided humanitarian relief assistance to millions, helped
    contain a threatening H1N1 pandemic, expanded support to national law
    enforcement for enhanced border security, and disrupted terrorist
    sanctuaries worldwide. And, thanks to them, we have a global presence
    protecting our national security and prosperity.
        The demands of the present remain high, and our military role in
    national security remains substantial. This will continue for the
    foreseeable future. Yet as I have testified before this body in past
    appearances, the military serves America best when we support, rather
    than lead United States foreign policy.
        On behalf of all men and women under arms, I wish to thank the
    Congress for your unwavering support for our troops in the field, their
    families at home, and our efforts to rebalance and reform the force to
    assure that we win the wars we are in and are poised to win those we
    are most likely to face in the future.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Admiral Mullen.
        I believe you are aware that the vote has started. That is
    why some of the members have left to vote, but they will be
    back.

                              JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

        I would like to begin, Mr. Secretary, by asking a question
    on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Your projection has been
    shown to have a few predictions that are not quite correct. For
    example, the cost has increased by, I believe, $109 billion.
    Your chief weapons buyer has indicated that there are many
    problems in the Strike Fighter testing program.
        My question is, with these errors, should we still go along
    with your insistence upon no alternative engine?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir, I believe that is the case. In
    fact, I believe it very strongly.
        First of all, we are talking about two different subjects
    here, the fighter itself and the alternative engine. We had an
    independent estimating team in 2008 that identified some
    difficulties in the development program. I added almost $500
    million--or you added almost $500 million at my request to that
    program.
        We did another independent estimating effort last fall that
    made it clear this was more than a 1-year problem, and we have
    completely restructured the program. We fired the program
    manager, replaced him with one of the most experienced
    acquisition uniformed officers in the military.
        We withheld $600 million plus from the contractor. We
    extended the development program. We slowed the production rate
    in the early years by 122 aircraft over a 3- or 4-year period.
    So we will have more aircraft--fewer aircraft that are
    completed while the development program is continuing. We have
    added three aircraft to the development program.
        So I think that we have taken a number of steps that are
    consonant with a restructuring of the program. We believe we
    have--because of these outside estimating efforts, we think we
    have a much better fix on the nature of the problem that we
    have faced.
        I would tell you it is not particularly a good news story,
    but I would point out that both the C-17 and the F-22 also went
    through restructurings early in the program because of
    problems.
        The good news, I would say, is that there hasn't been a
    single review that has discovered any fundamental technological
    or performance problems with the aircraft. It is meeting its
    performance parameters. What we think we have endured is
    primarily management and production problems, a lack of
    adequate execution on the part of the Defense Department
    itself.
        My favorite story here is the supplier where the F-35 is
    part of their factory. They have a number of aircraft. The F-35
    occupies 6 percent of the factory floor space, and we pay 70
    percent of the overhead for the factory. So we need to be a lot
    smarter about the way we execute this program.
        So I think that we have a good independent assessment of
    where we are. I think part of the problem with this program,
    frankly, over the last several years has been too rosy an
    estimate from the production program itself about how things
    were going. And I think we have a much more realistic approach
    now.

                                ALTERNATE ENGINE

        With respect to the alternate engine, we have had this
    discussion. We believe that this program will cost at least
    another $2.9 billion to bring it to the point where it could be
    competitive. We think that the current engine that General
    Electric (GE) is offering probably does not meet the
    performance standards that are required, and the taxpayer would
    be required to pay for any enhancement that would bring it up
    to the performance standards that we require.
        And we think a situation in which both competitors are
    guaranteed a win is not competition at all. My view is a
    competition is winner take all. And I think we have had that
    competition, and it is time to move on with the program.
        Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary, if I may follow up, we were
    under the impression that the testing program of the F-35 would
    be completed by 2012. And now we have been advised that it is
    going to slip to 2016.
        Secretary Gates. The dates that we have, Mr. Chairman, the
    latest information that I have is, first of all, we are on
    track to have a training squadron at Eglin Air Force Base in
    2011. The Marine Corps will begin to receive their first
    aircraft in 2012, the Air Force in 2013, and the Navy in 2014.
        Full operational capability for the Air Force and the Navy
    will be in 2016. But those services will begin to receive
    aircraft earlier.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.

                             HEALTHCARE PROJECTIONS

        I would like to ask the Admiral about healthcare
    projections that you have made--and I am pleased to hear
    those--but my time will be up soon.
        As you know that the ancient war, World War II, and the
    conflict today cannot be compared. For example, in my time, in
    my combat team, 4 percent were married and had dependents, 96
    percent were single. Today, I note that the Army, nearly 70
    percent have dependents, and that produces a big problem.
        Second, survivorship is sky high now because of your
    improvement in high technology and transport. Do you think that
    we are coping with these changes?
        Admiral Mullen. Sir, as I said in my opening statement, I
    think we have got the best healthcare system in the country.
    Where I have tried to focus on in addition to care, and we
    still have some challenges, is really the cost. And the cost
    has grown from $19 billion I think in 2001 to $50 billion--over
    $50 billion in 2011. And it is going to continue over the next
    few years to grow.
        So we have got to have a balance in terms of providing this
    high-quality care and somehow containing the costs, and the
    costs continue to grow. And as you indicated very clearly, the
    requirements for our families have grown substantially over the
    many years. That said, I don't think there is any more
    important focus in our future than to make sure we get it right
    not just for our people, but also our families.
        And we still have some significant challenges internal to
    the Department in providing care. The Secretary of Defense and
    I talk about this routinely. When we are on the road, we spend
    time with spouses, and particularly spouses in deployed units,
    that medical care continues to be at the top of their list to
    get it, as good as it is.
        In recent years, we have unsuccessfully recommended that
    the copay rates, which have not increased since 1995, be looked
    at to increase. I don't see how at $19 billion in 2001, $50
    billion in 2011, $64 billion, I think the number is, in 2015,
    it is just simply not sustainable.
        So my emphasis these days, and I know the Secretary's as
    well, is how do we contain the costs?
        Senator Cochran [presiding]. Thank you very much, Admiral
    Mullen.
        Now I call on Senator Bond for any questions he has of the
    witnesses.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much. I better turn this on.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman.

                                FORCE STRUCTURE

        Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, we appreciate your
    service. I thank you for, first of all, when you say you are
    looking for savings of $100 billion in 5 years, we would humbly
    suggest that you put more, not less, in the force structure for
    the Guard, which is a bargain for our military defense. But I
    thank you for your recent decision to move forward with the F/
    A-18 multiyear. This pragmatic decision will help address
    larger fighter shortfalls in the Navy, save the taxpayer over
    $500 million.
        I believe strongly we take for granted our defense base
    will always be there, maintaining capacity and innovation to
    keep the United States and our warfighters second to none. I
    agree with the chairman that our ability to respond to current
    and emerging threats is dependent on preserving the ability to
    engineer, design, and procure both counterinsurgency
    technologies that we are employing today and technology to
    maintain our conventional military edge.
        In less than a decade, more than 50 major defense companies
    have been consolidated into only 6, and six aircraft primes
    have been narrowed to only two. After 2013, we will be down to
    one. The latest QDR has recognized and said how important and
    complex the industrial base is, but I would like to know what
    the Department of Defense and the administration are doing to
    ensure that we have the skilled workers, engineers, and
    companies both to address the threats to our Nation now and in
    the future.
        And one of the challenges of sustaining the defense base
    comes from a reduction in the overall number of programs. There
    are fewer new start programs, less investment in research and
    development, longer lifecycles, and increased cost for
    programs, especially like the JSF, that result in fewer efforts
    being underway.
        And I think a telling example is saying we shouldn't
    purchase any more C-17s. The mobility capability study will not
    address the possibility that the Nation may need to surge its
    production of airlifters in response to a national emergency or
    a humanitarian crisis like Haiti. And I question the validity
    of a single study which doesn't take into consideration the
    need of an industrial base.

                                     C-17S

        The decision on the C-17 is particularly troubling because
    there will not be a single facility in North America anywhere
    assembling large aircraft designed to military specifications,
    and many of the old C-5As are reaching the end of their service
    life. I question why it is in our Nation's interest to close
    the only active production line for long-range airlifters when
    there is no replacement that is being developed.
        And my question is what steps are being taken to protect
    the industrial base in heavy airlift, strategic airlift?
        Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, Senator, there have
    been three mobility studies done on the size of our strategic
    lift capability--one in 2005; one in 2008, sponsored and
    mandated by the Congress; and one in 2009. And those studies
    have taken into account a stressed strategic environment, as
    well as increased end strength in the military, the ability to
    carry large-scale, larger equipment such as mine resistant
    ambush protected (MRAP), and so on.
        There is the capability in the United States for wide-body
    aircraft. U.S. manufacturers make them all the time. The C-17
    will have a very long lifespan. Those that are being built now
    will probably be flying in 35 to 40 years. So we have a
    substantial capability that takes into account really all of
    the stressed environments, and I think that we do have in the
    United States a capability--an industrial base that is capable
    of building wide-body aircraft and, over the period of time
    that we are looking at, the ability to adapt whatever is needed
    to meet military specifications. But the C-17 is going to be
    with us for decades.
        Senator Bond. But the C-5A is reaching its service life,
    and we are going to need replacements, aren't we?
        Excuse me, Admiral Mullen. I didn't see you were wanting to
    speak.
        Admiral Mullen. As far as that is concerned, the studies,
    which have been extensive, look at both the C-5s and the C-17s.
    And the requirement, I cannot find a requirement for additional
    C-17s. As hard as we have looked, and quite frankly, because
    this is visited--been visited so many times, we have looked at
    it time and time again. We just don't have a requirement beyond
    the 223 C-17s, and there are some that would argue that that is
    actually too many.
        I certainly share your concern with respect to the
    industrial base, and there is no easy answer there across a
    broad set of capabilities for our country. And the only way
    that I have seen that successfully addressed in the past is a
    strategic relationship--which includes obviously the
    partnership, if you will, between the Hill, between the
    Department of Defense, and those who build it--to make sure
    that we look at meeting our requirements and our ability to
    sustain a very important industrial base at an affordable cost.
    And that then gets into acquisition and how we do things.
        So I certainly take your point, Senator, about the
    industrial base. It is critical. But I don't think from the
    standpoint of retaining it or sustaining it, one, against a
    requirement that doesn't exist anymore, and second--and doesn't
    look like it will exist for an extended period of time, and
    second, at an affordability level that we just have not seen.
    That is the concern. I just think we have to address this
    strategically in ways we haven't in the past.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I will have
    questions I will submit to you in writing, if you don't mind.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Senator Hutchison, I think you are next,
    and then Senator Specter.
        We are going to try to recognize folks in the order in
    which they came in.
        Senator Hutchison, you may proceed.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Then I will call on Senator Hutchison--
    Senator Murray, sorry.
        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to
    thank all of you for being here.
        Mr. Secretary, we have talked about your mission to try to
    lower the defense budget and you are looking for places to cut,
    and I am hoping that I can expand on this in the near future
    with you. But here are some of the concerns that I have seen as
    the ranking member and former chairman of the Military
    Construction Subcommittee.
        We have had a strategy of after we saw the deployment
    problems that we had when we were going into Iraq out of
    Germany, and also as we were looking at the training
    constraints in Germany and other parts of the world where we
    are. So we have had a strategy, and this just gives you an idea
    of the chart on Milcon buildup in the United States, starting
    in fiscal year 2006. We built up heavily in 2009 and 2010 to
    try to bring our troops home from Germany, some from Korea, to
    be able to train and deploy where we had complete control.
        But now I am looking at the 2011 budget request for
    Germany, and it is $500 million. And of greater concern is--
    this is the Milcon in Germany for the next 5 years, and we are
    looking at $3.5 billion in the next 5 years in Germany. Now I
    am concerned that we are duplicating efforts, and let me just
    give you an example in Germany.
        The European Command and the African Command are
    headquartered in Stuttgart. And yet the Army is now coming in
    to request $91 million for a SCIF facility in Wiesbaden, plus a
    new battle command center for $120 million in Wiesbaden. So the
    Army is going to a separate location, when we already seem to
    have our resources consolidated in Stuttgart.
        The German building requirements are higher, and yet
    Germany has only over the past 13 years contributed
    approximately 7 percent of the building requirements in
    Germany. And then you look at the effort that is being made by
    Germany in Afghanistan right now, approximately 4,000 troops
    out of approximately 100,000 in Afghanistan.
        And I guess I am just looking at the potential for savings
    and consolidation and efficiencies in military construction,
    and I am asking you if that has been a factor in your
    decisions, if you have looked at this plan for $3.5 billion in
    Germany, and what is the thinking behind that? And is it
    necessary to do that much when we have had the strategy of
    building up in America and deploying where we wouldn't have
    deployment problems as we saw going into Iraq?
        Secretary Gates. I will have to ask the Army to come up and
    brief you on the details and the justification of their
    specific programs. I would say more broadly that the path that
    we have been on was a path on global posture review that was
    established by the Bush administration.
        One of the outgrowths of the Quadrennial Defense Review was
    a request to revisit that issue by the Obama administration,
    and we are in the process of doing that this year in terms of
    our presence not just in Germany, but elsewhere around the
    world. And so, the conclusions of that study and whatever
    decisions the President makes on that will obviously
    significantly impact the kind of programs that you are
    describing.
        Senator Hutchison. When you are looking at budgetary
    matters and when the commanders in the field are making these
    requests, do you look at the effort made by the host country?
        I look, for instance, as a comparison to what Germany has
    done, to Japan, which has been above 90 percent in effort to
    help offset our costs. And Germany has asked us to stay, in
    many places. So is that a focus that the Department makes in
    general?
        Secretary Gates. It certainly is a consideration.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, there are also concerns that I
    have with Korea----
        Senator Cochran. Senator, your time is expired.
        Senator Hutchison. I hope to be able to give you some
    thoughts that I have and perhaps work with you to see if we can
    be more efficient with the military construction side in the
    future.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
        We established, under Senator Inouye's rule, that we would
    recognize Senators in the order in which they came into the
    hearing. And this is the list that we have had.
        Senator Leahy was here early and had to leave, but he is
    back now. Senator Murray is next, Senator Dorgan, Senator
    Feinstein, Senator Specter, Senator Bennett. That is the list
    in order of the chairman.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I just had a
    chat with Mr. Specter, who did have another engagement. I am
    happy to go after him on that list.
        Senator Cochran. I was going to recognize Senator Leahy.
    Senator Leahy.
        And here is the real chairman, so----
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. Did you ask questions? Okay.
        Secretary and Admiral Mullen, it is always good to see you.
    I appreciate the fact that both of you have always been
    available for questions from not only myself, but other members
    of the subcommittee.

                                  AFGHANISTAN

        Let me ask you a little bit about Afghanistan. We all want
    to see al-Qaeda, Taliban, defeated, but I worry about our
    clear, achievable goals there. I supported--9, 10 years ago
    now--going into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. I did not
    support going into Iraq because I saw it as no threat to the
    United States.
        Secretary, you said last January we weren't trying to make
    Afghanistan a Central Asian Valhalla. But I am not sure what we
    are trying to make it. Right now, the top officials in Kabul do
    not have the confidence or respect of the Afghan people. They
    seem to be making common cause with a lot of people that we are
    fighting.
        We have committed so much, so much money here, and we have
    neglected so many things inside the borders of the United
    States. We see China and now others developing green
    technology, creating jobs, exporting it to elsewhere.
        We see a number of other things in other countries where
    they don't have the burdens of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are
    using the money to develop economic juggernauts, which could
    create huge problems for us in the future.
        We have 1,000 brave members of the Vermont National Guard
    there. And I want to thank you publicly, Admiral Mullen, for
    coming up and speaking to them. It was a highlight for them,
    the fact that you did.
        So, I mean, how do you see it? What is our end game?
        Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I think one of the
    results of the very detailed analytical effort and policy
    consideration effort of the administration last fall was, in
    fact, to clarify our goals. And our goal is to ensure that
    Afghanistan is not a place from which attacks can be launched
    on the United States again.
        And in a nutshell, the strategy is to reverse the momentum
    of the Taliban, to deny them control of populated areas, to
    degrade their capabilities to the point where the Afghan
    security forces can take care of them.
        And the Afghans are ahead of pace, in terms of building
    both the police and the army. We still are dealing with quality
    issues, but we are making headway. We are making progress on
    trainers. The percentage of trainers to trainees has gone from
    about 1 to 80 to about 1 to 30.
        I read a lot in the press about corruption and so on and so
    forth, but the reality is there are ministers in Kabul doing
    their jobs, and there are Afghan soldiers and police out there
    who are dying in even greater numbers than we are, fighting for
    their country.
        Senator Leahy. I met a number of those ministers, and I
    have a great deal of confidence in them. But do you have
    confidence in the top leadership of the country?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, I do. First of all, from my own
    conversations with President Karzai, I think that he is
    embracing his responsibility for this conflict in his country.
    His visit to Kandahar just a few days ago that the Admiral
    referred to was very important, in terms of helping set the
    stage for the continuation of the campaign there.
        So I think that we have some clear goals. I think, frankly,
    that the narrative over the last week or so, possibly because
    of the higher casualties and other factors, has been too
    negative. I think that we are regaining the initiative. I think
    that we are making headway.
        But the thing that I would say--two other points I would
    make, Senator is, people need to remember we have only been at
    this new strategy for about 4\1/2\ months. We don't even have
    all the surge troops in Afghanistan.
        Senator Leahy. Could I ask you on this, before my time runs
    out, is the Leahy law being implemented in both Afghanistan and
    Pakistan?
        Secretary Gates. We are working to ensure that the Leahy
    law is being implemented in both places. And we could discuss
    it further with you in a closed setting.
        Senator Leahy. I suspect it will require a closed session.
    But I just mentioned that because I have discussed it with you
    privately, as with the Admiral, and it is more than just a
    talking point with me.
        Secretary Gates. Well, we understand that fully, Senator,
    and it is with us as well.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        Secretary Gates. And I would just add one more point to the
    earlier point you made. There is no doubt that these wars have
    cost the United States, the American taxpayers a lot of money--
    as the chairman said at the outset, close to $1 trillion.
        That said, in terms of our international competitiveness,
    in terms of our overall economy, it is worth keeping the
    perspective that, at about 4 percent to 4.5 percent of gross
    domestic product (GDP), we are spending less on defense than
    during any other war time in our history. And it is a level
    that certainly is sustainable.
        Chairman Inouye [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, Senator Specter came in while
    I was voting and does have a previous commitment, and I agreed
    that he could go ahead of me, if that is all right with you.
        Chairman Inouye. Fine. Oh, Senator Specter, yes?
        Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         IRAN TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPON

        Secretary Gates, an article in the New York Times on April
    17 of this year quotes sources on a confidential memorandum
    written by you, according to the Times article, which broadened
    considerations on dealing with Iran's efforts to develop a
    nuclear weapon, to contain that effort.
        General John Abizaid had, some time before, talked about
    containment as an option. And I think we would all vastly
    prefer not to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon--unacceptable
    to have that country have such a weapon. But there has been
    talk about alternative courses if those efforts are not
    successful. What would the broad parameters be should the
    option be considered for a containment policy?
        Secretary Gates. First of all, Senator Specter, I would
    tell you that, contrary to the news account, the memorandum
    that I did earlier this year did not discuss, either by name or
    in concept, anything about containment. And my answer to your
    question would be is that I think we have a strategy. Our view
    is that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons,
    and we are proceeding on that basis.
        Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, when you testified back on
    March 21 of this year, I propounded a series of four questions
    and asked that they be responded to for the record. And as yet,
    I have not had a response.

                          ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

        Let me ask you at this time, on one of the questions which
    I propounded, and that related to a statement by General
    Petraeus to the effect that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
    foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S.
    favoritism toward Israel. And his comment embraced the idea
    that a failure to resolve the conflict had begun to imperil
    American lives, which is obviously a very serious consequence.
        What basis, if you know, did General Petraeus have for
    making that statement, or is there any indication that that
    statement is factually correct?
        Secretary Gates. First of all, if you haven't received the
    answers to your questions from March, I apologize for that, and
    we will find out why.
        My recollection--and I would defer to the chairman because
    he may remember better than I do--I do not think that that is,
    in fact, what General Petraeus said. I think that our view is
    it is clear that a Middle East peace settlement between Israel
    and the Palestinians would enhance our diplomatic and other
    efforts in the region and would enhance our own security
    because that dispute is used by our adversaries against us. But
    I don't know of any evidence that the failure to arrive at a
    Middle East peace solution has, in fact, put American military
    lives at risk.
        Admiral Mullen. Nor do I, Senator. I think the Secretary
    has it exactly right.
        Senator Specter. Secretary Gates, in an interview with CNN
    back on April 29, 2009, you had commented that you thought our
    policy was sometimes too arrogant. And one of the concerns that
    I have had has been in dealing with Iran, we have never been
    able to establish really a dialogue.
        For some time, a number of Senators were trying to have
    some interparliamentary exchanges. In 2007, Senators Biden,
    Hagel, Dodd, and I wrote a letter to the parliamentarians in
    Iran and got back a response--that had been discussed with
    President Bush at that time, who had no objection--got back a
    response from the Iranians that they liked the tone of our
    letter but were not yet ready to talk.
        And the question I have, in line with your comment about
    U.S. arrogance, would be is there any way we might use what
    President Bush had talked about starting his administration, a
    little more humility? And I think President Obama has certainly
    withdrawn any effort to have preconditions, like stopping the
    enrichment of uranium before you talk about the subject. Any
    way to modify our attitude in our dealings with Iran, which
    might produce some better results?
        Secretary Gates. Senator, every United States President
    since the Iranian revolution has reached out to the Iranians. I
    was present at the first outreach in--at the end of October
    1979 when Dr. Brzezinski met with the leadership of the Iranian
    Government--the prime minister, defense minister, foreign
    minister. We basically said, ``We accept your revolution. We
    are willing to work with you. We have a common foe to your
    north. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted
    to sell the shah.''
        And they said, ``Give us the shah.''
        Three days later after that meeting, our Embassy was
    seized. And 2 weeks later, all three of those people were out
    of power. Every subsequent President has reached out to the
    Iranians, no President more sincerely and with greater effort
    than President Obama. This is one case where I don't think--
    where I think that the arrogance, frankly, has been on the
    other side of the table, not on the American side of the table.
        Senator Specter. Senator Murray, thank you for yielding.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks to all of you testifying before the subcommittee
    today.
        Secretary Gates, I wanted to start with you because, as you
    well know, among many of the troops who are serving us in
    Afghanistan today, many are deployed from Fort Lewis in my home
    State. They are on the front lines with the 5/2 Stryker
    Brigade, for instance, and they have suffered tremendous losses
    this year. And with the increasing Taliban offensive operations
    every day, families across my State are picking up the paper
    almost every morning now and reading about more casualties.

                                     MARJAH

        I am committed to giving our servicemembers every resource
    they need to bring a quick and decisive end to the Taliban and
    the other insurgent forces. But I am very concerned about the
    increasing number of casualties, but also concerned about the
    reports that we haven't solidified our gains in Marjah and
    southern Afghanistan despite the tremendous sacrifice by our
    servicemembers and their families.
        And I wanted to ask you today what you can share with us to
    provide assurance that Marjah and our operations in southern
    Afghanistan are a success.
        Secretary Gates. Well, let me address it and then ask the
    chairman to do so as well. First of all, we made very clear at
    the very outset, many months ago, that this summer would see
    increased casualties.
        As our military and our coalition partners move into areas
    that have been controlled by the Taliban for the last 2 or 3
    years, it was inevitable that there would be increased
    casualties. Tragic, but inevitable. And we have warned about
    this from the very beginning.
        The reality is that the military operations in Marjah were
    successful, and a place that had been controlled by the Taliban
    for 2 years or more is no longer controlled by the Taliban.
    Getting the civilian coalition and Afghan forces in there, the
    civilian officials, building the development programs is moving
    forward, but it is moving slower than we originally
    anticipated.
        So I would say that, as I indicated earlier, I think that
    we are moving in the right direction. I just met with General
    McChrystal in Brussels last week. And I would tell you the
    general view of all of the alliance defense ministers was that
    we are moving in the right direction. We do now have all of the
    elements for success in place. This is going to be a long and a
    hard fight.
        And General McChrystal is convinced--confident--that he
    will be able to show that we got the right strategy and that we
    are making progress by the end of this year. But this is not
    something where week to week or month to month you can be able
    to say, ``We are moving the front forward.'' That is not the
    kind of fight this is.
        Admiral Mullen. Progress in Marjah, ma'am is slow and
    steady. And we see indicators all the time where bazaars are
    open where there were none before. And this, as the Secretary
    said, is a place that was run by the Taliban for the last
    several years.
        They are still there and intimidating, and they recognize
    that. Fundamentally, they have been displaced, but they
    certainly haven't been defeated in that particular area.
        We see an increase in the number of teachers who are there.
    There are some 80 plus teachers where a few months ago there
    were none. Schools are open where they weren't.
        And I don't want to paint a rosy picture here. It is a
    very, very tough fight. But we see steady progress, an increase
    in the number of local government of Afghanistan employees from
    in the 40s a few weeks ago to over 60 now.
        So we recognize the significance of it. We recognize the
    challenge of it. And it is going to take some time. We see an
    expanded rule of law taking place there. It is very gradual.
    This is a very, very tough undertaking, and it is going to take
    some time.
        And I would not----
        Senator Murray. Okay.
        Admiral Mullen [continuing]. Though, ask routinely when
    will we be successful in Marjah specifically? And it is hard to
    say that, but all the indicators are moving in the right
    direction, as tough as it is.
        Senator Murray. I have another question for Secretary
    Gates, but I think all of us are watching this very closely,
    and especially those of us who are seeing this affecting our
    home States and the servicemembers that we represent. So we
    will stay in touch with you on that as well.
        I did want to ask you, Secretary Gates, about a topic you
    and I have discussed many times, and that is the tanker
    competition. You know my concern about the fact that the World
    Trade Organization (WTO) has said that there were illegal trade
    distorting subsidies for the A330 Airbus frame. And I know we
    have had an exchange on this issue.
        But I just heard you say in your opening remarks that the
    President would veto any appropriations with the C-17 funding.
    And I am very concerned, if this is awarded to Airbus, the KC-
    X, that we would have absolutely no wide-body military aircraft
    production left in our country, leaving us very vulnerable in
    the future. Does the DOD have any plans to address the
    potential loss of U.S. capability?
        Secretary Gates. First of all, as I indicated in response
    to Senator Bond earlier, we expect to have the C-17 with us for
    decades, probably 40 years or more.
        Senator Murray. In production?
        Secretary Gates. There is significant wide-body aircraft
    production capability in the United States, and we have more
    than enough time to adjust it to a military production line if
    we need to.
        Senator Murray. And the production capability and ongoing
    engineering design and manufacturing?
        Secretary Gates. Sure. I mean, if you have wide-body
    engineering and capability for civilian and commercial
    purposes, it can be adapted for military purposes.
        Senator Murray. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral Mullen, the Defense Department, I
    understand, has suggested that continuing the DDG 1000
    destroyer program is essential to our national security
    interests. One of the reasons I understand for this is the
    determination that there is an important need in maintaining a
    national ship building capability.
        What suggestions do you have or strategies do you have that
    will address concerns about our ability to meet our current and
    a future national security needs in the area of ship building?

                                 SHIPS FOR NAVY

        Admiral Mullen. Well, as I indicated in my opening
    statement, Senator Cochran, I think that being able to produce
    the number of ships that we need for our Navy is a critical
    imperative for our future security and that we have an
    industrial base that obviously supports that.
        And the only way in the many years that I have been
    involved in ship building in particular, the only way I have
    ever seen it come close to success is to reach that sort of
    strategic partnership that I indicated before between the
    industry, obviously you on the Hill, and the administration.
        And it has got to be affordable. I mean, one of the
    challenges that we had with the DDG 1000 program, like too
    many, is we started and the costs just absolutely skyrocketed,
    and it essentially does itself in. And I don't know any other
    way to get at that except that kind of strategic partnership,
    which then together addresses the major challenges, both in
    acquisition, in transition from one ship class to another, the
    challenges that obviously exist in shipyards in your home
    State, as well as where we have additional shipyards.
        How do we inject the technology over time? How do we
    sustain that capability over time in what takes a long time to
    build as well as expected to be around for 30 to 40 years,
    depending on the ship that you are talking about? I think it is
    absolutely vital that we have that base. But it has got to be
    at an affordable level.

                             NEW GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, there are some political
    uncertainties surrounding the new government in Iraq. And we
    know that there has been violence, and there probably will be
    more violence.
        My question is will the delays that are being observed in
    establishing a new government affect the drawdown of U.S.
    forces? Are we going to be forced by danger signs of
    instability to change our plans and strategy of how to deal
    with the situation there?
        Secretary Gates. The short answer, Senator Cochran, is no.
    The truth of the matter is the election trajectory in Iraq is
    basically going pretty much as had been predicted. We figured
    it would take several months for them to form a government
    after the election.
        An important hurdle in terms of General Odierno's
    confidence was the certification of the election last week. The
    Council of Representatives convened this last Monday, and that
    begins the process of formation of the government.
        So the violence that we have seen has really been al-Qaeda
    in Iraq violence aimed at promoting or provoking sectarian
    conflict and sectarian violence. And one of the good news
    stories out of Iraq is that that effort on their part has
    completely failed. These guys are doing politics.
        And I would just say, coming out of the NATO summit--and I
    probably shouldn't say this--but I was intrigued with the fact
    that we have a new Dutch Government in formation, and they
    anticipate that it is going to take about 4 months to put the
    Dutch Government together. So, you know, these coalition
    governments aren't too easy even in established countries.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral Mullen, what is your assessment of
    the Iraq security forces and their capability of effectively
    managing the security challenges?
        Admiral Mullen. Maybe I could use just a vignette to speak
    to that, that recently when two of the top al-Qaeda leaders,
    al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders were killed, that is Iraqi security
    forces were very much involved in that. And every time I both
    either see or ask about this issue, they are in the lead.
        And there is a great confidence in particularly their
    ground forces. We are working to evolve their naval capability.
    We are working to evolve their aviation capability. But they
    have been particularly strong.
        What General Odierno will also speak to is he was taken
    back a little bit by the way they seized this requirement when
    we came out of the cities 1 year ago last June. Their country,
    a lot of pride in what they do, and they really have stepped up
    to it and made a difference.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Welcome.

                                  SUPPLEMENTAL

        Mr. Secretary, Senator Cochran, I think, asked in his--
    rhetorically in his opening statement about the supplemental. I
    think we were told earlier that the supplemental had to be
    completed by Memorial Day. It was, of course, not. I mean, the
    Senate has completed it.
        But what is the date by which you are not able to make the
    payments you need to make in terms of getting the supplemental
    done?
        Secretary Gates. I had hoped that it would be done by
    Memorial Day. We begin to have to do stupid things if the
    supplemental isn't passed by the Fourth of July recess. We will
    have to begin planning our--the money that we have in the
    overseas contingency fund for the Navy and the Marine Corps
    will begin to run out in July. We will then turn to O&M money
    in the base budget for them, causing us to disrupt other
    programs. The Army comes along a little behind that.
        And we reach a point--and so, we begin to have to do
    disruptive planning and disruptive actions beginning in July.
    We could reach a point in August, in early to mid August, where
    we actually could be in a position where the money that we have
    available to us in the base budget runs out, and we could have
    a situation where we are furloughing civilians and where we
    have active duty military we cannot pay.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned a startling
    statistic. You talked about, I think, the Joint Strike Fighter
    in a plant where it was taking 7 percent of the space in the
    plant, and the Government was being charged 80 percent of the
    overhead.
        Secretary Gates. Six percent of the floor space, 70 percent
    of the overhead.
        Senator Dorgan. I am sorry, 6 percent of the floor space,
    and yet you were being charged 70 percent of the overhead. How
    does that happen?
        I mean--and by the way, I appreciate and I think all
    Members of the Senate appreciate your deciding we are going to
    make people accountable for bad management practices, and we
    are going to incentivize and laud good management. But how did
    you find that out and then check it back and find out who on
    Earth made that decision?
        Secretary Gates. Unfortunately, Senator, I think there have
    been a lot of bad decisions along these lines in terms of
    contracting and in terms of our acquisition process. And so,
    the acquisition reform bill that was passed here and that the
    President signed into law is an important asset.
        But at the end of the day, what is really required is
    people who can execute a program efficiently and with a very
    sharp pencil for the taxpayer. I don't think we have had a
    sharp enough pencil, and in some cases, I don't think we have
    had sharp enough managers.
        I think we are trying to more professionalize our
    acquisition workforce now. We are substituting career civil
    servants who have these skills for contractors who, in many
    cases, have been doing it. But we just have to be a lot smarter
    and a lot tougher and a lot more effective in our execution of
    the programs, and as you suggested, and as I believe, and hold
    people accountable.
        Senator Dorgan. The work you are doing on contracting is so
    important. I mean, it is an inelegant term, but it is just, to
    use the term ``dumb'' for anyone who would say, ``Yes, our
    program has 7 percent or 6 percent of the floor space, we are
    willing to ante up 80 percent or 70 percent of the--of the
    overhead.'' I mean, that is just dumb for somebody to do that.
    And I applaud what you are trying to do to establish
    accountability.
        I want to ask about Afghanistan because I am nervous and
    worried about that which has been written recently and I think
    also acknowledged by some--the persistent violence around
    Marjah, the issue of the Taliban in Kandahar, and General
    McChrystal saying that this is going to happen more slowly than
    we originally anticipated.
        And as I look at that, and I wonder, you know, what are the
    costs of that in terms of soldiers' lives and money and so on,
    and then I also wonder, aside from Marjah and Kandahar, do we
    ever expect to control the tribal regions of Afghanistan? I
    mean, so as I look at that, I am becoming more and more nervous
    about the July 2011 date by which the President talked about
    bringing troops out.
        So give me your assessment. We are reading these things
    that seem less optimistic and seem to suggest things aren't
    going as they expected.
        Secretary Gates. Let us both take a crack at it briefly.
        First of all, I think that we have--I think General
    McChrystal has finally put in place a strategy that can be
    successful in Afghanistan. We have the assets arriving on the
    ground that will allow us to be successful. We still have a
    third of the troops yet to arrive that are part of the surge.
        So we are only a few months into the execution of the
    President's new policy, and I must tell you, I have a certain
    sense of deja vu because I was sitting here getting the same
    kind of questions about Iraq in June 2007, when we had just
    barely gotten the surge forces into Iraq at that point. This is
    not--this is not some kind of production program or something
    where you have--you know, you are going to meet these
    particular objectives this week and next week.
        This is--as the chairman was saying, this is a process. We
    think we have the right assets, we have the right strategy, we
    have the right leadership. And most of our allies and partners
    share our view that things are heading in the right direction
    and that we will be able to show clear progress and that we are
    on the right track by the end of this year.
        But this is not something where we do ourselves any favors
    by tearing ourselves up by the roots every week to see if we
    are growing. This is a process, and it is going to be long and
    hard, but we are headed in the right direction.

                         MILITARY CAMPAIGN IN KANDAHAR

        Senator Dorgan. But, Mr. Secretary, I just wondered, I was
    actually quoting General McChrystal when he said this will
    ``happen more slowly than we originally anticipated.'' So----
        Secretary Gates. Yes. And what he is talking about is the
    time, as we shape--what General McChrystal has also tried to
    make clear is this is not going to be a traditional military
    campaign in Kandahar. There is a huge political and economic
    component to this. And the shaping of the political
    environment, as they--as they had real success in doing before
    Marjah, is very important in Kandahar. And that is what he is
    talking about is going to take a little more time than he
    anticipated.
        Admiral Mullen. I would echo what the Secretary said, from
    what I have seen and certainly my interaction with General
    Petraeus and General McChrystal, Senator. And I mean, we all
    have angst about this, but we have got a tremendous leadership
    team. We have put the resources in, and it is a very, very
    difficult counterinsurgency.
        And as I said in my opening statement and I have said
    before, I think Kandahar is the center of gravity for this. I
    think we will know by the end of the year obviously where we
    are with respect to reversing the momentum, and that is one of
    the key objectives here.
        What I am concerned about, and I know people are focused on
    July 2011, we all are in a way, but we are not just not going
    to know until we get much closer to July 2011 how many troops
    and where they will come from, the pace and the place. And all
    of that is conditions based, and I think we have to remember
    that.
        Clearly, I think we will start thinning our lines, if you
    will, and moving our troops out, but we are just not going to
    know. And we haven't gotten to July 2010 yet.
        So I share the angst. There is an awful lot of people
    focused on it. And we want to be as--and nobody more so than
    General McChrystal--as transparent with what is going on as
    possible.
        But it is not just a military issue. It is the economic
    piece, the governance piece, all those things, all of which we
    are shaping right now, particularly in Kandahar.
        Senator Dorgan. I thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                                     CHINA

        Mr. Secretary, thank you again for your service. I think
    you have been terrific, and I know how hard it is. So thank you
    very much.
        The question--I wanted to ask two, one on Afghanistan and
    one on China. Let me take the China first.
        Things back here are Euro-centric. Out West, we look West.
    And for 30 years now, I have been going back and forth to China
    and trying to do what I can to build and improve a
    relationship. I just spent the last week there meeting with a
    lot of the leadership and came away with a very different view
    of what is happening, and I wanted to talk with you about it.
        I shared with them my dismay over your being turned down to
    meet with your counterpart. And what came back were arms sales
    to Taiwan. Now the impression I had from our Government before
    I went was, well, the Chinese expect this, and they are not
    going to be very upset. In fact, they were very upset. And a
    way they have in showing it is a refusal of military-to-
    military contact, in my view, at a time when the Chinese
    military is expanding strategically in a very critical and
    concerning way.
        And I think that everything we do--we subscribe to the one
    China policy. Everything we do should be to minimize conflict
    in the straits. We met with President Ma Ying-jeou. He has had
    a very constructive relationship. He is about to sign an
    economic framework agreement with the mainland. And I think
    there is the opportunity to consider where we go if this
    across-the-strait situation is stable.
        So my question to you is this. What significant action
    could China take to ease its military posture in the strait in
    a manner that was substantive enough for you to consider or
    reconsider the future arms sales to Taiwan, which are a
    substantial irritant and will continue to be a substantial
    irritant, in my view?
        Secretary Gates. First of all, Senator, one of the points
    that I made in Singapore with Chinese military leaders in the
    audience was that our arms sales to Taiwan are on the basis of
    the Taiwan Relations Act that was passed at the time of
    normalization in the late 1970s. I think that--and they have
    known that all along.
        And I was struck by an article in the local press in
    Singapore following that session. Somebody asked one of these
    Chinese generals or some Chinese general--may not have been one
    present--``You guys have known about these sales for decades.
    Why all of a sudden are you raising such a stink about them?''
    And this general's response was, ``We had to accept it when we
    were weak. We are no longer weak.''
        And the bottom line is the decision on Taiwan arms sales is
    fundamentally a political decision. It is a decision mandated
    by the Taiwan Relations Act, and it is a presidential decision.
    So this is not a decision that is up to the Department of
    Defense. It is a decision that is up to the political
    leadership of the United States in terms of what would be
    required in order to change our approach with respect to the
    execution of that law or change that law, if it is necessary. I
    don't know whether that is required. But that is essentially a
    political decision, not one that we in DOD would take.
        But I would tell you the Chinese, even though the president
    of Taiwan has reached out and that relationship looks pretty
    stable--and we certainly applaud the growing links between
    Taiwan and the People's Republic--another piece of that is the
    extraordinary Chinese deployment of all manner of cruise and
    ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan on the Chinese side of the
    strait. So that is a reality that goes along with the growing
    other links between the two.
        But as you say, our position, and I repeated it in
    Singapore, was we are opposed to the independence of Taiwan. We
    stick with the three communiques that have guided United
    States-Chinese relationships for the last 30 plus years, and we
    need to go forward.
        Senator Feinstein. Perhaps some of this I should discuss
    with you privately, but in my meeting with some of the
    leadership, it was mentioned that China had offered to redeploy
    back. Now I understand the word ``redeploy'' isn't ``remove.''
    And I understand the nature of what is there and the number of
    troops.
        However, I think that the most important thing we can do
    right now is establish some military-to-military contact. And I
    discussed this with Admiral Willard, as a matter of fact as
    late as yesterday, and I think he thinks this way as well.
        So I would just leave that with you. I think it is
    extraordinarily important that we find a way that our top flag
    officers can communicate with their counterparts.
        Secretary Gates. Well, I would just say, Senator, that I
    also believe those contacts are necessary, and not just sort of
    ship visits and the uniformed officers talking with one
    another, but from a policy standpoint and from a strategy
    standpoint. The point I have made, and my whole speech in
    Singapore, a good part of it, was about the importance of
    military-to-military relationships between our two countries.
        Because in my experience with the Soviet Union, I don't
    know if the strategic arms talks ever really achieved much arms
    control. But the one thing I do know is that over a 25-year
    period, we gained a very good understanding of each other's
    approach and strategy when it came to nuclear weapons, nuclear
    strategy, and so on. And I believe deeply that it helped avoid
    miscalculations and misunderstandings. I have no interest in a
    military-to-military relationship where we basically get
    together and sing ``Kumbayah.''
        Senator Feinstein. That is right.
        Secretary Gates. But I think that having a relationship
    where we can talk about things that are really potentially
    dangerous in our relationship has all kinds of merit, and I am
    a strong proponent of contacts with the Chinese military for
    that kind of a dialogue.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that.
        I think my time is up. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chairman, Admiral, thank you for all
    of your service and all of the good work you do and all of the
    hard work you do.

                              SOLID ROCKET MOTORS

        I have listened with great interest to the questions of my
    colleagues, and they have addressed all of the major issues.
    And so, I am going to be a little bit parochial. Senator Murray
    talked about tankers, and Senator Cochran talked about ships.
    It will come as no surprise that I am going to talk to you
    about solid rocket motors.
        And you are well aware that many of us are concerned with
    the solid rocket motor industrial base and the importance of
    sustaining that. And in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), I
    understand the Quadrennial Defense Review, recently published
    national security strategy, testimonies, and so on, you all
    underscored the need for the capabilities and the stability of
    systems that rely on solid rocket motors and a robust
    production industry.
        Unfortunately, the administration's budget seems determined
    to go in the other way, the other direction, and we will not
    only lose the industry, we will lose the skills that go with
    it. The industrial base is one thing, but when you really are
    talking about rocket scientists, you lose them, and they go
    elsewhere. And it would be impossible to reconstruct that.
        So, last year, the Congress directed the Department to
    review and establish a plan to sustain the solid rocket
    industrial base, and the plan was to be due June 1. June 1 has
    come and gone. I understand an interim report is still in the
    development and that the Department is working toward delivery
    of a final plan ``no earlier than the end of this fiscal
    year.''
        If I can take you to today's newspapers, they are talking
    about a continuing resolution at the end of this year, to be
    followed at some undetermined moment an omnibus bill, and this
    creates great uncertainty with respect to the solid rocket
    folks.
        So, in the absence of an official recommendation regarding
    the delivery of a solid rocket motor industrial base
    sustainment plan, do you have any recommendations that you
    could offer now or anything you could share with us as to the
    thoughts the Department may have in this area?
        Secretary Gates. Let me ask the Admiral if he has any--
    anything on this. I would tell you that I am not aware of the
    status of this report and not in a position to provide any
    recommendations, frankly, because I just don't know. But I am
    happy to go find out why this report is overdue and see if we
    can't bring it to conclusion.
        Senator Bennett. I am less concerned with the June 1 date
    than I am with the idea that all we will have is an interim
    report by the end of the fiscal year. And this subcommittee is
    going to have to take action before the end of the fiscal year
    because it may very well be that the Defense appropriations
    bill becomes the only one that escapes the omnibus and passes
    on its own.
        Secretary Gates. No, I will commit to you that we will----
        Senator Bennett. I know the chairman hopes that is not the
    case and I hope it is not the case with him, but there is
    always that possibility.
        Secretary Gates. What I can commit to you is to try and get
    this report and its recommendations to you so you can make some
    timely decisions.
        Senator Bennett. Okay. Well----
        Admiral Mullen. Senator, actually, I don't--I don't have
    any more background at this point than the Secretary. I would
    have to go do some homework.
        Senator Bennett. All right. That is fine. Most disturbing
    to me and others who share my concern about this--this is not
    strictly a Utah parochial issue--is the lack of evidence--it is
    a complete lack of evidence--of any coordination between the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the
    Pentagon before undertaking the actions to basically kill this
    industry. And do you have any reaction to that statement?
        We have discussed this in hearings before, but are you
    aware of anything that has been raised with the Department of
    Defense on the part of NASA, as they have decided unilaterally
    to shut down the creation of solid rocket motors?
        Secretary Gates. I am just not aware of whether or how much
    coordination there was with us, Senator, but I can certainly
    get an answer for you.
        [The information follows:]

        In response to the Congressional direction in section 1078
    of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
    Public Law 111-84, the Department has reached across all SRM
    stakeholders--including NASA--to ensure all potential
    industrial base issues regarding SRMs are identified and plans
    are put in place for their resolution. To this end, the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
    (AT&L) established a three-tiered InterAgency Task Force
    (IATF). The IATF is co-chaired by the Department and NASA and
    has members from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD),
    NASA, Missile Defense Agency, Air Force, Navy, and Army. The
    IATF has met 12 times since the first meeting on November 6,
    2009. The next meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2010. As part
    of a government-wide effort, the IATF discussed various human
    flight options NASA was considering. Representatives from NASA
    have actively participated in the IATF; attending meetings and
    contractor site visits, providing SRM presentations to team
    members, and developing a range of options for the Department
    to consider as it works to sustain the SRM industrial base.

        Senator Bennett. I think the implications for this are very
    serious. NASA, I think, is making a mistake. For NASA purposes,
    I think the absence of solid rocket motors in NASA is going to
    raise NASA's costs, going to destroy the space program in a
    number of areas where I think it is important.
        But to go ahead on that decision without even talking to
    the Pentagon, in terms of the implications for Minuteman and
    other areas in the Defense Department where you are dependent
    on a solid rocket motor, borders on the irresponsible. So
    anything you could share with us I would very much appreciate.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.

                           NATIONAL INTERDICTION UNIT

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    allowing me this extra question. I very much appreciate it.
        Secretary Gates, I am chairman of something called the
    Senate International Caucus--the Senate Caucus on International
    Drug Control. We call it the Drug Caucus. And we are about to
    put out a report on Afghanistan.
        I am very concerned that the Taliban is on its way to
    becoming a narco-cartel. And I won't go--I can make the
    argument here. I am not going to make it here. It will be in
    our report. But I want to ask you about one specific thing.
        There are specially vetted units supported by United States
    personnel that have proven to be very effective at conducting
    counternarcotics operations all around the world. At this time,
    there are only 288 members of the national interdiction unit of
    the Afghan counternarcotics police that have been vetted and
    work directly with United States personnel.
        Program managers have told the staff of our caucus that an
    additional 250 vetted officers are needed for the unit, based
    on the scope of the drug problem in Afghanistan. And this would
    maximize the ratio of United States men to Afghan officers at
    the current staffing levels.
        The contract for training the Afghan counternarcotics
    police is administered by the Department of Defense. My
    question to you is would you take a look at it and take a look
    at the possibility of adding 250 officers for this national
    interdiction unit?
        Secretary Gates. Sure, we will take a look at it.
        Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that. Thank you. That is my
    question.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        I have a question, Mr. Secretary, that has been festering
    in this body. Up until World War II, we had senior military
    officials with a full array of medals, with enemy generals and
    admirals in full array, signing documents to end a war. That is
    how we ended wars. Everything ceased. At what point could you
    say today the war is over, that we can leave?
        Secretary Gates. I think that the war in Afghanistan will
    end much as the war in Iraq has ended. And that is with a
    gradual transition from our being in the middle--our being in
    the military lead while the Iraqi security forces were growing,
    then partnering, then the Iraqis in the lead and our drawing
    back to tactical overwatch, and then strategic overwatch, and
    now an advisory and assist role, at the same time that the
    political system, starting fresh, was being created and
    maturing.

                           FOCUS ON YEMEN AND SOMALIA

        And I think what you will see is the same kind of a gradual
    transition to where the Afghans are in the lead in the security
    arena. That is what we are talking about when we talk about
    when we begin a process of transition to Afghan control in
    these provinces. We are already talking about which ones of
    those will happen, and can we do some of them beginning in--
    toward the end of the year or early next year?
        So as we did it province by province in Iraq, I suspect
    that that is the way it will happen in Afghanistan as well. And
    I think however much people may debate how we got into Iraq,
    the outcome has ended up, at this point at least, being more
    positive than anybody could have dreamed 3 years ago.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        May I ask another question?
        Secretary Gates. I am cautioned to say the Iraq war is
    ending, not has ended.
        Chairman Inouye. I realize that no one can predict the
    signing of the document. But, Admiral Mullen, there is a place
    called Somalia that most Americans cannot point out on the map.
    However, press reports that it is becoming a safe haven for al-
    Qaeda and other foreign fighters, training ground, et cetera.
    Are we going to get rid of them?
        Admiral Mullen. Chairman, for the last couple of years, I
    have talked about concerns with respect to growing safe havens
    and, in fact, an awful lot of focus on Yemen and Somalia
    specifically. And there is an al-Qaeda presence specifically in
    Yemen right now, which is very dangerous and growing and needs
    to continue to be addressed.
        There is certainly a terrorist safe haven in Somalia. And
    in terms of civility, it is a country that certainly if not a
    failed state, is borderline failed state. And in fact, there
    are camps where terrorists are trained in Somalia that we need
    to all be concerned about.
        So I am concerned about the fact that Somalia continues to
    fester, to use your word, in a very negative way, a government
    that is struggling to control it, under assault, quite frankly,
    from organizations that are terrorist based, and continue to be
    the home for the piracy network clearly, which is a challenge
    in that part of the world. So I am extremely concerned about
    that and its continued--ability to continue to grow in the
    future.
        The other place where there is longer-term potential is in
    northern Africa, in the Pan Sahel, where al-Qaeda has a very
    strong link as well. And so, while we focus on Afghanistan and
    Pakistan, which is where al-Qaeda leadership resides, it is
    really that network which is still extremely dangerous and
    intent on executing the kinds of potential attacks that we saw
    in Detroit at Christmas and recently in Times Square.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Cochran, do you have any
    questions?
        Senator Cochran. I have no further questions.
        Chairman Inouye. Then, Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen,
    thank you for your testimony this morning and for your----
        Secretary Gates. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Inouye. Yes?
        Secretary Gates. At the risk of prolonging the hearing,
    could I take just a moment to address the two questions that
    you put to me in your opening statement very quickly?
        Chairman Inouye. Yes, sir.
        Secretary Gates. First of all, one of the frustrations that
    I have had ever since taking this job has been that the
    Department of Defense is organized and structured to plan for
    war, but not wage war. And the only way I have found that I
    have been able to get the kind of urgent action to create the
    MRAPs; to get the additional intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance work; to do the counter-improvised explosive
    device (IED) effort has been by pulling together these ad hoc
    groups, as you have described them, these task forces, where I
    chair them and essentially have all of the senior players, both
    uniformed and civilian, at the table, and to be able to force
    the kind of rapid action that has been necessary to support
    those in the field.
        In several of these areas, I think that the work has
    reached a point where I think I can begin to take actions to
    begin to return these efforts to where they would traditionally
    have a bureaucratic home. The MRAP Task Force, the ISR Task
    Force, the Counter-IED Task Force that is co-chaired by General
    Paxton and Under Secretary Carter never was intended to last
    more than another 2 or 3 months from now.
        So I think in at least three of these areas that we will be
    able to move back toward the traditional structures in the
    Department of Defense. But long term, it is a serious issue for
    the Department and, frankly, one that I have not yet found the
    answer to in terms of how to get urgent action in an area
    supporting men and women in combat today that ranges across the
    entirety of the Department, both uniformed and civilian, and
    all the different Defense agencies.
        With respect to the balance between future threats from
    near-peers and others, as opposed to our focus on irregular
    warfare, I would just remind the subcommittee that if you took
    a broad look at our budget, about 50 percent of our procurement
    budget is for what I would call long-term modernization
    programs to deal with near-peer countries, about 40 percent is
    dual purpose, like C-17s and other things we will use no matter
    what kind of conflict we are in, and about 10 percent has
    actually been for irregular or the kind of asymmetric warfare
    we have been talking about.
        So I think we have a very large number of programs in this
    budget that are aimed--and in fact, half of the procurement
    budget roughly that are aimed at the longer term, more
    sophisticated threats that this country will face in the
    future.
        Thanks for the extra couple of minutes.
        Chairman Inouye. If I may follow up Senator Feinstein?
    Press reports, as you have indicated, show that the Chinese
    have been advancing their cyber activities, their cruise
    missiles. Are we concerned?
        Secretary Gates. We are very concerned, Mr. Chairman. The
    growing capability of the Chinese with anti-ship cruise and
    ballistic missiles is a real concern for our Navy and for us.
    The cyber capability is very important. The anti-satellite
    capability and potential space-denial capabilities are of
    concern to us.
        So there are a number of areas of Chinese modernization
    that are of concern to us. And frankly, this is one of the
    reasons why I think having a strategic dialogue with them to
    try and gain some understanding and have some frank talks about
    these concerns has merit.
        Maybe the Admiral would like to add a word?
        Admiral Mullen. Well, sir, I am right there. I am
    increasingly concerned. It is increasingly opaque, and these
    dialogues are absolutely critical to try to understand each
    other. Each time--at least from my perspective, each time it
    gets turned off, it gets turned off by the Chinese, and then we
    will go through a period of time where we have no relationship.
        The Secretary talked earlier about Iran and his experience
    in 1979. And what that has led to is no relationship with a
    country for over 30 years, and look where we are. And so, if I
    use that as a model, that is certainly not one that we can
    afford as a country or as a military with China as China
    continues to grow.
        The peaceful rise of China, China as a global power, all
    those things make sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is
    the fact that they won't engage, and specifically that their
    military won't engage.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Chairman Inouye. Well, once again, I thank you very much.
    And I thank you for your service to our Nation. And we look
    forward to working with you in the coming months as we continue
    our review of the budget.
        And as you conduct your internal analysis of military
    requirements, I would like to encourage you to share them with
    us so that we can be in step with you as we begin our work for
    the following fiscal year.
        As you know, we are having a few problems with the House on
    the supplemental, but I think we can resolve them. I hope so.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department of response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                     Questions Submitted to Robert M. Gates
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                                    somalia
        Question. Secretary Gates, recent press reports have highlighted
    the growing presence and influence of foreign fighters and al-Qaeda in
    Somalia's Islamist al-Shabab group. How would you assess the threat
    posed by these groups to western interests in East Africa? Is Somalia
    becoming the ultimate safe haven for al-Qaeda and foreign fighters?
        Answer. Since mid-2008, several hundred of foreign fighters of
    various nationalities have entered Somalia to join al-Shabaab's ranks,
    although exact numbers and nationalities of foreign fighters in Somalia
    remain unclear. The recent June 2010 arrest of two U.S. citizens
    allegedly on their way to Somalia to join al-Shabaab, and the July 2010
    terrorist attack in Uganda for which al-Shabaab took credit further
    underscore the alarming nature of this trend. The influx of foreigners
    to Somalia could extend al-Shabaab's global reach, posing an increased
    transnational threat to U.S. and Western interests in the region.
    Moreover, cooperation between al-Shabaab and al-Qaida senior leadership
    could enhance the potential of a formal merger between the two groups,
    increasing the threat of the existing terrorist safe haven in Somalia.
    Reports indicate that al-Qaida senior leadership likely views Somalia
    as an important arena for jihad and an established safe haven from
    which to launch transnational attacks, factors likely providing al-
    Qaida with motivation to strengthen its relationship with al-Shabaab.
    Moreover, public releases by al-Qaida and al-Shabaab indicate increased
    cooperation between the two groups, which al-Qaida intends to leverage
    to establish a base of operations.
        As I have remarked before, in the decades to come, the most lethal
    threats to U.S. safety and security are likely to emanate from states
    that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory.
    Dealing with such fractured or failing states, such as Somalia, is, in
    many ways, the main security challenge of our time because they can
    incubate transnational security threats. In places like Somalia, where
    al-Qaida aims to establish a foothold and a safehaven, we must confront
    it with persistent pressure and strong partnerships. The United States
    is a committed partner to the African Union Mission in Somalia and the
    Somali Transitional Federal Government in support of the Djibouti Peace
    Process. Our objective for Somalia is to work with other U.S.
    Government departments and agencies to enhance stability, peace, and
    prosperity in Somalia and, by extension, in the East Africa region.
                                     china
        Question. Secretary Gates, do you see China as a reliable partner
    in the region, and are they willing to assist us in dealing with the
    tensions on the Korean peninsula?
        Answer. We have appreciated China's willingness to cooperate and
    partner with the international community on regional security matters
    including on the Korean peninsula. For example, China supported the
    United Nations Security Council in crafting United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 1874, and China has served as the chair of the Six-
    Party Talks process. We continue to urge China to work with the
    international community to address North Korea's proliferation activity
    and its provocative behavior.
                      iridium constellation replenishment
        Question. Secretary Gates, I have recently learned of the
    announcement of the intent of Iridium LLC to award a contract to the
    French satellite manufacturer Thales, to replenish its current 72
    communication satellite constellation. I am concerned over the
    potential national security issues that could result from the
    Department's continued use of a communications system that will now be
    built by a foreign supplier.
        What risk mitigation plans are in place that will ensure that U.S.
    military user locations are not compromised or communications will be
    more susceptible to intercept? What are the technology transfer issues
    associated with backward compatibility requirements with the present
    system? Has a review been conducted on the impact and implications of
    the Department's use of an Iridium satellite communications system that
    is built by a foreign source?
        Answer. The Defense Information Systems Agency's (DISA) Enhanced
    Mobile Satellite Services (EMSS) Program was established to provide
    global, secure, handheld mobile satellite communications services
    leveraging the Iridium constellation. DOD owns and operates its own
    Iridium earth station in order to ensure that U.S. military user
    locations and communications are protected. DOD would continue to
    operate this earth station as Iridium updates its constellation.
        Iridium Communications, Inc. has announced its intentions to
    develop and launch the next generation Iridium constellation called
    Iridium NEXT. The new technologies and capabilities developed in
    Iridium NEXT will include new technologies for the terrestrial
    infrastructure. The EMSS Program Management Office has requested
    capital investment funding for fiscal year 2010-15 to migrate the EMSS
    Gateway from the existing infrastructure to the Iridium NEXT
    infrastructure. As these upgrades are being executed, the DISA Field
    Security Office, working closely with the EMSS Program and EMSS Gateway
    personnel, will ensure that the existing security posture of the EMSS
    Gateway will not be compromised during the transition.
        Iridium NEXT is to be a fully backward compatible system. As the
    original constellation was commercially developed, there are no
    military unique features embedded in the existing Iridium constellation
    or in the Iridium terrestrial equipment. As a result, no technology
    transfer issues will exist in the migration of the infrastructure. The
    military unique systems that reside in the gateway will be migrated as
    required to ensure that they will continue to provide the services and
    protections that exist today, but the development of those systems
    exist outside Iridium's developmental processes.
        No formal review has been conducted on the impact and implications
    of the Department's use of a Thales constructed Iridium NEXT. The
    development of the Iridium NEXT satellites by a foreign country does
    introduce some security concerns. Currently, there are no U.S.
    Government agencies that have committed to hosting payloads on Iridium
    NEXT satellites. If the Government's investment in Iridium increases,
    the appropriate studies will be conducted by the responsible agencies.
        Iridium Communications' award to Thales requires Thales to include
    a U.S. aerospace firm to fulfill the role of the spacecraft integrator.
    All indications are that Thales will most likely partner with Ball
    Aerospace as its spacecraft integrator. Ball Aerospace, a U.S.
    aerospace firm based in Boulder, Colorado, will be responsible to
    receive, integrate, and maintain custody of any classified or ITAR-
    sensitive components up to the launch of the satellite vehicles. These
    components include telemetry encryption/decryption equipment and any
    classified or sensitive hosted payload components. Ball has a long
    history of developing classified spacecraft and payloads for the U.S.
    Government and has extensive facilities capable of handling classified
    equipment.
        Additionally, key on-board processor and spacecraft software will
    be developed by U.S. firms and will likely draw on legacy software from
    the current Iridium system. The teaming arrangement with Ball as the
    spacecraft integrator as well as keeping the critical systems and
    software development within the United States will provide a program
    structure that provides the necessary level of security and mission
    assurance.
                         impact of program terminations
        Question. These are not the only examples of terminated programs
    generating new, costly follow-on programs. This year, you announced the
    termination of the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System,
    yet the Services are already requesting over $170 million to continue
    that program.
        Mr. Secretary, what real cost savings have been generated given
    that terminated programs are being replaced by new, more costly ones?
        Answer. The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
    (DIMHRS) program was recommended for cancellation as part of the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget request due to cost overruns and
    performance concerns. Over $500 million had been spent over more than
    10 years with little results. The program, however, was not recommended
    for cancellation because it was unneeded, but rather because it was
    underperforming and too costly. The requirement for modern military
    personnel and pay systems to replace over 90 legacy systems remains,
    and will be fulfilled by Service-level programs using the DIMHRS core
    software to the maximum extent practical. The Department considers
    Service-level programs, rather than a single Department-wide solution,
    to be the best balance of cost, performance, and schedule. This
    includes the Department's concern with balancing near-term needs with
    long-term costs over the lifecycle of a program.
        Reforming how and what the Department buys continues to be a
    centerpiece of our nation's defense strategy. The efficiency initiative
    the Department is pursuing, particularly the portions of that
    initiative directed at procuring more affordable products and buying
    services more efficiently, is specifically intended to ensure that
    terminated programs are not replaced by ones that are more expensive.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, a key driver of costs in major weapons
    programs is poor management of program requirements. What measures are
    you instituting to avoid requirements creep?
        Answer. In the early phases of acquisition programs, the Department
    is addressing requirement overreach by subjecting each major program to
    a Materiel Development Decision before Milestone A, which will ensure
    early on that programs are based on approved requirements and a
    rigorous assessment of alternatives. Furthermore, through competitive
    prototyping and preliminary design reviews before Milestone B,
    technical risks will be reduced before progressing to the more costly
    phases.
        Consistent with section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, DOD acquisition policy also
    requires the Acquisition Executive of each DOD Component to establish
    and chair a Configuration Steering Board (CSB) with broad executive
    membership from the office of the USD (Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics) and the Joint Staff. CSB's are required to meet at least
    annually to review all requirements changes for ACAT 1 and 1A programs
    in development that have the potential to result in cost and schedule
    impacts on the program. Such changes will generally be rejected,
    deferring them to future blocks or increments. On a roughly annual
    basis, program managers and program executive offices are also required
    to identify and propose descoping options to the CSB that reduce
    program cost or moderate requirements. This policy has been actively
    implemented at the component level.
        At each stage of the acquisition process for major acquisition
    programs, requirements are reviewed by both the Joint Staff and the
    Defense Acquisition Executive to ensure that requirements creep has not
    resulted in excessive costs.
                                    somalia
        Question. Secretary Gates, the conflict in Somalia has encouraged
    many foreign fighters to join the militant Islamist factions attempting
    to overthrow the internationally backed Somali Transitional Federal
    Government (TFG). These foreign fighters seem to be mostly ethnic
    Somali emigres living in Western countries, raising fears that some may
    return to their homes and carry out terrorist attacks. There are also
    public estimates of approximately 200 foreign fighters from
    Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the most dangerous of
    whom are teaching bomb-making and other small arms tactics to recruits
    in camps across southern Somalia. Would you like to comment?
        Answer. We are concerned about the presence of foreign fighters in
    Somalia. Since mid-2008, open-source reporting reveals that foreign
    fighters of various nationalities, including individuals from European
    and North American countries, have entered Somalia to join al-Shabaab's
    ranks. Although the exact numbers and nationalities of foreign fighters
    in Somalia remain unclear, reports indicate that several hundred
    foreign recruits have come to Somalia to support al-Shabaab and other
    Islamic groups since mid-2008. Foreign fighters threaten the
    Transitional Federal Government and the African Union Mission in
    Somalia and undermine their efforts to reach out to all peaceful
    elements of Somali society and build an inclusive reconciliation
    process for a stable, peaceful, and sovereign Somalia. The prevalence
    of foreign fighters in Somalia threatens not just the Horn of Africa,
    but countries around the world, as these fighters can return to their
    home countries to radicalize and recruit others to fight in Somalia or
    engage in worldwide terrorist activities. The July 11, 2010 terrorist
    attack in Uganda, for which al-Shabaab took credit, further underscores
    this threat.
                          defense department spending
        Question. Secretary Gates, since the attacks of September 11, 2001,
    the base budget authority for the Department of Defense has nearly
    doubled. Your recent statements in the press have indicated that
    military spending should expect closer, harsher scrutiny, and that real
    reform is needed in the way the Defense Department does business and
    spends taxpayer dollars. Your fiscal year 2010 budget request began the
    reform effort by hiring more civilian government employees to replace
    full-time contractors. Aside from investment and modernization efforts,
    please explain other major reform initiatives you are now considering
    and how those will translate into lower costs for the Department of
    Defense.
        Secretary Gates, you have been quoted in recent speeches that
    overhead within the Department of Defense is ripe for scrutiny. Please
    explain specific adjustments that could be made in this area to create
    savings in the budget.
        Answer. In recognition of the nation's difficult economic
    situation, I have asked the Defense Department to take a hard,
    unsparing look at how we operate; and I am seeking to redirect the
    savings to provide the resources needed for force structure and
    modernization. I directed the Department to focus on headquarters and
    administrative functions, support activities, and other overhead
    activities. The Department should become a smarter buyer; therefore, we
    are taking a hard look at how we contract for goods and services. As I
    noted in my opening statement, I believe the current DOD topline is the
    minimum needed to sustain a military at war. What I am looking for is
    reduced costs in the ``tail'' portion of our budget in order to ensure
    that there are adequate resources in the ``tooth'' portion of the
    budget. The Department's Components are now wrestling with this
    challenge as they build their fiscal year 2012-2016 programs. You will
    see the results in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
                             temporary task forces
        Question. It is hard to understand why we seem to be moving in the
    opposite direction of your assessment last year. What is being done to
    exercise control and limit the growth of these task forces, and to
    permanently integrate them into the Department?
        Secretary Gates, what is your view on JIEDDO undertaking long term
    development projects? Shouldn't these activities reside within the
    Military Services?
        Answer. In February 2006, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    (OSD) transitioned the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat
    Task Force by establishing the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO)
    as an enduring, jointly manned activity within the Department of
    Defense (DOD). JIEDDO has been tasked with one critical purpose: to
    rapidly provide counter-IED (C-IED) capability in support of COCOMs to
    enable defeat of the IED as a strategic weapon of influence, and JIEDDO
    manpower resources have grown to meet this purpose.
        In order to comprehensively address the increasing significance of
    the IED as a weapon of strategic influence, JIEDDO developed tenants
    designed to address specific aspects of the threat: Attack the Network
    (AtN); Defeat the Device (DtD); and Train the Force (TtF). JIEDDO's
    personnel resources increased to drive innovation with JIEDDO partners
    and stakeholders to develop and field effective material and non-
    material C-IED capabilities. The growth in personnel requirements has
    been necessary to support the development and procurement of
    technology, evolution and establishment of operational concepts, wide
    dissemination of lessons learned, and the delivery of training and
    training products in order to ensure speedy delivery of C-IED
    capabilities where it counts most--into the hands of the warfighter.
    The pace of JIEDDO organizational growth has been commensurate with the
    effort necessary to rapidly and effectively counter the substantial use
    of this weapon--rapid, effective and efficient responses have required
    increased personnel numbers to maintain the necessary speed at which
    solutions can be delivered.
        JIEDDO is currently in the process of streamlining its efforts to
    better respond to requirements for support coming from COCOMs. As
    significant force adjustments are being made across key theaters of
    operation, the use of IEDs have not waned. In fact, JIEDDO's mission
    requirements have increased in Afghanistan and JIEDDO's personnel
    levels will be a reflection of the C-IED demands coming from theater.
        We agree that long term S&T efforts should reside in the Department
    and the Military Services. JIEDDO's goal for development efforts is 24
    months. JIEDDO has reevaluated its R&D portfolio and given new guidance
    to their technical staff regarding this issue. JIEDDO's subject matter
    experts assess each new proposed effort in depth to ensure that it is
    executable in this timeframe. Subject matter experts from across DOD,
    DOE, and other research organizations provide assistance to JIEDDO as
    needed during this vetting process. If an ongoing JIEDDO effort cannot
    meet this goal then it is evaluated to determine whether it should be
    terminated or continued. This determination is based on several factors
    including: progress made, potential value added to the counter IED
    fight, probability of success, likelihood of it being deployed and
    integrated if successful, etc.
        Recently, DDR&E and JIEDDO established a Technology Focus Team
    (TFT) to coordinate counter-IED R&D efforts throughout the Department
    and develop a strategy for long term counter-IED S&T. The TFT is co-
    chaired by DDR&E and JIEDDO and includes representatives from the
    Services, DARPA, and DTRA. The Department of Homeland Security also
    participates as an observer. The Military Services are responsible for
    executing the long term S&T strategy.
        JIEDDO adds value to the DOD portfolio by focusing the Department's
    efforts in solving the most urgent needs and ensuring the relevance of
    our S&T efforts to the Counter-IED fight. To do this, JIEDDO will
    maintain a cadre of scientists and engineers fully dedicated to
    understanding and countering the IED threat. This team will concentrate
    in the most immediate war fighting problems and accelerate the
    development of the most promising solutions. To facilitate cross
    pollination and engage the best and the brightest, the JIEDDO S&T team
    is augmented by scientists from across the DOD, the national labs, and
    other research organizations as needed.
                                healthcare costs
        Question. Secretary Gates, you have spoken recently about
    skyrocketing personnel costs that are ``eating us alive''. This has
    caused concern among service members and their families and several
    military and veterans advocacy groups. Could you please detail how
    healthcare costs impact the Department's budget, and how you plan to
    reduce them?
        Answer. Over the past decade, healthcare costs have grown
    substantially across the nation, and Military Health System (MHS) costs
    have been no exception. MHS costs have more than doubled between fiscal
    year 2001 ($19 billion) and fiscal year 2009 ($45 billion) and are
    projected to continue to increase 5 to 7 percent through fiscal year
    2015. At this growth rate, MHS costs will exceed $64 billion by fiscal
    year 2015.
        DOD is evaluating numerous proposals to make the system more
    efficient, from better supply management to getting better prices for
    healthcare services. In order for the Department to reduce healthcare
    costs, I believe one of the cost saving measures we need to take a
    fresh look at is the cost sharing structure for the TRICARE benefit
    plans. Enrollment fees for the TRICARE Prime program have not been
    modified since its inception in 1995. As of 2009, average out-of-pocket
    cost for a family of three covered by TRICARE Prime was $1,375 per
    year--compared to $3,430 per year on average for a family of three
    covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan's Health
    Maintenance Organization (Kaiser). I look forward to working with
    members of Congress to devise a cost sharing arrangement that is both
    fair and reasonable.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. Mr. Secretary, would you please elaborate on your vocal
    opposition to the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine? While you have
    described this as a cost-savings issue, analyses by GAO and others show
    that either choice--to keep or get rid of the alternate engine--will
    probably be cost-neutral over the life of the F-35 program. But having
    an alternate engine will prevent a single point of failure for the F-
    35, which will be very important when the plane comprises 95 percent of
    our strike aircraft fleet. Why choose to drastically increase risk for
    the F-35 for little or no money saved when all is said and done?
        Answer. The Department has consistently emphasized its opposition
    to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) extra engine because continued
    funding of the F136 would divert funds from important defense needs. In
    the middle of two wars, the Department has other higher priority uses
    for $2.9 billion, the amount that would be required to take the extra
    engine to full competition. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that
    having two engines will create enough long-term savings to outweigh the
    significant near-term investment.
        The Department does not consider a single source engine for the F-
    35 to be a ``drastic'' increase in operational risk. The Department
    currently maintains two tactical aircraft programs, the F-22A and the
    F-18, each of which utilizes a single source engine provider. Both
    programs have enviable safety records, and the Department is satisfied
    with the engines for both programs. Over the years, significant
    advancements in engine design, testing, and production have enabled the
    Department to manage the risks associated with single engine systems
    without having to ground an entire fleet.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                       operation of firefighting aircraft
        Question. Last year, the House report accompanying the Defense
    Appropriations bill instructed your Department to analyze any
    legislative barriers that would impede the viability of expanding this
    joint operation program.
        Has your Department conducted this analysis and assessed the
    viability of expanding the joint operation of firefighting C-130 Js? Is
    your Department capable of jointly operating an additional 25 C-130s?
    Can you provide me with a date when the department expects to complete
    its analysis of expanding this program?
        Answer. As requested by House Report 111-230, which accompanied
    H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal
    year 2010, the Department of Defense (i.e., the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security
    Affairs, the Department of Defense Comptroller, the Office of the
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, the Joint Staff,
    the U.S. Air Force, the National Guard Bureau, and the Air Force
    Reserve), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Department of the
    Interior (DOI) established an Integrated Working Group (IWG) for the
    purpose of assessing the viability of joint use Federal forest
    firefighting assets. The interim report was provided to Congress in
    April 2010. The final analysis and assessment are ongoing. We
    anticipate that the final report will be provided to Congress by
    August/September 2010.
        Question. Has the U.S. Forest Service officially approached the
    Department of Defense to ask for assistance in procuring new or used C-
    130 Js to help fulfill the Service's aerial firefighting needs?
        Answer. No.
        Question. What legislative, regulatory, and policy barriers
    prohibit the U.S. Forest Service from calling on the Guard's C-130 Js
    to conduct initial attack on wildfires? In other words, why are the
    Guard's C-130 Js always the last resources called upon to fight burning
    fires? Since these planes were purchased by the taxpayers, how can we
    make sure that they are used more appropriately?
        Answer. The U.S. Forest Service is one of eight Federal agencies
    (i.e., including also the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land
    Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, Fire and Aviation Management, the U.S. Fire Administration,
    and the National Weather Service) participating in the National
    Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). The NIFC, which is located in Boise,
    Idaho, is responsible for coordinating the mobilization of resources
    for wildland fires and ultimately makes the determination on what
    capabilities and resources to request and employ on an incident-by-
    incident basis.
        The NIFC maintains a contract for commercial air tanker services.
    The intent of this contract is to provide the Federal Government with
    large fixed-wing air tanker services, including the delivery of
    approved fire suppressant or retardant material on forest and range
    fires over all types of terrain throughout the United States. According
    to interagency policy and guidance, the objective of the Modular
    Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS) program is to provide an
    ``emergency capability to supplement commercial air tankers on wildland
    fires'' that may be ``used as a reinforcement measure when contract air
    tankers are committed or not readily available.''
        When compared to other fixed and rotary-wing aircraft available for
    aerial fire suppression, MAFFS-equipped aircraft may not be the most
    appropriate for all contingencies that require a Federal response to
    wildfires. At the request of the NIFC, DOD has provided, on a
    reimbursable basis, a broad range of support to the NIFC over the
    years, including DOD aircraft and crews equipped with U.S. Forest
    Service-owned MAFFS; helicopters with water buckets; military ground
    firefighting crews (usually a Federal military or National Guard
    battalion); DOD civilian firefighters; engineering assets; fire
    engines; incident management team members; and incident assessment
    assets. When requested, such assets may assist in firefighting if they
    are available and not committed to executing DOD's primary mission. DOD
    evaluates each request for assistance against six criteria for
    validating Defense Support of Civil Authorities: legality, lethality,
    risk, cost, appropriateness, and impact on readiness.
        Of note, although U.S. Forest Service requests for MAFFS support
    take precedence over State or international requests, the governors of
    California, North Carolina, and Wyoming may, after notifying the U.S.
    Forest Service, activate the Air National Guard airlift wings with
    MAFFS equipment and qualified crews assigned to their respective States
    for fires under State jurisdiction.
        Question. The National Guard 146th Airlift Wing in Point Mugu,
    California has been exemplary as they carry out the Guard's
    firefighting assistance mission. It is my understanding that if they
    were provided an additional 2 to 4 C-130 Js that they would be eager to
    expand their firefighting role. I also understand that Guard wings from
    Nevada, Washington, and other States are eager to undertake this very
    important mission. Do you support the expansion of C-130 firefighting
    program in California and across the West? What can you do to help
    facilitate this expansion?
        Answer. The Federal agencies with primary responsibility for
    fighting wildfires are the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
    Department of the Interior. The Department of Defense has a supporting
    role. In light of the need for DOD to identify over $100 billion in
    savings over the next 5 years to ensure DOD can execute its primary
    mission of protecting and defending the nation, procurement of
    additional DOD C-130s for firefighting is not a priority.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. Last May, Secretary Donley testified that the Air Force
    must consider Airbus as a viable competitor for the Tanker RFP. He
    stated that despite the WTO's findings, Airbus still has the right to
    appeal WTO findings and cannot be legally excluded.
        What will be the consequences if Airbus is granted the Tanker
    contract and the WTO decision is sustained?
        Answer. The Department of Defense believes that full and open
    competition in source selection is the best way to obtain the best
    value for our military and the taxpayers. The source selection will be
    made based on the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. Since the
    source selection process is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to
    comment on it.
        There are two WTO Panel cases. The final WTO Panel Report on the
    United States case against the European Union (EU), i.e., France,
    Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, was published on June 30, 2010.
    An interim WTO Panel Report on the EU case against the United States
    for a different group of alleged subsidies is anticipated in September,
    and the final report is usually issued several months later.
        We have been advised by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
    (OUSTR) that there is an appeal process, and that it is expected to be
    beyond 2010, before the entire WTO process for determining the legal
    issues raised by any WTO-inconsistent subsidization is complete. In the
    event that there is a ruling against either Member, and the United
    States and the EU cannot settle the matter by themselves, then the WTO
    would determine the appropriate remedy.
        OUSTR is our national advocate for matters pertaining to WTO rules
    and procedures and represents U.S. interests in prosecution of, or
    defense against, charges of violations of such rules relative to any
    other Member of the WTO.
        Further, the KC-X contract will contain a unique contract clause to
    ensure that any economic impacts to the contractor resulting from the
    decisions of the WTO and the ultimate implementation of those
    decisions, will not affect the prices paid under the tanker contract.
    In this way the U.S. taxpayer is protected.
        Question. How will the DOD account for the harm already committed
    to the U.S. Aerospace industry?
        Answer. The parties of World Trade Organization (WTO) cases are
    bound by WTO rules. Under Article 23 of the Understanding on Rules and
    Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), WTO Members
    seeking redress of an alleged violation must limit their recourse to,
    and abide by, the rules and procedures of the WTO. No Member has
    unilateral authority under the WTO to take retaliatory action.
        We have been advised by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
    that applicable appeal processes will continue beyond 2010. The appeal
    process must be complete before the WTO determines the appropriate
    remedy for any WTO-inconsistent subsidization. WTO remedies for
    actionable subsidies are forward looking in nature and not retaliatory
    for past subsidies. The WTO, not the United States alone, will
    determine what the appropriate remedy will be in these matters in the
    event that the United States and the EU cannot settle the matter by
    themselves.
        Question. I am concerned that you advocate shutting down the C-17
    production line; however, if you award KC-X to Airbus, we would have no
    wide-body military aircraft in production in this country. How does the
    DOD plan to address this potential loss of U.S. capability?
        Answer. I share your concern with respect to future domestic
    industrial base capabilities. The Department continually assesses our
    nation's industrial capabilities to include, among other things, a
    determination of the viability of any military-unique skills,
    processes, facilities or technologies. Ending production of the C-17
    would not materially reduce the capability of the U.S. defense
    industrial base to supply future wide-body military aircraft. From a
    production standpoint, most parts of military aircraft rely on skills
    and facilities similar to those used in commercial aircraft
    manufacturing, so continued domestic production of 747, 767, 777, and
    787 aircraft by Boeing and its subcontractors will maintain that
    capability along with continued production of components on Airbus' A-
    330, A-340, A-350, and A-380 by American suppliers. From a design and
    development standpoint, the C-17 is well past its intensive design
    phase, and continued production will have little effect on American
    technical capabilities. Moreover, wide-body lift aircraft involve very
    little military-unique technology. Even as the Department begins
    shutting down the C-17 production line, the technology and processes
    used by the wide-body civilian aircraft manufacturing base are readily
    available, mature, and directly applicable to those used by military
    airlift manufacturers, and American aerospace companies have access to
    engineering talent that can develop the few military-unique aspects. I
    am confident that when the time comes in the future to produce
    additional military airlift, America's aerospace industry will be able
    to respond to the need.
        Question. How is the DOD working with the VA to ensure the
    transition of servicemembers from DOD to VA is seamless and there is
    continuity of care?
        Answer. In order to ensure seamless transition of Service members
    from DOD to VA and continuity of care, DOD established the Department
    of Defense (DOD) Recovery Care Coordinators (RCCs) and a Comprehensive
    Recovery Plan for each Wounded, Ill or Injured Recovering Service
    Member (RSM) who is unable to return to duty within a time specified by
    their Military Department and may be medically separated. RCCs provide
    non-medical support and services to RSMs and their families as they
    transition through recovery, rehabilitation, return to duty or
    reintegrate into the community. The RCCs, in collaboration with the
    medical and non-medical recovery teams, assess the needs of the RSM and
    create a Recovery Plan which guides the RSM through the phases of care
    and transition. Since the RSM owns his/her Recovery Plan, it transfers
    with the Service member if he/she transitions out of the military. If
    the Service member separates from the military, the RCC coordinates
    with the VA OEF/OIF Liaisons, VA Transition Patient Advocates, and
    community programs to assist in establishing continuing non-medical
    support for the Service member and family as they reintegrate into the
    community.
        Additionally, Federal Recovery Coordinators (FRCs), established in
    2007, provide service and support for the most severely injured Service
    members who are unlikely to return to duty. The FRCs, employed by the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), reside in the Military Treatment
    Facilities and VA Medical Centers and provide non-medical care to
    severely wounded, ill and injured Service members and Veterans. The
    FRCs create a Recovery Plan that matches the DOD Recovery Plan.
        To further coordinate efforts, both the FRCs and the RCCs use the
    National Resource Directory (NRD) as a source for resources and
    services. The NRD is an online partnership with Department of Labor,
    DOD, and VA to provide resources for wounded, ill and injured Service
    members, Veterans, their families and those who support them. Over
    10,000 Federal, State and local resources are included in the NRD.
        Question. What is the status of the virtual medical records?
        Answer. The Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) is in the
    pilot test phase. In January 2010, DOD's Naval Medical Center San Diego
    and Veteran Affairs San Diego Medical Center conducted a VLER Phase 1a
    pilot and exchanged specific test patient data elements of a
    ``Continuity of Care'' document. This pilot demonstrated real time
    implementation of IT standards utilizing the Federal Health
    Architecture's (FHA) Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN). The
    project highlighted opportunities for improving those standards. The
    next phase, VLER Phase 1b, will build on the Phase 1a data set and
    expand it to additional military treatment facilities, VA Medical
    Centers, and health information exchanges in the Tidewater area in
    Virginia by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010 and the Spokane area
    of Washington State by the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.
        The VLER will leverage investments made in the Departments'
    existing electronic health record systems. VLER is a combined
    Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    initiative to integrate a portfolio of information sharing capabilities
    for the secure exchange of medical and benefits information among
    various departments of the Federal government and commercial sector
    healthcare providers.
        Question. I appreciate Secretary McHugh's quick response and
    promise to resolve the issue at hand. Unfortunately, I see this as a
    broader problem between Active components and their Reserves
    counterparts. I understand the Reserve forces have different
    requirements because of their nature, but they still deserve the same
    respect, especially since they deploy and operate in the combat zones
    on a regular rotation like their Active counterparts.
        It appears that when both components are deployed, the Active/
    Reserve distinction falls away. However, this perception continues to
    remain at home. What efforts have been taken to address this perceived
    inadequate treatment?
        Answer. The DOD is aware of the perceived inequities among the
    Service components and, in the spirit of Total Force, working to reduce
    and eliminate them. Examples are Post Deployment Initiatives, Equipping
    Units and Pre Deployment Training Certifications listed below.
        Post Deployment Initiatives.--Designed to inform Reserve Component
    (RC) members how to access resources in Finance and Budgeting,
    Healthcare, Mental Health, Reintegration, Stress Relief, Counseling.
    The Yellow Ribbon Program (YRP) is a Defense-wide program which ensures
    Service members and their families are ready and resilient throughout
    the deployment cycle using information and access to local, State, and
    Federal organizations. As of April 2010, more than 135,000 Service
    members (83,000 were National Guard members) attended YRP Events.
        Equipping Units.--It is DOD policy that the Guard and Reserve will
    be equipped to accomplish all assigned missions and will have an
    equipment procurement and distribution program that is balanced,
    sustainable and responsive to mission requirements. DOD has made it a
    priority to ensure that any unit, regardless of component, is properly
    equipped for in-theatre missions and for the National Guard domestic
    missions as well.
        Pre Deployment Training Certifications.--Previously, when RC units
    were called up, they had to complete training and be certified at the
    home station, by RC reviewers. Then, just prior to deployment, they
    were required to be certified again by the Active Component (AC)
    reviewers, even though it was for the same qualification. To resolve
    the inequality, AC now accepts the certification of Guard and Reserve
    commanders.
        Of the many initiatives undertaken, these are just a few examples
    that demonstrate the DODs commitment to create a Total Force which
    should ultimately eliminate all perceived inadequacies.
        Question. Proper equipping, regular military construction projects
    and demobilization health concerns seem to remain within the Reserve
    Component. How does the Department of Defense intend to address these
    concerns?
        Answer. The Department is addressing these concerns by ensuring
    that all units are properly equipped prior to going into deployed
    situations, and that each member is supported with comprehensive health
    programs throughout their life. The proper equipping, the effective
    training and the physical-mental well being of each and every Service
    member is a priority of the Department, throughout every stage of
    deployment. This priority is applied to create the Total Force, which
    includes the Reserve Components.
        DOD will always make ensure that the men and women fighting or
    getting ready to fight in theater have the best equipment available,
    regardless of component. The Department has a thorough requirements
    process that balances current operations with future plans. While the
    Reserve Components do not have their own procurement appropriation, we
    have implemented and continue to improve upon the recommendations in
    this area from the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves and
    other stakeholders. This will give DOD and Congressional leaders
    greater visibility and an improved ability to track delivery of
    equipment through the system to the Guard and Reserve.
        There is a direct correlation between readiness and facilities,
    particularly in the Reserve Component (RC). Because the mission of the
    RC is to equip, train, and prepare for war, it is imperative that the
    RC have and maintain quality facilities to meet their operational,
    maintenance, training, and mobilization requirements.
        Post-Deployment Health Assessments are given to each Service member
    prior to redeployment or release from active duty. The assessment
    gathers information on the health concerns or problems that the Service
    member feels are related to deployment. Face-to-face health assessments
    with healthcare providers are provided to determine the need for
    referral for appropriate medical follow-up. Military and Veteran's
    Affairs (VA) providers use the jointly developed Post-Deployment Health
    Clinical Practice Guideline to focus healthcare on post deployment
    problems and concerns of the Service members returning from
    deployments. Initiatives such as Yellow Ribbon events are vital for
    post mobilization healthcare. These events are conducted during pre,
    mid and post deployment phases and are designed to inform RC members
    how to access resources in healthcare, mental health, reintegration,
    stress relief, counseling and suicide prevention.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Secretary Gates, last month the Administration sent over
    a late legislative proposal that would provide up to $205 million to
    the Israeli government for accelerated development and fielding of the
    Iron Dome defense system which is designed to counter short range
    rockets and large caliber artillery shells. The requested authorization
    stated that funding would be provided from offsets as approved by you,
    the Secretary of Defense. Can you share with the committee what
    programs you would consider cutting in fiscal year 2011 to fund this
    new initiative?
        Answer. At this time, no decision has been made as to what programs
    would be reduced to finance the Iron Dome transfer. Assuming the
    Congress provides the requested authority, we will make the specific
    program reductions during the execution of the enacted fiscal year 2011
    budget.
        Question. Secretary Gates, last spring you announced an initiative
    to replace contractors and hire more than 13,000 government civilians
    in fiscal year 2010. This initiative was expected to achieve $900
    million of savings in 2010 alone. Can you update the Committee on the
    number of positions that have been in-sourced and what savings have
    being realized?
        Answer. As of March 31, 2010 (end of the 2nd quarter), the
    Department has established approximately 15,270 new civilian
    authorizations as a result of in-sourcing contracted services. The
    Department's in-sourcing efforts to rebalance the workforce, rebuild
    critical capabilities internally, and reduce operational risk are
    focused on services being performed by the private sector that are more
    appropriately performed by DOD personnel. In-sourcing is a component of
    the Department's broader Total Force management policies, focused on
    ensuring we have the capacity, skills, and resources to carry out our
    missions and operations.
        While the fiscal year 2010 budget reflected reductions of
    approximately $900 million as a result of in-sourcing, our efforts are
    not focused on, or driven solely by, cost. More than 50 percent of the
    in-sourcing actions executed to date in fiscal year 2010 did not
    consider cost as a deciding factor but were required to return
    inherently governmental or exempt (job functions closely associated
    with inherently governmental or needed to support readiness/management
    needs) services to government performance. Due to our focus on other
    factors such as job function rather than cost alone the Department is
    not centrally tracking savings realized from individual in-sourcing
    decisions.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
        Question. In order to keep America on the cutting edge of new
    weapons and defense systems, I fail to recognize the strategic value in
    closing the only active production line for long-range strategic
    airlifters when there is no replacement being developed and as the
    operational fleet is being used up faster than expected.
        You may recall that I vocalized the point during the Defense
    Subcommittee on Appropriations hearing on the DOD budget. You responded
    by explaining that America's wide-body civilian aircraft manufacturing
    base would more than adequately supplant military aircraft
    manufacturers in the event that the nation may need to surge its
    production of military airlifters in response to a national emergency
    or even another humanitarian crisis somewhere around the world. Is this
    an accurate interpretation of your response?
        Answer. Yes. Requirements for commercial cargo aircraft continue to
    rise for outsize and heavy lift capability, including planes that can
    operate in remote and austere environments. Numerous industries--
    including construction, mining, oil and gas equipment, power
    generation, railroad, and satellite companies--have requirements to
    quickly transport heavy, oversize equipment. The technology and
    processes used by the wide-body civilian aircraft manufacturing base
    are readily available, mature, and directly applicable to those used by
    military airlift manufacturers. I am confident that when the time comes
    in the future to produce additional military airlift, America's
    aerospace industry will be able to respond to the need.
        Question. If not, will you please clarify your answer that: ``There
    is significant wide-body aircraft production capability in the United
    States. And we have more than enough time to adjust it to a military
    production line if we need to.''
        Answer. The development and manufacturing know-how resident in the
    commercial aviation sector--particularly in the field of wide-body
    aircraft--can be easily adjusted to support future military airlift
    requirements that may arise. Moreover, the C-17s set to roll off the
    production line, coupled with those already in the field, will have a
    very long lifespan and provide a substantial capability to support
    strategic airlift requirements over the next 30 years.
        Question. In particular, please provide me with a better
    understanding of your basis of evidence for concluding that our
    civilian airplane manufacturers can adequately replace the expertise
    and engineering know-how of the manufacturers of military strategic
    airlifters, which require specifications not common to civilian
    aircraft.
        Answer. The Department's industrial capabilities assessments
    include, among other things, a determination of the viability of any
    essential industrial/technological capabilities. Transport airframes,
    as well as many of their high-value subsystems, are commercial, off-
    the-shelf (COTS) or COTS derivative items. These high-value subsystems
    include engines, avionics, auxiliary power units, environmental control
    systems, and ground proximity warning systems. Transport airframes and
    subsystems rely heavily on commercial technologies, processes, and
    products and will be sustained by other ongoing and planned military
    and commercial aerospace programs. The non-COTS items in a military
    transport such as cargo floor reinforcement and loading systems are not
    considered essential military capabilities.
        Question. Global lift distinguishes America above all other
    militaries. How can we preserve that capability if we allow all the
    engineers' and designers' specialized skills to atrophy and then never
    recover them?
        Answer. Continued production of global lift aircraft would do
    little to stem the loss of military-unique skills, processes,
    facilities and technologies due to the high commercial off-the-shelf
    content. Military-unique aerospace design skills at risk include
    hypersonics, canopy and cockpit design and integration, stores
    management and weapons separation, aerodynamics, etc.--none of which
    would be maintained by continued production of global lift aircraft.
    From a design and development standpoint, global lift aircraft are
    based on commercial products or derivatives of commercial products and,
    therefore, should not cause any reduction in any inherent design
    capabilities. There is very little military-unique technology involved
    in developing or manufacturing airlift aircraft.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
        Question. Last year, Fort Campbell suffered 11 soldier suicides,
    apparently one of the highest figures of any military post. Have other
    military installations, with units facing similar operational tempo as
    those housed at Fort Campbell, experienced comparable absolute numbers
    of suicides and similar rates of suicide? If not, and if the suicide
    rate at Fort Campbell is uniquely high, has the Army conducted a formal
    inquiry into the suicide rates to determine what accounts for the high
    number?
        Answer. Yes, while Fort Campbell had the highest number of suicides
    in 2009, other bases with similar populations and unit deployment
    profiles had high suicide rates as well. For all of 2009, Fort Campbell
    (21), Fort Hood (11), Fort Stewart (10), Fort Carson (9), and Schofield
    Barracks (7) accounted for 39 percent of Active Duty deaths (162). As
    of June 25, 2010, Fort Hood (11), Joint Base Lewis McChord (8), Fort
    Bragg (6), and Fort Carson (5), in the top of the list, account for 51
    percent of the 74 Active Duty suicide deaths this year. When compared
    to the same point last year (June 25), the Army had 87 suicide deaths.
    The Army's senior leadership is committed to sustaining our current
    emphasis on this problem.
        The Army sent a team from the Public Health Command to Fort
    Campbell in June 2009 to examine issues related to their suicide trend.
    This team scrutinized organizational factors such as the length of time
    small unit leaders were in their leadership position, total time each
    unit leader had in their Army career, and specific types of formal or
    informal people skills and leadership training leaders received to
    determine if any of these factors played a role. This team did not find
    any significant patterns or trends that accounted for Fort Campbell's
    rate.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                             global defense posture
        Question. I believe the GAO review of our European force structure
    plans will show the anticipated savings moving the Army from Heidelberg
    to Wiesbaden will not materialize, so I am at a loss as to why a
    component of EUCOM needs its own headquarters of the proposed
    magnitude. I hope as part of your review of reducing overhead cost and
    redundant capabilities you relook at that decision and evaluate
    Stuttgart at a consolidation location, where EUCOM, Army Europe and
    even AFRICOM can share the most technical and expensive resources. The
    Army request for a $91 million SCIF and a $120 million Command and
    Battle Center at Wiesbaden are prime examples.
        Mr. Secretary, in light of your comments on needing to reduce
    redundant capabilities and overhead cost I am interested in why you
    believe, in our current fiscal situation, we need to expend our limited
    taxpayer dollars in Europe when we can achieve the same readiness
    capabilities by stationing more of our forces in America, where we can
    provide jobs for local communities and stability and support for our
    soldiers and their families. Will you reconsider the Army's planned
    move to Wiesbaden or review the Milcon requirements at that location
    that could be shared with the facilities at Stuttgart?
        Answer. The consolidation of 7th Army Headquarters/U.S. Army Europe
    (HQ/USAREUR), along with its signal and intelligence elements, at
    Wiesbaden, Germany will allow the closure of three bases in Europe,
    resulting in a reduced footprint, while providing the facilities
    necessary to support current and future operations in the U.S. European
    Command (USEUCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). The Department is
    currently executing fiscal year 2009 funding associated with the
    Wiesbaden consolidation. Military Construction funding included in the
    fiscal year 2011 President's budget request would fund construction of
    the second increment of the Command and Battle Center, an Information
    Processing Center, and a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.
    The Department determined that it continues to make operational sense
    to move forward with this initiative, and that savings realized should
    equal implementation costs by fiscal year 2016.
        The Department re-examined the consolidation of 7th Army HQ/USAREUR
    at Wiesbaden in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and validated the
    original decision. Consolidation at Stuttgart was not considered as
    USEUCOM, U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM), and other supporting elements
    are located there; we are concerned about additional stress on these
    facilities, which could overwhelm capacity. We will continue to examine
    opportunities for military construction efficiencies and shared
    facilities.
                                  south korea
        Question. I am concerned about our future commitments in 2012 and
    beyond. The cost of housing, schools, hospitals, clinics, fitness
    centers, recreation facilities, child care centers, youth centers, and
    other support facilities such as commissaries and PX exchange services
    will be staggering. We have not been given any cost estimates on these
    facilities so we have no way to evaluate the total cost of a decision
    of this magnitude.
        Mr. Secretary, have you approved this new plan and can you give us
    an out-year cost we will be asked to commit the U.S. taxpayer to for a
    major shift in strategy such as this?
        Answer. I am also concerned about costs, but my true motivation is
    to support the deployed troops and their family members in a time of
    shrinking budgets and fiscal constraints. Yes, I approved a Tour
    Normalization effort that allows for command-sponsorship of
    approximately 4,900 families in South Korea by 2012. The funding for
    this requirement is contained in the President's fiscal year 2011
    budget request, which includes $536 million across fiscal year 2011-
    2015 for Tour Normalization primarily to provide housing in the form of
    the Overseas Housing Allowance. As you note, these families require
    supporting infrastructure, and the intent of the Yongsan Relocation
    Plan and the Land Partnership Plan is to cover these requirements (both
    of which include cost sharing from the Republic of Korea). This covers
    the infrastructure costs for schools, hospitals, clinics, fitness
    centers, recreation facilities, child care centers, youth centers, and
    other support facilities. I will continue to closely monitor changes in
    timelines and requirements as I consider how to most cost effectively
    implement this plan. If there are additional costs, then they will be
    included in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request after the
    Department considers all issues for the next budget submission.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
        Question. For the record, Secretary Gates, was anyone at the
    Pentagon consulted about the national security implications prior to
    NASA making a decision to cancel the Constellation program? Could you
    state, for the record, what are those national security implications?
        Answer. During the Augustine Committee data collection efforts,
    research analysts working on behalf of the OSTP asked staff from the
    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
    and Logistics/Industrial Policy for a copy of the Department's most
    recent Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Capabilities Assessment report to
    Congress, which is dated April 2, 2009. Additionally, the committee
    analysts discussed the findings and results of the report with the
    Industrial Policy staff. No official interaction took place on the
    matter above the analyst and staff levels of our respective
    organizations. To the best of our knowledge, there was no other
    interaction.
        Our most complete assessment of the evident national security
    implications is captured in our June 2010 report titled, Solid Rocket
    Motor Industrial Base Interim Sustainment Plan To Congress.
        Question. Just last week, Administrator Bolden sent a letter
    notifying the Congress of the agency's intention to ``pace''
    Constellation efforts for the remainder of this fiscal year. This
    latest action will have an immediate and devastating impact on the
    aerospace workforce, including the likely layoff of as many as 2,500
    workers from within the solid rocket motor industry alone.
        Secretary Gates, was anyone at the Pentagon consulted prior to this
    most recent decision by NASA to ``pace'' the remainder of the fiscal
    year 2010 Constellation effort?
        Answer. To the best of our knowledge, no official interaction took
    place between NASA and the DOD relative to NASA's intention to ``pace''
    the Constellation effort.
        Question. Secretary Gates, it is extremely likely that this panel
    will have acted on the Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget submit
    long before the Department delivers its plan to sustain the solid
    rocket motor industrial base. Even in the absence of the Department's
    recommendations, this panel is being asked to make significant
    budgetary decisions that affect the future viability of this industry.
    Specifically, not yet clear is the Department's commitment to
    sustaining the Minuteman propulsion system. Also not yet clear is
    whether the Missile Defense Agency will respond to congressional
    concerns, and sustain production of the Ground-based Mid-course Defense
    missile supplier base, or sustain the SM-3 Block IA until Block IB is
    proven.
        In the absence of your Department's official recommendations via
    delivery of the solid rocket motor industrial base sustainment plan,
    what path would you suggest for this committee? What can you share with
    this panel now about the pending plan's recommendations? For example,
    will the implementation plan emphasize investment in research and
    development, continued production via essential warm line programs, or
    both? It seems only prudent that this committee recommend sustained low
    rate production for all our large solid rocket motor systems--including
    both the land-based and submarine-launched strategic deterrent
    missiles, and all our deployed missile defense boosters. These low rate
    production programs ensure that the industrial base is able to meet the
    aging and obsolescence-related needs of current deployed systems, and
    prepared to develop our next generation systems.
        Answer. The Department submitted an interim SRM Sustainment Plan in
    June 2010 that laid out the options DOD is considering as it develops
    its final sustainment plan. The Department is working aggressively to
    complete a full sustainment plan in keeping with the end of September
    deadline discussed in the preliminary plan. It is premature to provide
    the specific approach the Department will pursue as the plan will
    include resource commitments and potential policy considerations.
        As indicated in the interim plan, the Department needs to continue
    its efforts to develop an investment strategy that supports our
    strategic requirements now and well into the future, while at the same
    time motivating the suppliers to ``right-size'' the industrial capacity
    to better reflect the reality of the future needs. This investment
    strategy must include adequate basic science and technology,
    demonstration and validation programs, and production programs to
    sustain a viable, innovative, and competitive industry. The Department
    believes that the appropriate investment strategy will include elements
    of the following:
      --Funds sufficient to maintain properly qualified production
            processes.
      --Funds sufficient to exercise production skills.
      --Funds sufficient to support aging studies, to maintain safety and
            reliability at appropriate levels.
      --Funds sufficient to support design and development efforts directed
            at improving and sustaining current designs.
      --Funds sufficient to support design and development efforts for a
            successor class missile, the SRM concepts from which could be
            employed for both Navy and Air Force needs, as well as other
            DOD programs.
        The DOD strongly supports both investments in research and
    development and in production. The DOD is committed to supporting our
    ongoing force structure and ensuring we have a robust base in support
    of that effort. However, this does not necessarily mean we support
    continued warm-line programs on all our large SRM programs. The
    Department believes that production continuance alone, no matter where
    directed, will be insufficient to protect and/or restore critical
    technical and creative skills necessary for future missile production
    and current missile sustainment.
        The Department also believes the ``right-sizing'' process will
    likely come with a cost that will be seen both as a unit cost increase
    for DOD systems and potentially, near-term increases in facility costs.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to Admiral Michael G. Mullen
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                                    somalia
        Question. Admiral Mullen, recent press reports have highlighted the
    growing presence and influence of foreign fighters and al-Qaeda in
    Somalia's Islamist al-Shabab group. How would you assess the threat
    posed by these groups to western interests in East Africa? Is Somalia
    becoming the ultimate safe haven for al-Qaeda and foreign fighters?
        Answer. [Deleted].
        Question. Admiral Mullen, do you have sufficient resources to
    adequately focus on the situation in Somalia?
        Answer. I appreciate your support for the resources requested in
    the President's budget to support Somalia, including those for enabling
    activities, such as ISR. We are comfortable that our request will
    provide the appropriate level of resources to address challenges in
    Somalia, a complex nation that includes a transitional government
    struggling to establish itself with the support of the African Union.
        Question. Admiral Mullen, do you consider the Somali al-Shabab
    group a regionally focused threat or a direct threat to the U.S.
    homeland?
        Answer. [Deleted].
             impact of changing health benefits on service members
        Question. Admiral Mullen, this is a very different military from
    the one I joined many years ago. Today, most service members are
    married and have children. The cost of maintaining this all-volunteer
    force is much higher than in my day. As such, there is a lot of
    discussion about the rising personnel costs and finding ways to curtail
    the growth.
        What would the impact of reducing benefits be on the individual
    soldier? We're currently providing terrific healthcare coverage, so
    would a change to that break the faith with the soldier and negatively
    impact his or her willingness to serve?
        Answer. Yes, a reduction in medical benefits could break the faith
    with the soldier and negatively impact his or her willingness to serve.
        In my CJCS 2009-2010 Guidance, I reemphasized that it is our core
    responsibility to win wars while caring for our people and their
    families. I believe that as a Nation, we have the solemn obligation to
    fully support our service members and their families. I also believe
    that our culture must value and support a continuum of care that lasts
    a lifetime and encompasses military members, retirees and their
    families. In order to make this cultural shift, there must be constant
    attention and cooperation between the Joint Staff and the Chiefs, and
    close work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
    Department of Veteran Affairs.
        The country faces mounting deficits and growing debt. This is going
    to require difficult budget decisions for our government. As we carry
    out our assigned missions and reset a tired force, we must guard
    against growing hollow. The quality of the force remains paramount.
        The Military Health System (MHS) portion of the Defense budget is
    steadily increasing. Currently, private sector healthcare costs are
    increasing at a rate of about 10 percent per year.
        In order to engage this issue, we have looked at implementing
    several healthcare initiatives that could generate future savings for
    the department. These initiatives include:
        Administrative.--Medicare Payment Matching Initiative/Sole
    Community Hospital; Fraud Waste and Abuse investigation and reduction;
    and Medical Supply Chain Standardization.
        Benefit.--Uniformed Services Family Health Plan (USFHP) Medical-
    Eligible Initiative; TRICARE Beneficiary Fee Increase; and TRICARE
    Survey/Demonstration for Opt-Out Initiative.
        There has been no discussion of reducing the benefit to the AC and
    RC, rather we are increasing benefits in the areas of mental health and
    traumatic brain injury, and rehabilitative care while adding innovative
    programs such as medical centered home to improve continuity and
    quality while potentially decreasing long term costs. Likewise, there
    is no indication from DOD leadership that they intend to reduce the
    medical benefits to the AC and RC and their families. The wars in
    Afghanistan and Iraq will end and we must think today about how the
    U.S. military will need to adapt to future threats. The health-of-the-
    force investments that we make today will pay dividends in the national
    security tomorrow and well into the next generation.
                                     china
        Question. Admiral Mullen, recent press reports have highlighted
    growing Chinese investments in their military capabilities. As we
    continue to focus our efforts on Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and now
    Somalia, do we have sufficient resources focused on the challenges
    posed by an increasingly capable Chinese military?
        Answer. Secretary Gates and I have placed a priority on ensuring
    that our service members have the tools they need to do their job,
    while continuing to prepare for potential contingencies across the
    spectrum of conflict. China has made significant investments in modern
    warfighting capabilities, particularly over the past two decades. While
    not directed at China specifically, it is of vital importance that the
    United States is positioned to prevail against any potential adversary,
    including those with advanced conventional and/or Anti-Access/Area
    Denial (A2/AD) capabilities. Some examples of programs in the fiscal
    year 2011 budget that sustain the United States' long-standing edge in
    conventional warfighting include:
      --Electronic Warfare.--Procurement of 12 EA-18G ``Growler'' aircraft
            to recapitalize four expeditionary electronic attack squadrons.
      --Cyber Command.--Establishment of U.S. Cyber Command to organize and
            standardize DOD cyber practices and operations in defense of
            the Global Information Grid (GIG).
      --Joint Strike Fighter.--Procurement of 42 aircraft in fiscal year
            2011. JSF will ensure continued air dominance over current--and
            future--battlefields.
      --Shipbuilding.--Procurement of 10 ships, all of which would be
            extremely relevant in a conventional campaign--2 Virginia-class
            SSNs, 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, 2 Littoral Combat
            Ships, 1 Landing Helicopter Assault-Replacement (LHA-R), 1
            Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and 2 Joint High Speed Vessels
            (JHSVs).
        Question. Admiral Mullen, do you see a time in the near future
    where we will be able to improve our military to military ties with
    China?
        Answer. I believe there is potential for an improved military-to-
    military relationship with China in the near future; however, China has
    recently been unwilling to engage with the U.S. military. While
    disagreements will exist, these must not prevent cooperation in support
    of our mutual interests and our international responsibilities. I
    believe that China's military leadership will recognize the importance
    of continuing to work together with the United States to promote
    regional stability, in spite of our differences. Therefore, my
    invitation to my counterpart, PLA Chief of General Staff, General Chen
    Bingde, remains open and I look forward to meeting him here in
    Washington, and reciprocating the visit in Beijing to discuss how we
    can better define our military-to-military relationship.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. Admiral Mullen, there is a so-called ``fighter bathtub''
    issue looming over the future of the Air National Guard. In my role as
    the Co-Chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I am very concerned
    that our plan for the Air Force does not fully leverage the benefit of
    the Air National Guard's greater cost-effectiveness or the greater
    experience of its pilots and maintenance crews compared to the Active
    Component.
        Can you explain your vision for the role of the Air National Guard
    in the future Air Force mission? Do you believe that the current Air
    National Guard legacy fighter fleet should be re-capitalized, or do you
    believe that as fighter wings are retired, those states' Air Guard
    units should assume new missions with smaller counter-narcotic aircraft
    or even unmanned airframes?
        Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve
    Component (AFRC) are full partners in the Air Force's Total Force
    Integration (TFI), providing critical capabilities for the Joint
    Warfighter across the full spectrum of conflict. The fiscal year 2011
    President's budget reflects a complete review of the Air Force fighter
    requirement which was developed based on the Secretary of Defense's
    guidance for Development of Forces, through examination of the current
    and future strategic environment, and using high fidelity campaign
    modeling.
        Today the ANG flies both the newest and some of the oldest fighter
    aircraft in the Air Force inventory. The fiscal year 2010 budget
    retired 257 of the Air Force's oldest fighter aircraft and
    recapitalized a number of ANG units with newer and more capable 4th
    generation fighters from the active inventory. In fiscal year 2011 F-
    22s are being delivered to the 154th Wing in Honolulu, Hawaii, and F-22
    ANG and AFRC TFI programs presently exist at Langley, Holloman, and
    Elmendorf AFBs. As the F-35 is delivered to both the Active and Reserve
    Component, additional 4th generation aircraft will become available to
    recapitalize older ANG and AFRC fighters.
        The Air Force is refining the current TFI approach to develop a
    future TFI game plan based on strategic and operational use of the
    Active and Reserve Components. The Air Reserve Component will provide
    critical capabilities for the Joint Warfighter in fighters as well as
    new and emerging missions that capitalize on the ARC's experience,
    expertise, and expeditionary capacity.
        Question. Admiral Mullen, Senator Bond and I recently sent a letter
    to Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran on behalf of the Senate
    National Guard Caucus requesting $870 million for the National Guard
    and Reserve Equipment Account. Even though the National Guard and
    Reserves have shouldered more than their share of the operational
    responsibilities at home and abroad, they still lag behind the Active
    Component in terms of getting the equipment they need. Why do they
    still face this shortfall, and what is the Department's long-term plan
    for fixing it?
        Answer. Over the past decade the Department of Defense has made
    tremendous strides in providing the best available equipment across all
    components. There was a time when the Reserve Components lagged
    significantly behind the Active force in both the quantity and quality
    of their equipment requirements, but in my assessment, this gap has
    closed significantly.
        Since 9/11/2001, our priority of effort has been to equip deploying
    units first. The Department has steadily improved the readiness posture
    of the Reserve Components, clearly transforming them from a Strategic
    Reserves to an Operational Force. Given the exigencies of fighting two
    simultaneous wars with all components participating, Department leaders
    realize that all of our forces need to be equipped appropriately. In
    2007, the Department issued directives to better manage the Reserve
    Components as an Operational Force. One key aspect of this shift has
    been to properly equip the Reserve Components with modern,
    interoperable equipment which has contributed to both the
    transformation and success of our national security strategy.
        The Department has also been focused on critical equipment
    requirements that sustain efforts which protect the home front. We have
    improved the percentage of National Guard Critical Dual-Use equipment
    available to the Governors by 22 percent over the last 5 years. This
    has occurred through an increase of overall Reserve Component equipment
    funding from approximately $3.3 billion in 2005 to just over $9.9
    billion in 2009, as well as additional funding from the Congress.
        The Army Equipping Strategy published in 2009 specifically
    acknowledged the need for Critical Dual-Use equipment to be filled at
    80 percent or better. While the overall on-hand rate stands at 83
    percent, due to the quantity of equipment deployed to support
    contingency requirements, only 65 percent of Critical Dual-Use
    equipment is currently available for use here at home. However, the
    Army projects being able to reach a fill rate of 87 percent by March
    2011. No unit has failed to complete any assigned homeland mission in
    the past due to equipment shortages because the risk has been mitigated
    through the use of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact between
    States.
        The Deputy Secretary of Defense, in an effort to lessen equipment
    shortages, directed implementation of a plan that has been executed
    since August 2009 that properly equips deployed units, while sustaining
    a trained and ready force. In doing so, the Department is striving to
    ensure the Reserve Components have the right equipment, available in
    the right quantities, at the right time, and at the right place to
    support the Total Force mission. As an example, the Army committed to
    resolve truck shortages--Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTVs)--
    that support our ground forces. The Army's FMTV modernization plan
    projects that both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve will be
    equipped at 100 percent fill by fiscal year 2015. In the interim, the
    Army National Guard is modernizing its 900 Series trucks in order to
    maintain operational fleets.
        The Air Force has strived to place emphasis on modernizing legacy
    aircraft and associated equipment across the Total Force. As an
    example, modernization efforts of the C-5A, flown by 3 National Guard
    units, are underway with modifications to its aircraft defensive
    systems which permit operations in hostile environments. Without these
    modifications, C-5As are not permitted to enter certain airfields in
    key areas of operation. An upgrade to this system is estimated at $34
    million.
        The Department's next step is to maximize efforts to implement
    recommendations articulated in the Quadrennial Defense Review and other
    strategic planning efforts that support the nation's use of the Reserve
    Component. This is especially important as the Services address the
    long-term funding needed to reduce equipment deterioration created by
    multiple or sustained deployments. We will continue to replace aging
    and maintenance-intensive equipment across the Services and modernize
    capabilities to ensure effective inter-operability.
        Additionally, we are pressing to implement the recommendations
    outlined within the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve
    Report, many of which target the improvement of equipment readiness and
    transparency of the Reserve Components. This includes meeting funding
    requirements for Reserve Component equipment procurement as well as
    ensuring the visibility, transparency, and accountability of National
    Guard and Reserve equipment from planning, programming, and budgeting,
    through acquisition and fielding.
        We will continue to work to close the remaining equipment gaps
    between the Active and Reserve Components. Your continued support and
    programmed funding in this endeavor has been essential and greatly
    appreciated.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. Still, I am still very concerned about the health and
    welfare of our service members with visible and invisible wounds.
    Recent events with the Army Warrior Transition Units have demonstrated
    that we still have a lot of work to do to ensure the health and welfare
    of the servicemembers remaining on active duty or transitioning into
    the VA system.
        Admiral Mullen, I know combat related stress is a great concern for
    you and each of the service chiefs, how is the DOD improving upon the
    existing mental health programs? Are you implementing new programs?
        Answer. A broad range of programs have been designed and
    implemented to sustain the health and well being of active and reserve
    Service members and their families before, during, and after
    deployment. There has been a series of both operational and in garrison
    programs implemented to include bolstering our Combat stress teams in
    theater; developing stress control programs to prepare Service members
    to better cope with combat and deployment stress; programs that target
    medical providers who may be experiencing provider fatigue;
    implementation of a DOD-wide Total Force Fitness program as an approach
    to strengthen resilience and enhance endurance to maintain optimal
    military force readiness; Wounded, Ill and Injured Program addressing
    reintegration needs of the wounded, ill, and injured striving to be
    responsive to the needs of our wounded warriors and their families;
    reintegration assistance programs across the DOD to assist with
    reintegration of the family. The Defense Centers of Excellence (DCoE)
    for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) provides a
    number of education and outreach programs to include a 24/7 help-line;
    real warriors campaign multimedia public education effort which combats
    stigma associated with seeking psychological healthcare and encourages
    utilization of available psychological health resources. In addition,
    the Joint DOD and VA Health Executive Council's (HEC) Mental Health
    Working Group is an expert panel who plan and implement procedures to
    create a seamless transition of care aimed at improving the access,
    quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of mental health services for
    all Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve, Veterans, and their families.
        Although we have embarked on many programs to provide the best
    possible psychological healthcare for our warriors and family members,
    I still have concerns with the invisible wounds and we still have work
    ahead of us. The OASD-HA Office of Strategy Management recently
    conducted a Psychological Health/TBI Program Review which detected gaps
    in existing programs. Additionally, the DOD has been slow to engage in
    opportunities for collaboration with the civilian sector academia and
    pure scientific research in the area of brain mapping and psychological
    health research; the lack of comprehensive entry psychological
    evaluations is evident and we lack the resources (professional staff,
    funding and time) to conduct more detailed and comprehensive
    psychological health assessment of Service recruits and candidate prior
    to and during initial induction into the military. We as a Department
    need to stratify our outlook beyond the current issues and align our
    psychological health goals and objectives in the manner of a preemptive
    strike and not in the manner as a reaction to a strike. As I have
    stated before, how we take care of those who are wounded and their
    families, and the families of the fallen, is right at the center of my
    life. They've done exactly what we've asked them to do. They've put
    themselves in harm's way, and many of them have not come back. There
    is, in my view, no higher duty for this nation, or for those of us in
    leadership positions, than to care for those who sacrifice so much and
    who must now face lives forever changed by wounds both seen and unseen.
    I think leaders throughout the land and throughout communities in our
    country need to reach out and make sure that we are meeting the needs
    of these great, young Americans who sacrificed so much. And not just
    the military members, but their families. And while we've made a lot of
    progress in the last several years, we still have an awful long way to
    go.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. The Defense Subcommittee will reconvene on
    Wednesday, June 23, at 10:30 a.m., to hear testimony from
    public witnesses. Until then, we will stand in recess.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed,
    to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 23.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye and Cochran.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. I would like to welcome everyone to this
    hearing where we receive public testimony pertaining to various
    issues related to the fiscal year 2011 Defense appropriations
    request.
        Because we have so many witnesses today, I would like to
    remind each witness that they will be limited to no more than 4
    minutes apiece. But I can assure you that your full statements
    will be made part of the record.
        And at this point, I would like to recognize the vice
    chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Cochran of Mississippi.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I am very pleased to join you and welcome our witnesses who
    are here today to talk about their views in connection with the
    Defense Department's fiscal year 2011 budget.
        We appreciate your assistance and the time you have taken
    to prepare your remarks and to present them to us today. Thank
    you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. The subcommittee has divided the witnesses
    into four panels. And the first panel consists of Mr. H. James
    Gooden; Rear Admiral Casey Coane of the Navy, retired; Ms.
    Janet Hieshetter; and Mr. John R. Davis.
        Mr. Gooden, are you prepared?
    STATEMENT OF H. JAMES GOODEN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
                DIRECTORS, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
        Mr. Gooden. Yes, I am.
        Chairman Inouye. Please proceed.
        Mr. Gooden. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of
    the subcommittee, my name is Jim Gooden, and I am the chairman
    of the board of directors of the American Lung Association. I
    am honored to testify today.
        The American Lung Association was founded in 1904 to fight
    tuberculosis, and today, our mission is to save lives by
    improving lung health and preventing lung disease. We
    accomplish this through research, advocacy, and education.
        The American Lung Association wishes to call your attention
    to three issues for the Department of Defense's fiscal year
    2011 budget. Number one, the terrible burden on the military
    caused by tobacco use and the need for the Department to
    aggressively combat it by implementing recommendations from the
    Institute of Medicine. Two, the importance of restoring the
    original intent and full funding for the Peer-Reviewed Lung
    Cancer Research Program. And number three, addressing the
    health threat posed by burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        First, I would like to speak to the need for the Department
    of Defense to better combat tobacco use. Tobacco use remains a
    significant problem for the military. The Department of Defense
    has started moving in the right direction with making
    submarines smoke free, as well as other positive actions. But
    much more is needed to curb tobacco use in the military. Here
    are a few statistics to point out to what the Department of
    Defense is up against.
        While smoking rates among Active Duty personnel have
    essentially remained steady since 2002, rates among deployed
    personnel are significantly higher, and alarmingly, more than 1
    in 7, or 15 percent, of Active Duty personnel began smoking
    after joining the service. This alarming use of tobacco in the
    military has severe consequences and impacts troop readiness.
    It impairs physical capacity, vision, and hearing, and
    increases the chance of physical injury and hospitalization.
        Furthermore, the healthcare expenses associated with these
    behaviors have cost the Department of Defense billions of
    dollars. The Pentagon spends over $1.6 billion on tobacco-
    related medical care, increased hospitalization, and lost days
    of work. Lost productivity costs are primarily caused by
    smoking breaks and greater absenteeism.
        Last summer, the prestigious Institute of Medicine, or IOM,
    issued a report entitled ``Combating Tobacco Use in Military
    and Veteran Populations.'' The IOM recommendations include
    common-sense approaches to eliminating the use of tobacco in
    the U.S. military. Some of the IOM's recommendations include
    tobacco-free policies should be phased in, starting with
    military academies and officer candidate training programs,
    followed by new enlisted accessions and then all Active Duty
    personnel.
        Also, end the sale of tobacco products on all military
    installations. Ensure that all DOD personnel have barrier-free
    access to tobacco cessation services and that healthcare and
    health promotion staff are trained to help tobacco users quit.
        The American Lung Association recommends that the
    Department of Defense implement all recommendations called for
    in the 2009 IOM report, and we ask for this subcommittee's
    leadership in ensuring that that happens. Second, the American
    Lung Association strongly supports the Lung Cancer Research
    Program (LCRP) in the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
    Program and its original intent to research the scope of lung
    cancer in our military.
        We urge this subcommittee to restore the funding level to
    the fiscal year 2009 level of $20 million, and we request that
    the 2011 governing language for the LCRP be returned to its
    original intent as directed by the 2009 program, which directed
    the funds to be awarded competitively and to identify, treat,
    and manage early curable lung cancer.
        We urge that the national registry be established to track
    all personnel who were exposed to burn pits while in Iraq. The
    American Lung Association also recommends that the DOD begin
    immediately to find alternatives to this method of waste
    disposal.
        Mr. Chairman, in summary, our Nation's military is the best
    in the world, and we should do whatever necessary to ensure
    that the lung health needs of our armed services are fully met.
        Thank you for this opportunity.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Just a matter of curiosity, when I was a
    young soldier, we were given K-rations for lunches, and in each
    pack, there was a little pack of cigarettes. And then you were
    able to buy cigarettes, if you wished to, for 5 cents a pack.
    When were these practices ceased?
        Mr. Gooden. To that, I will have to defer to my other
    specialists that are here with me from the American Lung
    Association, and if they cannot answer at this time, we will
    gladly be able to put that on the record.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gooden. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of James Gooden
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is James Gooden
    and I am the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the American Lung
    Association. I am honored to testify today.
        The American Lung Association was founded in 1904 to fight
    tuberculosis and today, our mission is to save lives by improving lung
    health and preventing lung disease. We accomplish this through
    research, advocacy and education.
        The American Lung Association wishes to call your attention to
    three issues for the Department of Defense's (DOD) fiscal year 2011
    budget: the terrible burden on the military caused by tobacco use and
    the need for the Department to aggressively combat it; the importance
    of restoring funding for the Peer-Review Lung Cancer Research Program
    to $20 million; and the health threat posed by burn pits in Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        First, the American Lung Association is concerned about the use of
    tobacco products by troops within the military. The effects of both the
    health and performance of our troops are significantly hindered by the
    prevalence of smoking and smokeless tobacco products. As a result, we
    urge the Department of Defense to immediately implement the
    recommendations in the Institute of Medicine's 2009 Report, Combating
    Tobacco Use in Military and Veteran Populations.
        Next, the American Lung Association recommends and supports
    restoring funding to $20 million for the Peer-Reviewed Lung Cancer
    Research Program (LCRP) within the Department of Defense
    Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). We were
    disappointed that this critical public health research program was cut
    in fiscal year 2010 by $5 million and ask that the funding return to
    $20 million. Finally, the American Lung Association is deeply troubled
    by reports of the use of burn pits and the negative effects on lung
    health on soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, we urge the DOD
    to immediately find alternatives to this method of waste disposal.
    Combating Tobacco Use
        Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the
    United States and not surprisingly, is a significant problem within the
    military as well. The DOD has started moving in the right direction
    with its recent smoking ban on submarines and other positive actions,
    but much more is needed to curb tobacco use in the military.
        The 2008 Department of Defense Survey of Health Behaviors among
    Active Duty Personnel found that smoking rates among active duty
    personnel have essentially remained steady since 2002. However, smoking
    rates among deployed personnel are significantly higher and,
    alarmingly, more than one in seven (15 percent) of active duty
    personnel begin smoking after joining the service.
        Currently, the smoking rate for active duty military is 30.5
    percent, with smoking rates highest among personnel ages 18 to 25--
    especially among soldiers and Marines. The Department of Veterans
    Affairs estimates that more than 50 percent of all active duty
    personnel stationed in Iraq smoke.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Hamlett-Berry, KW, as cited in Beckham, JC et al. Preliminary
    findings from a clinical demonstration project for veterans returning
    from Iraq or Afghanistan. Military Medicine. May 2008; 173(5):448-51.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This alarming use of tobacco in the military has severe
    consequences. First, tobacco use compromises military readiness.
    Studies have found that smoking is one of the best predictors of
    training failure and smokers also report significantly more stress from
    military duty than non-smokers. Smoking is also shown to impair a
    person's physical capacity, vision, or hearing and increase their
    chances of physical injury and hospitalization.\2\ In addition; if a
    soldier experiences nicotine withdrawal while on active duty;
    depression, anxiety, and difficulty concentrating on cogitative tasks
    can develop.\3\ All of these consequences have a negative impact on the
    performance of our men and women in our armed forces.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Institute of Medicine. Combating Tobacco Use in Military and
    Veteran Populations. 2009; 3-4.
        \3\ Institute of Medicine. Combating Tobacco Use in Military and
    Veteran Populations. 2009; 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, the healthcare expenses associated with these
    behaviors have cost the DOD billions of dollars. The Pentagon spends
    over $1.6 billion on tobacco-related medical care, increased
    hospitalization and lost days of work. Lost productivity costs are
    primarily caused by smoking breaks (estimated at 30 minutes over 220
    work days a year) and greater absenteeism. There are also great costs
    associated with the failure of new recruits to complete basic training.
    It is clear that more must be done to reduce smoking rates and tobacco
    use among active duty personnel.
        Last summer, the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a
    report entitled, Combating Tobacco Use in Military and Veterans
    Populations. The panel found ``tobacco control does not have a high
    priority in DOD or VA.'' This report, which was requested by both
    departments, issued a series of recommendations, which the American
    Lung Association fully supports and asks this Committee to ensure are
    implemented.
        The IOM recommendations include commonsense approaches to
    eliminating the use of tobacco use in the U.S. military. Some of the
    IOM's recommendations include:
      --Phase in tobacco-free policies by starting with military academies,
            officer-candidate training programs, and university-based
            reserve officer training corps programs. Then the IOM
            recommends new enlisted accessions be required to be tobacco-
            free, followed by all active-duty personnel;
      --Eliminate tobacco use on military installations using a phased-in
            approach;
      --End the sales of tobacco products on all military installations.
            Personnel often have access to cheap tobacco products on base,
            which can serve to start and perpetuate addictions;
      --Ensure that all DOD healthcare and health promotion staff are
            trained in the standard cessation treatment protocols; and
      --Ensure that all DOD personnel have barrier-free access to tobacco
            cessation services.
        According to the IOM, the authority for the implementation of all
    the recommendations should rest with the highest levels of the
    Department, including the surgeon general of each armed service and the
    individual installation commander. The American Lung Association asks
    for the Committee's leadership to ensure this occurs.
        The United States military cannot fight two wars without ready and
    healthy troops to successfully complete each mission. With tobacco use
    causing a decrease of troop readiness, performance and health, the DOD
    can no longer afford to stand idly by.
        Therefore, the American Lung Association recommends that the
    Department of Defense implement all recommendations called for in the
    2009 IOM report. The IOM has laid out a very careful, scientifically-
    based road map for the DOD to follow and the American Lung Association
    strongly urges that its recommendations be implemented without delay.
    Peer Reviewed Lung Cancer Research Program
        The American Lung Association strongly supports the Lung Cancer
    Research Program (LCRP) in the Congressionally Directed Medical
    Research Program (CDMRP) and its original intent to research the scope
    of lung cancer in our military. It is for that reason that we were
    deeply disappointed by changes made by Congress in fiscal year 2010 to
    the both the LCRP's governing language and funding.
        First, LCRP's funding was cut by 25 percent--$5 million--which may
    diminish the effectiveness of this crucial research. We urge this
    Committee to restore the funding level to the fiscal year 2009 level of
    $20 million.
        In addition to the reduced funding, the American Lung Association
    is troubled by the change in governance language of the LCRP authorized
    by the Congress last fiscal year. The language change not only has
    consequences for the LCRP in the future but also hampered the
    implementation of the 2009 LCRP. We request that the 2011 governing
    language for the LCRP be returned to its original intent, as directed
    by the 2009 program: ``These funds shall be for competitive research .
    . . Priority shall be given to the development of the integrated
    components to identify, treat and manage early curable lung cancer''.
    Troubling Lung Health Concern in Iraq and Afghanistan
        The American Lung Association is extremely troubled by reports of
    soldiers who were exposed to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are
    now returning home with lung illnesses including asthma, chronic
    bronchitis and sleep apnea. Civilians are also at risk.
        Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate matter,
    sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and various
    irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs.
    Emissions also contain chemicals that are known or suspected to be
    carcinogens.
        For vulnerable populations, such as people with cardiovascular
    diseases, diabetes, asthma and chronic respiratory disease, exposure to
    these burn pits is particularly harmful. Even short exposures can kill.
    However, the health impact of particle pollution is not limited to
    individuals with pre-existing conditions. Healthy, young adults who
    work outside--such as our young men and women in uniform--are also at
    higher risk.
        EPA has just concluded that particulate matter causes heart
    attacks, asthma attacks, and early death. The particles are extremely
    small and are unable to be filtered out of our respiratory system.
    Instead, these small particles end up deep in the lungs where they
    remain for months, causing structural damage and chemical changes. In
    some cases, the particles can move through the lungs and penetrate the
    bloodstream. Larger particles will end up in the upper respiratory
    system, causing coughs.
        Given what we know about the health effects of burning refuse, the
    American Lung Association recommends that the DOD begin immediately to
    find alternatives to this method of waste disposal. It is important
    that the short- and long-term consequences of exposure to these burn
    pits be monitored by DOD in conjunction with the VA. Finally, we urge
    that a national registry be established to track all personnel who were
    exposed to burn pits while in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, in summary, our nation's military is the best in the
    world and we should do whatever necessary to ensure that the lung
    health needs of our armed services are fully met. We can ill afford to
    fight a third war against tobacco and unsafe air conditions with their
    severe consequences. Thank you for this opportunity.

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Rear Admiral Casey
    Coane. Admiral.
    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CASEY COANE, UNITED STATES
                NAVY (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY
        Admiral Coane. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, the
    Association of the United States Navy is once again very
    pleased to have this opportunity to testify before you.
        Our Veterans Service Organization focuses a majority of its
    legislative activity on personnel issues and the equipment
    necessary for the Navy to carry out its missions. It is only
    through the attention of Congress and committees such as yours
    that we can be sure that the needs of our young men and women
    are being met. We are grateful to take this particular
    opportunity to speak to you about equipment.
        With the pressing personnel needs of the services, it may
    seem a bit cold for me to be here speaking about ships and
    aircraft. Nonetheless, the equipment of which I am speaking is
    vital to the conduct of this war and directly supports the
    thousands of Navy men and women serving on the ground in
    Afghanistan, Iraq, or other places in the theater, such as the
    Horn of Africa. Today, 14,000 Navy people are ashore in
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom
    (OEF), including Active Duty and reservists.
        We are pleased with the increased emphasis that the House
    has recently shown toward the Navy's ship building plan in
    order to meet the Nation's maritime strategy. We urge the
    Senate to do the same.
        I invite the subcommittee's attention to the recently
    released National Guard and Reserve equipment report for fiscal
    year 2011, signed out by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Reserve Affairs. In the Navy section of this report, the point
    is made that the Navy has successfully and fully integrated its
    Reserve component.
        The significance here is that all the Navy's overused and
    aging organic airlift aircraft are in the Reserve component.
    The Navy Reserves electronic attack squadron right here at
    Andrews Air Force Base is a critical and frequently deployed
    component of the Navy's arsenal and is badly in need of new F-
    18G Growler aircraft to replace its aged A-6Bs.
        The Secretary's report lists aircraft as the top Navy
    equipping challenge. The aircraft programs listed are the C-40
    replacement for the C-9s, the P-8, the Growlers I mentioned,
    and the KC-130J airlifters. Our association could not agree
    more.
        The issue, as Secretary McCarthy indicates on page 14 of
    the report, is not just newer aircraft, it is that the current
    aircraft have aged and turned the maintenance expense curve to
    the extent that prudent business practices, on behalf of the
    taxpayer, dictate replacement now.
        The Navy needs six more C-40s to finish the program, and it
    needs some of them this year. The P-8 is an on-time, on-budget
    program to replace aging and grounded P-3s, the backbone of the
    Navy's overland reconnaissance effort in theater. Anything that
    this subcommittee could do to accelerate that program, perhaps
    by utilization of the NGREA account, would be most beneficial.
        The Navy and Air Force have testified to the unfunded need
    for electronic attack aircraft in fiscal year 2012 and beyond.
    Without the transition of the Navy Reserve squadron to the
    Growler, the Navy will--and I quote from the report--``lose
    critical operational and strategic Reserve airborne electronic
    attack capability and capacity.'' We urge the subcommittee to
    ensure this does not happen.
        The Navy's 30-year aircraft program, the Naval Aviation
    Plan 2030, has the requirement for the replacement of the C-
    130T airlifters with the new KC-130Js. Currently, this
    essential tactical, intra-theater airlift is operating five
    aircraft short of its requirement.
        Each year that the new aircraft is delayed will force the
    Navy to spend more money to upgrade worn-out aircraft to meet
    new European aviation aircraft standards without which they
    cannot fly across Europe. We urge the subcommittee to bring the
    KC-130J forward in the future year defense plan (FYDP) or by
    adding to the NGREA account.
        Again, the Association of the United States Navy thanks the
    subcommittee for their tireless efforts on behalf of our
    services and for providing this opportunity to be heard.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        Do you have any questions?
        Thank you very much, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Casey Coane
        The Association of the United States Navy (AUSN) recently changed
    its name as of May 19, 2009. The association, formerly known as the
    Naval Reserve Association, traces its roots back to 1919 and is devoted
    solely to service to the Nation, Navy, the Navy Reserve and Navy
    Reserve officers and enlisted. It is the premier national education and
    professional organization for Active Duty Navy, Navy Reserve personnel,
    Veterans of the Navy, families of the Navy, and the Association Voice
    of the Navy and Navy Reserve.
        Full membership is offered to all members of the U.S. Navy and
    Naval Reserve. Association members come from all ranks and components.
        The Association has active duty, reserve, and veterans from all 50
    states, U.S. Territories, Europe, and Asia. Forty-five percent of AUSN
    membership is active reservists, active duty, while the remaining 55
    percent are made up of retirees, veterans, and involved DOD civilians.
    The National Headquarters is located at 1619 King Street Alexandria,
    VA. 703-548-5800.
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the
    Association of the United States Navy is very grateful to have the
    opportunity to testify.
        Our newly transitioned VSO-MSO association works diligently to
    educate Congress, our members, and the public on Navy equipment, force
    structure, policy issues, personnel and family issues and Navy
    veterans.
        I thank this Committee for the on-going stewardship on the
    important issues of national defense and, especially, the
    reconstitution and support of the Navy during wartime. At a time of
    war, non-partisan leadership sets the example.
        Your unwavering support for our deployed Service Members in Iraq
    and Afghanistan (of which over 14,000 Sailors are deployed at Sea in
    the AOR and over 10,000 are on the ground--Active and Reserve) and for
    the world-wide fight against terrorism is of crucial importance.
    Today's Sailors watch Congressional actions closely. AUSN would like to
    highlight some areas of emphasis.
        As a nation, we need to supply our service members with the
    critical equipment and support needed for individual training, unit
    training and combat as well as humanitarian and peacekeeping
    operations. Additionally, we must never forget the Navy families,
    reserve members and the employers of these unselfish volunteers--Active
    and Reserve.
        In recent years, the Maritime Strategy has been highlighted,
    debated and disputed. We feel this is a time where the Total Navy force
    needs to be stabilized, strengthened, and be reconstituted--because of
    the consistent, constant, and increasing National Security crisis in a
    dangerous world--
      --Piracy is on the rise in many areas of the world, and especially in
            the 5th Fleet AOR;
      --The flow of commerce still remains a top priority for our economy;
      --Naval engagement and support on the ground, in the air, and on the
            seas for OIF and OEF has not decreased;
      --Ever increasing Middle East instability;
      --Ballistic missile threats (N Korea-Iran) and the Navy requirement
            to be the front line of defense for missile defense threat;
      --U.S. Navy response to natural disasters; tsunami, Haiti, Chile, and
            possible man made disasters (oil spill support);
      --Humanitarian assistance in the Philippines, Indonesia, and American
            Samoa; and
      --Ever increasing and changing Arctic issues.
        In addition to equipment to accomplish assigned missions, the AUSN
    believes that the Administration and Congress must make it a high
    priority to maintain, if not increase, but at least stabilize the end
    strengths of already overworked, and perhaps overstretched, military
    forces. This includes the Active Navy and the Navy Reserve. Reductions
    in manpower are generally for appropriations reasons within the
    Service, not because people are not needed and their benefits are not a
    requirement.
        Our current maritime history and strategy--requires that our nation
    must achieve the 313+ Navy Ships, not decrease them, and there should
    be a balance between personnel end-strengths and equipment.
        Carriers, submarines, and Naval Aviation are more relevant than
    ever--as proven by initial and constant actions in Iraq and Afghanistan
    and ongoing operations in OIF-OEF and throughout Southwest Asia.
    Additionally--Navy weapon systems and personnel play a critical role in
    Natural disasters around the world! Therefore, it is not a time--to cut
    back.
        We must fund the Navy for proper shipbuilding and aviation programs
    which the House this year authorized funds to accomplish.
        As you know, neither the Navy nor the Navy Reserve has ever been a
    garrisoned force--but, a deployed force. Nothing has changed in recent
    contingency operations or wars, except that the Navy's forces needs
    equipment as much as anyone.
        We recognize that there are many issues that need to be addressed
    by this Committee and this Congress. The Association of the United
    States Navy supports the Navy's fiscal year 2011 budget submission and
    the Unfunded Programs List provided by the Chief of Naval Operations
    that addressed an increased shipbuilding and increase aircraft
    procurement to relieve the documented shortages and maintenance
    requirements.
        Overwhelmingly, we have heard Service Chiefs, Reserve Chiefs and
    Senior Enlisted Advisors discuss the need and requirement for more and
    unit equipment for training in order to be ready as well as combat
    equipment in the field. Navy needs to have equipment and unit cohesion
    to keep personnel trained. This means--Navy equipment and Navy Reserve
    equipment with units.
    Equipment Ownership
        Issue.--Sharing of equipment has been done in the past. However,
    nothing could be more of a personnel readiness issue and is ill
    advised. This issue needs to be addressed if the current National
    Security Strategy is to succeed.
        Position.--The overwhelming majority of Navy and Navy Reserve
    members join to have hands-on experience on equipment. The training and
    personnel readiness of members depends on constant hands-on equipment
    exposure. History shows, this can only be accomplished through
    appropriate equipment, since the training cycles are rarely if ever--
    synchronized with the training or exercise times or deployment times.
    Additionally, historical records show that units with unite hardware
    maintain equipment at higher than average material and often have
    better training readiness. This is especially true with Navy Reserve
    units. Current and future war fighting requirements will need these
    highly qualified units when the Combatant Commanders require fully
    ready units.
        Navy has proven its readiness. The personnel readiness, retention,
    and training of all members will depend on them having equipment that
    they can utilize, maintain, train on, and deploy with when called upon.
    AUSN recommends the Committee strengthen the Navy equipment
    appropriation as the House has done in the fiscal year 2011 NDAA in
    order to maintain optimally qualified and trained Navy and Navy Reserve
    forces.
    Pay, Promotion, and Pride
        Pay needs to be competitive. If pay is too low, or expenses too
    high, a service member knows that time may be better invested
    elsewhere. The current pay raise discussions of 1.9 percent is woefully
    inadequate when the Nation considers what service members, Navy
    members, are doing in defense of this nation. The risks and sacrifices
    of every service member, to defend this great nation, make it illogical
    to formulate a direct comparison of civil pay to military pay. It just
    does not make common sense.
        Promotions need to be fairly regular, and attainable.
        Pride is a combination of professionalism, parity and awards: doing
    the job well with requisite equipment, and being recognized for one's
    sacrifices and efforts.
        Care must be taken that the current tremendous reservoir of
    operational capability be maintained and not lost due to resource
    shortages. Officers, Chief Petty Officers, and Petty Officers need to
    exercise leadership and professional competence to maintain their
    capabilities. In the current environment of Navy Individual Augmentee
    in support of ground forces, there is a risk that Navy mid-grade
    leadership will not be able to flourish due to the extended ground war
    of OIF and OEF. Having the right equipment is critical to our Maritime
    Strategy.
        In summary, we believe the Committee needs to address the following
    issues for Navy and Navy Reserve in the best interest of our National
    Security:
      --Fund the 9 Navy Ships provided for in the House fiscal year 2011
            NDAA.
      --Fund one C-40A for the Navy, per the past years documented request;
            Navy must replace the C-9s and replace the C-20Gs in Hawaii and
            Maryland.
      --Fund the FA-18 E/F and FA-18 E/F Growlers per the House fiscal year
            2011 NDAA and include unit assets for Navy Reserve units
            currently in EA-6B aircraft.
      --Just as other services are having difficulties with intra theater
            C-130 assets, the Navy needs to replace their C-130 aircraft
            with C-130J for the Navy and Navy Reserve.
      --Increase funding for Naval Reserve equipment in NGREA: Increase
            Navy Reserve NGREA by $100 million; and Naval Expeditionary
            Combat Equipment.
        For the foreseeable future, we must be realistic about what the
    unintended consequences are from a high rate of usage. History shows
    that an Active force and Reserve force are needed for any country to
    adequately meet its defense requirements, and to enable success in
    offensive operations. Our Active Duty Navy and the current operational
    Reserve members are pleased to be making a significant contribution to
    the nation's defense as operational forces; however, the reality is
    that the added stress on Active Navy and the Reserve could pose long
    term consequences for our country in recruiting, retention, family and
    employer support. In a time of budget cut discussions, this is not the
    time to cut end-strengths on an already stressed force. We have already
    been down this road previously. This issue deserves your attention in
    pay, maintaining end-strengths, proper equipment, Family Support
    Programs, Transition Assistance Programs and for the Employer Support
    for the Guard and Reserve programs.
        Thank you for your ongoing support of the Nation, the Armed
    Services, the United States Navy, the United States Navy Reserve, their
    families, and Navy veterans, and the fine men and women who defend our
    country.

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Ms. Kathy Rentfrow.
    Ms. Rentfrow.
    STATEMENT OF KATHY RENTFROW, VOLUNTEER, DYSTONIA
                MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION
        Ms. Rentfrow. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate
    Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me
    the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Kathy Rentfrow, and I am a volunteer with the
    Dystonia Medical Research Foundation, or DMRF. The DMRF is a
    patient-centered, nonprofit organization dedicated to serving
    dystonia patients and their families.
        The DMRF works to advance dystonia research, increase
    dystonia awareness, and provide support for those living with
    the disorder. More importantly, I am a proud military spouse
    and the mother of a child suffering from dystonia.
        Dystonia is a neurological movement disorder that causes
    muscles to contract and spasm involuntarily. Dystonia is not
    usually fatal, but it is a chronic disorder whose symptoms vary
    in degrees of frequency, intensity, disability, and pain.
        Dystonia can be generalized, affecting all major muscle
    groups, resulting in twisting, repetitive movements, and
    abnormal postures, or focal, affecting a specific part of the
    body, such as the legs, arms, hands, neck, face, mouth,
    eyelids, or vocal cords.
        At this time, no known cure exists, and treatment is highly
    individualized. Patients frequently rely on invasive therapies
    like botulinum toxin injections or deep brain stimulation, DBS,
    to help manage their symptoms.
        At age 6, while our family was stationed in Washington, my
    daughter Melissa was diagnosed with generalized dystonia at
    Madigan Army Medical Center. What began as muscle spasms in her
    left shoulder, progressed throughout her entire arm, her right
    hand, legs, and vocal cords.
        Now, at age 15, Melissa is luckier than many dystonia
    patients, and this is in large part to the superior care she
    receives as a military dependent. Due to my husband's position
    as a permanent military professor at the United States Naval
    Academy, our daughter is able to receive care at Walter Reed
    Army Medical Center.
        Melissa responds well to treatment with medications, but
    still needs to take upwards of 20 pills per day. Unlike many
    dystonia sufferers, Melissa's extensive costs are covered by
    TRICARE. Although she does not have use of her left arm, she is
    able to walk and talk without more invasive treatments like
    botulinum toxin injections, or DBS. This not only affects
    Melissa's quality of life, but also that of our entire family.
        Dystonia is not a discriminatory condition. It affects
    people of all backgrounds, and this increasingly includes
    military personnel. Conservative estimates suggest that
    dystonia affects no less than 300,000 Americans. However, the
    incidence of dystonia has seen a noticeable increase since our
    military forces were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. This
    recent increase is widely considered to be the result of a
    well-documented link between head injuries, other traumatic
    injuries, and the onset of dystonia.
        Until a cure for dystonia can be discovered, it remains
    vital we learn more about the exact causes of the condition and
    develop more effective and efficient treatments. Although
    Federal dystonia research is conducted through a number of
    medical and scientific agencies, the DOD's Peer-Reviewed
    Medical Research Program remains the most essential program in
    studying dystonia in military and veteran populations.
        The DMRF has been receiving increasing reports of dystonia
    from service personnel and family members, as well as increased
    anecdotal evidence from medical professionals linking dystonia
    to traumatic brain injury, or TBI. As the subcommittee is
    aware, TBI has emerged as a trademark injury of the current war
    efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, often sustained as the result
    of improvised explosive devices.
        More and more, TBI and other traumatic injuries are serving
    as the catalyst for the onset of dystonia. As military
    personnel remain deployed for longer periods, we can expect
    dystonia prevalence in military and veterans populations to
    increase.
        Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address the
    subcommittee today. As the mother of a child suffering from
    dystonia and as a military spouse concerned with the well-being
    of our troops, I hope you will continue to include dystonia as
    a condition eligible for the DOD Peer-Reviewed Medical Research
    Program.
        Chairman Inouye. May I assure you that the subcommittee
    will most seriously consider your request. That, I can assure
    you.
        Ms. Rentfrow. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Do you have any----
        Senator Cochran. I wish we had more time to go into
    questions and discussions, but I think you can be assured that
    we take everybody's testimony seriously. And we want you all to
    know that we appreciate your being here and keeping us up to
    date on the needs that we face through our medical programs in
    the military.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Kathy Rentfrow
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Appropriations Defense
    Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify
    before you today. My name is Kathy Rentfrow, and I am a volunteer with
    the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation or ``DMRF''. The DMRF is a
    patient-centered nonprofit organization dedicated to serving dystonia
    patients and their families. The DMRF works to advance dystonia
    research, increase dystonia awareness, and provide support for those
    living with the disorder. Most importantly, I am a proud military
    spouse and the mother of a child suffering from dystonia.
        Dystonia is a neurological movement disorder that causes muscles to
    contract and spasm involuntarily. Dystonia is not usually fatal, but it
    is a chronic disorder whose symptoms vary in degrees of frequency,
    intensity, disability, and pain. Dystonia can be generalized, affecting
    all major muscle groups, and resulting in twisting repetitive movements
    and abnormal postures or focal, affecting a specific part of the body
    such as the legs, arms, hands, neck, face, mouth, eyelids, or vocal
    chords. At this time, no known cure exists and treatment is highly
    individualized. Patients frequently rely on invasive therapies like
    botulinum toxin injections or deep brain stimulation (DBS) to help
    manage their symptoms.
        At age 6, while our family was stationed in Washington State, my
    daughter Melissa was diagnosed with generalized dystonia at Madigan
    Army Medical Center. What began as muscle spasms in her left shoulder
    and progressed throughout the entire arm, her right hand, legs, and
    vocal chords. Now at age 15, Melissa is luckier than many dystonia
    patients, and this is in large part to the superior care she receives
    as a military dependent. Due to my husband's position as a permanent
    military professor at the U.S. Naval academy, our daughter is able to
    receive care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Melissa responds well
    to treatment with medications, but still needs to take upwards of 20
    pills per day. Unlike many dystonia sufferers, Tricare covers the
    extensive costs of her medications. Although she does not have use of
    her left arm, she is able to walk and talk without more invasive
    treatments like botulinum toxin injections or DBS. Dystonia affects not
    only Melissa's quality of life, but also that of our entire family.
        Dystonia is not a discriminatory condition, as it affects people of
    all backgrounds and this increasingly includes military personnel.
    Conservative estimates suggest that dystonia affects no less than
    300,000 Americans. However, the incidence of dystonia has seen a
    noticeable increase since our military forces were deployed to Iraq and
    Afghanistan. This recent increase is widely considered to be the result
    of a well documented link between head injuries, other traumatic
    injuries, and the onset of dystonia. Until a cure for dystonia is
    discovered, it remains vital we learn more about the exact causes of
    the condition and develop more effective and efficient treatments for
    patients.
        Although Federal dystonia research is conducted through a number of
    medical and scientific agencies, the DOD's Peer-Reviewed Medical
    Research Program remains the most essential program studying dystonia
    in military and veteran populations. The DMRF has been receiving
    increasing reports of dystonia from service personnel and family
    members, as well as increased antidotal evidence from medical
    professionals linking dystonia to traumatic brain injury or ``TBI''. As
    the committee is aware, TBI has emerged as a trademark injury of the
    current war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, often sustained as the
    result of improvised explosive devices. More and more, TBI and other
    traumatic injuries are serving as the catalyst for the onset of
    dystonia. As military personnel remain deployed for longer periods, we
    can expect dystonia prevalence in military and veterans populations to
    increase, particularly in combat personnel.
        Dystonia severity and symptoms can vary dramatically from person to
    person, often drastically effecting quality of life. A June 2006
    article in Military Medicine, titled Post-Traumatic Shoulder Dystonia
    in an Active Duty Soldier reported that, ``Dystonia after minor trauma
    can be as crippling as a penetrating wound, with disability that
    renders the soldier unable to perform his duties.'' The article goes on
    to say that although battlefield treatment may not be practical,
    ``awareness of this disorder [dystonia] is essential to avoid
    mislabeling, and possibly mistreating, a true neurological disease.''
        The DMRF would like to thank the Subcommittee for adding dystonia
    to the list of conditions eligible for study under the DOD Peer-
    Reviewed Medical Research Program in the fiscal year 2010 DOD
    Appropriations bill. Unlike other Federally funded medical research
    programs, conditions eligible for study through the Peer-Reviewed
    Medical Research Program must affect members of the armed services and
    their families. As traumatic injuries and dystonia among service
    personnel increases, it is critical that we develop a better understand
    of the mechanisms connecting TBI and dystonia. We urge Congress to
    maintain dystonia as a condition deemed eligible for study through the
    Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program, as the number of current
    military members and veterans with dystonia swells.
        Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to address the
    Subcommittee today. As the mother of a child suffering from dystonia,
    and as a military spouse concerned with the well-being of our troops
    and veterans, I hope you will continue to include dystonia as condition
    eligible for study under the DOD Peer-Reviewed Medical Research
    Program.

        Chairman Inouye. And now, may I recognize Mr. John Davis.
    Mr. Davis.
    STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE
                PROGRAMS, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My name is John Davis, and I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to express the views of the Fleet Reserve
    Association. The association appreciates the administration's
    second consecutive request for full funding of the TRICARE
    program without a fee increase.
        We believe we need to look at other cost-saving options
    first before looking at a TRICARE fee increase. Further, FRA
    believes that raising TRICARE fees during wartime would send
    the wrong message that could impact recruitment and retention.
    A recent FRA survey indicates that more than 90 percent of all
    Active Duty, retired, and veteran respondents cited healthcare
    as their top quality of life benefit.
        FRA welcomes the administration's focus on creating an
    electronic health record for service members that can follow
    them to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and for the
    rest of their lives. Oversight notwithstanding, adequate
    funding for an effective delivery system between DOD and VA to
    guarantee a seamless transition and quality services for
    wounded personnel is very important to our membership.
        The association appreciates President Obama's support for
    authorizing chapter 61 retirees to receive full military
    retired pay and full veterans' disability compensation. FRA
    continues to seek authorization of funding of full concurrent
    receipt for all disabled retirees. An FRA survey indicates that
    more than 70 percent of military retirees cite concurrent
    receipt among their top priorities.
        The association strongly supports the fiscal year 2011
    budget request of $408 million to cover the first phase of the
    5-year cost of concurrent receipt for chapter 61 beneficiaries
    that are 90 percent or more disabled and supports provisions in
    the so-called ``tax extenders bill''--that is H.R. 4213--that
    expands the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and the
    VA disability compensation.
        Family support is also important and should include full
    funding for compensation, training and certification, and
    respite care for family members functioning as full-time
    caregivers for wounded warriors. The recently enacted
    Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act--that is S.
    1963--and parallel provision in the Senate version of the
    Defense authorization bill improves compensation, training, and
    assistance for caregivers of severely disabled Active Duty
    service members. And if authorized, FRA supports funding for
    these enhancements.
        FRA strongly supports the funding of a 1.9 percent pay
    increase, which is 0.5 percent above the administration's
    request for fiscal year 2011. Pay increases in recent years
    have helped close the pay gap and contributed to improved
    morale, readiness, and retention. Pay and benefits must reflect
    the fact that military service is very different from the work
    in the private sector.
        If authorized, FRA supports funding retroactive eligibility
    for early retirement benefits to include reservists who have
    supported contingency operations since 9/11/2001. The 2008
    Defense authorization act reduces the Reserve retirement age,
    which is age 60, by 3 months for each cumulative 90 days
    ordered to Active Duty. This applies only to servicemen after
    the effective date of legislation, which is January 28, 2008,
    and leaves out more than 600,000 reservists mobilized since 9/
    11.
        Again, thank you for allowing FRA to submit its views to
    the subcommittee.
        Chairman Inouye. Mr. Davis, I can assure you that the
    subcommittee is well aware that the men and women who serve in
    uniform are all volunteers. And as far as we are concerned,
    anyone who is willing to stand in harm's way on our behalf
    deserves the very best. We give it the highest priority.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        We appreciate your testimony and the reminders of the real-
    life challenges that many of our servicemen and women face, and
    I hope this subcommittee can respond in a way that shows our
    concern and support for their efforts and their unselfish
    service.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of John R. Davis
                                    the fra
        The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is the oldest and largest
    enlisted organization serving active duty, Reserves, retired and
    veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. It is
    Congressionally Chartered, recognized by the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) as an accrediting Veteran Service Organization (VSO) for
    claim representation and entrusted to serve all veterans who seek its
    help. In 2007, FRA was selected for full membership on the National
    Veterans' Day Committee.
        FRA was established in 1924 and its name is derived from the Navy's
    program for personnel transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine
    Corps Reserve after 20 or more years of active duty, but less than 30
    years for retirement purposes. During the required period of service in
    the Fleet Reserve, assigned personnel earn retainer pay and are subject
    to recall by the Secretary of the Navy.
        FRA's mission is to act as the premier ``watch dog'' organization
    in maintaining and improving the quality of life for Sea Service
    personnel and their families. FRA is a leading advocate on Capitol Hill
    for enlisted active duty, Reserve, retired and veterans of the Sea
    Services. The Association also sponsors a National Americanism Essay
    Program and other recognition and relief programs. In addition, the
    newly established FRA Education Foundation oversees the Association's
    scholarship program that presents awards totaling nearly $100,000 to
    deserving students each year.
        The Association is also a founding member of The Military Coalition
    (TMC), a 34-member consortium of military and veteran's organizations.
    FRA hosts most TMC meetings and members of its staff serve in a number
    of TMC leadership roles.
        FRA celebrated 85 years of service in November 2009. For over eight
    decades, dedication to its members has resulted in legislation
    enhancing quality of life programs for Sea Services personnel, other
    members of the uniformed services plus their families and survivors,
    while protecting their rights and privileges. CHAMPUS, now TRICARE, was
    an initiative of FRA, as was the Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit
    Plan (USSBP). More recently, FRA led the way in reforming the REDUX
    Retirement Plan, obtaining targeted pay increases for mid-level
    enlisted personnel, and sea pay for junior enlisted sailors. FRA also
    played a leading role in advocating recently enacted predatory lending
    protections and absentee voting reform for service members and their
    dependents.
        FRA's motto is: ``Loyalty, Protection, and Service.''
                                    overview
        Mr. Chairman, the Fleet Reserve Association salutes you, members of
    the Subcommittee, and your staff for the strong and unwavering support
    of funding essential programs for active duty, Reserve Component, and
    retired members of the uniformed services, their families, and
    survivors. The Subcommittee's work in funding important programs has
    greatly enhanced care and support for our wounded warriors, improved
    military pay, eliminated out-of-pocket housing expenses, improved
    healthcare, and enhanced other personnel, retirement and survivor
    programs. This funding is critical in maintaining readiness and is
    invaluable to our Armed Forces engaged in a long and protracted two
    front war, sustaining other operational commitments and fulfilling
    commitments to those who've served in the past. But more still needs to
    be done. A constant high priority for FRA is full funding of the
    Defense Health Program (DHP) to ensure quality care for active duty,
    retirees, Reservists, and their families.
        FRA's other 2010 priorities include annual active duty pay
    increases that are at least a half percent above the Employment Cost
    Index (ECI), to help close the pay gap between active duty and private
    sector pay, full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA
    disability compensation, retirement credit for reservists that have
    been mobilized since September 1, 2001, enhanced family readiness via
    improved communications and awareness initiatives related to benefits
    and quality of life programs, and introduction and enactment of
    legislation to eliminate inequities in the Uniformed Service Former
    Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA).
        The Administration's fiscal year 2011 proposed budget for a second
    consecutive year fully funds the DHP budget without shifting additional
    cost burdens to military retirees. FRA appreciates this and strongly
    supports efforts to fully implement electronic health records that will
    follow service members as they transition from DOD to the VA. FRA also
    supports additional improvements in concurrent receipt to expand the
    number of disabled military retirees receiving both their full military
    retired pay and VA disability compensation. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    also calls for a 1.4-percent active duty pay increase that equals the
    Employment Cost Index (ECI). The budget further increases care for
    wounded warriors by 5.8 percent, enhances family support by 3 percent,
    adds $87 million to child development centers, and boosts family
    counseling/relocation assistance by $37 million over the current fiscal
    year 2010 budget.
        As Operation Iraqi Freedom ends and troops depart from Iraq, some
    will be urging reductions in spending, despite the need to bolster
    efforts in Afghanistan and other operational commitments around the
    world. FRA understands the budgetary concerns generated by the current
    economic slowdown and other challenges but advocates that cutting the
    DOD budget during the Global War on Terror would be short sighted and
    that America needs a defense budget that will provide adequate spending
    levels for both ``benefits and bullets.''
                                  health care
        Healthcare is especially significant to all FRA Shipmates
    regardless of their status and protecting and/or enhancing this benefit
    is the Association's top legislative priority. A recently released FRA
    survey indicates that nearly 90 percent of all active duty, Reserve,
    retired, and veteran respondents cited healthcare access as a
    critically important quality-of-life benefit associated with their
    military service. From 2006-2008 retirees under age 65 were targeted by
    DOD to pay significantly higher healthcare fees. Many of these retirees
    served before the recent pay and benefit enhancements were enacted and
    receive significantly less retired pay than those serving and retiring
    in the same pay grade with the same years of service today. Promises
    were made to them about healthcare for life in return for a career in
    the military with low pay and challenging duty assignments and many
    believe they are entitled to free healthcare for life.
        Efforts to enact a national healthcare reform coupled with
    inaccurate and widespread information on the associated impact on
    retiree healthcare benefits has created unease and a sense of
    uncertainty for our members. FRA opposes any effort to integrate
    TRICARE and VA healthcare into any national healthcare program. The
    Association is concerned about proposed Medicare spending cuts
    associated with reform legislation and scheduled cuts for physician
    reimbursement rates for Medicare and TRICARE beneficiaries that could
    negatively impact availability of care, and quality of services. It's
    also important to note that healthcare costs both in the military and
    throughout society have continued to increase faster than the Consumer
    Price Index (CPI) making this a prime target for those wanting to cut
    the DOD budget.
        FRA strongly supports fully funding the TRICARE program and ``The
    Military Retirees' Health Care Protection Act'' (H.R. 816) sponsored by
    Representatives Chet Edwards (TX) and Walter Jones (NC). The
    legislation would prohibit DOD from increasing TRICARE fees, specifying
    that the authority to increase TRICARE fees exists only in Congress.
        DOD must continue to investigate and implement other TRICARE cost-
    saving options as an alternative to shifting costs to retiree
    beneficiaries. FRA notes progress in this area in expanding use of the
    mail order pharmacy program, Federal pricing for prescription drugs, a
    pilot program of preventative care for TRICARE beneficiaries under age
    65, and elimination of co-pays for certain preventative services. The
    Association believes these efforts will prove beneficial in slowing
    military healthcare spending in the coming years.
                               concurrent receipt
        The Association appreciates President Obama's support for
    authorizing Chapter 61 retirees to receive their full military retired
    pay and veteran's disability compensation and continues to seek timely
    and comprehensive implementation of legislation that authorizes the
    full concurrent receipt for all disabled retirees. As with last year's
    budget, the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget does not provide funding
    or identify spending offsets for these improvements and does not comply
    with House budgeting rules. The above referenced FRA survey indicates
    that more than 70 percent of military retirees cite concurrent receipt
    among their top priorities. The Association strongly supports the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request of $408 million to cover the first
    phase of the 5-year cost for concurrent receipt for Chapter 61
    beneficiaries that are 90 percent or more disabled and supports the
    provisions in the so-called ``tax-extenders'' bill (H.R. 4213) that
    expands the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA
    disability compensation. The measure would authorize service members
    who are medically retired with less than 20 years of service (Chapter
    61 retirees) and have a disability rating of 90 to 100 percent to
    receive both payments, without offset, starting on January 1, 2011. The
    following year concurrent receipt would be expanded to those with 70-
    to 80-percent disability ratings.
                                wounded warriors
        FRA appreciates the substantial Wounded Warriors provisions in the
    fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Despite
    jurisdictional challenges, considerable progress has been made in this
    area. However, the enactment of authorizing legislation is only the
    first step in helping wounded warriors. Sustained funding is also
    critical for successful implementation. Jurisdictional challenges
    notwithstanding adequate funding for an effective delivery system
    between DOD and VA to guarantee seamless transition and quality
    services for wounded personnel, particularly those suffering from Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) is
    very important to our membership. Family support is also critical for
    success, and should include full funding for compensation, training,
    and certification, and respite care for family members functioning as
    full-time caregivers for wounded warriors. FRA supported the recently
    enacted ``Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act'' (S.
    1963), and parallel legislation included in the Senate's version of the
    fiscal year 2011 Defense Authorization bill (S. 3454) to improve
    compensation, training and assistance for caregivers of several
    disabled active-duty service members.
                        adequate personnel end strength
        Funding for adequate service end strengths is essential to success
    in Iraq and Afghanistan and to sustaining other operations vital to our
    national security. FRA notes the Marine Corps' success in attaining its
    current end strength level and strongly supports the proposed Navy end
    strength increase in 2011. A recent Navy Times story entitled ``Sailor
    shortage,'' cites too much work to do in the Navy and not enough people
    to do it--and lists the associated effects which include little time
    for rest, fewer people to maintain and repair shipboard equipment, crew
    members with valuable skills being pulled for other jobs and not
    replaced and lower material ship readiness.
        The strain of repeated deployments continues and is also related to
    the adequacy of end strengths--and FRA is tracking disturbing
    indicators of the effects which include increased prescription drug and
    alcohol use, increasing mental healthcare appointments, alarming
    suicide rates plus more military divorces. Stress on service members
    and their families was addressed during a recent Senate Personnel
    Subcommittee hearing along with serious and continuing concerns about
    associated effects which can include morale, readiness and retention
    challenges. FRA urges this distinguished Subcommittee to ensure funding
    for adequate end strengths and people programs consistent with the
    Association's DOD funding goal of at least 5 percent of the GDP.
                          active duty pay improvements
        Our Nation is at war and there is no more critical morale issue for
    active duty warriors than adequate pay. This is reflected in the more
    than 96 percent of active duty respondents to FRA's recent survey
    indicating that pay is ``very important.'' The Employment Cost Index
    for fiscal year 2011 is 1.4 percent and based on statistics from 15
    months before the effective date of the proposed active duty pay
    increase. The Association appreciates the strong support from this
    distinguished Subcommittee in funding pay increases that have reduced
    the 13.5 percent pay gap (1999) to the current level of 2.4 percent. In
    addition, FRA notes that even with a fiscal year 2011 pay increase that
    is 0.5 percent above the ECI, the result will be the smallest pay hike
    since 1958. FRA urges the Subcommittee to continue the fund pay
    increases at least 0.5 percent above the ECI until the remaining 2.4
    percent pay gap is eliminated.
                                 reserve issues
        FRA stands foursquare in support of the Nation's Reservists. Due to
    the demands of the War on Terror, Reserve units are now increasingly
    mobilized to augment active duty components. As a result, the Reserve
    component is no longer a strategic Reserve, but is an operational
    Reserve that is an integral part of the total force. And because of
    these increasing demands, including missions abroad over longer periods
    of time, it is essential to improve compensation and benefits to retain
    currently serving personnel and attract quality recruits.
        Retirement.--If authorized, FRA supports funding retroactive
    eligibility for the early retirement benefit to include Reservists who
    have supported contingency operations since 9/11/2001 (H.R. 208/S. 831/
    S.644). The fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986)
    reduces the Reserve retirement age (age 60) by 3 months for each
    cumulative 90-days ordered to active duty after the effective date
    (January 28, 2008) leaving out more than 600,000 Reservists mobilized
    since 9/11 for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.
        Family Support.--FRA supports resources to allow increased outreach
    to connect Reserve families with support programs. This includes
    increased funding for family readiness, especially for those
    geographically dispersed, not readily accessible to military
    installations, and inexperienced with the military. Unlike active duty
    families who often live near military facilities and support services,
    most Reserve families live in civilian communities where information
    and support is not readily available. Congressional hearing witnesses
    have indicated that many of the half million mobilized Guard and
    Reserve personnel have not received transition assistance services they
    and their families need to make a successful transition back to
    civilian life.
                                   conclusion
        FRA is grateful for the opportunity to present these funding
    recommendations to this distinguished Subcommittee. The Association
    reiterates its profound gratitude for the extraordinary progress this
    Subcommittee has made in funding a wide range of military personnel and
    retiree benefits and quality-of-life programs for all uniformed
    services personnel and their families and survivors. Thank you again
    for the opportunity to present the FRA's views on these critically
    important topics.

        Chairman Inouye. I would like to thank the first panel, and
    may I now call upon the second panel made up of Mr. Terry C.
    Wicks, Ms. Karen Mason, Ms. Katie Savant, and Dr. Dan Putka.
        Welcome, and may I first call upon Mr. Terry Wicks.
    STATEMENT OF TERRY C. WICKS, CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE
                ANESTHETIST, MHS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
                NURSE ANESTHETISTS
        Mr. Wicks. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, good
    morning. My name is Terry Wicks.
        Chairman Inouye. Will you put on the mike, please?
        Mr. Wicks. My name is Terry Wicks. I am past president of
    the 40,000 member American Association of Nurse Anesthetists,
    and while on Active Duty in the military, I also served as
    president of the Hawaii Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
        The quality of healthcare America provides our servicemen
    and servicewomen and their dependents has long been this
    subcommittee's high priority. Today, I report to you the
    contributions that certified registered nurse anesthetists, or
    CRNAs, make toward our services' mission, and I will also
    provide you our recommendations to further improve military
    healthcare for these challenging times.
        I also ask unanimous consent that our written statement be
    entered in the record.
        Chairman Inouye. Without objection.
        Mr. Wicks. America's CRNAs provide some 32 million
    anesthetics annually in every healthcare setting requiring
    anesthesia care, and we provide that care safely. The Institute
    of Medicine reported in 2000 that anesthesia is 50 times safer
    than it was in the early 1980s.
        For the United States armed forces, CRNAs are particularly
    critical. In 2009, over 500 Active Duty and more than 750
    reservist CRNAs provided anesthesia care indispensable to our
    armed forces' current mission.
        Not long ago, one CRNA, Major General Gale Pollock, served
    as acting Surgeon General of the United States Army. Today,
    CRNAs serve in major military hospitals, at educational
    institutions, aboard ships, and in isolated bases abroad and at
    home. And as members of forward surgical teams, they serve as
    close to the tip of the spear as they can be.
        In most of these environments, CRNAs provide anesthesia
    services alone--without anesthesiologists--enabling surgeons
    and other clinicians to safely deliver lifesaving care. But in
    recent years, the number of CRNAs in the armed forces has
    fallen below the number needed. The private market for CRNA
    services is very, very strong, and the military has struggled
    to compete.
        The services, this subcommittee, and the authorizing
    committees have responded with increased benefits to CRNAs,
    incentive specialty pay, and the Health Professions Loan
    Repayment Program, focusing on incentives for multi-year
    agreements.
        The profession of nurse anesthesia has likewise responded.
    The Counsel on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists reported
    that in 2009, our schools produced 2,228 graduates, double the
    number since 2000. And 2,386 nurse anesthetists were certified.
    That growth is expected to continue.
        The Counsel on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia
    Educational Programs projects that CRNA schools will produce
    over 2,400 graduates in 2010. These combined actions have
    helped strengthen the services' readiness and the quality of
    healthcare available to our servicemen and servicewomen.
        So our first recommendation to you is to extend and
    strengthen the successful ISP program for CRNAs. The
    authorizing committee has extended the ISP program. We would
    encourage this subcommittee to continue funding ISP levels
    sufficient for the services to recruit and retain the CRNAs
    needed for the mission.
        Our second recommendation is for the subcommittee to
    encourage all services to adopt a joint scope of practice.
    Standard practices across the services enhance patient safety
    and the quality of healthcare for our servicemen and women. The
    Navy, in particular, has made a great deal of progress toward
    adopting a joint scope of independent practitioners. We
    encourage its adoption in all services.
        Like our military CRNAs that serve each and every day, the
    American Association of Nurse Anesthetists stands ready to work
    with Congress to ensure that all of our military men and women
    get the care that they need and deserve.
        Thank you, and I would be happy to take any questions.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        I can assure that this subcommittee is well aware of the
    shortage of nurse anesthetists. We are also aware that if it
    weren't for nurse anesthetists, we won't have any anesthesia in
    rural America because 85 percent of that is administered by
    nurse anesthetists.
        Mr. Wicks. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. So we are going to do our very best.
        Mr. Wicks. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Do you have any questions?
        I thank you very much, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Terry C. Wicks
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and Members of the
    Subcommittee: The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is
    the professional association that represents over 40,000 Certified
    Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) across the United States,
    including more than 500 active duty and over 750 reservists in the
    military reported in 2009. The AANA appreciates the opportunity to
    provide testimony regarding CRNAs in the military. We would also like
    to thank this committee for the help it has given us in assisting the
    Department of Defense (DOD) and each of the services to recruit and
    retain CRNAs.
               crnas and the armed forces: a tradition of service
        Let us begin by describing the profession of nurse anesthesia, and
    its history and role with the Armed Forces of the United States.
        In the administration of anesthesia, CRNAs perform the same
    functions as anesthesiologists and work in every setting in which
    anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and
    obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, health
    maintenance organizations, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists,
    ophthalmologists, and plastic surgeons. Today, CRNAs administer some 30
    million anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States.
    Nurse anesthetists are also the sole anesthesia providers in the vast
    majority of rural hospitals, assuring access to surgical, obstetrical
    and other healthcare services for millions of rural Americans.
        Our tradition of service to the military and our Veterans is
    buttressed by our personal, professional commitment to patient safety,
    made evident through research into our practice. In our professional
    association, we state emphatically ``our members' only business is
    patient safety.'' Safety is assured through education, high standards
    of professional practice, and commitment to continuing education.
    Having first practiced as registered nurses, CRNAs are educated to the
    master's degree level, and some to the doctoral level, and meet the
    most stringent continuing education and recertification standards in
    the field. Thanks to this tradition of advanced education and clinical
    practice excellence, we are humbled and honored to note that anesthesia
    is 50 times safer now than in the early 1980s (National Academy of
    Sciences, 2000). Research further demonstrates that the care delivered
    by CRNAs, physician anesthesiologists, or by both working together
    yields similar patient safety outcomes. In addition to studies
    performed by the National Academy of Sciences in 1977, Forrest in 1980,
    Bechtoldt in 1981, the Minnesota Department of Health in 1994, and
    others, Dr. Michael Pine, MD, MBA, recently concluded once again that
    among CRNAs and physician anesthesiologists, ``the type of anesthesia
    provider does not affect inpatient surgical mortality'' (Pine, 2003).
    Thus, the practice of anesthesia is a recognized specialty in nursing
    and medicine. Most recently, a study published in Nursing Research
    confirmed obstetrical anesthesia services are extremely safe, and that
    there is no difference in safety between hospitals that use only CRNAs
    compared with those that use only anesthesiologists (Simonson et al,
    2007). Both CRNAs and anesthesiologists administer anesthesia for all
    types of surgical procedures from the simplest to the most complex,
    either as single providers or together.
                       nurse anesthetists in the military
        Since the mid-19th century, our profession of nurse anesthesia has
    been proud and honored to provide anesthesia care for our past and
    present military personnel and their families. From the Civil War to
    the present day, nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia
    providers in combat areas of every war in which the United States has
    been engaged.
        Military nurse anesthetists have been honored and decorated by the
    U.S. and foreign governments for outstanding achievements, resulting
    from their dedication and commitment to duty and competence in managing
    seriously wounded casualties. In World War II, there were 17 nurse
    anesthetists to every one anesthesiologist. In Vietnam, the ratio of
    CRNAs to physician anesthetists was approximately 3:1. Two nurse
    anesthetists were killed in Vietnam and their names have been engraved
    on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. During the Panama strike, only CRNAs were
    sent with the fighting forces. Nurse anesthetists served with honor
    during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
        Military CRNAs also provide critical anesthesia support to
    humanitarian missions around the globe in such places as Bosnia and
    Somalia. In May 2003, approximately 364 nurse anesthetists had been
    deployed to the Middle East for the military mission for ``Operation
    Iraqi Freedom'' and ``Operation Enduring Freedom.'' When President
    George W. Bush initiated ``Operation Enduring Freedom,'' CRNAs were
    immediately deployed. With the new special operations environment new
    training was needed to prepare our CRNAs to ensure military medical
    mobilization and readiness. Brigadier General Barbara C. Brannon,
    Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force Nursing Services, testified before
    this Senate Committee on May 8, 2002, to provide an account of CRNAs on
    the job overseas. She stated, ``Lt. Col. Beisser, a certified
    registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) leading a Mobile Forward Surgical
    Team (MFST), recently commended the seamless interoperability he
    witnessed during treatment of trauma victims in Special Forces mass
    casualty incident.''
        Data gathered from the U.S. Armed Forces anesthesia communities
    reveal that CRNAs have often been the sole anesthesia providers at
    certain facilities, both at home and while forward deployed. For
    decades CRNAs have staffed ships, isolated U.S. bases, and forward
    surgical teams without physician anesthesia support. The U.S. Army
    Joint Special Operations Command Medical Team and all Army Forward
    Surgical Teams are staffed solely by CRNAs. Military CRNAs have a long
    proud history of providing independent support and quality anesthesia
    care to military men and women, their families and to people from many
    nations who have found themselves in harms way.
        In the current mission, CRNAs are deployed all over the world, on
    land and at sea. This committee must ensure that we retain and recruit
    CRNAs for now and in the future to serve in these military deployments
    overseas. This committee must ensure that we retain and recruit CRNAs
    now and in the future to serve in these military overseas deployments
    and humanitarian efforts, and to ensure the maximum readiness of
    America's armed services.
    nurse anesthesia provider supply and demand: solutions for recruitment
                                 and retention
        In all of the Services, maintaining adequate numbers of active duty
    CRNAs is of utmost concern. For several years, the number of CRNAs
    serving in active duty fell short of the number authorized by the
    Department of Defense (DOD). This is further complicated by strong
    demand for CRNAs in both the public and private sectors.
        It is essential to understand that while there is strong demand for
    CRNA services in the public and private healthcare sectors, the
    profession of nurse anesthesia is working effectively to meet this
    workforce challenge. The AANA anticipates growing demand for CRNAs. Our
    evidence suggests that while vacancies exist, the demand for anesthesia
    professionals can be met if appropriate actions are taken. As of
    January 2010, there are 108 accredited nurse anesthesia schools to
    support the profession, and the number of qualified registered nurses
    applying to these schools continues to climb. The growth in the number
    of schools, number of applicants, and production capacity has yielded
    significant growth in the number of student nurse anesthetists
    graduating and being certified into the profession. The Council on
    Certification of Nurse Anesthetists reports that in 2009 our schools
    produced 2,228 graduates, a 66 percent increase since 2003, and 2,386
    nurse anesthetists became certified. This growth is expected to
    continue. The Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational
    Programs (COA) projects that the 108 CRNA schools will produce 2,430
    graduates in 2010.
        This Committee can greatly assist in the effort to attract and
    maintain essential numbers of nurse anesthetists in the military by
    their support to increase special pays.
                        incentive special pay for nurses
        According to a March 1994 study requested by the Health Policy
    Directorate of Health Affairs and conducted by DOD, a large pay gap
    existed between annual civilian and military pay in 1992. This study
    concluded, ``this earnings gap is a major reason why the military has
    difficulty retaining CRNAs.'' In order to address this pay gap, in the
    fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization bill Congress authorized the
    implementation of an increase in the annual Incentive Special Pay (ISP)
    for nurse anesthetists from $6,000 to $15,000 for those CRNAs no longer
    under service obligation to pay back their anesthesia education. Those
    CRNAs who remained obligated receive the $6,000 ISP.
        Both the House and Senate passed the fiscal year 2003 Defense
    Authorization Act conference report, H. Rept. 107-772, which included
    an ISP increase to $50,000. The report included an increase in ISP for
    nurse anesthetists from $15,000 to $50,000. The AANA is requesting that
    this committee fund the ISP at $50,000 for all the branches of the
    armed services to retain and recruit CRNAs now and into the future. Per
    the testimony provided in 2006 from the three services' Nurse Corps
    leaders, the AANA is aware that there is an active effort with the
    Surgeons General to closely evaluate and adjust ISP rates and policies
    needed to support the recruitment and retention of CRNAs. In 2006,
    Major General Gale Pollock, MBA, MHA, MS, CRNA, FACHE, Deputy Surgeon
    General, Army Nurse Corps of the U.S. Army stated in testimony before
    this Subcommittee, ``I am particularly concerned about the retention of
    our certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). Our inventory of
    CRNAs is currently at 73 percent. The restructuring of the incentive
    special pay program for CRNAs last year, as well as the 180 (day)-
    deployment rotation policy were good first steps in stemming the loss
    of these highly trained providers. We are working closely with the
    Surgeon General's staff to closely evaluate and adjust rates and
    policies where needed.''
        There have been positive results from the Nurse Corps and Surgeons
    General initiatives to increase incentive special pays for CRNAs. In
    testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2007, Gen.
    Pollock stated, ``We have . . . increased the Incentive Special Pay
    (ISP) Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, and expanded use of the
    Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). The . . . Nurse
    Anesthetist bonuses have been very successful in retaining these
    providers who are critically important to our mission on the
    battlefield.'' She also stated in that same statement, ``In 2004, we
    increased the multi-year bonuses we offer to Certified Registered Nurse
    Anesthetists with emphasis on incentives for multi-year agreements. A
    year's worth of experience indicates that this increased bonus, 180-day
    deployments, and a revamped Professional Filler system to improve
    deployment equity is helping to retain CRNAs.''
        There still continues to be high demand for CRNAs in the healthcare
    community leading to higher incomes widening the gap in pay for CRNAs
    in the civilian sector compared to the military. However, the ISP and
    other incentives the services are providing CRNAs has helped close that
    gap the past 3 years, according to the most recent AANA membership
    survey data. In civilian practice, all additional skills, experience,
    duties and responsibilities, and hours of work are compensated for
    monetarily. Additionally, training (tuition and continuing education),
    healthcare, retirement, recruitment and retention bonuses, and other
    benefits often equal or exceed those offered in the military.
    Therefore, it is vitally important that the Incentive Special Pay (ISP)
    be supported to ensure retention of CRNAs in the military.
        AANA thanks this Committee for its support of the annual ISP for
    nurse anesthetists. AANA strongly recommends the continuation in the
    annual funding for ISP at $50,000 or more for fiscal year 2011, which
    recognizes the special skills and advanced education that CRNAs bring
    to the DOD healthcare system, and supports the mission of our U.S.
    Armed Forces.
                       board certification pay for nurses
        Included in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill was
    language authorizing the implementation of a board certification pay
    for certain clinicians who are not physicians, including advanced
    practice nurses.
        AANA is highly supportive of board certification pay for all
    advanced practice nurses. The establishment of this type of pay for
    nurses recognizes that there are levels of excellence in the profession
    of nursing that should be recognized, just as in the medical
    profession. In addition, this pay may assist in closing the earnings
    gap, which may help with retention of CRNAs.
        While many CRNAs have received board certification pay, some remain
    ineligible. Since certification to practice as a CRNA does not require
    a specific master's degree, many nurse anesthetists have chosen to
    diversify their education by pursuing an advanced degree in other
    related fields. But CRNAs with master's degrees in education,
    administration, or management are not eligible for board certification
    pay since their graduate degree is not in a clinical specialty. Many
    CRNAs who have non-clinical master's degrees either chose or were
    guided by their respective services to pursue a degree other than in a
    clinical specialty. The AANA encourages DOD and the respective services
    to reexamine the issue of restricting board certification pay only to
    CRNAs who have specific clinical master's degrees.
         dod/va resource sharing: u.s. army-va joint program in nurse
                anesthesia, fort sam houston, san antonio, texas
        The establishment of the joint U.S. Army-VA program in nurse
    anesthesia education at the U.S. Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia
    Nursing, Fort Sam Houston, in San Antonio, Texas holds the promise of
    making significant improvements in the VA CRNA workforce, as well as
    improving retention of DOD registered nurses in a cost effective
    manner. The current program utilizes existing resources from both the
    Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Incentive Scholarship Program
    (EISP) and VA hospitals to fund tuition, books, and salary
    reimbursement for student registered nurse anesthetists (SRNAs). This
    joint program also serves the interests of the Army.
        This VA nurse anesthesia program started in June 2004 with three
    openings for VA registered nurses to apply to and earn a Master of
    Science in Nursing (MSN) in anesthesia granted through the University
    of Texas Houston Health Science Center. In the future, the program is
    granting degrees through the Northeastern University Bouve College of
    Health Sciences nurse anesthesia educational program in Boston,
    Massachusetts. At a time of increased deployments in medical military
    personnel, this type of VA-DOD partnership is a cost-effective model to
    fill these gaps in the military healthcare system. At Fort Sam Houston,
    the VA faculty director has covered her Army colleagues' didactic
    classes when they are deployed at a moments notice. This benefits both
    the VA and the DOD to ensure the nurse anesthesia students are trained
    and certified in a timely manner to meet their workforce obligation to
    the Federal government as anesthesia providers. We are pleased to note
    that the Department of Veterans' Affairs Acting Deputy Under Secretary
    for Health and the U.S. Army Surgeon General approved funding to start
    this VA nurse anesthesia school in 2004. In addition, the VA director
    has been pleased to work under the direction of the Army program
    director LTC Joseph O'Sullivan, CRNA, Ph.D., to further the continued
    success of this U.S. Army-VA partnership. With modest levels of
    additional funding in the VA EISP, this joint U.S. Army-VA nurse
    anesthesia education initiative can grow and thrive, and serve as a
    model for meeting other VA workforce needs, particularly in nursing.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and retention
    of CRNAs in the armed services is of critical concern. By Congress
    supporting these efforts to recruit and retain CRNAS, the military is
    able to meet the mission to provide benefit care and deployment care--a
    mission that is unique to the military.
        The AANA would also like to thank the Surgeons General and Nurse
    Corp leadership for their support in meeting the needs of the
    profession within the military workforce. Last, we commend and thank
    this committee for their continued support for CRNAs in the military.
        Thank you. If you have further questions, please contact the AANA
    Federal Government Affairs Office at 202-484-8400.

        Chairman Inouye. And our next witness is Ms. Karen Mason.
    STATEMENT OF KAREN MASON, REGISTERED NURSE, OVARIAN
                CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE
        Ms. Mason. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice
    Chairman. I am honored to appear before you in support of the
    Ovarian Cancer National Alliance's request of $30 million for
    the Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program.
        My name is Karen Mason, and I am an intensive care nurse
    from Pitman, New Jersey. I also serve as an integration panel
    member for the Ovarian Cancer Research Program, which I will
    refer to as the OCRP for the remainder of my testimony.
        As a 9 year survivor of late-stage ovarian cancer, I feel a
    strong sense of responsibility to my community and sit before
    you today as the voice of all women with this disease--past,
    present, and future.
        During my 9 years of survivorship, I have befriended many
    women who also had late-stage ovarian cancer. One by one, I
    have watched most of these women die. Today, in the Delaware
    Valley, I know of no other woman diagnosed at a late stage who
    has survived as long as I have.
        I still speak to women newly diagnosed to offer them hope,
    but now I must hold a piece of my heart in reserve. It is my
    hope that today I can beseech you to share this responsibility
    to fund research conducted by the OCRP to find new treatments
    and early detection for women with or at risk of ovarian
    cancer.
        This year, approximately 20,000 women will be diagnosed
    with ovarian cancer, and 15,000 women will die of this disease.
    Ovarian cancer has no test like the mammogram for breast cancer
    or the Pap test for cervical cancer. Because there is no
    reliable early detection test, women must rely on their and
    their doctor's knowledge of ovarian cancer symptoms.
        However, most women and even their physicians do not know
    the symptoms of ovarian cancer, which are often confused with
    less-threatening conditions. Even with symptom awareness, by
    the time a woman has symptoms, she will already have late-stage
    cancer. Two out of three women with ovarian cancer are
    diagnosed when their cancer is late stage as mine was.
        Current treatments are brutal and consist of long debulking
    surgeries, followed by months of chemotherapies. Even when the
    initial treatment response seems positive, around 70 to 95
    percent of women diagnosed at stages III or IV will have a
    recurrence.
        The OCRP has one bold aim--to eliminate ovarian cancer.
    Since 1997, the OCRP has funded out-of-the-box, innovative
    research focused on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and
    control of ovarian cancer. Many of the funded proposals can be
    characterized as high risk and high reward. Although we take
    risk in the research we fund, we believe that investing in
    innovative research will result in a great breakthrough in the
    fight against ovarian cancer.
        I have volunteered my time for the past 3 years to serve as
    an integration panel member for the OCRP. I work alongside
    physicians, scientists, and other patient advocates, and
    together, we select proposals that we think merit funding. This
    spring, we received approximately 350 pre-applications. Sadly,
    we will only be able to fund approximately 30 full proposals.
    We worry that the cure could be heading into the trash can.
        The ovarian cancer community was extremely disappointed
    when we found out that the OCRP funding was reduced from $20
    million in 2009 to $18.75 million in 2010. This cut is shocking
    when you consider our mortality rate has not decreased, and new
    treatments and an early detection test are still so desperately
    needed.
        By increasing the OCRP's funding to $30 million for 2011 so
    that more research can be carried out, you not only help women
    currently battling this deadly beast, but future generations of
    women at risk.
        Thank you for this opportunity, and I am happy to answer
    any questions.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much for your testimony.
        This subcommittee, about 25 years ago, took a step that was
    considered rather courageous. We began the cancer research
    programs for breast cancer. And although women who wear the
    uniform are required to take physicals, and if they do have
    breast cancer, that should be somehow detected before they take
    the oath. We felt that since Defense Department had the money,
    we would begin our research programs.
        It may interest you to know that at this moment, DOD funds
    more research money than the National Institutes of Health. So
    I can assure you that your request is given our highest
    priority.
        Ms. Mason. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. I was reminded, Mr. Chairman, that you and
    Senator Stevens led the way for this subcommittee in
    recommending these funding levels, and I am sure that we will
    continue to be guided by your good judgment and your serious
    request for continued funding.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Ms. Mason.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Karen Mason
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the
    Subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you in support of the
    Ovarian Cancer National Alliance's request of a minimum of $30 million
    for the Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program in fiscal
    year 2011. My name is Karen Mason and I am an intensive care nurse from
    Pitman, New Jersey. I also serve as an Integration Panel member for the
    Ovarian Cancer Research Program, which I will refer to as the OCRP for
    the remainder of my testimony.
        As a 9 year survivor of late stage ovarian cancer, I feel a strong
    sense of responsibility to my community and sit before you today as the
    voice of all women with this disease, past, present and future. It is
    my hope that today I can beseech you to share this responsibility to
    fund research conducted by the OCRP that works to find new treatments
    and an early detection test for ovarian cancer.
        This year, approximately 20,000 women will be diagnosed with
    ovarian cancer and 15,000 women will die of this disease.\1\ Ovarian
    cancer has no test like the mammogram for breast cancer or pap test for
    cervical cancer. Because there is no reliable early detection test,
    women must rely on their--and their doctors'--knowledge of ovarian
    cancer symptoms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Ovarian Cancer.'' National Cancer Institute. May 4, 2010
    .
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, most women, and even their doctors, do not know the
    symptoms of ovarian cancer, which are bloating, pelvic or abdominal
    pain, urinary urgency or frequency, and difficulty eating or feeling
    full quickly. These symptoms are often confused with less threatening
    conditions.
        Unfortunately, even with symptom awareness, by the time a woman has
    symptoms, she will already have late stage cancer. Two out of three
    women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed when their cancer is late
    stage, as mine was.\2\ Current treatments are brutal and consist of
    long ``debulking'' surgeries followed by months of chemotherapies. Even
    when the initial treatment response seems positive, around 70-95
    percent of women diagnosed at stages 3 or 4 will have a recurrence.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ M.J. Horner, L.A. G. Ries, M. Krapcho, N. Neyman, R. Aminou, N.
    Howlader, S.F. Altekruse, E.J. Feuer, L. Huang, A. Mariotto, B.A.
    Miller, D.R. Lewis, M.P. Eisner, D.G. Stinchcomb, E.K. Edwards, eds.
    SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2006. National Cancer Institute,
    2009. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006.
        \3\ Armstrong, M.D., Deborah. ``Treatment of Recurrent Disease
    Q&A.'' John Hopkins Pathology. May 9, 2010 .
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During my 9 years of survivorship, I have befriended many women who
    also had late-stage ovarian cancer. One by one, I have watched most of
    these women die. Today in the Delaware Valley, I know of no other woman
    diagnosed at a late stage who has survived as long as I have. I still
    speak to woman newly diagnosed to offer them hope, but now I must hold
    a piece of my heart in reserve.
        The OCRP has one bold aim: to eliminate ovarian cancer. Since 1997,
    the OCRP has funded out of the box, innovative research focused on
    detection, diagnosis, prevention and control of ovarian cancer. Many of
    the funded proposals can be characterized as high risk and high reward.
    Although we take risks in the research we fund, we believe that
    investing in innovative research will result in great breakthroughs in
    the fight against ovarian cancer.
        An example of a scientific breakthrough that came out of the OCRP
    was the creation of the OVA1 test for risk stratification. This test
    was recently brought to the market and has received much media
    attention, most notably in the March 9 edition of the Wall Street
    Journal.\4\ In 2003, Dr. Zhen Zhang, an investigator at John Hopkins
    School of Medicine received an Idea Development Award from the OCRP in
    the amount of $563,022. Dr. Zhang's research eventually led to the
    creation of OVA1, which is a blood test that can help physicians
    determine if a woman's pelvic mass is at risk for being malignant.
    While OVA1 is not an early detection test, it is a step in the right
    direction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Johannes, Laura. ``Test to Help Determine If Ovarian Masses Are
    Cancer.'' The Wall Street Journal March 9, 2010. .
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The OCRP is also special in that it involves patient advocates at
    all levels. I have volunteered my time for the past 3 years to serve as
    an Integration Panel Member for the OCRP. I work alongside physicians,
    scientists and other patient advocates and together, we select
    proposals that we believe merit funding. Patient advocates hold equal
    weight with scientists and physicians when funding proposals and
    deciding the program's vision for the future.
        Last fall during our vision setting day, I suggested that if the
    OCRP was truly seeking innovative out of the box researchers, perhaps
    the reviewers should be blinded as to who the researchers were and what
    institutions they represent. Imagine my delight when the panel agreed.
    Because researchers and institutions were blinded to us, a relatively
    unknown researcher from a lesser institution could conceivably be
    invited to submit a full proposal based solely on his or her idea.
        However, one of my community's biggest fears is that the relatively
    low incidence of ovarian cancer (lifetime risk of developing invasive
    ovarian cancer is 1 in 71) versus other types of cancers (lifetime risk
    of developing breast cancer is 1 in 8) has resulted in a much smaller
    investment in ovarian cancer research, thus dissuading young scientists
    from studying ovarian cancer and instead choosing to head into other
    organ sites for their careers in order to secure research funding.\5\
    \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``What Are the Key Statistics About Ovarian Cancer?'' American
    Cancer Society. May 2, 2010 .
        \6\ ``Probability of Breast Cancer in American Women.'' American
    Cancer Society. May 3, 2010 .
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, Michael Seiden, M.D, Ph.D, President and CEO of Fox
    Chase Cancer Center and a fellow Integration Panel Member aptly stated
    that:

        ``Reducing the burden of ovarian cancer requires recruiting and,
    more importantly, mentoring a group of scientists and clinicians who
    are committed to building sustained and productive careers in ovarian
    cancer research. Few academic medical or research centers have the
    large ovarian cancer research teams and the number of junior faculty
    focused on developing careers that are supported through peer-reviewed,
    competitively funded ovarian cancer research. Often junior faculty have
    few if any peers at their research center with common interests; thus,
    this group often lacks specific mentoring and networking opportunities
    that would maximize the pace of their career development.''

        The OCRP addressed this concern last year. We voted to award
    funding for the creation of an Ovarian Cancer Academy. The Academy puts
    the African proverb ``it takes a village to raise a child'' into action
    by training the next generation of ovarian cancer researchers. This
    award will develop a unique, interactive virtual academy that will
    provide intensive mentoring, national networking, and a peer group for
    junior faculty. Under the guidance of mentors and a chosen Academy
    Dean, it is hoped that successful, highly productive ovarian cancer
    researchers will emerge.
        But in order to continue supporting innovative research, the OCRP
    needs increased funding. This spring, we received approximately 350
    pre-applications. In the end, we will only be able to fund
    approximately 30 full proposals. The ovarian cancer community worries
    that the cure could be heading to the trash can. Only with increased
    funding can the OCRP grow and continue to contribute to the fight
    against ovarian cancer.
         ovarian cancer community concerned by funding cuts to the ocrp
        The ovarian cancer community was extremely disappointed when we
    found out that OCRP funding was reduced from $20 million in 2009 to
    $18.75 in 2010. It is shocking when you consider our mortality rate has
    not decreased and new treatments and an early detection test are still
    so desperately needed.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The OCRP remains a modest program compared to the other cancer
    programs in the Congressionally-Directed Medical Research Programs, and
    yet has made vast strides in the fight against ovarian cancer with
    relatively few resources. With an increase in funding, the program can
    support more research into screening, early diagnosis and treatment of
    ovarian cancer.
        congressional support for fiscal year 2011 appropriation request
        This year, the ovarian cancer community has been proactive in
    securing support for our fiscal year 2011 appropriation request. A
    letter addressed to you in support of the $30 million appropriation for
    the OCRP was signed by Senator Robert Menendez and Senator Olympia
    Snowe, who were joined by Senators Daniel Akaka, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod
    Brown, Roland Burris, Ben Cardin, Bob Casey, Susan Collins, Chris Dodd,
    Richard Durbin, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Kerry, Kay Hagan, Ted Kaufman,
    Herb Kohl, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Jack Reed,
    Bernard Sanders, Charles Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse,
    and Ron Wyden.
        A companion letter in the House supporting the $30 million request
    was sent to Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Young from Congresswoman
    Rosa DeLauro and Congressman Dan Burton, who were joined by 84
    Representatives from both sides of the aisle: Representatives Andrews,
    Baldwin, Berkley, Berman, Blumenauer, Boswell, Boucher, Corrine Brown,
    Capuano, Carney, Carson, Castor, Cleaver, Cohen, Conyers, Crowley,
    Cummings, Susan Davis, DeGette, Delahunt, Doggett, Donna Edwards,
    Ellison, Farr, Frank, Gerlach, Gene Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, John
    Hall, Halvorson, Hastings, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
    Kildee, Kilroy, Kind, Peter King, Kucinich, Lance, Levin, LoBiondo,
    Loebsack, Lynch, Maloney, Edward Markey, Marshall, McDermott, McGovern,
    Meeks, Michaud, George Miller, Brad Miller, Dennis Moore, Gwen Moore,
    Christopher Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Nadler, Norton, Oberstar, Pascrell,
    Peterson, Rahall, Richardson, Rush, Schakowsky, Bobby Scott, David
    Scott, Sestak, Shea-Porter, Snyder, Mike Thompson, Tierney, Tonko,
    Tsongas, Van Hollen, Velazquez, Walz, Wasserman Schultz, Waxman, Wu and
    Yarmuth.
                   appropriation request for fiscal year 2011
        On behalf of the entire ovarian cancer community--patients, family
    members, clinicians and researchers--we greatly appreciate your
    leadership and support of Federal programs that seek to reduce and
    prevent suffering from ovarian cancer. Thank you in advance for your
    support of a minimum of $30 million in fiscal year 2011 funding for the
    Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program.

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness, Ms. Katie Savant, Deputy
    Director of Government Relations, National Military Family
    Association.
    STATEMENT OF KATIE SAVANT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DEPUTY
                DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY
                ASSOCIATION
        Ms. Savant. Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, the National
    Military Family Association would like to thank you for the
    opportunity to present testimony on the quality of life of
    military families.
        Many families have faced the challenge of deployment for 8
    plus years. It is imperative that programs and services that
    provide a firm foundation for our families are fully funded.
        Programs must continue to adapt to the changing needs of
    service members and their families as they cope with multiple
    deployments, react to separations, balance reintegration,
    adjust to a wounded or ill service member, or grieve the loss
    of a fallen service member. Programs should provide for
    families in all stages of deployment and reach out to them in
    all geographical locations.
        Our association would like to thank the subcommittee for
    showing strong support for military families by funding
    essential programs that support today's dynamic and diverse
    military family, but more needs to be done. In this statement,
    our association will address areas that require additional
    funding or new funding.
        In May 2008, our association commissioned the RAND
    Corporation to conduct a longitudinal study on the deployment
    experiences of 1,500 families. The baseline findings were
    presented to Congress earlier this year. As a result of this
    research, our association believes we need dedicated resources,
    such as additional youth or teen centers, to support the needs
    of our older youth and teens during deployment.
        National Guard and Reserve component families appreciate
    the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Program. Our
    association asked Congress to fully fund the Yellow Ribbon
    Program so it is consistent across the Nation and accessible to
    all families.
        The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
    Year 2010 established the Office of Community Support for
    military families with special needs. The new office will go a
    long way in identifying and addressing special needs services.
    In order for this office to be successful, it will require
    funding.
        Military families place a high priority on the education of
    our military children. With States facing major budget cuts,
    Impact Aid will be a critical component to help school
    districts. We urge Congress to fully fund Impact Aid to its
    authorized levels.
        Military families are monitoring national healthcare reform
    and its potential impact in our population. We thank Congress
    for legislation that recognizes TRICARE meets minimal essential
    coverage under healthcare reform. However, we request your
    continued vigilance to ensure quality healthcare for military
    families.
        We suggest additional funding and flexibility in hiring
    practices when our military doctors deploy. We also recommend
    additional funding to DOD for possible civilian provider
    shortages due to reduced Medicare reimbursement rates and
    potential decreased provider availability due to healthcare
    reform.
        Our association applauds the recent passage of the
    Caregivers and Veterans Health Services Act. We would like to
    highlight two additional areas that will support our wounded
    service members. In last year's NDAA, it provided compensation
    for service members with assistance in everyday living.
    Unfortunately, this DOD mandate was not funded.
        For a seamless transition from Active Duty to veteran
    status, the service member's compensation amount should match
    the aid and attendance level the wounded service member would
    be eligible for by the Veterans Administration (VA).
    Additionally, current law permits the Secretary of the VA to
    provide a caregiver stipend. Caregivers have been shown to play
    an important role in maintaining the well-being of service
    members, and this provision should be funded.
        Our association has long advocated for enhanced benefits
    for survivors. Over 90 percent of families attended the
    ceremony at Dover to witness the dignified transfer of remains.
    Currently, the services are funding the travel out of pocket.
    We ask that funding be appropriated for travel costs for
    surviving family members to attend.
        Our association recognizes and appreciates the many
    resources and programs that support our military families
    during this time of war. The need will not go away when the war
    ends. We ask for you to help the Nation sustain and support our
    military families.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Ms. Savant.
        We are well aware that in World War II and Korea and
    Vietnam, the words ``military family'' were not used too often
    because when I was a little soldier, in my regiment, 4 percent
    had dependents, 96 percent were single.
        Ms. Savant. Wow.
        Chairman Inouye. Today, in a typical regiment, 70 percent
    have dependents. So we know that this is an important part of
    army life and military life. So I can assure you that if we are
    to maintain this strong military posture, we will have to look
    into military families.
        Ms. Savant. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
    leadership in providing sensitive and meaningful assistance to
    families. And I know with programs like the Yellow Ribbon
    Program and others, families are doing a great job with self
    help and contributions that are very, very important to the
    morale of our troops, men and women.
        Ms. Savant. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Katie Savant
        The National Military Family Association is the leading nonprofit
    organization committed to improving the lives of military families. Our
    40 years of accomplishments have made us a trusted resource for
    families and the Nation's leaders. We have been at the vanguard of
    promoting an appropriate quality of life for active duty, National
    Guard, Reserve, retired service members, their families and survivors
    from the seven uniformed services: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
    Coast Guard, Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration.
        Association Representatives in military communities worldwide
    provide a direct link between military families and the Association
    staff in the Nation's capital. These volunteer Representatives are our
    ``eyes and ears,'' bringing shared local concerns to national
    attention.
        The Association does not have or receive Federal grants or
    contracts.
        Our website is: www.MilitaryFamily.org.
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and Distinguished Members
    of the Subcommittee, the National Military Family Association would
    like to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the
    quality of life of military families--the Nation's families. As the war
    has continued, the quality of life of our service members and their
    families has been severely impacted. Your recognition of the sacrifices
    of these families and your response through legislation to the
    increased need for support have resulted in programs and policies that
    have helped sustain our families through these difficult times.
        In this statement, our Association will expand on several issues of
    importance to military families: Family Readiness, Family Health, and
    Family Transitions.
                                family readiness
        The National Military Family Association believes policies and
    programs should provide a firm foundation for families buffeted by the
    uncertainties of deployment and transformation. It is imperative full
    funding for these programs be included in the regular budget process
    and not merely added on as part of supplemental funding. We promote
    programs that expand and grow to adapt to the changing needs of service
    members and families as they cope with multiple deployments and react
    to separations, reintegration, and the situation of those returning
    with both visible and invisible wounds. Standardization in delivery,
    accessibility, and funding are essential. Programs should provide for
    families in all stages of deployment and reach out to them in all
    geographic locations. Families should be given the tools to take
    greater responsibility for their own readiness.
        We appreciate provisions in the National Defense Authorization Acts
    and Appropriations legislation in the past several years that
    recognized many of these important issues. Excellent programs exist
    across the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Services to support our
    military families. There are redundancies in some areas, times when a
    new program was initiated before looking to see if an existing program
    could be adapted to answer an evolving need. Service members and their
    families are continuously in the deployment cycle, anticipating the
    next separation, in the throes of deployment, or trying to reintegrate
    when the service member returns. Dwell times seem shorter and shorter
    as training, schools, and relocation impede on time that is spent in
    the family setting.
        ``My husband will have 3 months at home with us between deployment
    and being sent to school in January for 2 months and we will be PCSing
    soon afterwards. . . . This does not leave much time for reintegration
    and reconnection.''
        We feel that now is the time to look at best practices and at those
    programs that are truly meeting the needs of families. In this section
    we will talk about existing programs, highlight best practices and
    identify needs.
    Child Care
        At every military family conference we attended last year, child
    care was in the top five issues affecting families--drop-in care being
    the most requested need. Some installations are responding to these
    needs in innovative ways. For instance, in a recent visit to Kodiak,
    Alaska, we noted the gym facility provided watch care for its patrons.
    Mom worked out on the treadmill or elliptical while her child played in
    a safe carpeted and fenced-in area right across from her. Another area
    of the gym, previously an aerobics room, had been transformed into a
    large play area for ``Mom and me'' groups to play in the frequently
    inclement weather. These solutions aren't expensive, but do require
    thinking outside the box.
        Innovative strategies are needed to address the non-availability of
    after-hours child care (before 6 a.m. and after 6 p.m.) and respite
    care. We applaud the partnership between the Services and the National
    Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) that
    provides subsidized child care to families who cannot access
    installation based child development centers. Families often find it
    difficult to obtain affordable, quality care especially during hard-to-
    fill hours and on weekends. Both the Navy and the Air Force have
    programs that provide 24/7 care. These innovative programs must be
    expanded to provide care to more families at the same high standard as
    the Services' traditional child development programs. The Army, as part
    of the funding attached to its Army Family Covenant, has rolled out
    more space for respite care for families of deployed soldiers. Respite
    care is needed across the board for the families of the deployed and
    the wounded, ill, and injured. We are pleased the Services have rolled
    out more respite care for special needs families, but are concerned
    when we hear that some installations are already experiencing
    shortfalls of funding for respite care early in the year.
        At our Operation Purple Healing Adventures camp for families of
    the wounded, ill, and injured, families told us there is a tremendous
    need for access to adequate child care on or near military treatment
    facilities. Families need the availability of child care in order to
    attend medical appointments, especially mental health appointments. Our
    Association encourages the creation of drop-in child care for medical
    appointments on the DOD or VA premises or partnerships with other
    organizations to provide this valuable service.
        We appreciate the requirement in the National Defense Authorization
    Act fiscal year 2010 (NDAA fiscal year 2010) calling for a report on
    financial assistance provided for child care costs across the Services
    and Components to support the families of those service members
    deployed in support of a contingency operation and we look forward to
    the results.
        Our Association urges Congress to ensure resources are available to
    meet the child care needs of military families to include hourly, drop-
    in and increased respite care across all Services for families of
    deployed service members and the wounded, ill, and injured, as well as
    those family members with special needs.
    Working with Youth
        Older children and teens must not be overlooked. School personnel
    need to be educated on issues affecting military students and must be
    sensitive to their needs. To achieve this goal, schools need tools.
    Parents need tools, too. Military parents constantly seek more
    resources to assist their children in coping with military life,
    especially the challenges and stress of frequent deployments. Parents
    tell us repeatedly they want resources to ``help them help their
    children.'' Support for parents in their efforts to help children of
    all ages is increasing, but continues to be fragmented. New Federal,
    public-private initiatives, increased awareness, and support by DOD and
    civilian schools educating military children have been developed.
    However, many military parents are either not aware such programs exist
    or find the programs do not always meet their needs.
        Our Association is working to meet this pressing need through our
    Operation Purple (OPC) summer camps. Unique in its ability to reach
    out and gather military children of different age groups, Services, and
    components, our Operation Purple program provides a safe and fun
    environment in which military children feel immediately supported and
    understood. For the second year, with the support of private donors, we
    achieved our goal of sending 10,000 military children to camp in 2009.
    We also provided the camp experience to families of the wounded. This
    year, we expect to maintain those numbers by offering 92 weeks of camp
    in 40 states, Guam and Germany. In 2009, we introduced a new program
    under our Operation Purple umbrella, offering family reintegration
    retreats in the National Parks. They have been well received by our
    families and more apply than can attend. We are offering 10 retreats
    this year.
        Through our Operation Purple camps, our Association has begun to
    identify the cumulative effects multiple deployments are having on the
    emotional growth and well being of military children and the challenges
    posed to the relationship between deployed parent, caregiver, and
    children in this stressful environment. Understanding a need for
    qualitative analysis of this information, we commissioned the RAND
    Corporation to conduct a pilot study in 2007 aimed at the current
    functioning and wellness of military children attending Operation
    Purple camps and assessing the potential benefits of the OPC program in
    this environment of multiple and extended deployments.
        In May 2008, we embarked on phase two of the project--a
    longitudinal study on the experience of 1,507 families, which is a much
    larger and more diverse sample than included in our pilot study. RAND
    followed these families for 1 year, and interviewed the non-deployed
    caregiver/parent and one child per family between 11 and 17 years of
    age at three time points over a year. Recruitment of participants was
    extremely successful because families were eager to share their
    experiences. The research addressed two key questions:
        How are school-age military children faring?
        What types of issues do military children face related to
    deployment?
        In December, the baseline findings of the research were published
    in the journal Pediatrics. Findings showed:
      --As the months of parental deployment increased so did the child's
            challenges.
      --The total number of months away mattered more than the number of
            deployments.
      --Older children experienced more difficulties during deployment.
      --There is a direct correlation between the mental health of the
            caregiver and the well-being of the child.
      --Girls experienced more difficulty during reintegration, the period
            of months readjusting after the service member's homecoming.
      --About one-third of the children reported symptoms of anxiety, which
            is somewhat higher than the percentage reported in other
            national studies of children.
      --In these initial findings, there were no differences in results
            between Services or Components.
        What are the implications? Families facing longer deployments need
    targeted support--especially for older teens and girls. Supports need
    to be in place across the entire deployment cycle, including
    reintegration, and some non-deployed parents may need targeted mental
    health support. One way to address these needs would be to create a
    safe, supportive environment for older youth and teens. Dedicated Youth
    Centers with activities for our older youth would go a long way to help
    with this.
        Our Association feels that more dedicated resources, such as youth
    or teen centers, would be beneficial to address the needs of our older
    youth and teens during deployment.
    Families Overseas
        Families stationed overseas face increased challenges when their
    service member is deployed into theater. One such challenge we have
    heard from families stationed in European Command (EUCOM) concerns care
    for a family member, usually the spouse, who may be injured or confined
    to bed for an extended illness during deployment. Instead of pulling
    the service member back from theater, why not provide transportation
    for an extended family member or friend to come from the States to care
    for the injured or ill family member? This has been a recommendation
    from the EUCOM Quality of Life conference for several years.
    National Guard and Reserve
        The National Military Family Association has long recognized the
    unique challenges our Reserve Component families face and their need
    for additional support. National Guard and Reserve families are often
    geographically dispersed, live in rural areas, and do not have the same
    family support programs as their active duty counterparts. The final
    report from the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve confirmed
    what we have always asserted: ``Reserve Component families face special
    challenges because they are often at a considerable distance from
    military facilities and lack the on-base infrastructure and assistance
    available to active duty families.''
        This is especially true when it comes to accessing the same level
    of counseling and behavioral health support as active duty families.
    However, our Association applauds the innovative counseling and
    behavioral health support to National Guard and Reserve families, in
    the form of Military OneSource counseling, the TRICARE Assistance
    Program (TRIAP), and Military Family Life Consultants (MFLC). Combined,
    these valuable resources are helping to address a critical need for our
    Reserve Component families.
        In the past several years, great strides have been made by both
    Congress and the Services to help strengthen our National Guard and
    Reserve families. Our Association wishes to thank Congress for
    authorizing these important provisions. We urge you to fully fund these
    vital quality of life programs critical to our Reserve Component
    families, who have sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation.
        In addition, our Association would like to thank Congress for the
    provisions allowing for the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon
    Program, and for including reporting requirements on the program's
    progress in the NDAA fiscal year 2010. We continue to urge Congress to
    make the funding for this program permanent. In addition, we ask that
    you conduct oversight hearings to ensure that Yellow Ribbon services
    are consistent across the nation. We also ask that the definition of
    family member be expanded to allow non-ID card holders to attend these
    important programs, in order to support their service member and gain
    valuable information.
        Our Association asks Congress to fully fund the Yellow Ribbon
    Program, and provide oversight hearings to ensure that Yellow Ribbon
    services are consistent across the nation, and are accessible to all
    Reserve Component families. We also ask for funding for those persons
    designated by the service member to attend Yellow Ribbon Program
    events.
                                 family health
        Family readiness calls for access to quality healthcare and mental
    health services. Families need to know the various elements of their
    military health system are coordinated and working as a synergistic
    system. Our Association is concerned the DOD military healthcare system
    may not have all the resources it needs to meet both the military
    medical readiness mission and provide access to healthcare for all
    beneficiaries. It must be funded sufficiently, so the direct care
    system of military treatment facilities (MTF) and the purchased care
    segment of civilian providers can work in tandem to meet the
    responsibilities given under the TRICARE contracts, meet readiness
    needs, and ensure access for all military beneficiaries.
        Congress must provide timely and accurate funding for healthcare.
    DOD healthcare facilities must be funded to be ``world class,''
    offering state-of-the-art healthcare services supported by evidence-
    based research and design. Funding must also support the renovation of
    existing facilities or complete replacement of out-of-date DOD
    healthcare facilities. As we get closer to the closure of Walter Reed
    Army Medical Center and the opening of the new Fort Belvoir Community
    Hospital and the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, as
    part of the National Capitol Region BRAC process, we must be assured
    these projects are properly and fully funded. We encourage Congress to
    provide any additional funding recommended by the Defense Health
    Board's BRAC Subcommittee's report.
    Military Health System
                Improving Access to Care
        In the question and answer period during the U.S. Senate Committee
    on Armed Services' Subcommittee on Personnel on June 3, 2009, Senator
    Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked panel members to ``give a grade to
    TRICARE.'' Panel members rated TRICARE a ``B'' or a ``C minus.'' Our
    Association's Director of Government Relations stated it was a two part
    question and assigned the ``quality of care, B. Access to care, C
    minus.'' The panelist and Subcommittee Members discussion focused on
    access issues in the direct care system--our military hospitals and
    clinics--reinforcing what our Association has observed for years. We
    have consistently heard from families that their greatest healthcare
    challenge has been getting timely care from their local military
    hospital or clinic.
        Our Association continues to examine military families' experiences
    with accessing the Military Health System (MHS). Families' main issues
    are: access to their Primary Care Managers (PCM); getting someone to
    answer the phone at central appointments; having appointments available
    when they finally got through to central appointments; after hours
    care; getting a referral for specialty care; being able to see the same
    provider or PCM; and having appointments available 60, 90, and 120 days
    out in our MTFs. Families familiar with how the MHS referral system
    works seem better able to navigate the system. Those families who are
    unfamiliar report delays in receiving treatment or sometimes decide to
    give up on the referral process and never obtain a specialty
    appointment. Continuity of care is important to maintain quality of
    care. The MTFs are stressed from 9 years of provider deployments,
    directly affecting the quality of care and contributing to increased
    costs. Our Association thanks Congress for requiring, in the NDAA
    fiscal year 2009, a report on access to care and we look forward to the
    findings. This report must distinguish between access issues in the
    MTFs, as opposed to access in the civilian TRICARE networks.
        Our most seriously wounded, ill, and injured service members,
    veterans, and their families are assigned case managers. In fact, there
    are many different case managers: Federal Recovery Coordinators (FRC),
    Recovery Care Coordinators, coordinators from Service branch, Traumatic
    Brain Injury (TBI) care coordinators, Department of Veteran Affairs
    (VA) liaisons, et cetera. The goal is for a seamless transition of care
    between and within the two governmental agencies, DOD and the VA.
    However, with so many coordinators to choose from, families often
    wonder which one is the ``right'' case manager. We often hear from
    families, some whose service member has long been medically retired
    with a 100 percent disability rating or others with less than 1 year
    from date-of-injury, who have not yet been assigned a FRC. We need to
    look at whether the multiple, layered case managers have streamlined
    the process, or have only aggravated it. Our Association still finds
    families trying to navigate alone a variety of complex healthcare
    systems, trying to find the right combination of care. Individual
    Service wounded, ill, and injured program directors and case managers
    are often reluctant to inform families that FRCs exist or that the
    family qualifies for one. Many qualify for and use Medicare, VA, DOD's
    TRICARE direct and purchased care, private health insurance, and state
    agencies. Why can't the process be streamlined?
                Support for Special Needs Families
        Case management for military beneficiaries with special needs is
    not consistent because the coordination of the military family's care
    is being done by a non-synergistic MHS. Beneficiaries try to obtain an
    appointment and then find themselves getting partial healthcare within
    the MTF, while other healthcare is referred out into the purchased care
    network. Thus, military families end up managing their own care.
    Incongruence in the case management process becomes more apparent when
    military family members transfer from one TRICARE region to another and
    is further exacerbated when a special needs family member is involved.
    Families need a seamless transition and a warm handoff between TRICARE
    regions and a universal case management process across the MHS. The
    current case management system is under review by DOD and TRICARE
    Management Activity (TMA). Each TRICARE Managed Care Contractor has
    created different case management processes.
        We applaud Congress and DOD's desire to create robust healthcare,
    educational, and family support services for special needs children.
    But, these robust services do not follow them when they retire. We
    encourage the Services to allow these military families the opportunity
    to have their final duty station be in an area of their choice. We
    suggest the Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) be extended for 1 year
    after retirement for those already enrolled in ECHO prior to
    retirement. If the ECHO program is extended, it must be for all who are
    eligible for the program. We should not create a different benefit
    simply based on diagnosis.
        There has been discussion over the past years by Congress and
    military families regarding the ECHO program. The NDAA fiscal year 2009
    included a provision to increase the cap on certain benefits under the
    ECHO program and the NDAA fiscal year 2010 established the Office of
    Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs. The ECHO
    program was originally designed to allow military families with special
    needs to receive additional services to offset their lack of
    eligibility for state or Federally provided services impacted by
    frequent moves. We suggest that before making any more adjustments to
    the ECHO program, Congress should direct DOD to certify if the ECHO
    program is working as it was originally designed and if it has been
    effective in addressing the needs of this population. We need to make
    the right fixes so we can be assured we apply the correct solutions.
    This new office will go a long way in identifying and addressing
    special needs. However, we must remember that our special needs
    families often require medical, educational, and family support
    resources. This new office must address all these various needs in
    order to effectively implement change.
        We ask for funding for the Office of Community Support for Military
    Families with Special Needs so this important new office can begin
    helping our special needs families.
                National Guard and Reserve Member Family Health Care
        National Guard and Reserve families need increased education about
    their healthcare benefits. We also believe that paying a stipend (NDAA
    fiscal year 2008) to a mobilized National Guard or Reserve member for
    their family's coverage under their employer-sponsored insurance plan
    may prove to be more cost-effective for the government than subsidizing
    72 percent of the costs of TRICARE Reserve Select for National Guard or
    Reserve members not on active duty.
                Grey Area Reservist
        Our Association would like to thank Congress for the new TRICARE
    benefit for Grey Area Reservists. We want to make sure this benefit is
    quickly implemented and they have access to a robust network.
                TRICARE Reimbursement
        Our Association is concerned that continuing pressure to lower
    Medicare reimbursement rates will create a hollow benefit for TRICARE
    beneficiaries. As the 111th Congress takes up Medicare legislation, we
    request consideration of how this legislation will impact military
    families' healthcare, especially access to mental health services.
        National provider shortages in the psychological health field,
    especially in child and adolescent psychology, are exacerbated in many
    cases by low TRICARE reimbursement rates, TRICARE rules, or military-
    unique geographic challenges--for example large populations in rural or
    traditionally underserved areas. Many psychological health providers
    are willing to see military beneficiaries on a voluntary status.
    However, these providers often tell us they will not participate in
    TRICARE because of what they believe are time-consuming requirements
    and low reimbursement rates. More must be done to persuade these
    providers to participate in TRICARE and become a resource for the
    entire system, even if that means DOD must raise reimbursement rates.
    If that is the case, DOD may need additional funding for the
    flexibility to increase provider reimbursement rates if shortages
    develop.
                Pharmacy
        We caution DOD about generalizing findings of certain beneficiary
    pharmacy behaviors and automatically applying them to our Nation's
    unique military population. We encourage Congress to require DOD to
    utilize peer-reviewed research involving beneficiaries and prescription
    drug benefit options, along with performing additional research
    involving military beneficiaries, before making any recommendations on
    prescription drug benefit changes, such as co-payment and tier
    structure changes for military service members, retirees, their
    families, and survivors.
        We appreciate the inclusion of Federal pricing for the TRICARE
    retail pharmacies in the NDAA fiscal year 2008. However, we still need
    to examine its effect on the cost of medications for both beneficiaries
    and DOD. Also, we will need to see how this potentially impacts
    Medicare, civilian private insurance, and the National Health Care
    Reform drug pricing negotiations.
        We believe it is imperative that all medications available through
    TRICARE Retail Pharmacy (TRRx) should also be made available through
    TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy (TMOP). Medications treating chronic
    conditions, such as asthma, diabetes, and hypertension should be made
    available at the lowest level of co-payment regardless of brand or
    generic status. We agree with the recommendations of The Task Force on
    the Future of Military Health Care that over-the-counter (OTC) drugs be
    a covered pharmacy benefit without a co-payment for TMOP Tier 1
    medications.
        The new T3 TRICARE contract will provide TRICARE Managed Care
    Contractors and Express-Scripts, Inc. the ability to link pharmacy data
    with disease management. This will allow for better case management,
    increased compliance, and decreased cost, especially for our
    chronically ill beneficiaries. However, this valuable tool is currently
    unavailable because the T3 contract is partially under protest and has
    not yet been awarded.
                National Health Care
        We thank Congress for legislation that recognizes that TRICARE
    meets minimal essential coverage under National Health Care reform.
    However, we request your continued vigilance to ensure quality
    healthcare for military families. The perfect storm is brewing. TMA
    will institute the new T3 contact at the same time healthcare reform
    changes are implemented. Currently, at least one out of three TRICARE
    Managed Care Contractors could change. This means that the contracts of
    those TRICARE providers would need to be renegotiated. Healthcare
    reform and Medicare reimbursement rate changes are adding to the
    demands and uncertainty of our providers. Our Association is concerned
    that providers will be unwilling to remain in the TRICARE network and
    it will become very difficult to recruit new providers. The unintended
    consequence may be a decrease in access of care due the lack of
    available healthcare providers. DOD will need additional funding to
    increase reimbursement rates if provider shortages develop.
                DOD Must Look for Savings
        We ask Congress to establish better oversight for DOD's
    accountability in becoming more cost-efficient. We recommend:
      --Requiring the Comptroller General to audit MTFs on a random basis
            until all have been examined for their ability to provide
            quality healthcare in a cost-effective manner;
      --Creating an oversight committee, similar in nature to the Medicare
            Payment Advisory Commission, which provides oversight to the
            Medicare program and makes annual recommendations to Congress.
            The Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care often
            stated it was unable to address certain issues not within their
            charter or the timeframe in which they were commissioned to
            examine the issues. This Commission would have the time to
            examine every issue in an unbiased manner.
      --Establishing a Unified ``Joint'' Medical Command structure, which
            was recommended by the Defense Health Board in 2006.
        Our Association believes optimizing the capabilities of the
    facilities of the direct care system through timely replacement of
    facilities, increased funding allocations, and innovative staffing
    would allow more beneficiaries to be cared for in the MTFs, which DOD
    asserts is the most cost effective. The Task Force made recommendations
    to make the DOD MHS more cost-efficient which we support. They conclude
    the MHS must be appropriately sized, resourced, and stabilized; and
    make changes in its business and healthcare practices.
        We suggest additional funding and flexibility in hiring practices
    to address MTF provider deployments.
        We recommend additional funding to DOD for potential civilian
    provider shortages within the community due to reduced Medicare
    reimbursement rates and potential decreased provider availability due
    to healthcare reform.
        Our Association recommends a 1 year transitional active duty ECHO
    benefit for all eligible family members of service members who retire.
        We believe that Reserve Component families should be given the
    choice of a stipend to continue their employer provided care during
    deployment.
                Behavioral Health Care
        Our Nation must help returning service members and their families
    cope with the aftermath of war. DOD, VA, and State agencies must
    partner in order to address behavioral health issues early in the
    process and provide transitional mental health programs. Partnering
    will also capture the National Guard and Reserve member population, who
    often straddle these agencies' healthcare systems.
                Full Spectrum of Care
        As the war continues, families' need for a full spectrum of
    behavioral health services--from preventative care to stress reduction
    techniques, individual or family counseling, to medical mental health
    services--continues to grow. The military offers a variety of
    psychological health services, both preventative and treatment, across
    many agencies and programs. However, as service members and families
    experience numerous lengthy and dangerous deployments, we believe the
    need for confidential, preventative psychological health services will
    continue to rise. It will remain high, even after military operations
    scale down. Our study found the mental health of the caregiver directly
    affects the overall well-being of the children. Therefore, we need to
    treat the family as a unit rather than as individuals because the
    caregiver's health determines the quality of life for the children.
                Access to Behavioral Health Care
        Our Association is concerned about the overall shortage of
    psychological health providers in TRICARE's direct and purchased care
    network. DOD's Task Force on Mental Health stated timely access to the
    proper psychological health provider remains one of the greatest
    barriers to quality mental health services for service members and
    their families. The Army Family Action Plan (AFAP) identified mental
    health issues as their number three issue for 2010. While families are
    pleased more psychological health providers are available in theater to
    assist their service members, they are disappointed with the resulting
    limited access to providers at home. Families are reporting increased
    difficulty in obtaining appointments with social workers,
    psychologists, and psychiatrists at their MTFs and clinics. The
    military fuels the shortage by deploying some of its child and
    adolescent psychology providers to combat zones. Providers remaining at
    home report they are overwhelmed by treating active duty members and
    are unable to fit family members into their schedules. This can lead to
    compassion fatigue, creating burnout and exacerbating the provider
    shortage problem.
        We have seen an increase in the number of psychological health
    providers joining the purchased care side of the TRICARE network.
    However, the access standard is 7 days. We hear from military families
    after accessing the psychological health provider list on the
    contractor's websites that the provider is full and no longer taking
    patients. The list must be up-to-date in order to handle real time
    demands by families. We need to continue to recruit more psychological
    health providers to join the TRICARE network and we need to make sure
    we specifically add those in specialty behavioral healthcare areas,
    such as child and adolescence psychology and psychiatrists.
        Families must be included in mental health counseling and treatment
    programs for service members. Family members are a key component to a
    service member's psychological well-being. We recommend an extended
    outreach program to service members, veterans, and their families of
    available psychological health resources, such as DOD, VA, and State
    agencies.
        Frequent and lengthy deployments create a sharp need in
    psychological health services by family members and service members as
    they get ready to deploy and after their return. There is also an
    increase in demand in the wake of natural disasters, such as hurricanes
    and fires. We need to maintain a flexible pool of psychological health
    providers who can increase or decrease rapidly in numbers depending on
    demand by the MHS. Currently, Military Family Life Consultants and
    Military OneSource counseling are providing this type of service for
    military families on the family support side. The recently introduced
    web-based TRICARE Assistance Program (TRIAP) offers another vehicle for
    non-medical counseling, especially for those who live far from
    counselors. We need to make the Services, along with military family
    members, more aware of resources along the continuum. We need the
    flexibility of support in both the MHS and family support arenas. We
    must educate civilian network providers about our military culture.
    Communities along with nongovernment organizations (NGO) are beginning
    to fulfill this role, but more needs to be done.
                Availability of Treatment
        Do DOD, VA and State agencies have adequate psychological health
    providers, programs, outreach, and funding? Better yet, where will the
    veteran's spouse and children go for help? Many will be left alone to
    care for their loved one's invisible wounds resulting from frequent and
    long combat deployments. Who will care for them when they are no longer
    part of the DOD healthcare system?
        The Army's Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV report links
    reducing family issues to reducing stress on deployed service members.
    The team found the top non-combat stressors were deployment length and
    family separation. They noted soldiers serving a repeat deployment
    reported higher acute stress than those on their first deployment and
    the level of combat was the major contribution for their psychological
    health status upon return. Our study, along with other research, on the
    impact of deployment on caregivers and children found it was the
    cumulative time deployed that caused increased stress. These reports
    demonstrate the amount of stress being placed on our troops and their
    families.
        Our Association is especially concerned with the scarcity of
    services available to the families as they leave the military following
    the end of their activation or enlistment. Due to the service member's
    separation, the families find themselves ineligible for TRICARE,
    Military OneSource, and are very rarely eligible for healthcare through
    the VA. Many will choose to locate in rural areas lacking available
    psychological health providers. We need to address the distance issues
    families face in finding psychological health resources and obtaining
    appropriate care. Isolated service members, veterans, and their
    families do not have the benefit of the safety net of services and
    programs provided by MTFs, VA facilities, Community-Based Outpatient
    Centers and Vet Centers. We recommend:
      --using and funding alternative treatment methods, such as telemental
            health;
      --modifying licensing requirements in order to remove geographic
            practice barriers that prevent psychological health providers
            from participating in telemental health services outside of a
            VA facility;
      --educating civilian network psychological health providers about our
            military culture as the VA incorporates Project Hero; and
      --encouraging DOD and VA to work together to provide a seamless
            ``warm hand-off'' for families, as well as service members
            transitioning from active duty to veteran status and funding
            additional transitional support programs if necessary.
                National Guard and Reserve Members
        The National Military Family Association is especially concerned
    about fewer mental healthcare services available for the families of
    returning National Guard and Reserve members as well as service members
    who leave the military following the end of their enlistment. They are
    eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select, but as we know, National Guard and
    Reserve members are often located in rural areas where there may be no
    mental health providers available. Policy makers need to address the
    distance issues that families face in linking with military mental
    health resources and obtaining appropriate care. Isolated National
    Guard and Reserve families do not have the benefit of the safety net of
    services provided by MTFs and installation family support programs.
    Families want to be able to access care with a provider who understands
    or is sympathetic to the issues they face. We recommend the use of
    alternative treatment methods, such as telemental health; increasing
    mental health reimbursement rates for rural areas; modifying licensing
    requirements in order to remove geographic practice barriers that
    prevent mental health providers from participating in telemental health
    services; and educating civilian network mental health providers about
    our military culture. We hear the National Guard Bureau's Psychological
    Health Services (PHS) is not working as designed to address their
    mental health issues. This program needs to be re-evaluated to
    determine its effectiveness.
                Children
        Our Association is concerned about the impact deployment and/or the
    injury of the service member is having on our most vulnerable
    population, children of our military and veterans. Our study on the
    impact of the war on caregivers and children found deployments are
    creating layers of stressors, which families are experiencing at
    different stages. Teens especially carry a burden of care they are
    reluctant to share with the non-deployed parent in order to not ``rock
    the boat.'' They are often encumbered by the feeling of trying to keep
    the family going, along with anger over changes in their schedules,
    increased responsibility, and fear for their deployed parent. Children
    of the National Guard and Reserve members face unique challenges since
    there are no military installations for them to utilize. They find
    themselves ``suddenly military'' without resources to support them.
    School systems are generally unaware of this change in focus within
    these family units and are ill prepared to lookout for potential
    problems caused by these deployments or when an injury occurs. Also
    vulnerable, are children who have disabilities that are further
    complicated by deployment and subsequent injury of the service members.
    Their families find stress can be overwhelming, but are afraid to reach
    out for assistance for fear of retribution to the service member's
    career. They often choose not to seek care for themselves or their
    families. We appreciate the inclusion of a study on the mental health
    needs of our children in the NDAA fiscal year 2010 and hope the
    research we commissioned will provide useful information as the study
    is designed.
        The impact of the wounded, ill, and injured on children is often
    overlooked and underestimated. Military children experience a
    metaphorical death of the parent they once knew and must make many
    adjustments as their parent recovers. Many families relocate to be near
    the treating MTF or the VA Polytrauma Center in order to make the
    rehabilitation process more successful. As the spouse focuses on the
    rehabilitation and recovery, older children take on new roles. They may
    become the caregivers for other siblings, as well as for the wounded
    parent. Many spouses send their children to stay with neighbors or
    extended family members, as they tend to their wounded, ill, and
    injured spouse. Children get shuffled from place to place until they
    can be reunited with their parents. Once reunited, they must adapt to
    the parent's new injury and living with the ``new normal.'' We
    appreciate the inclusion of a study to assess the impact on children of
    the severely wounded in the NDAA fiscal year 2010.
        We encourage partnerships between government agencies, DOD, VA and
    State agencies and recommend they reach out to those private and NGOs
    who are experts on children and adolescents. They could identify and
    incorporate best practices in the prevention and treatment of mental
    health issues affecting our military children. We must remember to
    focus on preventative care upstream, while still in the active duty
    phase, in order to have a solid family unit as they head into the
    veteran phase of their lives. School systems must become more involved
    in establishing and providing supportive services for our nation's
    children.
                Caregiver Burnout
        In the ninth year of war, care for the caregivers must become a
    priority. There are several levels of caregivers. Our Association hears
    from the senior officer and enlisted spouses who are so often called
    upon to be the strength for others. We hear from the healthcare
    providers, educators, chaplains, and counselors who are working long
    hours to assist service members and their families. They tell us they
    are overburdened, burnt out, and need time to recharge so they can
    continue to serve these families. These caregivers must be afforded
    respite care, given emotional support through their command structure,
    and be provided effective family programs.
                Education
        The DOD, VA, and State agencies must educate their healthcare and
    mental health professionals of the effects of mild Traumatic Brain
    Injury (mTBI) in order to help accurately diagnose and treat the
    service member's condition. They must be able to deal with polytrauma--
    Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in combination with multiple
    physical injuries. We need more education for civilian healthcare
    providers on how to identify signs and symptoms of mild TBI and PTSD.
        The families of service members and veterans must be educated about
    the effects of mTBI and PTSD in order to help accurately diagnose and
    treat the service member/veteran's condition. These families are on the
    ``sharp end of the spear'' and are more likely to pick up on changes
    attributed to either condition and relay this information to their
    healthcare providers. Programs are being developed by each Service.
    However, they are narrow in focus targeting line leaders and healthcare
    providers, but not broad enough to capture our military family members
    and the communities they live in.
                Reintegration Programs
        Reintegration programs become a key ingredient in the family's
    success. Our Association believes we need to focus on treating the
    whole family with programs offering readjustment information; education
    on identifying mental health, substance abuse, suicide, and TBI; and
    encouraging them to seek assistance when having financial,
    relationship, legal, and occupational difficulties. We appreciate the
    inclusion in the NDAA fiscal year 2010 for education programs targeting
    pain management and substance abuse for our families. As Services roll
    out suicide prevention programs, we need to include our families,
    communities, and support personnel.
        Successful return and reunion programs will require attention and
    funding over the long term, as well as a strong partnership at all
    levels between the various mental health arms of DOD, VA, and State
    agencies. DOD and VA need to provide family and individual counseling
    to address these unique issues. Opportunities for the entire family and
    for the couple to reconnect and bond must also be provided. Our
    Association has recognized this need and successfully piloted family
    retreats in the National Parks promoting family reintegration following
    deployment.
        We recommend an extended outreach program to service members,
    veterans, and their families of available psychological health
    resources, such as DOD, VA, and State agencies.
        We encourage Congress to request DOD to include families in its
    Psychological Health Support survey; perform a pre and post-deployment
    mental health screening on family members (similar to the PDHA and
    PDHRA currently being done for service members).
        We recommend the use and funding of alternative treatment methods,
    such as telemental health; increasing mental health reimbursement rates
    for rural areas; modifying licensing requirements in order to remove
    geographic practice barriers that prevent mental health providers from
    participating in telemental health services; and educating civilian
    network mental health providers about our military culture.
        Caregivers must be afforded respite care; given emotional support
    through their command structure; and be provided effective family
    programs.
                Wounded Service Members Have Wounded Families
        Our Association asserts that behind every wounded service member
    and veteran is a wounded family. It is our belief the government,
    especially the DOD and VA, must take a more inclusive view of military
    and veterans' families. Those who have the responsibility to care for
    the wounded, ill, and injured service member must also consider the
    needs of the spouse, children, parents of single service members and
    their siblings, and the caregivers. DOD and VA need to think
    proactively as a team and one system, rather than separately; and
    addressing problems and implementing initiatives upstream while the
    service member is still on active duty status.
        Reintegration programs become a key ingredient in the family's
    success. For the past 2 years, we have piloted our Operation Purple
    Healing Adventures camp to help wounded service members and their
    families learn to play again as a family. We hear from the families who
    participate in this camp, as well as others dealing with the recovery
    of their wounded service members that, even with Congressional
    intervention and implementation of the Services' programs, many issues
    still create difficulties for them well into the recovery period.
    Families find themselves having to redefine their roles following the
    injury of the service member. They must learn how to parent and become
    a spouse/lover with an injury. Each member needs to understand the
    unique aspects the injury brings to the family unit. Parenting from a
    wheelchair brings a whole new challenge, especially when dealing with
    teenagers. Parents need opportunities to get together with other
    parents who are in similar situations and share their experiences and
    successful coping methods. Our Association believes we need to focus on
    treating the whole family with DOD and VA programs offering skill based
    training for coping, intervention, resiliency, and overcoming
    adversities. Injury interrupts the normal cycle of deployment and the
    reintegration process. We must provide opportunities for the entire
    family and for the couple to reconnect and bond, especially during the
    rehabilitation and recovery phases.
        Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) has recognized a need to support
    these families by expanding in terms of guesthouses co-located within
    the hospital grounds and a family reintegration program for their
    Warrior Transition Unit. The on-base school system is also sensitive to
    issues surrounding these children. A warm, welcoming family support
    center located in guest housing serves as a sanctuary for family
    members. The DOD and VA could benefit from looking at successful
    programs like BAMC's which has found a way to embrace the family unit
    during this difficult time.
        The Vet Centers are an available resource for veterans' families
    providing adjustment, vocational, and family and marriage counseling.
    The VA healthcare facilities and the community-based outpatient clinics
    (CBOCs) have a ready supply of mental health providers. We recommend
    DOD partner with the VA to allow military families access to mental
    health services. We also believe Congress should require the VA,
    through its Vet Centers and healthcare facilities to develop a holistic
    approach to care by including families when providing mental health
    counseling and programs to the wounded, ill, and injured service member
    or veteran.
        The Defense Health Board has recommended DOD include military
    families in its mental health studies. We agree. We encourage Congress
    to direct DOD to include families in its Psychological Health Support
    survey and perform a pre and post-deployment mental health screening on
    family members (similar to the PDHA and PDHRA currently being done for
    service members). This recommendation will require additional funding.
    We appreciate the NDAA fiscal year 2010 report on the impact of the war
    on families and the DOD's Millennium Cohort Study including families.
    Both will help us gain a better understanding of the long-term effects
    of war on our military families.
                Transitioning for the Wounded and Their Families
        Transitions can be especially problematic for wounded, ill, and
    injured service members, veterans, and their families. The DOD and the
    VA healthcare systems, along with State agency involvement, should
    alleviate, not heighten these concerns. They should provide for
    coordination of care, starting when the family is notified that the
    service member has been wounded and ending with the DOD, VA, and State
    agencies working together, creating a seamless transition, as the
    wounded service member transfers between the two agencies' healthcare
    systems and, eventually, from active duty status to veteran status.
        Transition of healthcare coverage for our wounded, ill, and injured
    and their family members is a concern of our Association. These service
    members and families desperately need a healthcare bridge as they deal
    with the after effects of the injury and possible reduction in their
    family income. We have created two proposals. Service members who are
    medically retired and their families should be treated as active duty
    for TRICARE fee and eligibility purposes for 3 years following medical
    retirement. This proposal will allow the family not to pay premiums and
    be eligible for certain programs offered to active duty, such as ECHO
    for 3 years. Following that period, they would pay TRICARE premiums at
    the rate for retirees. Service members medically discharged from
    service and their family members should be allowed to continue for 1
    year as active duty for TRICARE and then start the Continued Health
    Care Benefit Program (CHCBP) if needed.
                Caregivers
        Caregivers need to be recognized for the important role they play
    in the care of their loved one. Without them, the quality of life of
    the wounded service members and veterans, such as physical, psycho-
    social, and mental health, would be significantly compromised. They are
    viewed as an invaluable resource to DOD and VA healthcare providers
    because they tend to the needs of the service members and the veterans
    on a regular basis. And, their daily involvement saves DOD, VA, and
    State agency healthcare dollars in the long run. Their long-term
    psychological care needs must be addressed. Caregivers of the severely
    wounded, ill, and injured service members who are now veterans have a
    long road ahead of them. In order to perform their job well, they will
    require access to mental health services and these services must be
    funded.
        The VA has made a strong effort in supporting veterans' caregivers.
    The DOD should follow suit and expand their definition. We appreciate
    the inclusion in NDAA fiscal year 2010 of compensation for service
    members with assistance in everyday living. This provision will need
    funding.
        Compensation of caregivers should be a priority for DOD and the
    Secretary of Homeland Security for our Coast Guard. Caregivers must be
    recognized for their sacrifices and the important role they play in
    maintaining the quality of life of our wounded, ill, and injured
    service members and veterans. Current law allows the Secretary of the
    VA to provide a caregiver stipend, however it is an unfunded mandate.
    Our Association strongly believes this stipend needs to be fully
    funded.
        Consideration should also be given to creating innovative ways to
    meet the healthcare and insurance needs of the caregiver, with an
    option to include their family. Current law does not include a
    ``family'' option.
        There must be a provision for transition benefits for the caregiver
    if the caregiver's services are no longer needed, chooses to no longer
    participate, or is asked by the veteran to no longer provide services.
    The caregiver, once qualified, should still be able to maintain
    healthcare coverage for 1 year. Compensation would discontinue
    following the end of services/care provided by the caregiver. Our
    Association looks forward to discussing details of implementing such a
    plan with Members of this Subcommittee.
        The VA currently has eight caregiver assistance pilot programs to
    expand and improve healthcare education and provide needed training and
    resources for caregivers who assist disabled and aging veterans in
    their homes. Caregivers' responsibilities start while the service
    member is still on active duty. DOD should evaluate these pilot
    programs to determine whether to adopt them for themselves. If adopted,
    DOD will need funding for these programs.
                Relocation Allowance and Housing
        Active Duty service members and their spouses qualify through the
    DOD for military orders to move their household goods when they leave
    the military service. Medically retired service members are given a
    final PCS move. Medically retired married service members are allowed
    to move their family, however, medically retired single service members
    only qualify for moving their own personal goods.
        Our Association suggests that legislation be passed to allow
    medically retired single service members the opportunity to have their
    caregiver's household goods moved as a part of the medical retired
    single service member's PCS move. This should be allowed for the
    qualified caregiver of the wounded, ill, and injured service member and
    the caregiver's family (if warranted), such as a sibling who is married
    with children or mom and dad. This would allow for the entire
    caregiver's family to move, not just the caregiver. The reason for the
    move is to allow the medically retired single service member the
    opportunity to relocate with their caregiver to an area offering the
    best medical care, rather than the current option that only allows for
    the medically retired single service member to move their belongings to
    where the caregiver currently resides. The current option may not be
    ideal because the area in which the caregiver lives may not be able to
    provide all the healthcare services required for treating and caring
    for the medically retired service member. Instead of trying to create
    the services in the area, a better solution may be to allow the
    medically retired service member, their caregiver, and the caregiver's
    family to relocate to an area where services already exist.
        The decision on where to relocate for optimum care should be made
    with the Federal Recovery Coordinator (case manager), the service
    member's medical physician, the service member, and the caregiver. All
    aspects of care for the medically retired service member and their
    caregiver shall be considered. These include a holistic examination of
    the medically retired service member, the caregiver, and the
    caregiver's family for, but not limited to, their needs and
    opportunities for healthcare, employment, transportation, and
    education. The priority for the relocation should be where the best
    quality of services is readily available for the medically retired
    service member and his/her caregiver. This relocation provision will
    require DOD funding.
        The consideration for a temporary partial shipment of caregiver's
    household goods may also be allowed, if deemed necessary by the case
    management team.
        Provide transitioning wounded, ill, and injured service members and
    their families a bridge of extended active duty TRICARE eligibility for
    3 years, comparable to the benefit for surviving spouses.
        Service members medically discharged from service and their family
    members shall be allowed to continue for 1 year as active duty for
    TRICARE and then start the Continued Health Care Benefit Program
    (CHCBP) if needed.
        Caregivers of the wounded, ill and injured must be provided with
    opportunities for training, compensation and other support programs
    because of the important role they play in the successful
    rehabilitation and care of the service member.
        The National Military Family Association is requesting the ability
    for medically retired single service members to be allowed the
    opportunity to have their caregiver's household goods moved as a part
    of the medically retired single service member's PCS move.
                Senior Oversight Committee
        Our Association is appreciative of the provision in the NDAA fiscal
    year 2010 establishing a DOD Task Force on the Care, Management, and
    Transition of Recovery, Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed
    Forces to access policies and programs. This Task Force will be
    independent and in a position to monitor DOD and VA's partnership
    initiatives for our wounded, ill, and injured service members and their
    families.
        The National Military Family Association encourages the all
    committees with jurisdiction over military personnel and veterans
    matters to talk on these important issues. We can no longer continue to
    create policies in a vacuum and be content on focusing on each agency
    separately because this population moves too frequently between the two
    agencies, especially our wounded, ill, and injured service members and
    their families.
                               family transitions
    Survivors
        In the past year, the Services have been focusing on outreach to
    surviving families. In particular, the Army's SOS (Survivor Outreach
    Services) program makes an effort to remind these families that they
    are not forgotten. DOD and the VA must work together to ensure
    surviving spouses and their children can receive the mental health
    services they need, through all of VA's venues. New legislative
    language governing the TRICARE behavioral health benefit may also be
    needed to allow TRICARE coverage of bereavement or grief counseling.
    The goal is the right care at the right time for optimum treatment
    effect. DOD and the VA need to better coordinate their mental health
    services for survivors and their children.
        We thank Congress for extending the TRICARE Dental benefit to
    surviving children. We ask that eligibility be expanded to those active
    duty family members who had not been enrolled in the active duty
    TRICARE Dental benefit prior to the service member's death.
        Our Association recommends that eligibility be expanded to active
    duty survivors who had not been enrolled in the TRICARE Dental Program
    prior to the service member's death. We also recommend that grief
    counseling be more readily available to survivors.
        In 2009, the policy concerning the attendance of the media at the
    dignified transfer of remains at Dover AFB was changed. Primary next-
    of-kin (PNOK) of the service member who dies in theater is asked to
    make a decision shortly after they are notified of the loss as to
    whether or not the media may film the dignified transfer of remains of
    their loved one during this ceremony. Family members are also given the
    option of flying to Dover themselves to witness this ceremony. In
    previous years, only about 3 percent of family members attended this
    ceremony. Since the policy change, over 90 percent of families send
    some family members to Dover to attend. The travel of up to 3 family
    members and the casualty assistance officer on a commercial carrier are
    provided for. In the NDAA fiscal year 2010, eligible family member
    travel to memorial services for a service member who dies in theater
    was authorized. This is in addition to travel to the funeral of the
    service member. None of the costs associated with this travel has been
    funded for the Services. We would ask that funds be appropriated to
    cover the costs of this extraordinary expense.
        We ask that funding be appropriated for the travel costs for
    surviving family members to attend the dignified transfer of remains in
    Dover and for eligible surviving family members to attend memorial
    services for service members who die in theater.
        Our Association still believes the benefit change that will provide
    the most significant long-term advantage to the financial security of
    all surviving families would be to end the Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) offset to the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Ending
    this offset would correct an inequity that has existed for many years.
    Each payment serves a different purpose. The DIC is a special indemnity
    (compensation or insurance) payment paid by the VA to the survivor when
    the service member's service causes his or her death. The SBP annuity,
    paid by DOD, reflects the longevity of the service of the military
    member. It is ordinarily calculated at 55 percent of retired pay.
    Military retirees who elect SBP pay a portion of their retired pay to
    ensure that their family has a guaranteed income should the retiree
    die. If that retiree dies due to a service connected disability, their
    survivor becomes eligible for DIC.
        Surviving active duty spouses can make several choices, dependent
    upon their circumstances and the ages of their children. Because SBP is
    offset by the DIC payment, the spouse may choose to waive this benefit
    and select the ``child only'' option. In this scenario, the spouse
    would receive the DIC payment and the children would receive the full
    SBP amount until each child turns 18 (23 if in college), as well as the
    individual child DIC until each child turns 18 (23 if in college). Once
    the children have left the house, this choice currently leaves the
    spouse with an annual income of $13,848, a significant drop in income
    from what the family had been earning while the service member was
    alive and on active duty. The percentage of loss is even greater for
    survivors whose service members served longer. Those who give their
    lives for their country deserve more fair compensation for their
    surviving spouses.
        We believe several other adjustments could be made to the Survivor
    Benefit Plan. Allowing payment of the SBP benefits into a Special Needs
    Trust in cases of disabled beneficiaries will preserve their
    eligibility for income based support programs. The government should be
    able to switch SBP payments to children if a surviving spouse is
    convicted of complicity in the member's death.
        We believe there needs to be DIC equity with other Federal survivor
    benefits. Currently, DIC is set at $1,154 monthly (43 percent of the
    Disabled Retirees Compensation). Survivors of Federal workers have
    their annuity set at 55 percent of their Disabled Retirees
    Compensation. Military survivors should receive 55 percent of VA
    Disability Compensation. We are pleased that the requirement for a
    report to assess the adequacy of DIC payments was included in the NDAA
    fiscal year 2009. We are awaiting the overdue report. We support
    raising DIC payments to 55 percent of VA Disability Compensation. When
    changes are made, ensure that DIC eligibles under the old system
    receive an equivalent increase.
        We ask the DIC offset to SBP be eliminated to recognize the length
    of commitment and service of the career service member and spouse. We
    also request that SBP benefits be allowed to be paid to a Special Needs
    Trust in cases of disabled family members.
        We ask that DIC be increased to 55 percent of VA Disability
    Compensation.
    Education of Military Children
        The National Military Family Association would like to thank
    Congress for including a ``Sense of Congress'' in regards to the
    Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children in
    last year's National Defense Authorization Act. The Compact has now
    been adopted in 30 states and covers over 84 percent of our military
    children. The Interstate Commission, the governing body of the Compact,
    is working to educate military families, educators, and states on the
    appropriate usage of the Compact. The adoption of the Compact is a
    tremendous victory for military families who place a high value on
    education.
        However, military families define the quality of that education
    differently than most states or districts that look only at issues
    within their boundaries. For military families, it is not enough for
    children to be doing well in their current schools, they must also be
    prepared for the next location. The same is true for children in
    underperforming school systems. Families are concerned that they will
    lag behind students in the next location. With many states cutting
    educational programs due to the economic downturn, this concern is
    growing. A prime example is Hawaii, which opted to furlough teachers on
    Fridays, cutting 17 days from the school calendar. With elementary
    schools already on a shortened schedule for Wednesday, these students
    are only getting approximately 3\1/2\ days of instruction every other
    week. In addition, the recent cuts have made it increasing hard for
    schools to meet IEP requirements for special needs students.
    Furthermore, Hawaii is requiring parents to pay more for busing, and
    the cost of school meals have gone up 76 percent. Our Association
    believes that Hawaii's cuts are just the ``tip of the iceberg'' as we
    are beginning to see other states make tough choices as well. Although
    Hawaii's educational system has long been a concern for military
    families, many of whom opt for expensive private education, Hawaii is
    not the only place where parents have concerns. The National Military
    Family Association believes that our military children deserve to have
    a good quality education wherever they may live. However, our
    Association recognizes that how that quality education is provided may
    differ in each location.
        We urge Congress to encourage solutions for the current educational
    situation across the nation and recognize that service members' lack of
    confidence that their children may receive a quality education in an
    assignment location can affect the readiness of the force in that
    location.
        While our Association remains appreciative for the additional
    funding Congress provides to civilian school districts educating
    military children, Impact Aid continues to be under-funded. We urge
    Congress to provide appropriate and timely funding of Impact Aid
    through the Department of Education. In addition, we urge Congress to
    increase DOD Impact Aid funding for schools educating large numbers of
    military children to $60 million for fiscal year 2011. We also ask
    Congress to include an additional $5 million in funding for special
    needs children. The DOD supplement to Impact Aid is critically
    important to ensure school districts provide quality education for our
    military children.
        As increased numbers of military families move into new communities
    due to Global Rebasing and BRAC, their housing needs are being met
    further and further away from the installation. Thus, military children
    may be attending school in districts whose familiarity with the
    military lifestyle may be limited. Educating large numbers of military
    children will put an added burden on schools already hard-pressed to
    meet the needs of their current populations. We urge Congress to
    authorize an increase in this level of funding until BRAC and Global
    Rebasing moves are completed.
        Once again, we thank Congress for passing the Higher Education
    Opportunity Act of 2008, which contained many new provisions affecting
    military families. Chief among them was a provision to expand in-state
    tuition eligibility for military service members and their families,
    and provide continuity of in-state rates if the service member receives
    Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders out of state. However, family
    members have to be currently enrolled in order to be eligible for
    continuity of in-state tuition. Our Association is concerned that this
    would preclude a senior in high school from receiving in-state tuition
    rates if his or her family PCS's prior to matriculation. We urge
    Congress to amend this provision.
        We ask Congress to increase the DOD supplement to Impact Aid to $60
    million to help districts better meet the additional demands caused by
    large numbers of military children, deployment-related issues, and the
    effects of military programs and policies. We also ask Congress to
    include an additional $5 million for school districts with Special
    Needs children.
    Spouse Education & Employment
        Our Association wishes to thank Congress for recent enhancement to
    spouse education opportunities. In-state tuition, Post 9/11 G.I. bill
    transferability to spouses and children, and other initiatives have
    provided spouses with more educational opportunities than previous
    years.
        Since 2004, our Association has been fortunate to sponsor our
    Joanne Holbrook Patton Military Spouse Scholarship Program, with the
    generosity of donors who wish to help military families. Our 2010
    application period closed on January 31, 2010. We saw a 33 percent
    increase in applications from previous years with more than 8,000
    military spouses applying to our program. Military spouses remain
    committed to their education and need assistance from Congress to
    fulfill their educational pursuits.
        We have heard from many military spouses who are pleased with the
    expansion of the Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts, now
    called MyCAA. Unfortunately the abrupt halt of the program on February
    16, 2010 created a financial burden and undue stress for military
    spouses. We are pleased DOD has reinstated the program for the 136,583
    spouses enrolled in the program prior to February 16, 2010. We ask
    Congress to push DOD to fully restart this critical program for all
    eligible spouses as soon as possible. We also ask Congress to fully
    fund the MyCAA program, which is providing essential educational and
    career support to military spouses. The MyCAA program is not available
    to all military spouses. We ask Congress to work with the appropriate
    Service Secretary to expand this funding to the spouses of Coast Guard,
    the Commissioned Corps of NOAA and U.S. Public Health Service.
        Our Association thanks you for establishing a pilot program to
    secure internships for military spouses with Federal agencies. Military
    spouses look forward to enhanced career opportunities through the pilot
    program. We hope Congress will monitor the implementation of the
    program to ensure spouses are able to access the program and eligible
    spouses are able to find Federal employment after successful completion
    of the internship program.
        To further spouse employment opportunities, we recommend an
    expansion to the Workforce Opportunity Tax Credit for employers who
    hire spouses of active duty and Reserve component service members, and
    to provide tax credits to military spouses to offset the expense in
    obtaining career licenses and certifications when service members are
    relocated to a new duty station within a different state.
        The Services are experiencing a shortage of medical, mental health
    and child care providers. Many of our spouses are trained in these
    professions or would like to seek training in these professions. We
    think the Services have an opportunity to create portable career
    opportunities for spouses seeking in-demand professions. In addition to
    the MyCAA funding, what can the Services do to encourage spouse
    employment and solve provider shortages? We would like to see the
    Services reach out to military spouses and offer affordable, flexible
    training programs in high demand professions to help alleviate provider
    shortages.
        Our Association urges Congress to recognize the value of military
    spouses by fully funding the MyCAA program, and by creating training
    programs and employment opportunities for military spouses in high
    demand professions to help fill our provider shortages.
    Families on the Move
        A PCS move to an overseas location can be especially stressful for
    our families. Military families are faced with the prospect of being
    thousands of miles from extended family and living in a foreign
    culture. At many overseas locations, there are insufficient numbers of
    government quarters resulting in the requirement to live on the local
    economy away from the installation. Family members in these situations
    can feel extremely isolated; for some the only connection to anything
    familiar is the local military installation. Unfortunately, current law
    permits the shipment of only one vehicle to an overseas location,
    including Alaska and Hawaii. Since most families today have two
    vehicles, they sell one of the vehicles.
        Upon arriving at the new duty station, the service member requires
    transportation to and from the place of duty leaving the military
    spouse and family members at home without transportation. This lack of
    transportation limits the ability of spouses to secure employment and
    the ability of children to participate in extracurricular activities.
    While the purchase of a second vehicle alleviates these issues, it also
    results in significant expense while the family is already absorbing
    other costs associated with a move. Simply permitting the shipment of a
    second vehicle at government expense could alleviate this expense and
    acknowledge the needs of today's military family.
        Travel allowances and reimbursement rates have not kept pace with
    the out-of-pocket costs associated with today's moves. Military
    families are authorized 10 days for a housing hunting trip, but the
    cost for trip is the responsibility of the service member. Families
    with two vehicles may ship one vehicle and travel together in the
    second vehicle. The vehicle will be shipped at the service member's
    expense and then the service member will be reimbursed funds not used
    to drive the second vehicle to help offset the cost of shipping it. Or,
    families may drive both vehicles and receive reimbursement provided by
    the Monetary Allowance in Lieu of Transportation (MALT) rate. MALT is
    not intended to reimburse for all costs of operating a car but is
    payment in lieu of transportation on a commercial carrier. Yet, a TDY
    mileage rate considers the fixed and variable costs to operate a
    vehicle. Travel allowances and reimbursement rates should be brought in
    line with the actually out-of-pocket costs borne by military families.
        Our Association requests that Congress authorize the shipment of a
    second vehicle to an overseas location (at least Alaska and Hawaii) on
    accompanied tours, and that Congress address the out-of-pocket expenses
    military families bare for government ordered moves.
    Military Families--Our Nation's Families
        We thank you for your support of our service members and their
    families and we urge you to remember their service as you work to
    resolve the many issues facing our country. Military families are our
    Nation's families. They serve with pride, honor, and quiet dedication.
    Since the beginning of the war, government agencies, concerned citizens
    and private organizations have stepped in to help. This increased
    support has made a difference for many service members and families,
    yet, some of these efforts overlap while others are ineffective. In our
    testimony, we believe we have identified improvements and additions
    that can be made to already successful programs while introducing
    policy or legislative changes that address the ever changing needs of
    our military population. Working together, we can improve the quality
    of life for all these families

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. Dan Putka,
    American Psychological Association. Am I correct, Putka?
    STATEMENT OF DAN PUTKA, Ph.D., ON BEHALF OF THE
                AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
        Dr. Putka. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Cochran.
        I am Dr. Dan Putka from HumRRO, the Human Resources
    Research Organization. I am submitting testimony on behalf of
    the American Psychological Association, or APA, a scientific
    and professional organization of more than 152,000
    psychologists.
        For decades, clinical and research psychologists have used
    their unique and critical expertise to meet the needs of our
    military and its personnel, playing a vital role within the
    Department of Defense. My own military-oriented research and
    consulting focus on the recruitment and retention of committed
    high-performing military personnel.
        This morning, I focus on APA's request that Congress
    reverse disturbing administration cuts to DOD's science and
    technology budget and maintain support for important behavioral
    sciences research through DOD's Minerva Initiative.
        In the President's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget,
    defense S&T would fall from the estimated fiscal year 2010
    level of $14.7 billion to $12.3 billion, a decrease of 16.3
    percent. All military labs would see cuts to their 6.2 and 6.3
    applied research accounts, with some cuts as high as 49
    percent, namely, the Army's 6.3 account.
        Defense supported basic research, the 6.1 account, would
    fare better under the President's budget, and APA supports the
    substantial increase proposed for the Defense-wide basic
    research program. But we are very concerned about the deep cuts
    to near-term research supported by the 6.2 and 6.3 program
    accounts.
        This is not the time to reduce support for research that is
    vital to our Nation's continued security in a global atmosphere
    of uncertainty and asymmetric threats. APA urges the
    subcommittee to reverse this cut to the critical defense
    science program by providing $15 billion for defense S&T in
    fiscal year 2011.
        Within the S&T program, APA encourages the subcommittee to
    follow the recommendations from the National Academies and the
    Defense Science Board to fund priority research in the
    behavioral sciences in support of national security.
    Psychological scientists supported by the military labs address
    a broad range of important issues and problems vital to our
    national defense, with expertise in modeling behavior of
    individuals and groups, understanding and optimizing cognitive
    functioning, perceptual awareness, complex decisionmaking,
    stress resilience, recruitment and retention, military family
    functioning, and human systems interactions.
        Psychological scientists also have critical expertise in
    understanding extremist ideologies, radicalization processes,
    and counterinsurgencies. And we hope you will join the House in
    renewing your strong support for the DOD Minerva Initiative to
    address these and other compelling challenges.
        As noted in a recent National Research Council report,
    people are the heart of all military efforts. People operate
    the available weaponry and technology, and they constitute a
    complex military system composed of teams and groups at
    multiple levels. Scientific research on human behavior is
    crucial to the military because it provides knowledge about how
    people work together and use weapons and technology to extend
    and amplify their forces.
        Thank you for this opportunity.
        Chairman Inouye. Doctor, as you may be well aware, it
    wasn't too long ago when DOD did not fully recognize the worth
    of psychologists. They were not considered good enough to be in
    the star rank.
        But this subcommittee took the step to give psychologists
    the recognition they deserve. And as a result, we have much
    psychological research and psychologists on our staffs. So you
    can be assured that we won't take a back seat to anything.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to
    observe that the Minerva Initiative was established by
    Secretary Gates I think with the realization that a better
    understanding of extremist ideologies in the world today need
    the attention of the Department of Defense.
        So we have hopes that through funding programs like that,
    making sure there is enough money there to achieve our goals,
    we can improve the safety factor of service and of citizenship
    in our great country.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, and I thank the
    panel.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Dan J. Putka
        The American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and
    professional organization of more than 152,000 psychologists and
    affiliates.
        For decades, psychologists have played vital roles within the
    Department of Defense (DOD), as providers of clinical services to
    military personnel and their families, and as scientific researchers
    investigating mission-targeted issues ranging from airplane cockpit
    design to counter-terrorism. More than ever before, psychologists today
    bring unique and critical expertise to meeting the needs of our
    military and its personnel. APA's testimony will focus on reversing
    Administration cuts to the overall DOD Science and Technology (S&T)
    budget and maintaining support for important behavioral sciences
    research within DOD.
                                  dod research
        ``People are the heart of all military efforts. People operate the
    available weaponry and technology, and they constitute a complex
    military system composed of teams and groups at multiple levels.
    Scientific research on human behavior is crucial to the military
    because it provides knowledge about how people work together and use
    weapons and technology to extend and amplify their forces.''------Human
    Behavior in Military Contexts Report of the National Research Council,
    2008
        Just as a large number of psychologists provide high-quality
    clinical services to our military service members stateside and abroad
    (and their families), psychological scientists within DOD conduct
    cutting-edge, mission-specific research critical to national defense.
          behavioral research within the military service labs and dod
        Within DOD, the majority of behavioral, cognitive and social
    science is funded through the Army Research Institute (ARI) and Army
    Research Laboratory (ARL); the Office of Naval Research (ONR); and the
    Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), with additional, smaller human
    systems research programs funded through the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense (OSD) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA).
        The military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-
    oriented focus for science, conducting and sponsoring basic (6.1),
    applied/exploratory development (6.2) and advanced development (6.3)
    research. These three levels of research are roughly parallel to the
    military's need to win a current war (through products in advanced
    development) while concurrently preparing for the next war (with
    technology ``in the works'') and the war after next (by taking
    advantage of ideas emerging from basic research). All of the services
    fund human-related research in the broad categories of personnel,
    training and leader development; warfighter protection, sustainment and
    physical performance; and system interfaces and cognitive processing.
    National Academies Report Calls for Doubling Behavioral Research
        The 2008 National Academies report on Human Behavior in Military
    Contexts recommended doubling the current budgets for basic and applied
    behavioral and social science research ``across the U.S. military
    research agencies.'' It specifically called for enhanced research in
    six areas: intercultural competence; teams in complex environments;
    technology-based training; nonverbal behavior; emotion; and behavioral
    neurophysiology.
        Behavioral and social science research programs eliminated from the
    mission labs due to cuts or flat funding are extremely unlikely to be
    picked up by industry, which focuses on short-term, profit-driven
    product development. Once the expertise is gone, there is absolutely no
    way to ``catch up'' when defense mission needs for critical human-
    oriented research develop. As DOD noted in its own Report to the Senate
    Appropriations Committee:
        ``Military knowledge needs are not sufficiently like the needs of
    the private sector that retooling behavioral, cognitive and social
    science research carried out for other purposes can be expected to
    substitute for service-supported research, development, testing, and
    evaluation . . . our choice, therefore, is between paying for it
    ourselves and not having it.''
    Defense Science Board Calls for Priority Research in Social and
            Behavioral Sciences
        This emphasis on the importance of social and behavioral research
    within DOD is echoed by the Defense Science Board (DSB), an independent
    group of scientists and defense industry leaders whose charge is to
    advise the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff on ``scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition process,
    and other matters of special interest to the Department of Defense.''
        In its report on 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors, the DSB
    identified a set of four operational capabilities and the ''enabling
    technologies'' needed to accomplish major future military missions
    (analogous to winning the Cold War in previous decades). In identifying
    these capabilities, DSB specifically noted that ``the report defined
    technology broadly, to include tools enabled by the social sciences as
    well as the physical and life sciences.'' Of the four priority
    capabilities and corresponding areas of research identified by the DSB
    for priority funding from DOD, the first was defined as ``mapping the
    human terrain''--understanding the human side of warfare and national
    security.
             fiscal year 2011 dod budget for science and technology
    DOD
        In terms of the overall DOD S&T budget, the President's request for
    fiscal year 2011 again represents a dramatic step backward for defense
    research. Defense S&T would fall from the estimated fiscal year 2010
    level of $14.7 billion to $12.3 billion (a decrease of 16.3 percent).
    All military labs would see cuts to their 6.2 and 6.3 research
    accounts, with some cuts as high as 49 percent (the Army's 6.3
    account). Defense-supported basic research (6.1 level accounts) would
    fare better under the President's budget, and APA supports the
    substantial increase proposed for the OSD's Defense-wide basic research
    program, but we are very concerned about the deep cuts to near-term
    research supported by the 6.2 and 6.3 program accounts.
    DARPA
        DARPA's overall funding would increase only slightly in the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget, from $3 billion to $3.1 billion.
    The agency's home for basic research, the Defense Research Sciences
    Account, however, would be strengthened significantly. APA supports
    DARPA's transformative sciences priorities for this account, which
    include research that taps ``converging technological forces and
    transformational trends in the areas of computing and the computing-
    reliant subareas of social sciences, life sciences, manufacturing and
    commerce.''
                           focus for minerva research
        APA was pleased to see the House Armed Services Committee note (in
    the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act) its support
    for ``the use of social science to support key DOD missions such as
    irregular warfare, counterinsurgency, and stability and reconstruction
    operations'' through research funded by the DOD Minerva initiative
    established by Secretary Gates. APA agrees with the House that DOD
    ``has not provided enough focus for the Minerva initiative to develop a
    deep enough expertise in any of its seven topic areas,'' especially in
    ``understanding the extremist ideologies that help fuel recruitment of
    terrorists.'' APA supports the fiscal year 2011 NDAA authorization of
    $96.2 million, $5 million above the President's budget request, for DOD
    to conduct Minerva initiative research to improve our understanding of
    extremist ideologies.
                                    summary
        The President's budget request for basic and applied research at
    DOD in fiscal year 2011 is $12.3 billion, which represents a dramatic
    cut of $2.4 billion or 16 percent from the enacted fiscal year 2010
    level of $14.7 billion. APA urges the Subcommittee to reverse this cut
    to the critical defense science program by providing a total of $15
    billion for Defense S&T in fiscal year 2011.
        APA supports the substantial increases to DOD's and DARPA's basic
    research portfolios, but joins the Coalition for National Security
    Research in urging Congress to provide sufficient overall funding to
    reach the Pentagon's goal of investing 3 percent of DOD's total budget
    in Defense S&T.
        Within the S&T program, APA encourages the Subcommittee to follow
    recommendations from the National Academies and the Defense Science
    Board to fund priority research in the behavioral sciences in support
    of national security. Clearly, psychological scientists address a broad
    range of important issues and problems vital to our national defense,
    with expertise in modeling behavior of individuals and groups,
    understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptual
    awareness, complex decision-making, stress resilience, recruitment and
    retention, and human-systems interactions. We urge you to support the
    men and women on the front lines by reversing another round of cuts to
    the overall defense S&T account and the human-oriented research
    projects within the military laboratories.
        As our nation rises to meet the challenges of current engagements
    in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other asymmetric threats and
    increased demand for homeland defense and infrastructure protection,
    enhanced battlespace awareness and warfighter protection are absolutely
    critical. Our ability to both foresee and immediately adapt to changing
    security environments will only become more vital over the next several
    decades. Accordingly, DOD must support basic Science and Technology
    (S&T) research on both the near-term readiness and modernization needs
    of the department and on the long-term future needs of the warfighter.
        Below is suggested appropriations report language for fiscal year
    2011 which would encourage the Department of Defense to fully fund its
    behavioral research programs within the military laboratories and the
    Minerva initiative:
                             department of defense
                  research, development, test, and evaluation
        The Minerva Initiative and Behavioral Research in the Military
    Service Laboratories.--The Committee notes the increased demands on our
    military personnel, including high operational tempo, leadership and
    training challenges, new and ever-changing stresses on decision-making
    and cognitive readiness, and complex human-technology interactions. To
    help address these issues vital to our national security, the Committee
    has provided increased funding to reverse cuts to psychological
    research through the military research laboratories: the Air Force
    Office of Scientific Research and Air Force Research Laboratory; the
    Army Research Institute and Army Research Laboratory; and the Office of
    Naval Research. The Committee also notes the critical contributions of
    behavioral science to combating counter-insurgencies and understanding
    extremist ideologies, and renews its strong support for the DOD Minerva
    initiative.

        Chairman Inouye. And now I would like to proceed to the
    third panel, consisting of Dr. John C. Elkas, Mr. Richard
    ``Rick'' A. Jones, Ms. Elizabeth Cochran, and Dr. Jonathan
    Berman.
        May I recognize Dr. John C. Elkas.
    STATEMENT OF JOHN C. ELKAS, M.D., J.D., ON BEHALF OF
                THE SOCIETY OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGISTS
        Dr. Elkas. Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman, thank you for
    inviting me to testify at today's hearing.
        My name is Dr. John Elkas, and I am here on behalf of the
    Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. The SGO is a national
    medical specialty organization of physicians who are trained in
    the comprehensive care and management of women with gynecologic
    malignancies.
        I also practice medicine in the D.C. metropolitan area and
    am a commander in the United States Naval Reserve and an
    adjunct associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology for
    the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
        I spent 14 years in Active Duty service caring for women
    within the Department of Defense family with ovarian cancer,
    and I can speak personally to the impact that the OCRP is
    having on the care of military women with ovarian cancer.
        I am honored to be here and pleased that this subcommittee
    is focusing its attention on the OCRP. Since its inception now
    13 years ago, this DOD program has delivered benefits to
    ovarian cancer research that far exceed the annual level of
    Federal funding.
        As this subcommittee knows, ovarian cancer causes more
    deaths than any other gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth
    highest cause of cancer death among American women. One of our
    biggest challenges lie in the fact that only 20 percent of
    ovarian cancer is detected at an early stage, while most of our
    patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, where we heard the
    5 year survival is markedly lower.
        We, the members of the SGO, along with our patients who are
    battling this disease every day, depend on the OCRP research
    funding. It is through this type of research funding that a
    screening and early detection method for ovarian cancer can be
    identified, which will allow us to save as many as 15,000 lives
    each year in the United States.
        Since its inception in fiscal year 1997, the OCRP has
    funded 209 grants, totaling more than $140 million. Much of
    this has been accomplished with the resources that we are
    talking about today.
        In Senator Mikulski's home State of Maryland, where many of
    my patients also live, the OCRP has funded research on
    important questions such as defining bio-markers that could be
    fundamental to development of a blood test for early-stage
    disease and developing and evaluating alpha target based
    approach for also treating advanced disease.
        In Senator Murray's home State of Washington, where five
    OCRP-funded grants reside, questions such as the development of
    blood tests for new small molecules in the blood that might be
    used for detection and the examination of all women--of all of
    a woman's DNA to find new genes or groups of genes that may
    cause ovarian cancer in families.
        In Senator Feinstein's home State of California, 24 grants
    have been funded by the OCRP since the program was created in
    1997, looking at questions such as inhibiting--strategies for
    targeting and inhibiting tumor growth, identification of cancer
    stem cells.
        So, as you can see, these are just a few examples of the
    209 grants that have served as a catalyst for attracting
    outstanding researchers to the field of ovarian cancer
    research. Investigators funded by the OCRP have succeeded with
    several crucial breakthroughs in bringing us closer in both the
    prevention and early detection of ovarian cancer. Were it not
    for this, many researchers might have abandoned their hopes of
    a career in basic and translational research in ovarian cancer.
        Therefore, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists joins
    with the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance and the American
    Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to urge this
    subcommittee to increase Federal funding to a minimum of $30
    million in fiscal year 2011 for the OCRP.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Doctor.
        On a personal note, 4 years ago, I lost my wife of 57 years
    to cancer of the liver. So this matter is a matter of personal
    interest. So I can assure you this subcommittee supports it.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        I notice that the request is that we fund the program at
    $30 million. What is the current level of funding, do you
    recall?
        Dr. Elkas. $18.7 million, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Okay. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Doctor.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of John C. Elkas
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for inviting me to testify at today's hearing. My name is Dr. John
    C. Elkas, and I am Vice Chairman of the Bylaws Committee and a former
    member of the Government Relations Committee of the Society of
    Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO). I practice medicine in the D.C.-
    metropolitan area, where I am an associate clinical professor in the
    department of obstetrics and gynecology at the George Washington
    University Medical Center and in private practice in Annandale,
    Virginia. I am also a Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve and an
    adjunct associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology for the
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda,
    Maryland.
        I am honored to be here and pleased that this subcommittee is
    focusing attention on the Department of Defense (DOD) Congressionally
    Directed Medical Research Program in Ovarian Cancer (OCRP). Since its
    inception now 13 years ago, this DOD program has delivered benefits to
    ovarian cancer research that far exceed the annual level of Federal
    funding.
        This morning, I will try to outline some of the important
    contributions this DOD program has made to ovarian cancer research and
    the well-being of our patients. In fact, it is quite easy to
    demonstrate that this investment by the Federal government has resulted
    in substantial benefits and value to medicine, to science and most
    importantly improved patient care.
        As this subcommittee may know, ovarian cancer usually arises from
    the cells on the surface of the ovary and can be extremely difficult to
    detect. According to the American Cancer Society, in 2009, more than
    21,500 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and approximately
    15,000 lost their lives to this terrible disease. Ovarian cancer causes
    more deaths than all the other cancers of the female reproductive tract
    combined, and is the fourth highest cause of cancer deaths among
    American women. One of our biggest challenges lies in the fact that
    only 19 percent of all ovarian cancers are detected at a localized
    stage, when the 5-year relative survival rate approaches 93 percent.
    Unfortunately, most ovarian cancer is diagnosed at late or advanced
    stage, when the 5-year survival rate is only 31 percent.
        Nationally, biomedical research funding has grown over the last
    decade through increased funding to the National Institutes of Health,
    in no small part to the amazing efforts of members of this
    Subcommittee. Yet funding for gynecologic cancer research, especially
    for the deadliest cancer that we treat, ovarian cancer, has been
    relatively flat. Since fiscal year 2003, the funding levels for
    gynecologic cancer research and training programs at the NIH, NCI, and
    CDC have not kept pace with inflation, with the funding for ovarian
    cancer programs and research training for gynecologic oncologists
    actually suffering specific cuts in funding due to the loss of an
    ovarian cancer Specialized Project of Research Excellence (SPORE) in
    2007 that had been awarded to a partnership of DUKE and the University
    of Alabama-Birmingham. Were it not for the DOD OCRP, many researchers
    might have abandoned their hopes of a career in basic and translation
    research in ovarian cancer and our patients and the women of America
    would be waiting even longer for reliable screening tests and more
    effective therapeutic approaches.
        As a leader in the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) and as
    a gynecologic oncologist who has provided care to women affiliated with
    the United States Navy, I believe that I bring a comprehensive
    perspective to our request for increased support. The SGO is a national
    medical specialty organization of physicians who are trained in the
    comprehensive management of women with malignancies of the reproductive
    tract. Our purpose is to improve the care of women with gynecologic
    cancer by encouraging research, disseminating knowledge which will
    raise the standards of practice in the prevention and treatment of
    gynecologic malignancies and cooperating with other organizations
    interested in women's healthcare, oncology and related fields. The
    Society's membership, totaling more than 1,300, is comprised of
    gynecologic oncologists, as well as other related women's cancer
    healthcare specialists including medical oncologists, radiation
    oncologists, nurses, social workers and pathologists. SGO members
    provide multidisciplinary cancer treatment including surgery,
    chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and supportive care. More information
    on the SGO can be found at www.sgo.org.
        We, the members of the SGO, along with our patients who are
    battling ovarian cancer every day, depend on the DOD OCRP research
    funding. It is through this type of research funding that a screening
    and early detection method for ovarian cancer can be identified which
    will allow us to save many of the 15,000 lives that are lost to this
    disease each year. Therefore, the SGO respectfully recommends that this
    Subcommittee provide the DOD OCRP with a minimum of $30 million in
    Federal funding for fiscal year 2011.
    department of defense ovarian cancer research program: building an army
                         of ovarian cancer researchers
    New Investigators Join the Fight
        Since its inception in fiscal year 1997, the DOD OCRP has funded
    209 grants totaling more than $140 million in funding. The common goal
    of these research grants has been to promote innovative, integrated,
    and multidisciplinary research that will lead to prevention, early
    detection, and ultimately control of ovarian cancer. Much has been
    accomplished in the last decade to move us forward in achieving this
    goal.
        In Senator Mikulski's home state of Maryland, where many of my
    patients also live, the DOD OCRP has funded research on important
    questions such as:
      --Defining biomarkers of serous carcinoma, using molecular biologic
            and immunologic approaches, which are critical as probes for
            the etiology/pathogenesis of ovarian cancer. Identifying
            biomarkers is fundamental to the development of a blood test
            for diagnosis of early stage disease and also ovarian cancer-
            specific vaccines;
      --Developing and evaluating a targeted alpha-particle based approach
            for treating disseminated ovarian cancer. Alpha-particles are
            short-range, very potent emissions that kill cells by incurring
            damage that cannot be repaired; one to three alpha-particles
            tracking through a cell nucleus can be enough to kill a cell.
            The tumor killing potential of alpha-particles is not subject
            to the kind of resistance that is seen in chemotherapy; and
      --Understanding of the molecular genetic pathways involved in ovarian
            cancer development leading to the identification of the cancer-
            causing genes (``oncogenes'') for ovarian cancer.
        In Senator Murray's home state of Washington, the DOD OCRP has
    funded five grants in the last 5 years to either the University of
    Washington or to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center to study research
    questions regarding:
      --The usefulness of two candidate blood-based microRNA markers for
            ovarian cancer detection, and the identification of microRNAs
            produced by ovarian cancer at the earliest stages, which may
            also be the basis for future blood tests for ovarian cancer
            detection;
      --The first application of complete human genome sequencing to the
            identification of genes for inherited ovarian cancer. The
            identification of new ovarian cancer genes will allow
            prevention strategies to be extended to hundreds of families
            for which causal ovarian cancer genes are currently unknown;
            and
      --Proposed novel technology, stored serum samples, and ongoing
            clinical studies, with the intend of developing a pipeline that
            can identify biomarkers that have the greatest utility for
            women; biomarkers that identify cancer early and work well for
            the women in most need of early detection, that can immediately
            be evaluated clinically.
        One of the first, and very successful, grant recipients from the
    DOD OCRP hails from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in
    Seattle, WA, Dr. Nicole Urban. Dr. Urban has worked extensively in the
    field of ovarian cancer early detection biomarker discovery and
    validation. Her current program in translational ovarian cancer
    research was built on work funded in fiscal year 1997 by the OCRP,
    ``Use of Novel Technologies to Identify and Investigate Molecular
    Markers for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Prevention.'' Working with
    Beth Karlan, M.D. at Cedars-Sinai and Leroy Hood, Ph.D., M.D. at the
    University of Washington, she identified novel ovarian cancer
    biomarkers including HE4, Mesothelin (MSLN), and SLPI using comparative
    hybridization methods. This discovery lead to funding in 1999 from the
    National Cancer Institute (NCI) for the Pacific Ovarian Cancer Research
    Consortium (POCRC) Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE)
    in ovarian cancer.
        The DOD and NCI funding allowed her to develop resources for
    translational ovarian cancer research including collection, management,
    and allocation of tissue and blood samples from women with ovarian
    cancer, women with benign ovarian conditions, and women with healthy
    ovaries. The DOD grant provided the foundation for what is now a mature
    specimen repository that has accelerated the progress of scientists at
    many academic institutions and industry.
        In Senator Feinstein's home state of California, 24 grants have
    been funded by the DOD OCRP since the program was created in 1997 to
    study research questions such as:
      --Strategies for targeting and inhibiting a protein called focal
            adhesion kinase (FAK) that promotes tumor growth-metastasis.
            With very few viable treatment options for metastatic ovarian
            cancer, this research could lead to drug development targeting
            these types of proteins;
      --Developing a tumor-targeting drug delivery system using Nexil
            nanoparticles that selectively adhere to and are ingested by
            ovarian carcinoma cells following injection into the peritoneal
            cavity. The hypothesis for this research is that the
            selectivity of Nexil can be substantially further improved by
            attaching peptides that cause the particle to bind to the
            cancer cells and that this will further increase the
            effectiveness of intraperitoneal therapy; and
      --Using several avenues of investigation, based on our understanding
            of the biology of stem cells, to identify and isolate cancer
            stem cells from epithelial ovarian cancer. This has significant
            implications for our basic scientific understanding of ovarian
            cancer and may drastically alter treatment strategies in the
            near future. Therapies targeted at the cancer stem cells offer
            the potential for long-term cures that have eluded most
            patients with ovarian cancer.
        In Senator Hutchinson's home state of Texas, 19 grants have been
    funded since the inception of the DOD OCRP in 1997, to study research
    questions regarding:
      --Understanding the pre-treatment genomic profile of ovarian cancer
            to then isolate the predictive response of the cancer to anti-
            vasculature treatment, possibly leading to the identification
            of targets for novel anti-vasculature therapies;
      --Ovarian cancer development directly in the specific patient and her
            own tumor. While this process has lagged behind in ovarian
            cancer and improving patient outcomes, it has shown great
            promise in other solid, tumor cancers; and
      --Identifying the earliest molecular changes associated with BRCA1-
            and BRCA2-related and sporadic ovarian cancers, leading to
            biomarker identification for early detection.
        As you can see from these few examples, the 209 grants have served
    as a catalyst for attracting outstanding scientists to the field of
    ovarian cancer research. In the 4 year period of fiscal year 1998-
    fiscal year 2001 the OCRP enabled the recruitment of 29 new
    investigators into the area of ovarian cancer research.
    Federally Funding is Leveraged Through Partnerships and Collaborations
        In addition to an increase in the number of investigators, the
    dollars appropriated over the last 13 years have been leveraged through
    partnerships and collaborations to yield even greater returns, both
    here and abroad. Past-President of the SGO, Dr. Andrew Berchuck of Duke
    University Medical Center leveraged his OCRP DOD grants to form an
    international Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) that is now
    comprised of over 20 groups from all across the globe. The consortium
    meets biannually and is working together to identify and validate
    single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that affect disease risk through
    both candidate gene approaches and genome-wide association studies
    (GWAS). OCAC reported last year in Nature Genetics the results of the
    first ovarian cancer GWAS, which identified a SNP in the region of the
    BNC2 gene on chromosome 9 (Nature Genetics 2009, 41:996-1000.)
        Dr. Berchuck and his colleagues in the association envision a
    future in which reduction of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality
    will be accomplished by implementation of screening and prevention
    interventions in women at moderately increased risk. Such a focused
    approach may be more feasible than population-based approaches, given
    the relative rarity of ovarian cancer.
        The DOD OCRP program also serves the purpose of strengthening U.S.
    relationships with our allies, such as Australia, the United Kingdom,
    and Canada. Dr. Peter Bowtell, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
    in Melbourne, Australia, was awarded a fiscal year 2000 Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program (OCRP) Program Project Award to study the molecular
    epidemiology of ovarian cancer. With funds from this award, he and his
    colleagues formed the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS), a
    population-based cohort of over 2,000 women with ovarian cancer,
    including over 1,800 with invasive or borderline cancer. With a bank of
    over 1,100 fresh-frozen tumors, hundreds of formalin-fixed, paraffin-
    embedded (FFPE) blocks, and very detailed clinical follow-up, AOCS has
    enabled over 60 projects since its inception, including international
    collaborative studies in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.
    AOCS has facilitated approximately 40 publications, most of which have
    been released in the past 2 years.
        One last important example of the value of the DOD OCRP's
    contribution to science is the program's focus on inviting proposals
    from the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-
    Serving Institutions. This important effort to reach beyond established
    clinical research partnerships expands the core research infrastructure
    for these institutions which helps them to attract new investigators,
    leveraging complementary initiatives, and supporting collaborative
    ventures.
        Over the decade that the OCRP has been in existence, the 209
    grantees have used their DOD funding to establish an ovarian cancer
    research enterprise that is much greater in value than the annually
    appropriated Federal funding.
    Opportunities are Lost Because of Current Level of Federal Funding
        These examples of achievement are obscured to a great degree by
    opportunities that have been missed. At this current level of funding,
    this is only a very small portion of what the DOD OCRP program could do
    as we envision a day where through prevention, early detection, and
    better treatments, ovarian cancer is a manageable and frequently
    curable disease. Consistently, the OCRP receives over 500 letters of
    intent for the annual funding cycle. Of this group, about 50 percent
    are invited to submit full proposals. Prior to fiscal year 2009, the
    OCRP was only able to fund approximately 16 grants per year, a pay line
    of less than 7 percent. With an increase in funding to $20 million in
    fiscal year 2009, the OCRP was able to fund 22 awards. However, for
    fiscal year 2010 the program was cut by $1.25 million and so the
    possibility of the OCRP being able to fund even 20 grantees is in
    jeopardy. To provide sufficient and effective funding to enable us to
    do our jobs and create an environment where our scientific research can
    succeed, we need a minimum investment of $30 million in fiscal year
    2011.
       department of defense ovarian cancer research program: exemplary
                       execution with real world results
    Integration Panel Leads to Continuous Evaluation and Greater Focus
        By using the mechanism of an Integration Panel to provide the two-
    tier review process, the OCRP is able to reset the areas of research
    focus on an annual basis, thereby actively managing and evaluating the
    OCRP current grant portfolio. Gaps in ongoing research can be filled to
    complement initiatives sponsored by other agencies, and most
    importantly to fund high risk/high reward studies that take advantage
    of the newest scientific breakthroughs that can then be attributed to
    prevention, early detection and better treatments for ovarian cancer.
    An example of this happened in Senator Mikulski's and my home state of
    Maryland regarding the development of the OVA1 test, a blood test that
    can help physicians determine if a woman's pelvic mass is at risk for
    being malignant. The investigator, Zhen Zhang, Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins
    School of Medicine, received funding from an Idea Development Award in
    fiscal year 2003. Dr. Zhang discovered and validated five serum
    biomarkers for the early detection of ovarian cancer. This bench
    research was then translated and moved through clinical trials. The OVA
    test was approved by the FDA and is now available to clinicians for use
    in patient care.
    More Than a Decade of Scientific Success
        The program's successes have been documented in numerous ways,
    including 469 publications in professional medical journals and books;
    576 abstracts and presentations given at professional meetings; and 24
    patents, applications and licenses granted to awardees of the program.
    Investigators funded by the OCRP have succeeded with several crucial
    breakthroughs in bringing us closer to an algorithm for use in
    prevention and early detection of ovarian cancer.
        The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists joins with the Ovarian
    Cancer National Alliance and the American Congress of Obstetricians and
    Gynecologists to urge this Subcommittee to increase Federal funding at
    a minimum to $30 million in fiscal year 2011 for the OCRP. This will
    allow for the discoveries and research breakthroughs in the first
    decade of this program to be further developed and expanded upon,
    hopefully bringing us by the end of the second decade of this program
    to our ultimate goal of prevention, early detection and finally
    elimination of ovarian cancer. I thank you for your leadership and the
    leadership of the Subcommittee on this issue.

        Chairman Inouye. Now may I recognize Mr. Richard A. Jones.
    STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. JONES, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
                NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
        Mr. Jones. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, thank
    you for the opportunity to give our views on key issues under
    your consideration.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is pleased
    with certain aspects of the President's budget, specifically
    those that laser-focus on winning the wars in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Choosing to win these wars, however, should not
    mean we must depend on aging fleets of aircraft, ships, and
    vehicles across the services. We must continue toward
    modernization.
        One of the main messages our members want you to hear is
    really simple and direct. Anyone who goes into harm's way under
    the flag of the United States needs to be deployed with the
    best our Nation can provide, and we must never cut off or
    unnecessarily delay critical funding for our troops in the
    field.
        Regarding TRICARE, the provision of quality, timely
    healthcare is considered one of the most important earned
    benefits afforded to those who serve a career in the military.
    The TRICARE benefit reflects the commitment of a nation, and it
    deserves your wholehearted support. For those who give their
    career in uniformed service now asks you to provide full
    funding to secure their earned benefit.
        The administration recommends a 1.4 percent across-the-
    board pay raise. My association asks you to seek an increase of
    0.5 percent above the administration's request, to 1.9 percent.
    We should clearly recognize the risks our men and women in
    uniform face, and we should make every effort to appropriately
    compensate them for the job they do.
        My association urges you also to provide adequate funding
    for military construction and family housing accounts. These
    funds for base allowance and housing should ensure that those
    serving in our military are able to afford to live in quality
    housing whether on or off the base.
        The long war fought by an overstretched force gives us a
    clear warning. There are simply too many missions and too few
    troops. In addition to increasing troop strength, priority must
    be given to funding for accounts to reset, recapitalize, and
    renew the force. The National Guard, for example, has virtually
    depleted its equipment inventory, causing rising concern about
    its capacity to respond to disasters at home or train for the
    missions abroad.
        Regarding Walter Reed--that is a matter of great interest
    to our members as we plan to realign our health facilities in
    the Nation's capital--we need to keep Walter Reed open as long
    as it is necessary to care for those who are at Walter Reed. We
    must not close Walter Reed prematurely.
        My association encourages the subcommittee to ensure that
    funding for Defense Department's prosthetic research is
    adequate to support the full range of programs needed to meet
    current and future health challenges facing wounded veterans.
        Traumatic brain injury is the signature injury of the Iraq
    war. We call on the subcommittee to fund a full spectrum of TBI
    care and to recognize that care is also needed for patients
    suffering from mild to moderate brain injuries. The approach to
    this problem requires resources for hiring caseworkers,
    doctors, nurses, clinicians, and general caregivers if we are
    to meet the needs of those who are wounded and their families.
        Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a very serious
    psychiatric disorder. Pre-deployment and post-deployment
    checkups are very important. Early recognition of the symptoms
    can serve a great deal toward recovery. We encourage the
    members of the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, to provide these
    funds, to closely monitor their expenditure to ensure they are
    not directed to areas of other defense spending.
        The Armed Forces Retirement Homes are important to those
    who have served in the military at Washington, DC, and
    Gulfport, Mississippi. We look forward to the reopening of the
    Gulfport home in October, and we ask that you continue care for
    those programs.
        Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, thank you very much for the
    opportunity to present testimony today.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        This subcommittee, as some may be aware, has appropriated
    nearly $1 trillion in the last 10 years to support our efforts
    in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we have done so without hesitation
    because we want our men to return home in as good a condition
    as they were when they went in there.
        But this has been a costly activity, but we will keep on
    paying. So I can assure you that your recommendations will be
    seriously considered.
        Mr. Jones. We thank you for the supplemental speed--
    supplemental bill and the speed that you handled that, sir. We
    hope that the House follows your suit.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I can report that the Armed
    Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, Mississippi, is nearing
    completion of the reconstruction that has been going on, and
    they are expecting to open that home in October 2010.
        Mr. Jones. Excellent. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Inouye. We will go to the opening.
        [The statement follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Rick Jones
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to appear before you today to present
    the views of The National Association for Uniformed Services on the
    fiscal year 2011 Defense Appropriations Bill.
        My name is Rick Jones, Legislative Director of The National
    Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS). And for the record, NAUS has
    not received any Federal grant or contract during the current fiscal
    year or during the previous 2 fiscal years in relation to any of the
    subjects discussed today.
        As you know, the National Association for Uniformed Services,
    founded in 1968, represents all ranks, branches and components of
    uniformed services personnel, their spouses and survivors. The
    Association includes personnel of the active, retired, Reserve and
    National Guard, disabled veterans, veterans community and their
    families. We love our country and our flag, believe in a strong
    national defense, support our troops and honor their service.
        Mr. Chairman, the first and most important responsibility of our
    government is the protection of our citizens. As we all know, we are at
    war. That is why the defense appropriations bill is so very important.
    It is critical that we provide the resources to those who fight for our
    protection and our way of life. We need to give our courageous men and
    women everything they need to prevail. And we must recognize as well
    that we must provide priority funding to keep the promises made to the
    generations of warriors whose sacrifice has paid for today's freedom.
        Presently, we have under consideration the President's fiscal year
    2011 defense budget request of $708 billion for its discretionary and
    war funding. According to the Defense Department, this represents an
    increase of 3.4 percent from the previous year. In fact, however,
    that's about 1.8 percent real growth after inflation.
        Last year, we heard Defense Secretary Gates order the Defense
    Department to come up with $60 billion in cuts over the next 5 years.
    In fact, certain Members of Congress are calling for cuts in defense
    spending. In certain quarters of Congress, congressional leaders have
    recommended a 25 percent cut in the defense budget.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is pleased with
    certain aspects of the President's recommendation, specifically those
    that laser focus on winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Choosing
    to win these wars, however, should not mean our country must assume
    greater risk in conventional national defense challenges or neglect to
    consider the very real emerging threats of the future.
        We simply must have a strong investment in the size and capability
    of our air, land and naval forces. And we must invest in fielding new
    weapons systems today to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
        We cannot depend on aging fleets of aircraft, ships and vehicles
    across the services. We must continue to drive towards modernization
    and make available the resources we will need to meet and defeat the
    next threats to our security.
        Our nation is protected by the finest military the world has ever
    seen. The message our members want you to hear is simple and direct:
    Any one who goes into harm's way under the flag of the United States
    needs to be deployed with the best our nation can provide. We need to
    give our brave men and women everything they need to succeed. And we
    must never cut off or unnecessarily delay critical funding for our
    troops in the field.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is very proud of
    the job this generation of Americans is doing to defend America. Every
    day they risk their lives, half a world away from loved ones. Their
    daily sacrifice is done in today's voluntary force. What they do is
    vital to our security. And the debt we owe them is enormous.
        Our Association also carries concerns about a number of related
    matters. Among these is the provision of a proper healthcare for the
    military community and recognition of the funding requirements for
    TRICARE for retired military. Also, we will ask for adequate funding to
    improve the pay for members of our armed forces and to address a number
    of other challenges including TRICARE Reserve Select and the Survivor
    Benefit Plan.
        We also have a number of related priority concerns such as the
    diagnosis and care of troops returning with Post Traumatic Stress
    Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), the need for enhanced
    priority in the area of prosthetics research, and providing improved
    seamless transition for returning troops between the Department of
    Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In addition,
    we would like to ensure that adequate funds are provided to defeat
    injuries from the enemy's use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
    TRICARE and Military Quality of Life: Health Care
        Quality healthcare is a strong incentive to make military service a
    career. The provision of quality, timely care is considered one of the
    most important benefits afforded the career military. The TRICARE
    benefit, earned through a career of service in the uniformed services,
    reflects the commitment of a nation, and it deserves your wholehearted
    support.
        It should also be recognized that discussions have once again begun
    on increasing the retiree-paid costs of TRICARE earned by military
    retirees and their families. We remember the outrageous statement of
    Dr. Gail Wilensky, a co-chair of the Task Force on the Future of
    Military, calling congressional passage of TRICARE for Life ``a big
    mistake.''
        And more recently, we heard Admiral Mike Mullen, the current
    Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, call for increases in TRICARE fees.
    Mullen said, ``It's a given as far as I'm concerned.''
        Fortunately, President Obama has taken fee increases off the table
    this year in the Administration budget recommendation. However, with
    comments like these from those in leadership positions, there is little
    wonder that retirees and active duty personnel are concerned.
        Seldom has NAUS seen such a lowing in confidence about the
    direction of those who manage the program. Faith in our leadership
    continues, but it is a weakening faith. And unless something changes,
    it is bound to affect recruiting and retention, even in a down economy.
    Criminal Activity Costs Medicare and TRICARE Billions of Dollars
        Recent testimony and studies from the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the United States Congress, show
    us that at least $80 billion worth of Medicare money is being ripped
    off every year. Frankly, it demonstrates that criminal activity costs
    Medicare and TRICARE billions of dollars.
        Here are a couple of examples. GAO reports that one company billed
    Medicare for $170 million for HIV drugs. In truth, the company
    dispensed less than $1 million. In addition, the company billed $142
    million for nonexistent delivery of supplies and parts and medical
    equipment.
        In another example, fake Medicare providers billed Medicare for
    prosthetic arms on people who already have two arms. The fraud amounted
    to $1.4 billion of bills for people who do not need prosthetics.
        TRICARE is closely tied to Medicare and its operations are not
    immune. According to officials at the TRICARE Program Integrity Office,
    approximately 10 percent of all healthcare expenditures are fraudulent.
    With a military health system annual cost of $51 billion, fraudulent
    purchase of care in the military health system would amount to more
    than $5 billion.
        We need action to corral fraud and bring it to an end. What we've
    seen, however, is delay and second-hand attention with insufficient
    resources dedicated to TRICARE fraud conviction and recovery of money
    paid to medical care thieves. If one goes to the TRICARE Program
    Integrity Office web site, one sees a reflection of this inactivity.
    The most recent Fraud Report is dated 2008 and under ``News,'' there
    are two items for 2010 and no items for 2009. The question we hear
    continually is whether anything is going on except talk about raising
    fees and copays.
        As an example, NAUS is informed that the Department of Defense
    Inspector General reported fraud problems in the Philippines as long
    ago as 1998. Yet fraudulent payments continued for 7 years, untended,
    merely observed, until finally, more than a year ago, action was taken
    to curb the problem and order a Philippine corporation to pay back more
    than $100 million in fraudulent payments.
        Our members tire of hearing they should pay more when they hear
    stories about or see little evidence of our government doing anything
    but sitting on its hands, often taking little to no action for years on
    this type of criminal activity.
        NAUS urges the Subcommittee to challenge DOD and TRICARE
    authorities to put some guts behind efforts to drive fraud down and out
    of the system. If left unchecked, fraud will increasingly strip away
    resources from government programs like TRICARE. And unless Congress
    directs the Administration to take action, we all know who will be left
    holding the bag--the law-abiding retiree and family.
        We urge the Subcommittee to take the actions necessary for honoring
    our obligation to those men and women who have worn the nation's
    military uniform. Root out the corruption, fraud and waste. And confirm
    America's solemn, moral obligation to support our troops, our military
    retirees, and their families. They have kept their promise to our
    Nation, now it's time for us to keep our promise to them.
    Military Quality of Life: Pay
        For fiscal year 2011, the Administration recommends a 1.4 percent
    across-the-board pay increase for members of the Armed Forces. The
    proposal is designed, according to the Pentagon, to keep military pay
    in line with civilian wage growth.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services calls on Members of
    Congress to put our troops and their families first. Our forces are
    stretched thin, at war, yet getting the job done. We ask you to express
    the nation's gratitude for their critical service, increase basic pay
    and drill pay one-half percent above the administration's request to
    1.9 percent.
        Congress and the administration have done a good job over the
    recent past to narrow the gap between civilian-sector and military pay.
    The differential, which was as great as 14 percent in the late 1990s,
    has been reduced to just under 3 percent with the January 2010 pay
    increase.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services applauds you, Mr.
    Chairman, for the strides you have made, and we encourage you to
    continue your efforts to ensure DOD manpower policy maintains a
    compensation package that is reasonable and competitive.
        We also encourage your review of providing bonus incentives to
    entice individuals with certain needed skills into special jobs that
    help supply our manpower for critical assets. These packages can also
    attract ``old hands'' to come back into the game with their skills.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services asks you to do all
    you can to fully compensate these brave men and women for being in
    harm's way, we should clearly recognize the risks they face and make
    every effort to appropriately compensate them for the job they do.
    Military Quality of Life: Family Housing Accounts
        The National Association for Uniformed Services urges the
    Subcommittee to provide adequate funding for military construction and
    family housing accounts used by DOD to provide our service members and
    their families quality housing. The funds for base allowance and
    housing should ensure that those serving our country are able to afford
    to live in quality housing whether on or off the base. The current
    program to upgrade military housing by privatizing Defense housing
    stock is working well. We encourage continued oversight in this area to
    ensure joint military-developer activity continues to improve housing
    options. Clearly, we need to be particularly alert to this challenge as
    we implement BRAC and related rebasing changes.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services also asks special
    provision be granted the National Guard and Reserve for planning and
    design in the upgrade of facilities. Since the terrorist attacks of
    Sept. 11, 2001, our Guardsmen and reservists have witnessed an upward
    spiral in the rate of deployment and mobilization. The mission has
    clearly changed, and we must recognize that Reserve Component Forces
    account for an increasing role in our national defense and homeland
    security responsibilities. The challenge to help them keep pace is an
    obligation we owe for their vital service.
    Increase Force Readiness Funds
        The readiness of our forces is in decline. The long war fought by
    an overstretched force tells us one thing: there are simply too many
    missions and too few troops. Extended and repeated deployments are
    taking a human toll. Back-to-back deployments means, in practical
    terms, that our troops face unrealistic demands. To sustain the service
    we must recognize that an increase in troop strength is needed and it
    must be resourced.
        In addition, we ask you to give priority to funding for the
    operations and maintenance accounts where money is secured to reset,
    recapitalize and renew the force. The National Guard, for example, has
    virtually depleted its equipment inventory, causing rising concern
    about its capacity to respond to disasters at home or to train for its
    missions abroad.
        The deficiencies in the equipment available for the National Guard
    to respond to such disasters include sufficient levels of trucks,
    tractors, communication, and miscellaneous equipment. If we have
    another overwhelming storm, hurricane or, God forbid, a large-scale
    terrorist attack, our National Guard is not going to have the basic
    level of resources to do the job right.
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center
        Another matter of great interest to our members is the plan to
    realign and consolidate military health facilities in the National
    Capital Region. The proposed plan includes the realignment of all
    highly specialized and sophisticated medical services currently located
    at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, to the National
    Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, and the closing of the existing
    Walter Reed by 2011.
        While we herald the renewed review of the adequacy of our hospital
    facilities and the care and treatment of our wounded warriors that
    result from last year's news reports of deteriorating conditions at
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the National Association for Uniformed
    Services believes that Congress must continue to provide adequate
    resources for WRAMC to maintain its base operations' support and
    medical services that are required for uninterrupted care of our
    catastrophically wounded soldiers and marines as they move through this
    premier medical center.
        We request that funds be in place to ensure that Walter Reed
    remains open, fully operational and fully functional, until the planned
    facilities at Bethesda or Fort Belvoir are in place and ready to give
    appropriate care and treatment to the men and women wounded in armed
    service.
        Our wounded warriors deserve our nation's best, most compassionate
    healthcare and quality treatment system. They earned it the hard way.
    And with application of the proper resources, we know the nation will
    continue to hold the well being of soldiers and their families as our
    number one priority.
    Department of Defense, Seamless Transition Between the DOD and VA
        The development of electronic medical records remains a major goal.
    It is our view that providing a seamless transition for recently
    discharged military is especially important for servicemembers leaving
    the military for medical reasons related to combat, particularly for
    the most severely injured patients.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is pleased to
    receive the support of President Obama and the forward movement of
    Secretaries Gates and Shinseki toward this long-supported goal of
    providing a comprehensive e-health record.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services calls on the
    Appropriations Committee to continue the push for DOD and VA to follow
    through on establishing a bi-directional, interoperable electronic
    medical record. Since 1982, these two departments have been working on
    sharing critical medical records, yet to date neither has effectively
    come together in coordination with the other.
        Taking care of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is a national
    obligation, and doing it right sends a strong signal to those currently
    in military service as well as to those thinking about joining the
    military.
        DOD must be directed to adopt electronic architecture including
    software, data standards and data repositories that are compatible with
    the system used at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It makes
    absolute sense and it would lower costs for both organizations.
        If our seriously wounded troops are to receive the care they
    deserve, the departments must do what is necessary to establish a
    system that allows seamless transition of medical records. It is
    essential if our nation is to ensure that all troops receive timely,
    quality healthcare and other benefits earned in military service.
        To improve the DOD/VA exchange, the transfer should include a
    detailed history of care provided and an assessment of what each
    patient may require in the future, including mental health services. No
    veteran leaving military service should fall through the bureaucratic
    cracks.
    Defense Department Force Protection
        The National Association for Uniformed Services urges the
    Subcommittee to provide adequate funding to rapidly deploy and acquire
    the full range of force protection capabilities for deployed forces.
    This would include resources for up-armored high mobility multipurpose
    wheeled vehicles and add-on ballistic protection to provide force
    protection for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, ensure increased
    activity for joint research and treatment effort to treat combat blast
    injuries resulting from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rocket
    propelled grenades, and other attacks; and facilitate the early
    deployment of new technology, equipment, and tactics to counter the
    threat of IEDs.
        We ask special consideration be given to counter IEDs, defined as
    makeshift or ``homemade'' bombs, often used by enemy forces to destroy
    military convoys and currently the leading cause of casualties to
    troops deployed in Iraq. These devices are the weapon of choice and,
    unfortunately, a very effective weapon used by our enemy. The Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is established
    to coordinate efforts that would help eliminate the threat posed by
    these IEDs. We urge efforts to advance investment in technology to
    counteract radio-controlled devices used to detonate these killers.
    Maintaining support is required to stay ahead of our enemy and to
    decrease casualties caused by IEDs.
    Defense Health Program--TRICARE Reserve Select
        Mr. Chairman, another area that requires attention is reservist
    participation in TRICARE. As we are all aware, National Guard and
    Reserve personnel have seen an upward spiral of mobilization and
    deployment since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The mission
    has changed and with it our reliance on these forces has risen.
    Congress has recognized these changes and begun to update and upgrade
    protections and benefits for those called away from family, home and
    employment to active duty. We urge your commitment to these troops to
    ensure that the long overdue changes made in the provision of their
    heath care and related benefits is adequately resourced. We are one
    force, all bearing a critical share of the load.
    Department of Defense, Prosthetic Research
        Clearly, care for our troops with limb loss is a matter of national
    concern. The global war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan has
    produced wounded soldiers with multiple amputations and limb loss who
    in previous conflicts would have died from their injuries. Improved
    body armor and better advances in battlefield medicine reduce the
    number of fatalities, however injured soldiers are coming back
    oftentimes with severe, devastating physical losses.
        In order to help meet the challenge, Defense Department research
    must be adequately funded to continue its critical focus on treatment
    of troops surviving this war with grievous injuries. The research
    program also requires funding for continued development of advanced
    prosthesis that will focus on the use of prosthetics with
    microprocessors that will perform more like the natural limb.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services encourages the
    Subcommittee to ensure that funding for Defense Department's prosthetic
    research is adequate to support the full range of programs needed to
    meet current and future health challenges facing wounded veterans. To
    meet the situation, the Subcommittee needs to focus a substantial,
    dedicated funding stream on Defense Department research to address the
    care needs of a growing number of casualties who require specialized
    treatment and rehabilitation that result from their armed service.
        We would also like to see better coordination between the
    Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs in the development of prosthetics that
    are readily adaptable to aid amputees.
    Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
        The National Association for Uniformed Services supports a higher
    priority on Defense Department care of troops demonstrating symptoms of
    mental health disorders and traumatic brain injury.
        It is said that Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is the signature
    injury of the Iraq war. Blast injuries often cause permanent damage to
    brain tissue. Veterans with severe TBI will require extensive
    rehabilitation and medical and clinical support, including neurological
    and psychiatric services with physical and psycho-social therapies.
        We call on the Subcommittee to fund a full spectrum of TBI care and
    to recognize that care is also needed for patients suffering from mild
    to moderate brain injuries, as well. The approach to this problem
    requires resources for hiring caseworkers, doctors, nurses, clinicians
    and general caregivers if we are to meet the needs of these men and
    women and their families.
        The mental condition known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
    has been well known for over 100 years under an assortment of different
    names. For example more than 60 years ago, Army psychiatrists reported,
    ``That each moment of combat imposes a strain so great that . . .
    psychiatric casualties are as inevitable as gunshot and shrapnel wounds
    in warfare.''
        PTSD is a serious psychiatric disorder. While the government has
    demonstrated over the past several years a higher level of attention to
    those military personnel who exhibit PTSD symptoms, more should be done
    to assist service members found to be at risk.
        Pre-deployment and post-deployment medicine is very important. Our
    legacy of the Gulf War demonstrates the concept that we need to
    understand the health of our service members as a continuum, from pre-
    to post-deployment.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services applauds the extent
    of help provided by the Defense Department, however, we encourage that
    more resources be made available to assist. Early recognition of the
    symptoms and proactive programs are essential to help many of those who
    must deal with the debilitating effects of mental injuries, as
    inevitable in combat as gunshot and shrapnel wounds.
        We encourage the Members of the Subcommittee to provide these
    funds, to closely monitor their expenditure and to see they are not
    redirected to other areas of defense spending.
    Armed Forces Retirement Home
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is pleased to note
    the Subcommittee's continued interest in providing funds for the Armed
    Forces Retirement Home (AFRH). We urge the Subcommittee to meet the
    challenge in providing adequate funding for the facility in Washington,
    DC, and Gulfport, Mississippi.
        And we thank the Subcommittee for the provision of funding that has
    led to the reconstruction of the Armed Forces Retirement Home in
    Gulfport, destroyed in 2005 as a result of Hurricane Katrina. And we
    look forward to the opening of the home scheduled for October 2010.
    NAUS is informed that when completed (the construction is 96 percent
    done, May 2010), the facility will provide independent living, assisted
    living and long-term care to more than 500 residents.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services also applauds the
    recognition of the Washington AFRH as a historic national treasure. And
    we look forward to working with the Subcommittee to continue providing
    a residence for and quality-of-life enhancements to these deserving
    veterans. We ask that continued care and attention be given to the
    mixed-use development to the property's southern end, as approved.
        The AFRH home is a historic national treasure, and we thank
    Congress for its oversight of this gentle program and its work to
    provide for a world-class care for military retirees.
    Improved Medicine with Less Cost at Military Treatment Facilities
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is also seriously
    concerned over the consistent push to have Military Health System
    beneficiaries age of 65 and over moved into the civilian sector from
    military care. That is a very serious problem for the Graduate Medical
    Education (GME) programs in the MHS; the patients over 65 are required
    for sound GME programs, which, in turn, ensure that the military can
    retain the appropriate number of physicians who are board certified in
    their specialties.
        TRICARE/HA policies are pushing these patients out of military
    facilities and into the private sector where the cost per patient is at
    least twice as expensive as that provided within Military Treatment
    Facilities (MTFs). We understand that there are many retirees and their
    families who must use the private sector due to the distance from the
    closest MTF; however, where possible, it is best for the patients
    themselves, GME, medical readiness, and the minimizing the cost of
    TRICARE premiums if as many non-active duty beneficiaries are taken
    care of within the MTFs. As more and more MHS beneficiaries are pushed
    into the private sector, the cost of the MHS rises. The MHS can provide
    better medicine, more appreciated service and do it at improved medical
    readiness and less cost to the taxpayers.
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
        As you know, the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences (USUHS) is the nation's Federal school of medicine and
    graduate school of nursing. The medical students are all active-duty
    uniformed officers in the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Public Health
    Service who are being educated to deal with wartime casualties,
    national disasters, emerging diseases and other public health
    emergencies.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services supports the USUHS
    and requests adequate funding be provided to ensure continued
    accredited training, especially in the area of chemical, biological,
    radiological and nuclear response. In this regard, it is our
    understanding that USUHS requires funding for training and educational
    focus on biological threats and incidents for military, civilian,
    uniformed first responders and healthcare providers across the nation.
    Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC)
        We also want the fullest accounting of our missing servicemen and
    ask for your support in DOD dedicated efforts to find and identify
    remains. It is a duty we owe to the families of those still missing as
    well as to those who served or who currently serve.
        NAUS supports the fullest possible accounting of our missing
    servicemen. It is a duty we owe the families, to ensure that those who
    wear our country's uniform are never abandoned. We request that
    appropriate funds be provided to support the JPAC mission for fiscal
    year 2011.
    Appreciation for the Opportunity to Testify
        As a staunch advocate for our uniformed service men and women, The
    National Association for Uniformed Services recognizes that these brave
    men and women did not fail us in their service to country, and we, in
    turn, must not fail them in providing the benefits and services they
    earned through honorable military service.
        Mr. Chairman, The National Association for Uniformed Services
    appreciates the Subcommittee's hard work. We ask that you continue to
    work in good faith to put the dollars where they are most needed: in
    strengthening our national defense, ensuring troop protection,
    compensating those who serve, providing for DOD medical services
    including TRICARE, and building adequate housing for military troops
    and their families, and in the related defense matters discussed today.
    These are some of our nation's highest priority needs and we ask that
    they be given the level of attention they deserve.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is confident you
    will take special care of our nation's greatest assets: the men and
    women who serve and have served in uniform. We are proud of the service
    they give to America every day. They are vital to our defense and
    national security. The price we pay as a nation for their earned
    benefits is a continuing cost of war, and it will never cost more nor
    equal the value of their service.
        Again, the National Association for Uniformed Services deeply
    appreciates the opportunity to present the Association's views on the
    issues before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

        Chairman Inouye. Next witness, Ms. Elizabeth Cochran. Ms.
    Cochran.
    STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH COCHRAN, SECRETARY, ASSOCIATIONS
                FOR AMERICA'S DEFENSE
        Ms. Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman of the subcommittee, the
    Associations for America's Defense is very grateful to testify
    today. We would like to thank the subcommittee for its
    stewardship on defense issues and setting an example of your
    nonpartisan leadership.
        The Associations for America's Defense is concerned that
    U.S. defense policy is sacrificing future security for near-
    term readiness. Most concerning is the vigorous pursuit to cut
    existing programs.
        Admiral Mike Mullen stated during his testimony before the
    House Armed Services Committee in February that as fiscal
    pressures increase, our ability to build future weapons systems
    will be impacted by decreasing modernization budgets, as well
    as mergers and acquisitions.
        A4AD is in agreement, and we are alarmed about the fiscal
    year 2011 unfunded program list submitted by the services,
    which continues on fiscal year 2010's list, which was 87
    percent lower than 2009's. We are more concerned that unfunded
    requests continue to be driven by budgetary factors more than
    risk assessment, which will impact national security.
        Additionally, the result of such budgetary policy could
    again lead to a hollow force whose readiness and effectiveness
    has been subsequently degraded, and lessened efficiency may not
    be immediately evident. We support increasing defense spending
    to 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product during times of war
    to cover procurement and prevent unnecessary personnel end
    strength cuts.
        According to the Office of Management and Budget, base
    defense spending will stay relatively flat for the next 5
    years. We disagree with placing such constraints on defense
    because it could lead to readiness and effectiveness being
    degraded.
        As always, our military will do everything possible to
    accomplish its missions, but response time is measured by
    equipment readiness. Last year, due to DOD's tactical aircraft
    acquisition programs being blunted by cost and schedule
    overruns, the Air Force offered to retire 250 fighter jets,
    which the Secretary of Defense accepted.
        Until new systems are acquired in sufficient quantities to
    replace legacy fleets, these legacy systems must be sustained.
    As the military continues to become more expeditionary, more
    airlift C-17 and C-130Js will be required. Yet DOD has decided
    to shut down production of C-17s.
        Procurement needs to be accelerated, modernized, and
    mobility requirements need to be reported upon. The need for
    air refueling is utilized worldwide in DOD operations, but
    significant numbers of tankers are old and plagued with
    structural problems. The Air Force would like to retire as many
    as 131 of the Eisenhower-era KC-135E tankers by the end of the
    decade. These aircraft must be replaced.
        We also thank this subcommittee to continue to provide its
    appropriations for the National Guard and Reserve equipment
    requirements. The National Guard's goal is to make at least
    one-half the Army and Air's assets available to Governors and
    adjunct generals at any given time. Appropriating funds for the
    Guard and Reserve equipment provides Reserve chiefs and Guard
    directors with flexibility of prioritizing funding.
        Earlier this month, a sustainable defense task force
    released the report ``Debt, Deficits, and Defense: A Way
    Forward.'' We are distressed that it recommends cutting up to
    $443 billion for conventional forces, canceling several
    programs including the MV-22 Osprey, the expeditionary fighting
    vehicle, Air Force and Marine Corps F-35, reducing the size of
    the Navy to 230 ships, 8 air wings, and cutting up to 200,000
    military personnel.
        Another very worrisome aspect is the recommendation to
    revert the Reserve components back to a strategic reserve
    strictly. National security demands both an operational and a
    strategic reserve. When at war, there is an outstanding threat,
    and it is not time for a peace dividend.
        A4AD members are very concerned about planned cuts as
    proposed by DOD and this task force. We generally appreciate
    the support of the subcommittee, particularly at a time when
    there is growing pressure from other members to cut further
    programs.
        Once again, we thank you for your ongoing support of the
    Nation, the armed forces, and our fine men and women serving
    this Nation. Please contact us with any questions.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Ms. Cochran.
        An association of this nature, we would expect that a four-
    star general testify. But you have done a good job.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for looking carefully
    at all aspects of the budget requests submitted by the
    administration. I think your testimony will be very helpful to
    the subcommittee as we continue our deliberations.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Cochran
                       associations for america's defense
        Founded in January of 2002, the Association for America's Defense
    (A4AD) is an adhoc group of Military and Veteran Associations that have
    concerns about National Security issues that are not normally addressed
    by The Military Coalition (TMC) and the National Military Veterans
    Alliance (NMVA), but participants are members from each. Members have
    developed expertise in the various branches of the Armed Forces and
    provide input on force policy and structure. Among the issues that are
    addressed are equipment, end strength, force structure, and defense
    policy. A4AD, also, cooperatively works with other associations, who
    provide input while not including their association name to the
    membership roster.
        Participating Associations: Air Force Association; Army and Navy
    Union; Association of the U.S. Navy; Enlisted Assoc. of the National
    Guard of the U.S.; Marine Corps Reserve Association; Military Order of
    World Wars; National Assoc. for Uniformed Services; Naval Enlisted
    Reserve Association; Reserve Enlisted Association; Reserve Officers
    Association; The Flag and General Officers' Network; and The Retired
    Enlisted Association.
                                  introduction
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, the
    Associations for America's Defense (A4AD) is again very grateful for
    the invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
    concerning current and future issues facing the defense appropriations.
        The Association for America's Defense is an adhoc group of twelve
    military and veteran associations that have concerns about national
    security issues. Collectively, we represent armed forces members and
    their families, who are serving our nation, or who have done so in the
    past.
                  current versus future: issues facing defense
        The Associations for America's Defense would like to thank this
    subcommittee for the ongoing stewardship that it has demonstrated on
    issues of defense. While in a time of war, this subcommittee's pro-
    defense and non-partisan leadership continues to set an example.
    Force Structure: Erosion in Capability
        The Obama Administration's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
    advances two objectives: further rebalance the Armed Force's
    capabilities to prevail in today's wars while building needed
    capabilities to deal with future threats; and second, reform the
    Department of Defense's (DOD) institutions and processes to better
    support warfighters' urgent needs; purchase weapons that are usable,
    affordable, and needed; and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent
    wisely and responsibly. The new QDR calls for DOD to continually evolve
    and adapt in response to the changing security environment.
        During his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee
    (HASC) in February, Admiral Mike Mullen stated, ``. . . I am growing
    concerned about our defense industrial base, particularly in ship
    building and space. As fiscal pressures increase, our ability to build
    future weapon systems will be impacted by decreasing modernization
    budgets as well as mergers and acquisitions.''
        In 2009 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified before the
    Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) that the United States should
    focus on the wars that we are fighting today, not on future wars that
    may never occur. He also asserts that U.S. conventional capabilities
    will remain superior for another 15 years. Anthony Cordesman, a
    national security expert for the Center for Strategic and International
    Studies, says that Gates' plan should be viewed as a set of short-term
    fixes aimed at helping ``a serious cost containment problem,'' not a
    new national security policy.
        War planners are often accused of planning for the last war.
    Secretary Gates speaks to enhancing the capabilities of fighting
    today's wars. A concern arises on whether DOD's focus should be on
    irregular or conventional warfare, and whether it should be preparing
    for a full scale ``peer'' war.
    Hollow Force
        A4AD could not disagree more by placing such budgetary constraints
    on defense. Member associations question the spending priorities of the
    current administration. ``Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal
    largesse for everything else,'' commented then ranking member John
    McHugh at a HASC hearing on the defense budget in May 2009.
        The result of such a budgetary policy could again lead to a hollow
    force whose readiness and effectiveness has been subtly degraded and
    lessened efficiency will not be immediately evident. This process which
    echoes of the past, raises no red flags and sounds no alarms, and the
    damage can go unnoticed and unremedied until a crisis arises
    highlighting how much readiness decayed.
    Emergent Risks
        Members of this group are concerned that U.S. defense policy is
    sacrificing future security for near term readiness. Our efforts are so
    focused to provide security and stabilization in Afghanistan and
    withdrawing from Iraq, that risk is being accepted as an element of
    future force planning. Force planning is being driven by current
    overseas contingency operations, and increasingly on budget
    limitations. Careful study is needed to make the right choice. A4AD is
    pleased that Congress and this subcommittee continue oversight in these
    decisions.
        What seems to be overlooked is that the United States is involved
    in a Cold War as well as a Hot War with two theaters as well as varying
    issues in the Middle East, North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran which
    are growing areas of risk.
    Korean Peninsula
        Provocatively, North Korea successfully tested a nuclear weapon at
    full yield, unilaterally withdrew from that 1953 armistice. The
    Republic of Korea lost a navy ship sunk to a torpedo. South Korean and
    U.S. troops have been put on the highest alert level in years.
        North Korea has 1.2 million troops, with 655,000 South Korean
    soldiers and 28,500 U.S. troops stationed to the South. While not an
    immediate danger to the United States, North Korea is viewed as an
    increased threat to its neighbors, and is potentially a destabilizing
    factor in Asia. North Korea may be posturing, but it is still a failed
    state, where misinterpretation clouded by hubris could start a war. The
    North has prepositioned and could fire up to 250,000 rounds of heavy
    artillery in the first 48 hours of a war along the border and into
    Seoul.
    China
        China's armed forces are the largest in the world and have
    undergone double-digit increases in military spending since the early
    90s. DOD has reported that China's actual spending on its military is
    up to 250 percent higher than figures reported by the Chinese
    government, and their cost of materials and labor is much lower. In
    2009, China's defense budget increased by almost 15 percent and further
    increased about 7.5 percent for 2010. DOD's 2009 report to Congress on
    China's military strength estimated in 2008 that its spending ranged
    from $105 and $150 billion, the second highest in the world after the
    United States. It should be noted that these dollars go further within
    the Chinese economy as well.
        China's build-up of sea and air military power appears aimed at the
    United States, according to Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff. Furthermore China is reluctant to support
    international efforts in reproaching North Korea, which recently as
    evidenced by the sunk South Korean naval vessel.
        The U.S. military strategy cannot be held hostage by international
    debts. While China is the biggest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries
    with $895.2 billion at the end of March, we cannot be lulled into a
    sense of complacency.
    Russia
        While the Obama Administration has been working on a ``reset''
    policy towards Russia, including a new START treaty, there are areas of
    concern. A distressing issue is their relationship with Iran which the
    United States and even the United Nations have brought sanctions
    against. Additionally Russia sells arms to countries like Syria and
    Venezuela that also have ties to Iran.
        Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated recently that, ``Despite the
    difficult environment in which we are today, we still found a way to
    not only maintain but also increase the total amount of state defense
    order.'' Russia's defense budget rose by 34 percent in 2009, as
    reported by the International Institute of Strategic Study in an annual
    report.
    Iran
        While Iran lobs petulant rhetoric towards the United States, the
    real international tension is between Israel and Iran. Israel views
    Tehran's atomic work as a threat, and would consider military action
    against Iran as it has threatened to ``eliminate Israel.'' Israeli
    leadership has warned Iran that any attack on Israel would result in
    the ``destruction of the Iranian nation.'' Israel is believed to have
    between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads with a megaton capacity.
    Funding for the Future
        Since Secretary Gates initiated the practice of reviewing all the
    services' unfunded requirements lists prior to testifying before
    Congress the result has been in fiscal restraint. The unfunded lists
    have shown a dramatic reduction from $33.3 billion for fiscal year 2008
    and $31 billion for fiscal year 2009 to $3.8 billion for fiscal year
    2010 and $2.6 billion for fiscal year 2011. Most notable is that the
    Air Force in prior years represented about 50 percent of the total
    unfunded requirements list and is now proportionate to the other
    services.
        In 2009 Secretary Gates told SASC, ``It is simply not reasonable to
    expect the defense budget to continue increasing at the same rate it
    has over the last number of years.'' He went further saying, ``We
    should be able to secure our nation with a base budget of more than
    half a trillion dollars.'' Following through on these statements the
    Secretary has instituted a plan to save $100 billion over 5 years. Two-
    thirds of the savings are supposed to come from decreasing overhead and
    one-third from cuts in weapons systems and force structure, meaning
    less people. For the 2012 budget, the military services and defense
    agencies have been asked to find $7 billion in savings.
        These impending cuts are in addition to weapon systems cuts from
    last year which amounted to about $300 billion. Despite the great need
    to manage budgets in light of the financial situation that the United
    States faces, we are still conducting two theaters in a war, and should
    be prepared to fight if another threat challenges U.S. National
    Security.
    Defense as a Factor of GDP
        Secretary Gates has warned that each defense budget decision is
    ``zero sum,'' providing money for one program will take money away from
    another. A4AD encourages the appropriations subcommittee on defense to
    scrutinize the recommended spending amount for defense. Each member
    association supports increasing defense spending to 5 percent of Gross
    Domestic Product during times of war to cover procurement and prevent
    unnecessary personnel end strength cuts.
    A Changing Manpower Structure
        The 2010 QDR recommends incremental reductions in force structure
    shrinking the fleet to about 250 to 260 ships, reducing the number of
    active Army brigade combat teams to 45 and Air Force tactical fighter
    wings to 17, while maintaining the 202,100 Marine Corps active manpower
    level. The Heritage Foundation projects there will be a 5 percent
    decrease in manpower over the next 5 years.
        A4AD supports a moratorium on further cuts including the National
    Guard and other military Reserve. We further suggest that a Zero Based
    Review (ZBR) be performed to evaluate the current manning requirements.
    Additionally, as the active force is cut, these manpower and equipment
    assets should remain in the Reserve Components.
    Maintaining a Surge Capability
        The Armed Forces need to provide critical surge capacity for
    homeland security, domestic and expeditionary support to national
    security and defense, and response to domestic disasters, both natural
    and man-made that goes beyond operational forces. A strategic surge
    construct includes manpower, airlift and air refueling, sealift
    inventory, logistics, and communications to provide a surge-to-demand
    operation. This requires funding for training, equipping and
    maintenance of a mission-ready strategic reserve composed of active and
    reserve units. An additional requirement is excess infrastructure which
    would permit the housing of additional forces that are called-up beyond
    the normal operational force.
    Dependence on Foreign Partnership
        Part of the U.S. military strategy is to rely on long-term
    alliances to augment U.S. forces. As stated in a DOD progress report.
    ``Our strategy emphasizes the capacities of a broad spectrum of
    partners . . . We must also seek to strengthen the resiliency of the
    international system . . . helping others to police themselves and
    their regions.'' The fiscal year 2011 budget request included an
    increase from $350 to $500 million for the Global Train and Equip
    authority that helps build capabilities of key partners.
        The risk of basing a national security policy on foreign interests
    and good world citizenship is increasingly uncertain because the United
    States does not necessarily control our foreign partners as their
    national objectives can differ from our own. Alliances should be viewed
    as a tool and a force multiplier, but not the foundation of National
    Security.
                             unfunded requirements
        The fiscal year 2011 Unfunded Program Lists submitted by the
    military services to Congress continued in fiscal year 2010's steps,
    which was 87 percent less than was requested for fiscal year 2009. A4AD
    has concerns that the unfunded requests continue to be driven more by
    budgetary factors than risk assessment which will impact national
    security. The following are lists submitted by A4AD including
    additional non-funded recommendations.
    Tactical Aircraft
        DOD's efforts to recapitalize and modernize its tactical air forces
    have been blunted by cost and schedule overruns in its new tactical
    aircraft acquisition programs. For fiscal year 2010 the Air Force
    offered a plan to retire 250 fighter jets in one year alone, which
    Secretary Gates accepted.
        Yet the HASC observed after approving Navy and Marine Corps
    procurement, and research and development programs in May, that it's
    concerned about the unacceptable deficit of approximately 250 tactical
    aircraft by 2017, warning future budget requests must address this.
        Until new systems are acquired in sufficient quantities to replace
    legacy fleets, legacy systems must be sustained and kept operationally
    relevant. The risk of the older aircraft and their crews and support
    personnel being eliminated before the new aircraft are on line could
    result in a significant security shortfall.
    Airlift
        Hundreds of thousands of hours have been flown, and millions of
    passengers and tons of cargo have been airlifted. Their contributions
    in moving cargo and passengers are absolutely indispensable to American
    warfighters in overseas contingencies. Both Air Force and Naval
    airframes and air crew are being stressed by these lift missions. As
    the military continues to become more expeditionary it will require
    more airlift. Procurement needs to be accelerated and modernized, and
    mobility requirements need to be reported upon.
        While DOD has decided to shut down production of C-17s, existing C-
    17s are being worn out at a higher rate than anticipated. Congress
    should independently examine actual airlift needs, and plan for C-17
    modernization, a possible follow-on procurement. Given the C-5's
    advanced age, it makes more sense to retire the oldest and most worn of
    these planes and use the upgrade funds to buy more C-5s and modernize
    current C-5 aircraft. DOD should also continue with a joint multi-year
    procurement of C-130Js.
        The Navy and Marine Corps need C-40A replacements for the C-9B
    aircraft; only nine C-40s have been ordered since 1997 to replace 29 C-
    9Bs. The Navy requires Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift. The C-40A,
    a derivative of the 737-700C a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    certified, while the aging C-9 fleet is not compliant with either
    future global navigation requirements or noise abatement standards that
    restrict flights into European airfields.
        The Air Force-Navy-Marine Corps fighter inventory will decline
    steadily from 3,264 airframes in fiscal year 2011 to 2,883 in fiscal
    year 2018, at which point the air fleet is supposed to have a slow
    increase.
    Tankers
        The need for air refueling is reconfirmed on a daily basis in
    worldwide DOD operations. A significant number of tankers are old and
    plagued with structural problems. The Air Force would like to retire as
    many as 131 of the Eisenhower-era KC-135E tankers by the end of the
    decade.
        DOD and Congress must work together to replace of these aircraft. A
    contract needs to be offered. A4AD thanks this committee for its
    ongoing support to resolve this issue.
    NGREA
        A4AD asks this committee to continue to provide appropriations for
    unfunded National Guard and Reserve Equipment Requirements. The
    National Guard's goal is to make at least half of Army and Air assets
    (personnel and equipment) available to the Governors and Adjutants
    General at any given time. To appropriate funds to Guard and Reserve
    equipment provides Reserve Chiefs with a flexibility of prioritizing
    funding.

                         UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
               [The services and lists are not in priority order.]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amounts in
                                                                   millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Air Force:
        C-130 Aircraft Armor (79)..............................        $15.8
        C-130 NVIS Windows (64)................................          1
        C-130 Crash Resistant Loadmaster Seat Modifications             19
         (76)..................................................
        C-17 Armor Refurbishment and Replacement (17)..........          2
    Air Force Submitted Requirements:
        Weapons System Sustainment: Programmed Depot                   337.2
         Maintenance (PDMs), High Velocity Maintenance (HVM),
         Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)/Scheduled
         Structural Inspections (SSI), and engine overhauls
         [ANG & AFR included]..................................
        Theater Posture: contract maintenance of Base                   70
         Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR)/War Readiness
         Material assets; procure Fuels Operational Readiness
         Capability equipment (FORCE) sets, fuel bladders/
         liners................................................
        DCGS Integrated C3 PED System..........................         55
        Battlefield Airmen Equipment/JTAC Modeling & Simulation         28.7
        Vehicle & Support Equipment Procurement................         57.1
    Air Force Reserve (USAFR):
        LITENING Targeting pod (19)............................         24
        C-130 Secure Line of Sight/Beynold Line of Sight (SLOS/         22.1
         BLOS) (63)............................................
        AFRC ATP Procurement & Spiral Upgrade (54).............         54
        C-130 Aircraft Armor (79)..............................         15.8
        C-130 Crash Resistant Loadmaster Seats (76)............         19
        F-16 All WX A-G Precision Self-Targeting Capability            120
         (54)..................................................
        A-10 On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) (54)....         11.1
    Air National Guard (USANG):
        F-15 Digital Video Recorder (DVR) (upgrades to ANG F-15          7
         aircraft).............................................
        C-37B (Gulf Stream) aircraft (4).......................        256
        USANG requires at Andrews AFB to replace the aging C-        1,000
         38A fleet C-17 (5 minimum)............................
        Requirement identified by NGAUS, EANGUS, AGAUS, and
         ROA:
            Security Forces Tactical Vehicles:
                HMMWVs (1,700).................................        170
                LTMVs (500)....................................        100
            Upgraded Personal Protective Equipment:
                IOTVs (4,600)..................................          3.1
                ESAPI Plates (9,200)...........................          7.5
                Concealable Body Armor (8,800).................          4.4
        Air Refueling Tanker replacements......................    ( \1\ )
    Army Submitted Requirements:
        Line of Communication Bridge (LOCB)....................         15
        Light Weight Counter-Mortar Radar (LCMR)...............         47.1
        NAVSTAR GPS: Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR)......         51.2
        Civil Affairs/Psychological Operations (CA/Psy Ops)....         55
        Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)          16.2
         Forward Entry Devices.................................
        Patriot................................................        133.6
        Test 7 Evaluation Instrumentation......................         17.7
        Army Test Range Infrastructure.........................         22.9
    Army Reserve (USAR):
        Helicopter, Attack AH-64D (3)..........................         75.5
        MTV 5 Ton Cargo Truck, M108s (448).....................         57.4
        LMTV 2.5 Ton Cargo Truck, M1079 (23)...................          3.7
        HMMWVs (humvees), ARMT Carrier, M1025 (1,037)..........         78
        Night Vision Goggles, AN/PVX-7B (7,740)................         28
        Weapons:
            Machine Gun, 7.62MM, M240B (3,445).................         20.6
            Carbine Rifle, 5.56MM, M4 (6,441)..................          3.7
        Next Generation of Loudspeaker System (NGLS) Manpak,            86.7
         NGLS Vehicle (1,344)..................................
    Army National Guard (USARNG):
        ATLAS (All Terrain Lifter-Army System and II), Truck             4.3
         Lift..................................................
        Chemical Decontamination (JSTDS-SS, CBPS)..............         11
        Radios, COTS Tactical Radios...........................         10
        FMTV (Truck tractor: MTV W/E, Truck Van: Expansible MTV        507
         W/E)..................................................
        Joint Assault Bridge (Carrier Bridge Launching: Joint           35
         Assault XM1074).......................................
    Navy Submitted Requirements:
        Aviation Spares: T/M/S, Fleet aircraft.................        423
        Ship Depot Maintenance: deferred surface ship non-              35
         docking availabilities................................
        Aviation Depot Maintenance: deferred airframes/engines.         74
    Navy Reserve (USNR):
        C-40A Combo cargo/passenger airlift aircraft (5).......         75
        EA-18G, Growler (2) Additional 3 Growlers will be              142.8
         needed in fiscal year 2012............................
        Navy Expeditionary Combat Command......................         20
        MPF Utility Boat (3)...................................          3
    Marine Corps Submitted Requirements:
        CH-53 Reliability Improvements.........................         34
        Warfighter Equipment: KC-130J, UC-35ER, UC-12W.........        168
        Readiness: M88A2 Improved Recovery Vehicle, Mine Roller        131
         System, Assault Breacher Vehicle, Family of Field
         Medical Equipment.....................................
        Modernization of Child Development Center..............         18
    Marine Forces Reserves (MFR):
        KC-130J Super Hercules Aircraft tankers (4)............        200
        Light Armored Vehicles (LAV)...........................          1.5
        Training Allowance (T/A) Shortfalls (To provide most up        145
         to date Individual Combat & Protective Equipment: M4
         rifles, Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) scopes, Light weight
         helmets, Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plates,
         Modular Tactical Vests, Flame Resistant)..............
        Logistics Vehicle Replacement System Cargo.............    ( \1\ )
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Unkown.Note: A4AD recommends further investment in the DDG 1000 or a similar
      concept. This vessel was designed to allow expansion for future
      systems and technology. Any new construction should permit maximized
      modernization. Restarting procurement of the DDG 51 (Arleigh Burke)
      class Aegis destroyers limit the Navy with a 35 year old hull design,
      which requires 350 people to crew. While higher costs are cited,
      Congress should find ways to reduce shipbuilding, maintenance and
      manpower cost, rather than constrain technology.

    Reserve Components (RCs)
        The National Guard Bureau has stated that the aggregate equipment
    shortage for the RCs is about $45 billion. Common challenges for the
    RCs are ensuring that equipment is available for pre-mobilization
    training, transparency of equipment procurement and distribution, and
    maintenance.
        One of USANG's top issues is modernizing legacy aircraft and other
    weapon systems for dual missions and combat deployments.
        USARNG equipment challenges include, but aren't limited to
    modernizing both the helicopter and Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV)
    fleets, and interoperability with the active component. Additionally
    while the ARNG's total equipment on hand (EOH) is 77 percent, there's
    only 62 percent of the authorized equipment in the continental United
    States (CONUS) available to governors. The Army expects ARNG's total
    EOH will fall to 74 percent during 2010.
        The USAFR's primary obstacles are defensive systems funding
    shortfalls, and modernization of data link and secure communications.
        The USAR has concerns about the modernization of equipment and
    maintenance infrastructure to support ARFORGEN, sustainment of
    equipment to support deploying units and ARFOGEN, and increases in
    procurement funding. Additionally Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, chief
    of the Army Reserve, stated in testimony before the HASC Readiness
    subcommittee this spring that the USAR is challenged by ``still being
    budgeted as a strategic reserve.''
        USNR top equipping challenges are aircraft procurement specifically
    for C-40A, E/A-18G, P-8, and KC-130J; and equipment for civil
    engineering, material handling, and communications for OCO-related
    units.
        The USMFR is concerned about ensuring deploying members continue to
    receive up to date individual combat clothing and protective equipment
    in theater as well as maintaining the right amount of equipment on hand
    at RC units to train prior to deployment.
    Active Components
        In DOD's new 30-year aircraft investment blueprint it calls for the
    Air Force to pause for at least 10 years in production of new strategic
    airlifters and long-range bombers. The plan also slows the process to
    purchase F-35s causing it to not meet its force level requirements
    until 2035.
        The Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) will be delayed for
    another year.
        The Marine Corps (USMC) face a primary challenge of having been a
    land force for the last decade. The USMC's naval character has taken a
    back seat to fighting a virulent resistance in an extended land
    campaign, and some core competencies are waning.
    Family
        A consistent complaint from military families across the board is
    the lack of spaces and/or prolonged waiting lists for child care
    centers. While the military has built up child care systems, it is
    still an urgent need by many, especially those with special needs.
    Retiree
        The fiscal year 2008 early retirement benefit for RC members was
    passed, but it excluded approximately 600,000 members. This law should
    be fixed so that RC members' service counts from post-September 11,
    2001 rather than from the bill enactment date in 2008.
    Health Care
        As the operational tempo for our service members continues to be
    high and they persist to endure repeated deployments, it becomes ever
    more essential to provide efficient and timely health screenings for
    pre- and post-deployments.
        Achieving and maintaining individual medical readiness standards
    throughout a service member's continuum of service is necessary for the
    military services and components to meet mission requirements as an
    operational force.
    Military Voting
        Congress legislatively mandated DOD to develop an Internet voting
    system for military voters, but HASC cut $25 million from DOD's Federal
    Voting Assistance Program (FVAP).
        The House stated it was concerned with the immaturity of the
    Internet voting system standards being developed by the Elections
    Assistance Commission, supported by FVAP. Denying DOD the funding could
    ensure those standards remain immature, and may compel the States to
    proceed with their own Internet voting systems without Federal voting
    standards or guidelines in place.
        As the SASC reported bill supports, the Senate Appropriations
    Committee should fully fund these important programs. Without these
    vital funds, military voters will be condemned to continued
    disenfranchisement, lost voting opportunities, and reliance on State-
    run systems unsupported by Federal standards or evaluation.
                                   conclusion
        A4AD is a working group of military and veteran associations
    looking beyond personnel issues to the broader issues of National
    Defense. This testimony is an overview, and expanded data on
    information within this document can be provided upon request.
        Thank you for your ongoing support of the Nation, the Armed
    Services, and the fine young men and women who defend our country.
    Please contact us with any questions.

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. Jonathan Berman,
    secretary-treasurer, American Society of Tropical Medicine and
    Hygiene.
    STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BERMAN, M.D., Ph.D. COLONEL
                (RETIRED), UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL
                CORPS, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
                TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE
        Dr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
    American Society of Tropical Medicine. I am Dr. Berman,
    Colonel, Medical Corps, retired from the United States Army.
        The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene is
    the principal professional membership organization in the
    United States, and actually in the world, for tropical medicine
    and global health. ASTMH represents physicians, researchers,
    epidemiologists, other health professionals dedicated to the
    prevention and control of tropical diseases.
        Because the military operates in many tropical regions,
    reducing the risk that tropical diseases present to servicemen
    and women is often critical to mission success and service
    personnel morale. Malaria and other insect-transmitted
    diseases, such as leishmaniasis and dengue, are particular
    examples.
        Antimalarial drugs have saved countless lives throughout
    the world, including U.S. troops during World War II, Korea,
    and Vietnam. The U.S. military has long taken a primary role in
    the development of antimalarial drugs and vaccines, and nearly
    all of the most used antimalarials today were developed at
    least in part by U.S. military researchers.
        Over 350 million people are at risk for leishmaniasis in 88
    countries, 12 million infected currently, 2 million new
    infections each year. Leishmaniasis was a particular problem
    for Operation Iraqi Freedom, as a result of which 700 American
    service personnel became infected. As it happens, the
    Washington Post yesterday had a large article on leishmaniasis
    built around statements from military personnel here in the
    Washington area.
        Because of leishmaniasis's prevalence in Iraq and Southwest
    Asia in general, DOD has spent large resources on this disease,
    and DOD personnel are the leaders worldwide in development of
    new anti-leishmanial drugs.
        Dengue is the leading cause of illness and death in the
    tropics and subtropics, as many as 100 million people are
    infected yearly. Although dengue rarely occurs in the United
    States, it is endemic in Puerto Rico, and periodic outbreaks
    occur in Samoa and Guam.
        The intersection of militarily important diseases and
    tropical medicine is the reason that 15 percent of ASTMH
    members are also members of the military. For this reason, we
    respectfully request that the subcommittee expand funding for
    DOD's longstanding and successful efforts to develop new drugs,
    vaccines, and diagnostics to protect service personnel from
    malaria and tropical diseases.
        Specifically, we request that in fiscal year 2011, the
    subcommittee ensure $70 million to DOD to support its ID
    research efforts through USAMRIID, WRAIR, and NMRC. Presently,
    DOD funding for this research is about $47 million. To keep up
    with biomedical inflation, fiscal year 2011 funding needs to be
    $60 million, and as said, to fill the gaps that have been
    created by underfunding, ASTMH urges Congress to fund DOD ID
    research at $70 million--70--in fiscal year 2011.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and vice chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Doctor.
        I can assure you that this subcommittee is giving this
    matter our highest priority.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Inouye. Our last panel, and I want to thank the
    panel very much.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, could I put in a word for--
    --
        Chairman Inouye. Yes.
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. The last witness? I notice in
    my notes here that the University of Mississippi has this
    Center for Natural Products Research and is doing some work in
    collaboration with Walter Reed Army Institute finding safe
    drugs to use against the parasites that cause malaria, which
    was one of the topics that you touched on.
        Is progress being made in this program? Are you familiar
    with that?
        Dr. Berman. Yes, sir, I am. There is work on 8-
    aminoquinolines as replacement for our present drugs. It is an
    excellent center and really leads in this total effort.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Jonathan Berman
        The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) is
    the principal professional membership organization in the United
    States, and in the world, for Tropical Medicine and Global Health.
    ASTMH represents physicians, researchers, epidemiologists, and other
    health professionals dedicated to the prevention and control of
    tropical diseases. We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to
    the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and I request that our
    full testimony be submitted for the record.
        Because the military operates in many tropical regions, reducing
    the risk that tropical diseases present to servicemen and women is
    often critical to mission success.
        Malaria and other insect-transmitted diseases such as leishmaniasis
    and dengue are particular examples.
        Antimalarial drugs have saved countless lives throughout the world,
    including troops serving in tropical regions during WWII, the Korean
    War, and the Vietnam War. The U.S. military has long taken a primary
    role in the development of anti-malarial drugs, and nearly all of the
    most used anti-malarials were developed in part by U.S. military
    researchers.
        Over 350 million people are at risk of leishmaniasis in 88
    countries around the world. 12 million people are currently infected
    and 2 million new infections occur annually. Leishmaniasis was a
    particular problem for Operation Iraqi Freedom, as a result of which
    700 American service personnel became infected [Weina 2004]. Because of
    leishmaniasis' prevalence in Iraq and in Southwest Asia in general, the
    DOD has spent significant time and resources on this disease and DOD
    personnel are the leaders in development of new antileishmanial drugs.
        Dengue is a leading cause of illness and death in the tropics and
    subtropics. As many as 100 million people are infected yearly. Although
    dengue rarely occurs in the continental United States, it is endemic in
    Puerto Rico, and in many popular tourist destinations in Latin America
    and Southeast Asia; periodic outbreaks occur in Samoa and Guam. The DOD
    has seen about 28 cases of dengue in soldiers per year.
        The intersection of militarily-important diseases and Tropical
    medicine is the reason that 15 percent of ASTMH members are members of
    the military.
        For this reason, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee
    expand funding for the Department of Defense's longstanding and
    successful efforts to develop new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics
    designed to protect servicemen and women from malaria and tropical
    diseases. Specifically, we request that in fiscal year 2011, the
    Subcommittee ensure $70 million to the Department of Defense (DOD) to
    support its infectious disease research efforts through the Army
    Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, the Walter Reed
    Army Institute of Research, and the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center.
    Presently, DOD funding for this important research is at about $47
    million. To keep up with biomedical inflation since 2000, fiscal year
    2011 funding must be about $60 million. In order to fill the gaps that
    have been created by underfunding, ASTMH urges Congress to fund DOD
    infectious disease research at $70 million in fiscal year 2011.
        We very much appreciate the Subcommittee's consideration of our
    views, and we stand ready to work with Subcommittee members and staff
    on these and other important tropical disease matters.

        Chairman Inouye. And our final panel consists of Dr. George
    Zitnay, Major General David Bockel, Ms. Joy Simha, and Dr. John
    Boslego.
        Welcome to the subcommittee, and may I recognize Dr. George
    Zitnay.
    STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. ZITNAY, Ph.D., CO-FOUNDER,
                DEFENSE AND VETERANS BRAIN INJURY CENTER
        Dr. Zitnay. Good morning, Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman
    Cochran. It is good to be here.
        My name is George Zitnay. I am the co-founder of the
    Defense and Brain Injury Center. And before I retired last
    year, I have spent over 40 years in the field of brain injury.
    And I have been involved, obviously, in the work of the
    Department of Defense since the Vietnam war.
        I have worked very hard on behalf of the military and for
    wounded warriors and their families, and I come before you this
    morning to urge funding for the Defense and Veterans Brain
    Injury Center at the $40 million level for 2011 and for the new
    National Intrepid Center of Excellence, $45 million.
        I am requesting specific line-item status for these
    agencies, as each is responsible for brain injury care,
    research, treatment, and training. NICoE, or the National
    Intrepid Center of Excellence, is having its ribbon-cutting
    ceremony tomorrow, and I hope that both of you will be able to
    attend that wonderful ceremony at Bethesda tomorrow.
        As you well know, the NICoE is a volunteer effort on behalf
    of Mr. Fisher and many individuals. And we are hopeful that the
    NICoE will be able to treat some 500 service members each year,
    and their families, for whom standard treatment for TBI has not
    worked. And I am hopeful that the NICoE will push the envelope
    to develop cutting-edge research and rehabilitation for
    individuals with traumatic brain injury from the mild level of
    TBI all the way through to coma.
        TBI continues to be the signature injury in the wars in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, affecting over 10 percent of all deployed
    service personnel. Blast-related injuries and extended
    deployments are contributing to an unprecedented number of
    warriors suffering from TBI, psychological conditions such as
    anxiety, depression, PTSD, and suicide. The long-term effects
    of blast injury are yet unknown, and more research is
    necessary.
        Also, we need to really make sure that standard pre-
    deployment baseline measurement and assessments are being done
    consistently across the services. In addition, there needs to
    be a much greater emphasis on connecting injured warriors when
    they return home to community resources and to provide support
    and education for family members because they are the first
    people to recognize the symptoms, particularly of mild TBI and
    PTSD.
        Last year when I came before this subcommittee, I talked
    about those individuals in the vegetative state and the
    minimally conscious. I am very unhappy to report that we still
    have not provided the level of care necessary for these young
    men and women between the ages of 18 and 25.
        You know that the private sector has really moved ahead in
    this area. Bob Woodruff is a good example. Look at what ABC was
    able to do by providing him with the best care possible. There
    is new technology and new opportunities to wake these
    individuals up with deep brain stimulation and other types of
    progress. However, that has not been done. We have still not
    developed a partnership with universities and those major
    centers.
        And I want you to know that the VA has renamed the nursing
    homes that they operate for these individuals from nursing
    homes to community living centers. What a nice opportunity,
    isn't it?
        While we know many with severe TBI will not go back to
    work, I can assure you that they deserve the best. And last
    year, the late Congressman Jack Murtha brought together in
    Johnstown a large group of experts in this area and really
    wanted to have this as one of the things that he was quite
    interested in. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman
    Cochran, this has not been done.
        And as I know, since I live in Johnstown, Mr. Murtha wanted
    this to be accomplished. He invited all of the people to come
    together, and I can assure you that a consortium composed of
    Harvard, people from MIT, from Cornell Medical Center, from St.
    Joseph's Hospital, from Rockefeller have all come together, and
    they know that what can be done to serve these individuals.
        But even though he brought them together, this has not been
    done, and it has been over a year. So I urge you to consider
    funding at the $40 million level for the Defense and Veterans
    Brain Injury Center and for those individuals who now will be
    served by the new Intrepid Center at Bethesda.
        And in closing, what I would like to suggest is that since
    this continuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, what we have
    observed is that more and more individuals come home. They seem
    normal. But it is not until their family members really
    recognize that something is going on that they need then to
    have care.
        And quite frankly, we need to do a lot more in our
    communities all across this country, whether it is in
    Mississippi or Hawaii or wherever it is, to connect up our
    servicemen and women with the best that is possible in our
    communities.
        Thank you very much for all that you have done, and I urge
    you to support at the $40 million level for DVBIC and for the
    new NICoE Center of Excellence.
        Chairman Inouye. I can assure that we will do exactly that.
        Dr. Zitnay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you for the insight that you have
    given us and also for your unselfish service in trying to
    personally make a difference for a lot of servicemen and women
    who have been injured.
        Dr. Zitnay. Well, I am retired now, and I come before you
    as a volunteer because I am still most interested in what
    happens to our young men and women in the military.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of George A. Zitnay
        Dear Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran and Members of the
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense: Thank you for this
    opportunity to submit testimony in support of funding brain injury
    programs and initiatives in the Department of Defense. I am George A.
    Zitnay, Ph.D., a neuropsychologist and co-founder of the Defense and
    Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC).
        I have over 40 years of experience in the fields of brain injury,
    psychology and disability, including serving as the Executive Director
    of the Kennedy Foundation, Assistant Commissioner of Mental Retardation
    in Massachusetts, Commissioner of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and
    Corrections for the State of Maine, and a founder and Chair of the
    International Brain Injury Association and the National Brain Injury
    Research, Treatment and Training Foundation. I have served on the
    Advisory Committees to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was an Expert
    Advisor on Trauma to the Director General of the World Health
    Organization (WHO) and served as Chair of the WHO Neurotrauma
    Committee.
        In 1992, as President of the national Brain Injury Association, I
    worked with Congress and the Administration to establish what was then
    called the Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP) after the
    Gulf War as there was no brain injury program at the time. I have since
    worn many hats, and helped build the civilian partners to DVBIC:
    Virginia NeuroCare, Laurel Highlands, and DVBIC-Johnstown. Last year I
    retired as an advisor to the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding
    policies to improve the care and rehabilitation of wounded warriors
    sustaining brain injury.
        I am pleased that DVBIC continues to be the primary leader in DOD
    for all brain injury issues. DVBIC has come to define optimal care for
    military personnel and veterans with brain injuries. Their motto is
    ``to learn as we treat.''
        The DVBIC has been proactive since its inception, and what began as
    a small research program, the DVBIC now has 19 sites,\1\ and serves as
    the key operational component for brain injury of the Defense Centers
    of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury
    (DCoE) under DOD Health Affairs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; Landstuhl
    Regional Medical Center, Germany; National Naval Medical Center,
    Bethesda, MD; James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, Tampa, FL; Naval
    Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA; Camp Pendleton, San Diego, CA;
    Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN; Veterans
    Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA; Fort Bragg, NC;
    Fort Carson, CO; Fort Hood, TX; Camp Lejeune, NC; Fort Campbell,
    Kentucky; Boston VA, Massachusetts; Virginia Neurocare, Inc.,
    Charlottesville, VA; Hunter McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
    Richmond, VA; Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, TX;
    Brooks Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX; Laurel Highlands,
    Johnstown, PA; DVBIC-Johnstown, PA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am here today to ask for your support for $40 million for the
    DVBIC and $45 million for the National Intrepid Center of Excellence
    (NICoE) in the Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011. This
    level of funding is consistent with the request made by 30 Members of
    the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force to the House Appropriations
    Committee as well as with the President's budget request. The
    Administration requested a total of $920 million: $670 million for
    treatment and $250 million for research. Since DVBIC and NICoE provide
    both treatment and research, line items are requested for these
    individual agencies.
        As you know, traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains the ``signature
    injury'' of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, affecting over 10
    percent of all deployed service personnel. Blast-related injuries from
    improvised explosive devices and extended deployments are contributing
    to an unprecedented number of TBIs (ranging from mild, as in
    concussion, to severe, as in unresponsive states of consciousness) and
    psychological conditions such as anxiety, depression, post traumatic
    stress disorder (PTSD) and suicide. TBI-related health issues cost
    billions of dollars, not including lost productivity or diminished
    quality of life.
        For a myriad of reasons, it is in everyone's best interest--our
    wounded warriors, their families and loved ones, our national security
    and military readiness and the nation's taxpayers--to assure that
    service members with TBI are given the appropriate treatment and
    rehabilitation as soon as possible. Our country cannot afford to allow
    service members to fall through the cracks and suffer from the
    deleterious effects, sometimes life long, of TBI.
        After sustaining an initial TBI, a service member is at twice the
    risk of sustaining another TBI and compounding the injury. This can be
    particularly devastating in a combat zone especially if not removed
    from action. A 2009 Consensus group of brain injury specialists (50
    civilian and military experts), suggested that troops with mild TBI
    receive cognitive rehabilitation as soon as possible.
    (Neurorehabilitation. 2010 Jan 1; 26 (3): 239-55.
        On June 7, 2010, National Public Radio and Propublica published the
    results of an independent investigation which showed that despite the
    DOD's efforts to detect and treat TBI, a huge number remain
    undiagnosed. NPR reports that ``the nation's most senior medical
    officers are attempting to downplay the seriousness of so-called mild
    TBI. As a result, soldiers haven't been getting treatment.'' (http://
    www.propublica.org/feature/brain-injuries-remain-undiagnosed-in-
    thousands-of-soldiers). The report states that ``tens of thousands of
    troops with TBI have gone uncounted.''
    Consistent Screening is Needed
        Four years ago, DVBIC began a comparative study on the efficacy of
    6 diagnostic screening tools but for various reasons there has been
    delay in publishing the results. Since May 2008, a pre-deployment
    cognitive test is used based on DVBIC's ANAM, but post deployment has
    been inconsistent. It is my understanding that top DOD officials fear
    that greater screening may produce false positives and follow up
    assessments and treatment will be expensive. This is unacceptable. In
    cases of positive screenings or when there is suspicion of TBI, a
    neuropsychological battery should be performed. Pending the results of
    DVBIC's study, DOD should convene a panel of outside experts to reach a
    consensus on the best post deployment screening tool which has
    demonstrated efficacy and use it consistently across the board.
    Amendments have been offered to the DOD Authorization bill currently
    under consideration that would help achieve this. Brigadier General
    Loree Sutton, head of the Defense Centers of Excellence for
    Psychological Health and TBI has repeatedly stated that her goal is to
    have ``consistent standards of excellence across the board.'' This is
    an area that desperately needs consistency.
    Long Term Effects of Blast Injury Remain Unknown
        The lnstitute of Medicine's (IOM) Preliminary Assessment on the
    Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members and Their Families
    (March 31, 2010) notes that there is a paucity of information on the
    lifetime needs of persons with TBI in the military and civilian sectors
    and recommends funding for additional research into protocols to manage
    the lifetime effects of TBI.
        This issue is compounded by the fact that blast injuries from IEDs
    are quite different from TBIs sustained in the civilian sector, from
    sports and car crashes. There is even less information on the long term
    effects of blasts.
        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
    specifically directed DVBIC to conduct a 15 year study. Assuring
    funding of some $40 million specifically for DVBIC would further this
    goal.
    Comorbid Conditions
        As I testified last year, the distinction between TBI and PTSD
    remains a problem. Some senior DOD medical officers continue to argue
    that symptoms can be treated without regard to the underlying problem.
    This is wrong. Treatments for PTSD are often contraindicated for TBI
    and vice versa. A service member with PTSD may be prescribed a beta
    blocker to address memory of the trauma, but it unknown how these
    treatments may affect recovery from TBI. Similarly, a stimulant may be
    prescribed for TBI to enhance certain brain activity, but stimulants
    may exacerbate certain symptoms of PTSD.
        More research must be done to develop evidence-based guidelines for
    TBI and PTSD, as well as guidelines to address the complexities of
    comorbid conditions.
    Education
        The need continues for greater education and training for TBI
    specialists, particularly neurologists, physiatrists,
    neuropsychologists, cognitive rehabilitation specialists and physician
    assistants, occupational therapists, and physical therapists. For the
    past 3 years, DVBIC has held annual training sessions for some 800
    military medics. Continued funding is also needed for multi-media
    initiatives, development and dissemination of educational materials for
    providers, as well as informational tools for injured service members
    and their families and loved ones.
    Outreach
        Congress should continue funding the DVBIC to improve outreach to
    service members in remote and underserved areas and follow up. Funding
    is needed to increase the number of case managers as well as expand
    DVBIC's TBI Care Coordination program to monitor the continuum of TBI
    services and connect service members with local and regional TBI-
    related resources, clinical services, as well as family and patient
    support services.
        The IOM recommended that DOD and the Veterans Administration
    improve coordination and communication among the multitude of programs
    that have been created to meet the needs of returning service members
    and veterans. DVBIC coordination with civilian, private and public,
    resources and services could help fill the gaps in information and
    referral and service delivery.
        Greater effort needs to be made to create a safety net so that
    undiagnosed or misdiagnosed service members do not fall through the
    cracks. National Guard and Reserves are at particular risk as they
    often return to their civilian lives. In cases where TBI has been
    indicated, there have been reports of resistance from military
    treatment facilities in addressing their needs.
        A total of $40 million is requested for DVBIC to continue its work
    and expand and improve as necessary.
    NICoE
        Scheduled to open this month, the National Intrepid Center of
    Excellence is expected to ``use an innovative holistic approach to the
    referral, assessment, diagnosis and treatment of those with complex
    psychological health and TBI disorders'' and serve as ``a global leader
    in generating, improving, and harnessing the latest advances in
    science, therapy, telehealth, education, research and technology while
    also providing compassionate family-centered care for service members
    and their loved ones throughout the recovery and community
    reintegration process.'' (Testimony of Charles L. Rice, MD, Acting
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs before HASC hearing
    April 13, 2010).
        NICoE is to provide neurological and psychological treatment to
    some 500 service members per year, for whom standard treatment is not
    successful. NICoE holds much promise, as clinical research can be done
    like never before. What's needed is to push the envelope and develop
    cutting edge rehabilitation efforts for various levels of TBI and then
    track long term outcomes. As a Center of Excellence, NICoE should lead
    the way in redefining the standard of care.
        It is envisioned that NICoE would develop specific treatment plan
    and then seek out community resources in an injured personnel's own
    community. However, funding is needed not only to encourage innovation
    but to assure that such treatments will be paid for when service
    members return to their communities, as new treatments will not likely
    yet be covered by Tricare.
        In order to provide intensive and innovative rehabilitation,
    research and coordination with consortia of public and private partners
    will be necessary. $30 million is needed for pilot projects to treat
    service members with various levels of TBI, including severe TBI and
    disorders of consciousness.
        A total of $45 million for NICoE is requested to be included in the
    DOD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011 for these purposes.
        In conclusion, DOD has made some significant strides in addressing
    the needs of service members with TBI, but more research and innovative
    treatment is needed. Your leadership and continued support for our
    wounded warriors is very much appreciated.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request to help improve
    the lives of our wounded warriors.

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Major General David
    Bockel, executive director of the Reserve Officers Association
    of the United States.
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL DAVID BOCKEL, UNITED STATES
                ARMY (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE
                OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
        General Bockel. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, the
    Reserve Officers Association thanks you for the invitation to
    appear and give testimony.
        I am Major General David Bockel. I am the executive
    director of the Reserve Officers Association, and I am also
    authorized to speak on behalf of the Reserve Enlisted
    Association.
        A debate is going on whether the Reserve components are
    becoming too expensive and pricing themselves out of the market
    as an operational component. It is interesting to note that the
    argument about the cost of the Reserve and National Guard
    incentives, benefits, and readiness posture dates back to World
    War II. At that time, just as now, there were those who said
    that the Reserve component training, pay, and benefits would be
    unaffordable and would necessitate long-term costs.
        As both the Congress and the Pentagon are looking at
    reducing defense expenses, ROA finds itself again confronted
    with protecting one of America's greatest assets, the Reserve
    components. There are some who would take cuts from the Reserve
    rather than the Active Duty force. ROA and REA fully understand
    that when citizen warriors are used for an extended period,
    there is a substantial personnel cost. It is a cost of war.
        The statement that, while mobilized, a reservist or
    guardsman costs as much as an active component member isn't in
    dispute. On the other hand, the citizen warrior cost over a
    lifecycle, being mobilized only when needed and placed into a
    trained and ready-to-go posture when not recalled, is far less
    than the cost of an active component warrior.
        Additional cost savings are found when prior service
    training develop civilian proficiencies in badly needed
    military skill sets, are retained by having adequate number of
    Reserve billets across the spectrum of military missions.
        National Guard and Reserve members fully understand their
    duty and are proud to be serving operationally. And not only
    have they contributed to the war effort, but they have made the
    difference in maintaining an all-volunteer military force, and
    in the truest sense, the Reserve components have saved the
    country from a draft.
        Establishing parity in training, equipment, pay, and
    compensation is only fair when the young men and women in the
    Reserve components are taking their place on the front,
    assuming the same risk as the Active Duty force. Over 750,000
    men and women have left their homes, schools, and workplaces
    and have performed magnificently in the overseas operational
    contingencies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
        The condition of the Reserves and Guard today is different
    than it was 9 years ago. In ways, it is better, as almost every
    leader now is a combat-tested veteran. In other ways, however,
    the condition is worse. Equipment has been destroyed, worn out,
    or left in the theater.
        Every defense leader recognizes the need to continue to
    reset the force. ROA's written testimony includes lists of
    unfunded requirements that we hope this subcommittee will fund,
    but we also urge the subcommittee to specifically identify
    funding for both the National Guard and the Reserve components
    exclusively to train and equip the Reserve components.
        We hope, too, that this subcommittee continues to provide
    appropriations for the National Guard and Reserve equipment
    authorization. Appropriating funds to the Guard and Reserve
    equipment provides Reserve chiefs and National Guard directors
    with the flexibility of prioritizing funding. ROA and REA also
    hope that NGREA dollar levels are assessed based on mission
    contribution to make it more proportional.
        Another concern ROA and REA share is legal support for
    veterans and Guard and Reserve members returning from
    deployment to face the ever-increasing challenges of
    reemployment. On June 1, 2009, ROA established the Service
    Members Law Center.
        This is a pro bono service that provides legal advice and
    guidance to Reserve, National Guard, Active, and separated
    veterans, their families, legal counsel, and as well as
    providing information to attorneys, bar associations,
    employers, Members of Congress, and other interested parties.
    It does not provide legal representation.
        In just a year, the law center has received over 2,750
    requests for information on legal issues. Nearly 60 percent
    dealt with employment and reemployment rights. The service may
    be free, but this important service does cost money. Currently,
    with ROA's financial support, it allows the center to be
    virtually a one-man shop.
        Awareness of the service outside of ROA membership is only
    by word of mouth. This does not--there is not any outside
    promotion. With broader awareness, our vision is to grow and
    increase the staff and the services provided to our veterans
    from both Reserve and Active component communities, which will
    make more money--which will take more money. ROA would
    appreciate the opportunity to meet with your staff to discuss
    how this subcommittee can provide monetary support.
        Thank you again for your consideration of our testimony,
    and I am available to answer any questions.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, sir.
        We have got a workload. I can assure you we will do it.
        Senator Cochran. I was just curious about the law center
    that you mentioned in your testimony, whether or not there is
    pro bono legal activity. I know when I was practicing law in
    Mississippi before I came up here to serve in Congress, we had
    a volunteer legal services program for people who couldn't
    afford lawyers, the poor, and we didn't have as many built-in
    programs that provide legal services back then. But now there
    are quite a few.
        I wonder, are you getting support from local bar
    associations for this center?
        General Bockel. On a case-by-case basis. The gentleman who
    runs this law center, his name is Captain (Retired) Sam Wright,
    Navy Reserve, and he is the source authority on USERRA, Service
    Member Civil Relief Act, and military voting. When he is
    invited to speak to bar associations, if they don't offer an
    honoraria, he asks for it.
        Interestingly enough, one of our members of the Reserve
    Officers Association who is also an attorney is providing an
    amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court on a case that
    is going to be heard in the fall. And it is going to be very
    interesting because it is in I don't know how many years, it is
    the first time that a USERRA case has made it that far.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Major General David Bockel
        The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) is a
    professional association of commissioned and warrant officers of our
    nation's seven uniformed services, and their spouses. ROA was founded
    in 1922 during the drawdown years following the end of World War I. It
    was formed as a permanent institution dedicated to National Defense,
    with a goal to teach America about the dangers of unpreparedness. When
    chartered by Congress in 1950, the act established the objective of ROA
    to: ``. . . support and promote the development and execution of a
    military policy for the United States that will provide adequate
    National Security.''
        The Association's 65,000 members include Reserve and Guard
    Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen who frequently
    serve on Active Duty to meet critical needs of the uniformed services
    and their families. ROA's membership also includes officers from the
    U.S. Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration who often are first responders during national disasters
    and help prepare for homeland security.
        President: Rear Admiral Paul Kayye, MC, USNR (Ret.)
        Staff Contacts:
        Executive Director: Major General David R. Bockel, USA (Ret.)
        Legislative Director, Health Care: CAPT Marshall Hanson, USNR
            (Ret.)
        Air Force Director: Mr. David Small
        Army and Strategic Defense Education Director: Mr. ``Bob'' Feidler
        USNR, USMCR, USCGR, Retirement: CAPT Marshall Hanson, USNR (Ret.)
        The Reserve Enlisted Association is an advocate for the enlisted
    men and women of the United States Military Reserve Components in
    support of National Security and Homeland Defense, with emphasis on the
    readiness, training, and quality of life issues affecting their welfare
    and that of their families and survivors. REA is the only Joint Reserve
    association representing enlisted reservists--all ranks from all five
    branches of the military.
        Executive Director: CMSgt Lani Burnett, USAF (Ret)
                                   priorities
        CY 2010 Legislative Priorities are:
      --Providing adequate resources and authorities to support the current
            recruiting and retention requirements of the Reserves and
            National Guard.
      --Reset the whole force to include fully funding equipment and
            training for the National Guard and Reserves.
      --Support citizen warriors, families and survivors.
      --Assure that the Reserve and National Guard continue in a key
            national defense role, both at home and abroad.
        Issues to help Fund, Equip, and Train:
      --Advocate for adequate funding to maintain National Defense during
            overseas contingency operations.
      --Regenerate the Reserve Components (RC) with field compatible
            equipment.
      --Fence RC dollars for appropriated Reserve equipment.
      --Fully fund Military Pay Appropriation to guarantee a minimum of 48
            drills and 2 weeks training.
      --Sustain authorization and appropriation to National Guard and
            Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) to permit flexibility for
            Reserve Chiefs in support of mission and readiness needs.
      --Optimize funding for additional training, preparation and
            operational support.
      --Keep Active and Reserve personnel and Operation and Maintenance
            funding separate.
      --Equip Reserve Component members with equivalent personnel
            protection as Active Duty.
        Issues to assist Recruiting and Retention:
      --Support continued incentives for affiliation, reenlistment,
            retention and continuation in the Reserve Component.
        Pay and Compensation:
      --Provide permanent differential pay for Federal employees.
      --Offer Professional pay for RC medical professionals.
      --Eliminate the one-thirtieth rule for Aviation Career Incentive Pay,
            Career Enlisted Flyers Incentive Pay, Diving Special Duty Pay,
            and Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay.
        Education:
      --Continued funding for the GI Bill for the 21st Century.
        Health Care:
      --Provide Medical and Dental Readiness through subsidized preventive
            healthcare.
      --Extend military coverage for restorative dental care for up to 180
            days following deployment.
        Spouse Support:
      --Repeal the SBP-Dependency Indemnity Clause (DIC) offset.
                 national guard and reserve equipment accounts
        It is important to maintain separate equipment and personnel
    accounts to allow Reserve Component Chiefs the ability to direct
    dollars to needs.
        Key Issues facing the Armed Forces concerning equipment:
      --Developing the best equipment for troops fighting in overseas
            contingency operations.
      --Procuring new equipment for all U.S. Forces.
      --Maintaining or upgrading the equipment already in the inventory.
      --Replacing the equipment deployed from the homeland to the war.
      --Making sure new and renewed equipment gets into the right hands,
            including the Reserve Component.
        Reserve Component Equipping Sources:
      --Procurement.
      --Cascading of equipment from Active Component.
      --Cross-leveling.
      --Recapitalization and overhaul of legacy (old) equipment.
      --Congressional adds.
      --National Guard and Reserve Appropriations (NGREA).
      --Supplemental appropriation.
                                  end strength
        The ROA would like to place a moratorium on reductions to the Guard
    and Reserve manning levels. Manpower numbers need to include not only
    deployable assets, but individuals in the accession pipeline. ROA urges
    this subcommittee to fund to support:
      --Army National Guard of the United States, 358,200.
      --Army Reserve, 206,000.
      --Navy Reserve, 66,500.
      --Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
      --Air National Guard of the United States, 106,700.
      --Air Force Reserve, 71,200.
      --Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000
        In a time of war and the highest OPTEMPO in recent history, it is
    wrong to make cuts to the end strength of the Reserve Components. We
    need to pause to permit force planning and strategy to catch-up with
    budget reductions.
                   nonfunded army reserve component equipment
        The Army National Guard and Army Reserve have made significant
    contributions to ongoing military operations, but equipment shortages
    and personnel challenges continue and if left unattended, may hamper
    the Reserves' preparedness for future overseas and domestic missions.
    In order to provide deployable units, the Army National Guard and the
    Army Reserve have cross-leveled large quantities of personnel and
    equipment to deploying units, an approach that has resulted in growing
    shortages in non-deployed units.
    Army Reserve Unfunded Requirements
        Since 9/11, the Army Reserve has mobilized 185,660 soldiers and
    currently has about 29,000 deployed. Shortages of equipment on-hand,
    combined with significant substitute items in the Army Reserve's
    inventory, compromise units' ability to train in support of the modular
    Army and to meet surge requirements. The Army Reserve has about 73
    percent of its required equipment on-hand, but some critical items
    remain at less than 50 percent fill. Without a higher level of funding,
    the Army Reserve is projected to reach 85 percent of its equipment
    requirements by the end of fiscal year 2015.
        The Army Reserve has a fiscal year 2015 equipment requirement of
    $22.05 billion. Under current base budgeting and additional Overseas
    Contingency Operation funding the projected programmed funds are only
    $17.76 billion. This is a shortfall of $4.29 billion for the Army
    Reserve. The minimum NGREA funding to catch-up would be $944 million.
    Unresourced equipment includes:
        Transportation:
        Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)--$1.03 billion
        Heavy Tactical Vehicle (HTV)--$503 million
        Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT-LET)--$300 million
        Stryker Nuclear Biological and Chemical Recon Vehicle (NBC-RV)--
    $547 million
        C-27A Cargo Aircraft--$26 million each
      --The latest addition to the United States Army Reserve Aviation
            fleet is the C-27J Spartan Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). The Army
            Reserve will be initially receiving 16.
        Tactical Quiet Generators [TQG's] PU-807A 100kW (3,036)--$5.8
    million
      --The Army Reserve requires 8,717 TQG's to perform its wartime
            mission as well as its HLS/HLD responsibilities, but has only
            5,681 on-hand. Of particular concern in an unfunded shortfall
            of 59 100kW power units (PU's) that exists within Combat
            Support Hospitals.
    Army National Guard Unfunded Equipment Requirements
        Army National Guard (ARNG) units deployed overseas have the most
    up-to-date equipment available. However, a significant amount of
    equipment is currently unavailable to the Army National Guard in the
    states due to continuing rotational deployments and emerging
    modernization requirements. Equipment is need to replace broken
    equipment and battle loses, train in pre-mob, support the TPE, and to
    substitute for equipment in transit. To support the mission the ARNG
    has cross-leveled equipment. Current equipment procurement averages $5
    billion per year. Current equipment levels as of April 2010 are 77
    percent of equipment on-hand.
        HMMWVs (humvees) (2,063)--$2.4 billion
      --ARNG is critically short on certain HMMWV configurations that are
            essential to domestic and Overseas Contingency Operations.
        Transportation--$1.15 billion
      --FMTV/LMTV Cargo Trucks; HMMWV; HTV 88 Heavy Trucks; Tactical
            Trailers.
        Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)--$1.2 billion
      --Tactical telecommunications system consisting of infrastructure and
            network components from the maneuver battalion to the theater
            rear boundary. The WIN-T network provides Command, Control,
            Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
            Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) capabilities that are mobile, secure,
            survivable, seamless, and capable of supporting multimedia
            tactical information systems.
        Stryker combat vehicles, battalion (1)--$1.4 billion
      --Eight-wheeled vehicle that can travel up to 62.5 mph. It comes in
            10 variants, including an infantry-carrier vehicle, a medical
            evacuation vehicle and a command vehicle.
        Multi-Temperature Refrigerated Container System (MTRCS)--$7.5
    million
      --The Army National Guard has no refrigerated container systems on-
            hand, creating a combat readiness issue for selected
            quartermaster units and forcing states to lease commercial
            systems to transport food and medical supplies during HLS/HLD
            missions and during training. The MTRCS is the Army's new
            refrigerated container system.
               air force reserve components equipment priorities
    Air Force Reserve Unfunded Requirements
        The Air Force Reserve (AFR) mission is to be an integrated member
    of the Total Air Force to support mission requirements of the joint
    warfighter. To achieve interoperability in the future, the Air Force
    Reserve top priorities for unfunded equipment are:
        Infra-Red Counter Measures C-130 (21)--$63 million
      --The AN/AAQ-24 (V) NEMESIS is an infrared countermeasure system
            designed to protect against man-portable (shoulder-launched)
            infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles.
        Infra-Red Counter Measures KC-135 (15)--$15 million
      --KC-135 aircraft deployed in support for Operation Iraqi and
            Enduring Freedom have inadequate protection against the
            Infrared Missile threat. For the procurement and installation
            of the Guardian AN/AAQ-24 (V) Large Aircraft Podded Infrared
            Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system.
        Infra-Red Counter Measures C-5B/C-17s (13)--$90 million
      --For the procurement and installation of the AN/AAQ-24 V NEMESIS, an
            infrared countermeasure system designed to protect against man-
            portable (shoulder-launched) surface-to-air missiles.
        Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting [HMIT] (39)--$6 million
      --Upgrade and enhancement to engagement systems.
        C-5 Structural Repair (6)--$66 million
      --Stress corrosion cracking of C-5A skins and box beam fittings
            requires fleet-wide replacement to avoid grounding and
            restriction of outsize cargo-capable to sustain strategic
            mobility assets.
        Security Forces Weapons & Tactical Equipment--$5.5 million
      --Also: The USAFR #1 need is MILCON dollars. Of the total fiscal year
            2011 USAF MILCON budget, The AF Reserve was only funded with
            $3.4 million for its top facilities project, but is underfunded
            by $1 billion.
    Air National Guard Unfunded Equipment Requirements
        Shortfalls in equipment will impact the Air National Guard's
    ability to support the National Guard's response to disasters and
    terrorist incidents in the homeland. Improved equipping strengthens
    readiness for both overseas and homeland missions and improves the ANG
    capability to train on mission-essential equipment.
        C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft (5)--$1.3 billion
      --As highlighted as an ANG airlift requirement.
        Infra-Red Counter Measures--$238 million
      --Procure and install LAIRCM systems on C-5, C-17, C-130, 130, HC-
            130, EC-130, KC-135 a/c
        Air Defensive Systems--$49 million
      --Continue to install ADS systems onto C-5, C-17, and F-15 aircraft.
        Security Force Equipment--$79.4 million
      --Crowd control, Tasers, Protective garments, eyewear, goggles,
            rifles, weapons accessories, traffic control kits, and night
            vision devices.
        Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS)--$30 million
      --The addition of a day/night helmet mounted cueing system (HCMS)
            will significantly increase pilot situational awareness (SA),
            aircraft survivability, and lethality in every mission area.
            Needed for F-16 and A-10 aircraft.
                        navy reserve unfunded priorities
        Active Reserve Integration (ARI) aligns Active and Reserve
    component units to achieve unity of command. Navy Reservists are fully
    integrated into their Active component supported commands. Little
    distinction is drawn between Active component and Reserve component
    equipment, but unique missions remain.
        C-40 A Combo cargo/passenger Airlift (2)--$170 million
      --The Navy requires a Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift Replacement
            Aircraft. The C-40A is able to carry 121 passengers or 40,000
            pounds of cargo, compared with 90 passengers or 30,000 pounds
            for the C-9.
        Maritime Expeditionary Security Force--$20 million
      --Navy Expeditionary Combat Command has 17,000 Navy Reservists and
            requires $3.1 billion in Reserve Component (Table of Allowance)
            TOA equipment.
        KC-130J Super Hercules Aircraft tankers (2)--$168 million
      --These Aircraft are needed to fill the shortfall in Navy Unique
            Fleet Essential Airlift (NUFEA). Procurement price close to
            upgrading existing C-130Ts with the benefit of a long life
            span. Twenty-four replacements required through 2030.
        C-37 B (Gulf Stream) Aircraft (1)--$64 million
      --The Navy Reserve helps maintain executive transport airlift to
            support the Department of the Navy.
        Civil Engineering Support Equipment--Tactical Vehicles--$4.4
    million
                    marine corps reserve unfunded priorities
        More than 54,000 Marine Corps Reservists have executed over 70,000
    mobilizations. Nearly one-third of the authorized 39,600 end strength
    have deployed outside the continental United States. The young men and
    women have become an experienced combat force, but are limited in their
    mission by the availability of equipment.
        KC-130J Super Hercules Aircraft tankers (4)--$200 million
                or advanced procurement--$48 million
      --These Aircraft are needed to fill the shortfall in Marine Corps
            Essential Airlift. USMCR needs 28 airframes, and procurement
            price close to upgrading existing C-130Ts with the benefit of a
            longer life span. Commandant, USMC, has testified that
            acquisition must be accelerated.
        Light Armored Vehicles--LAV--$1.5 million each
      --A shortfall in a USMCR light armor reconnaissance company, the LAV-
            25 is an all-terrain, all-weather vehicle with night
            capabilities. It provides strategic mobility to reach and
            engage the threat, tactical mobility for effective use of fire
            power.
        Training Allowance (T/A) Shortfalls--$145 million
      --Shortfalls consist of over 300 items needed for individual combat
            clothing and equipment, including protective vests, poncho,
            liner, gloves, cold weather clothing, environmental test sets,
            took kits, tents, camouflage netting, communications systems,
            engineering equipment, combat and logistics vehicles and weapon
            systems. USMCR goal is to ensure that the Reserve TA contains
            the same equipment utilized by the active component.
        Obtain latest generation of Individual Combat and Protective
    Equipment including: M4 rifles; Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) scopes; Light
    weight helmets; Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plates; Modular
    Tactical Vests; and Flame Resistant Organizational Gear.
               national guard and reserve equipment appropriation
        The Reserve components that were once held as a strategic force are
    now also being employed as an operational asset as well as a strategic
    reserve; stressing an ever greater need for procurement flexibility as
    provided by the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation
    (NGREA). Much-needed items not funded by the respective service budget
    are frequently purchased through NGREA. In some cases it is used to
    bring unit equipment readiness to a needed state for mobilization.
        The Reserve and Guard are faced with ongoing challenges on how to
    replace worn out equipment, equipment lost due to combat operations,
    legacy equipment that is becoming irrelevant or obsolete, and, in
    general, replacing that which is gone or aging through the abnormal
    wear and tear of deployment. The Reserve Components benefit greatly
    from a National Military Resource Strategy that includes a National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation.
        ROA thanks Congress for approving $750 million for NGREA for fiscal
    year 2010, but even more dollars are needed. ROA urges Congress to
    continue the authorization and appropriate for a modern equipment
    account proportional to the missions being performed, which will enable
    the Reserve Component to meet its readiness requirements.
                           service members law center
        The Reserve Officers Association developed a Service Members Law
    Center, advising Active and Reserve servicemembers who are subject to
    legal problems that occur during deployment.
        In almost a year of operation (June 1, 2009 through May 6, 2010),
    the Service Members Law Center has advised 2,150 individuals, by
    telephone and/or e-mail, and in a few instances in person. Of those
    2,150, approximately 1,720 (80 percent) were Active or Reserve
    Component (overwhelmingly Reserve Component) members of the Armed
    Forces. Of those who have contacted us, the ROA Service Members Law
    Center has referred about 5 percent to attorneys.
        The ROA Service Members Law Center has also heard from and has
    provided information to attorneys, employers, congressional staffers,
    state legislators and staffers, reporters, and veterans who are not
    currently Active or Reserve Component members of the Armed Forces but
    have been in the past.
        The legal center helps encourage new members to join the Active,
    Guard and Reserve components by providing a non-affiliation service to
    educate prior service about the Uniformed Services Employment and
    Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and Servicemember Civil Relief Act
    (SCRA) protections, and other legal issues. It helps retention as a
    member of the staff works with Active and Reserve Component members to
    counsel those who are preparing to deploy, deployed or recently
    deployed members facing legal problems.
        The Legal Center refers names of attorneys who work related legal
    issues, encouraging law firms to represent service members, and educate
    and training lawyers, especially active and reserve judge advocates on
    service member protection cases. The center is also a resource to
    Congress.
        The Supreme Court has granted a discretionary review of its first
    Supreme Court case under (USERRA). The Service Members Law Center will
    file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in July.
        ROA sets aside office spaces and has already hired a lawyer to
    answer questions of serving members and veterans. The goal is to hire
    two additional staff with a paralegal and an administrative law clerk
    and provide suitable office equipment and workspace to help man the
    Service Members Law Center to expand counsel individuals and their
    legal representatives.
        Anticipated overall cost fiscal year 2011: $505,000.
                           cior/ciomr funding request
        The Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) was
    founded in 1948, and the Interallied Confederation of Medical Reserve
    Officers (CIOMR) was founded in 1947. These organizations are a
    nonpolitical, independent confederation of national reserve
    associations of the signatory countries of the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO). Presently there are 16 member nation delegations
    representing over 800,000 reserve officers. CIOR supports several
    programs to improve professional development and international
    understanding. The Reserve Officers Association of the United States
    represents the United States and is its member to CIOR.
        Military Competition.--The CIOR Military Competition is a strenuous
    3 day contest on warfighting skills among Reserve Officers teams from
    member countries. These contests emphasize combined and joint military
    actions relevant to the multinational aspects of current and future
    Alliance operations.
        Language Academy.--The two official languages of NATO are English
    and French. As a non-government body, operating on a limited budget, it
    is not in a position to afford the expense of providing simultaneous
    translation services. The Academy offers intensive courses in English
    and French as specified by NATO Military Agency for Standardization,
    which affords international junior officer members the opportunity to
    become fluent in English as a second language.
        Young Reserve Officers Workshop.--The workshops are arranged
    annually by the NATO International Staff (IS). Selected issues are
    assigned to joint seminars through the CIOR Defense and Security Issues
    (SECDEF) Commission. Junior grade officers work in a joint seminar
    environment to analyze Reserve concerns relevant to NATO.
        Dues do not cover the workshops and individual countries help fund
    the events. Presently no Service has Executive Agency for CIOR so that
    these programs aren't being funded.
        Military Competition funding needs at $150,000 per fiscal year.
                                   conclusion
        The impact of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is affecting the
    very nature of the Guard and Reserve, not just the execution of Roles
    and Missions. It makes sense to fully fund the most cost efficient
    components of the Total Force, its Reserve Components.
        At a time of war, we are expending the smallest percentage of GDP
    in history on National Defense. Funding now reflects close to 4 percent
    of GDP including supplemental dollars. ROA has a resolution urging that
    defense spending should be 5 percent to cover both the war and homeland
    security. While these are big dollars, the President and Congress must
    understand that this type of investment is what it will take to equip,
    train and maintain an all-volunteer force for adequate National
    Security.
        The Reserve Officers Association, again, would like to thank the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to present our testimony. We are
    looking forward to working with you, and supporting your efforts in any
    way that we can.

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is a member of the board
    of directors of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Ms. Joy
    Simha.
    STATEMENT OF JOY SIMHA, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
                NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION AND CO-
                FOUNDER, YOUNG SURVIVAL COALITION
        Ms. Simha. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations
    Defense Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify here today
    about the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program.
    As successful as this competitive peer-reviewed program is, it
    warrants level funding.
        I am Joy Simha. I am a 16-year breast cancer survivor, a
    wife, a mother, and one of the co-founders of the Young
    Survival Coalition and, as you said, a board member of the
    National Breast Cancer Coalition. In addition, I sit on the
    integration panel of the Breast Cancer Research Program with
    three other survivors and about a dozen scientists.
        Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran, we truly
    appreciate your longstanding support of this innovative,
    successful program, which represents a meaningful, true way for
    women to fight breast cancer. Women and their families across
    the country are depending on this program.
        The program has a unique structure, which brings
    scientists, trained consumers, policymakers, and the Army
    together to collaborate toward ending breast cancer. There is
    no bureaucracy, and the Army is so efficient and effective in
    implementing the program. They should be applauded for using
    less than 10 percent of funds for administrative costs.
        The program is truly transparent and accountable to the
    taxpayer. The Era of Hope, which is a biennial meeting where
    scientists report back on their research results, provides
    opportunity for others to hear about and collaborate on
    innovative research results. In addition, all information about
    who gets funded can be found at the Department of Defense
    Breast Cancer Web site.
        The partnership with educated consumers, scientists, the
    Army, policymakers helps keep the science relevant to women. It
    ensures the program's sense of urgency at fulfilling its
    mission.
        This program pushes science to new levels. The focus is in
    changing the status quo by creating new models of research. The
    collaborators are not afraid to ask the very difficult, complex
    questions and fund unique models of research while maintaining
    the peer review model.
        As a true testimony to our success, the mission, the
    mechanisms, and the structure of the program have been used for
    models in other programs in other research and scientific
    research programs. This program has been applauded by the
    Institute of Medicine and others as an exemplary model of
    funding research.
        The program works. It not only saves women's lives, but it
    changes the status quo about how we do research. The Department
    of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program is a true means to an
    end. People across this country believe in the program and its
    ability to end breast cancer. I come to you as a survivor
    representing those people and the many wonderful women we have
    lost to breast cancer.
        I wish to dedicate my testimony today to two women who were
    once chairs of the integration panel who lost their lives
    recently to breast cancer--Carolina Hinestrosa, who is just
    about a 1-year--we lost her about 1 year ago, and Karin Noss.
    We continue our work to honor women as amazing as these two so
    that we can move forward and try to end breast cancer and save
    lives in the future.
        Thank you for your support and the opportunity to testify.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much for your testimony.
    We will do our best.
        Senator Cochran. I want to congratulate you on the quality
    of your presentation, too. You would be a professional in many,
    many areas, but particularly the convincing way you presented
    your remarks I thought was worthy of praise.
        I noticed that in 2004, there was a report that reviewed
    this program and gave it very high marks and talked about the
    scientific breakthroughs that were occurring because of the
    things that your organization is doing. Congratulations.
        Ms. Simha. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Joy Simha
                                  introduction
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Defense, for the opportunity to submit testimony today
    about a program that has made a significant difference in the lives of
    women and their families.
        I am Joy Simha, a 16-year breast cancer survivor, communications
    consultant, a wife and mother, co-founder of The Young Survival
    Coalition, and a member of the board of directors of the National
    Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC). I am also a member of the Integration
    Panel of the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program. My
    testimony represents the hundreds of member organizations and thousands
    of individual members of the Coalition. NBCC is a grassroots
    organization dedicated to ending breast cancer through action and
    advocacy. The Coalition's main goals are to increase Federal funding
    for breast cancer research and collaborate with the scientific
    community to implement new models of research; improve access to high
    quality healthcare and breast cancer clinical trials for all women; and
    expand the influence of breast cancer advocates wherever breast cancer
    decisions are made.
        Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran, we appreciate your
    longstanding support for the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Breast
    Cancer Research Program. As you know, this program was born from a
    powerful grassroots effort led by the National Breast Cancer Coalition,
    and has become a unique partnership among consumers, scientists,
    Members of Congress and the military. You and your Committee have shown
    great determination and leadership in funding the Department of Defense
    (DOD) peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP) at a level
    that has brought us closer to eradicating this disease. I am hopeful
    that you and your Committee will continue that determination and
    leadership.
        I know you recognize the importance of this program to women and
    their families across the country, to the scientific and healthcare
    communities and to the Department of Defense. Much of the progress in
    the fight against breast cancer has been made possible by the
    Appropriations Committee's investment in breast cancer research through
    the DOD BCRP. To support this unprecedented progress moving forward, we
    ask that you support a separate $150 million appropriation, level
    funding, for fiscal year 2011. In order to continue the success of the
    Program, you must ensure that it maintain its integrity and separate
    identity, in addition to level funding. This is important not just for
    breast cancer, but for all biomedical research that has benefited from
    this incredible government program.
                               vision and mission
        The vision of the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research
    Program is to ``eradicate breast cancer by funding innovative, high-
    impact research through a partnership of scientists and consumers.''
    The meaningful and unprecedented partnership of scientists and
    consumers has been the foundation of this model program from the very
    beginning. It is important to understand this collaboration: consumers
    and scientists working side by side, asking the difficult questions,
    bringing the vision of the program to life, challenging researchers and
    the public to do what is needed and then overseeing the process every
    step of the way to make certain it works. This unique collaboration is
    successful: every year researchers submit proposals that reach the
    highest level asked of them by the program and every year we make
    progress for women and men everywhere.
        And it owes its success to the dedication of the U.S. Army and
    their belief and support of this mission. And of course, to you. It is
    these integrated efforts that make this program unique.
        The Department of the Army must be applauded for overseeing the DOD
    BCRP which has established itself as a model medical research program,
    respected throughout the cancer and broader medical community for its
    innovative, transparent and accountable approach. This program is
    incredibly streamlined. The flexibility of the program has allowed the
    Army to administer it with unparalleled efficiency and effectiveness.
    Because there is little bureaucracy, the program is able to respond
    quickly to what is currently happening in the research community.
    Because of its specific focus on breast cancer, it is able to rapidly
    support innovative proposals that reflect the most recent discoveries
    in the field. It is responsive, not just to the scientific community,
    but also to the public. The pioneering research performed through the
    program and the unique vision it maintains has the potential to benefit
    not just breast cancer, but all cancers as well as other diseases.
    Biomedical research is literally being transformed by the DOD BCRP's
    success.
                             consumer participation
        Advocates bring a necessary perspective to the table, ensuring that
    the science funded by this program is not only meritorious, but that it
    is also meaningful and will make a difference in people's lives. The
    consumer advocates bring accountability and transparency to the
    process. They are trained in science and advocacy and work with
    scientists willing to challenge the status quo to ensure that science
    funded by the program fill important gaps not already being addressed
    by other funding agencies. Since 1992, more than 600 breast cancer
    survivors have served on the BCRP review panels.
        Last year, Carolina Hinestrosa, a breast cancer survivor and
    trained consumer advocate, chaired the Integration Panel and led the
    charge in challenging BCRP investigators to think outside the box for
    revelations about how to eradicate breast cancer. Despite the fact that
    her own disease was progressing, she remained steadfast in working
    alongside scientists and consumers to move breast cancer research in
    new directions. Unwilling to give up, she fought tirelessly until the
    end of her life for a future free of breast cancer.
        Carolina died last year from soft tissue sarcoma, a late side
    effect of the radiation that was used to treat her breast cancer. She
    once eloquently described the unique structure of the DOD BCRP:
        ``The Breast Cancer Research Program channels powerful synergy from
    the collaboration of the best and brightest in the scientific world
    with the primary stakeholder, the consumer, toward bold research
    efforts aimed at ending breast cancer.''
        No one was bolder than Carolina, who was fierce and determined in
    her work on the DOD BCRP and in all aspects of life she led as a
    dedicated breast cancer advocate, mother to a beautiful daughter, and
    dear friend to so many. Carolina's legacy reminds us that breast cancer
    is not just a struggle for scientists; it is a disease of the people.
    The consumers who sit alongside the scientists at the vision setting,
    peer review and programmatic review stages of the BCRP are there to
    ensure that no one forgets the women who have died from this disease,
    and the daughters they leave behind, and to keep the program focused on
    its vision.
        For many consumers, participation in the program is ``life
    changing'' because of their ability to be involved in the process of
    finding answers to this disease. In the words of one advocate:
        ``Participating in the peer review and programmatic review has been
    an incredible experience. Working side by side with the scientists,
    challenging the status quo and sharing excitement about new research
    ideas . . . it is a breast cancer survivor's opportunity to make a
    meaningful difference. I will be forever grateful to the advocates who
    imagined this novel paradigm for research and continue to develop new
    approaches to eradicate breast cancer in my granddaughters'
    lifetime.''------Marlene McCarthy, two-time breast cancer ``thriver'',
    Rhode Island Breast Cancer Coalition
        Scientists who participate in the Program agree that working with
    the advocates has changed the way they do science. Let me quote Greg
    Hannon, the fiscal year 3010 DOD BCRP Integration Panel Chair:
        ``The most important aspect of being a part of the BCRP, for me,
    has been the interaction with consumer advocates. They have currently
    affected the way that I think about breast cancer, but they have also
    impacted the way that I do science more generally. They are a constant
    reminder that our goal should be to impact people's lives.''------Greg
    Hannon, PhD, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
                                unique structure
        The DOD BCRP uses a two-tiered review process for proposal
    evaluation, with both steps including scientists as well as consumers.
    The first tier is scientific peer review in which proposals are weighed
    against established criteria for determining scientific merit. The
    second tier is programmatic review conducted by the Integration Panel
    (composed of scientists and consumers) that compares submissions across
    areas and recommends proposals for funding based on scientific merit,
    portfolio balance and relevance to program goals.
        Scientific reviewers and other professionals participating in both
    the peer review and the programmatic review process are selected for
    their subject matter expertise. Consumer participants are recommended
    by an organization and chosen on the basis of their experience,
    training and recommendations.
        The BCRP has the strictest conflict of interest policy of any
    research funding program or institute. This policy has served it well
    through the years. Its method for choosing peer and programmatic review
    panels has produced a model that has been replicated by funding
    entities around the world.
        It is important to note that the Integration Panel that designs
    this Program has a strategic plan for how best to spend the funds
    appropriated. This plan is based on the state of the science--both what
    scientists and consumers know now and the gaps in our knowledge--as
    well as the needs of the public. While this plan is mission driven, and
    helps ensure that the science keeps to that mission of eradicating
    breast cancer in mind, it does not restrict scientific freedom,
    creativity or innovation. The Integration Panel carefully allocates
    these resources, but it does not predetermine the specific research
    areas to be addressed.
                       distinctive funding opportunities
        The DOD BCRP research portfolio includes many different types of
    projects, including support for innovative individuals and ideas,
    impact on translating research from the bench to the bedside, and
    training of breast cancer researchers.
    Innovation
        The Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards (IDEA) grants
    of the DOD program have been critical in the effort to respond to new
    discoveries and to encourage and support innovative, risk-taking
    research. Concept Awards support funding even earlier in the process of
    discovery. These grants have been instrumental in the development of
    promising breast cancer research by allowing scientists to explore
    beyond the realm of traditional research and unleash incredible new
    ideas. IDEA and Concept grants are uniquely designed to dramatically
    advance our knowledge in areas that offer the greatest potential. They
    are precisely the type of grants that rarely receive funding through
    more traditional programs such as the National Institutes of Health and
    private research programs. They therefore complement, and do not
    duplicate, other Federal funding programs. This is true of other DOD
    award mechanisms also.
        Innovator awards invest in world renowned, outstanding individuals
    rather than projects, by providing funding and freedom to pursue highly
    creative, potentially groundbreaking research that could ultimately
    accelerate the eradication of breast cancer. For example, in fiscal
    year 2008, Dr. Mauro Ferrari of the University of Texas Health Science
    Center at Houston was granted an Innovator Award to develop novel
    vectors for the optimal delivery of individualized breast cancer
    treatments. This is promising based on the astounding variability in
    breast cancer tumors and the challenges presented in determining which
    treatments will be most effective and how to deliver those treatments
    to each individual patient. In fiscal year 2006, Dr. Gertraud
    Maskarinec of the University of Hawaii received a synergistic IDEA
    Award to study effectiveness of the Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry
    (DXA) as a method to evaluate breast cancer risks in women and young
    girls.
        The Era of Hope Scholar Award supports the formation of the next
    generation of leaders in breast cancer research, by identifying the
    best and brightest scientists early in their careers and giving them
    the necessary resources to pursue a highly innovative vision of ending
    breast cancer. Dr. Shiladitya Sengupta from Brigham and Women's
    Hospital, Harvard Medical School, received a fiscal year 2006 Era of
    Hope Scholar Award to explore new strategies in the treatment of breast
    cancer that target both the tumor and the supporting network
    surrounding it. In fiscal year 2007, Dr. Gene Bidwell of the University
    of Mississippi Medical Center received an Era of Hope Postdoctoral
    Award to study thermally targeted delivery of inhibitor peptides, which
    is an underdeveloped strategy for cancer therapy.
        One of the most promising outcomes of research funded by the DOD
    BCRP was the development of the first monoclonal antibody targeted
    therapy that prolongs the lives of women with a particularly aggressive
    type of advanced breast cancer. Researchers found that over-expression
    of HER-2/neu in breast cancer cells results in very aggressive biologic
    behavior. The same researchers demonstrated that an antibody directed
    against HER-2/neu could slow the growth of the cancer cells that over-
    expressed the gene. This research, which led to the development of the
    targeted therapy, was made possible in part by a DOD BCRP-funded
    infrastructure grant. Other researchers funded by the DOD BCRP are
    identifying similar targets that are involved in the initiation and
    progression of cancer.
        These are just a few examples of innovative funding opportunities
    at the DOD BCRP that are filling gaps in breast cancer research.
    Translational Research
        The DOD BCRP also focuses on moving research from the bench to the
    bedside. DOD BCRP awards are designed to fill niches that are not
    addressed by other Federal agencies. The BCRP considers translational
    research to be the process by which the application of well-founded
    laboratory or other pre-clinical insight result in a clinical trial. To
    enhance this critical area of research, several research opportunities
    have been offered. Clinical Translational Research Awards have been
    awarded for investigator-initiated projects that involve a clinical
    trial within the lifetime of the award. The BCRP has expanded its
    emphasis on translational research by also offering five different
    types of awards that support work at the critical juncture between
    laboratory research and bedside applications.
        The Multi Team Award mechanism brings together the world's most
    highly qualified individuals and institutions to address a major
    overarching question in breast cancer research that could make a
    significant contribution toward the eradication of breast cancer. Many
    of these Teams are working on questions that will translate into direct
    clinical applications. These Teams include the expertise of basic,
    epidemiology and clinical researchers, as well as consumer advocates.
    Training
        The DOD BCRP is also cognizant of the need to invest in tomorrow's
    breast cancer researchers. Dr. J. Chuck Harrell, Ph.D. at the
    University of Colorado, Denver and the University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, for example, received a Predoctoral Traineeship Award to
    investigate hormonal regulation of lymph node metastasis, the majority
    of which retain estrogen receptors (ER) and/or progesterone receptors.
    Through his research, Dr. Harrell determined that lymph node
    microenvironment alters ER expression and function in the lymph nodes,
    effecting tumor growth. These findings led Dr. Harrell to conduct
    further research in the field of breast metastasis during his
    postdoctoral work. Jim Hongjun of the Battelle Memorial Institute
    received a postdoctoral award for the early detection of breast cancer
    using post-translationally modified biomarkers.
        Dr. John Niederhuber, now the Director of the National Cancer
    Institute (NCI), said the following about the Program when he was
    Director of the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center in
    April, 1999:
        ``Research projects at our institution funded by the Department of
    Defense are searching for new knowledge in many different fields
    including: identification of risk factors, investigating new therapies
    and their mechanism of action, developing new imaging techniques and
    the development of new models to study [breast cancer] . . . Continued
    availability of this money is critical for continued progress in the
    nation's battle against this deadly disease.''
        Scientists and consumers agree that it is vital that these grants
    continue to support breast cancer research. To sustain the Program's
    momentum, $150 million for peer-reviewed research is needed in fiscal
    year 2011.
                      outcomes and reviews of the dod bcrp
        The outcomes of the BCRP-funded research can be gauged, in part, by
    the number of publications, abstracts/presentations, and patents/
    licensures reported by awardees. To date, there have been more than
    12,241 publications in scientific journals, more than 12,000 abstracts
    and nearly 550 patents/licensure applications. The American public can
    truly be proud of its investment in the DOD BCRP. Scientific
    achievements that are the direct result of the DOD BCRP grants are
    undoubtedly moving us closer to eradicating breast cancer.
        The success of the DOD peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program
    has been illustrated by several unique assessments of the Program. The
    IOM, which originally recommended the structure for the Program,
    independently re-examined the Program in a report published in 1997.
    They published another report on the Program in 2004. Their findings
    overwhelmingly encouraged the continuation of the Program and offered
    guidance for program implementation improvements.
        The 1997 IOM review of the DOD peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Research
    Program commended the Program, stating, ``the Program fills a unique
    niche among public and private funding sources for cancer research. It
    is not duplicative of other programs and is a promising vehicle for
    forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the nation's fight
    against breast cancer.'' The 2004 report spoke to the importance of the
    program and the need for its continuation.
        The DOD peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program not only
    provides a funding mechanism for high-risk, high-return research, but
    also reports the results of this research to the American people every
    2 to 3 years at a public meeting called the Era of Hope. The 1997
    meeting was the first time a federally funded program reported back to
    the public in detail not only on the funds used, but also on the
    research undertaken, the knowledge gained from that research and future
    directions to be pursued.
        Sixteen hundred consumers and researchers met for the fifth Era of
    Hope meeting in June, 2008. As MSNBC.com's Bob Bazell wrote, this
    meeting ``brought together many of the most committed breast cancer
    activists with some of the nation's top cancer scientists. The
    conference's directive is to push researchers to think `out of the box'
    for potential treatments, methods of detection and prevention . . .''
    He went on to say ``the program . . . has racked up some impressive
    accomplishments in high-risk research projects . . .''
        One of the topics reported on at the meeting was the development of
    more effective breast imaging methods. An example of the important work
    that is coming out of the DOD BCRP includes a new screening method,
    molecular breast imaging, which helps detect breast cancer in women
    with dense breasts--which can be difficult using a mammogram alone. I
    invite you to log on to NBCC's website http://
    influence.stopbreastcancer.org/ to learn more about the exciting
    research reported at the 2008 Era of Hope. The next Era of Hope meeting
    is being planned for 2011.
        The DOD peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted
    scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines, launched new
    mechanisms for research and facilitated new thinking in breast cancer
    research and research in general. A report on all research that has
    been funded through the DOD BCRP is available to the public.
    Individuals can go to the Department of Defense website and look at the
    abstracts for each proposal at http://cdmrp.army.mil/bcrp/.
               commitment of the national breast cancer coalition
        The National Breast Cancer Coalition is strongly committed to the
    DOD BCRP in every aspect, as we truly believe it is one of our best
    chances for finding causes of, cures for, and ways to prevent breast
    cancer. The Coalition and its members are dedicated to working with you
    to ensure the continuation of funding for this Program at a level that
    allows this research to forge ahead. From 1992, with the launch of our
    ``300 Million More Campaign'' that formed the basis of this Program,
    until now, NBCC advocates have appreciated your support.
        Over the years, our members have shown their continuing support for
    this Program through petition campaigns, collecting more than 2.6
    million signatures, and through their advocacy on an almost daily basis
    around the country asking for support of the DOD BCRP.
        Consumer advocates have worked hard over the years to keep this
    program free of political influence. Often, specific institutions or
    disgruntled scientists try to change the program though legislation,
    pushing for funding for their specific research or institution, or try
    to change the program in other ways, because they did not receive
    funding through the process, one that is fair, transparent and
    successful. The DOD BCRP has been successful for so many years because
    of the experience and expertise of consumer involvement, and because of
    the unique peer review and programmatic structure of the program. We
    urge this Committee to protect the integrity of the important model
    this program has become.
        There are 3 million women living with breast cancer in this country
    today. This year, more than 40,000 will die of the disease and more
    than 240,000 will be diagnosed. We still do not know how to prevent
    breast cancer, how to diagnose it in a way to make a real difference or
    how to cure it. It is an incredibly complex disease. We simply cannot
    afford to walk away from this program.
        Since the very beginning of this Program in 1992, Congress has
    stood with us in support of this important approach in the fight
    against breast cancer. In the years since, Chairman Inouye and Ranking
    Member Cochran, you and this entire Committee have been leaders in the
    effort to continue this innovative investment in breast cancer
    research.
        NBCC asks you, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to
    recognize the importance of what has been initiated by the
    Appropriations Committee. You have set in motion an innovative and
    highly efficient approach to fighting the breast cancer epidemic. We
    ask you now to continue your leadership and fund the Program at $150
    million and maintain its integrity. This is research that will help us
    win this very real and devastating war against a cruel enemy.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony and for
    giving hope to all women and their families, and especially to the 3
    million women in the United States living with breast cancer and all
    those who share in the mission to end breast cancer.

        Chairman Inouye. Our final witness represents the Program
    for Appropriate Technology in Health, Dr. John W. Boslego.
    STATEMENT OF JOHN W. BOSLEGO, M.D., DIRECTOR, VACCINE
                DEVELOPMENT GLOBAL PROGRAM, PROGRAM FOR
                APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN HEALTH
        Dr. Boslego. Good morning. My name is John Boslego. I am
    the director of the Vaccine Development Global Program at PATH.
        I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Inouye and
    Ranking Member Cochran. I would also like to thank Senators
    Patty Murray and Dick Durbin for their ongoing championship of
    global health, and Senator Brownback for his leadership in
    ensuring access for lifesaving tools for neglected diseases in
    low-income countries.
        PATH is an international nonprofit organization that
    creates sustainable, culturally relevant solutions, enabling
    communities worldwide to break longstanding cycles of poor
    health. By collaborating with diverse public and private sector
    partners, we help provide appropriate health technologies and
    vital strategies that change the way people think and act.
        We wish to take this opportunity to recognize the specific
    and unique areas of expertise that the Department of Defense
    brings to bear in advancing innovation that ensures that people
    in low-resource settings have access to lifesaving
    interventions and technologies.
        The global health research effort of DOD responds to
    diseases many Americans may never see up close, but which
    military personnel stationed in the developing world experience
    alongside local communities. PATH requests that in fiscal year
    2011 the subcommittee provide robust support for DOD research
    and development programs aimed at addressing health challenges,
    particularly for military malaria vaccine research, as well as
    research at the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or
    DARPA.
        For malaria vaccine, more than one-third of the world's
    population is at risk of malaria, with approximately 250
    million cases occurring every year. And most of the nearly 1
    million deaths from malaria are among children in Africa under
    the age of 5.
        According to a 2006 IOM report, malaria has affected almost
    all military deployments since the American civil war and
    remains a severe ongoing threat. The same report noted that a
    vaccine would be the best method of averting the threat of
    malaria, given the likely increasing number of deployments to
    high-risk areas.
        Military researchers within the Military Infectious Disease
    Research Program are at the forefront of efforts to develop a
    malaria vaccine. One example of DOD's impact in malaria
    research is the most promising vaccine candidate in existence
    today, RTS,S. Research at the Walter Reed Army Institute of
    Research contributed to the development of the vaccine
    candidate, and early testing of RTS,S--created by
    GlaxoSmithKline--was done in collaboration with the U.S.
    military.
        Today, thanks to an innovative partnership between GSK Bio
    and PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative--a PATH program that works
    to accelerate development of malaria vaccines and ensure their
    availability and accessibility in the developing world--RTS,S
    is now in a large-scale phase 3 trial, typically the last stage
    of testing prior to licensure. The U.S. Army is assisting in
    this trial by supporting one of the field sites in Kenya.
        Unfortunately, current funding levels are nowhere near what
    is needed to develop urgently needed countermeasures against
    malaria. PATH recommends $31.1 million in malaria R&D funding
    for DOD in fiscal year 2011.
        Another program making great contributions to health
    research and development is DARPA. DARPA has identified as a
    priority the development of health technologies that can help
    both the U.S. military and be of use in DOD-sponsored
    humanitarian and relief operations in regions emerging from
    conflict.
        One of the technologies pioneered by DARPA has led to
    electrochemical generators of chlorine. PATH has partnered with
    Cascade Design, Inc., on a new generation of smart
    electrochlorinators that inactivates bacteria, viruses, and
    some protozoa to create safe drinking water. The generators can
    be powered by solar-charged batteries, making them accessible
    to communities that do not have electricity infrastructure.
        In conclusion, in light of the critical role that DOD plays
    in global health research and development, we respectfully
    request the subcommittee provide the resources to maintain this
    important core capacity, including $31.1 million in malaria R&D
    funding.
        We thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Doctor, and you may
    be assured we will seriously consider your request.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        I think malaria is one of those diseases that worldwide is
    probably the most aggressive and probably causes more deaths
    and illnesses than any other one malady. Is that right? Is that
    an accurate assessment?
        Dr. Boslego. Certainly, it is among the top killers,
    particularly in Africa.
        Senator Cochran. Well, thank you very much for reminding us
    of this and your assistance to the subcommittee.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of John W. Boslego
        PATH appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony
    regarding fiscal year 2011 funding for global health research and
    development to the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. PATH is
    an international nonprofit organization that creates sustainable,
    culturally relevant solutions, enabling communities worldwide to break
    longstanding cycles of poor health. By collaborating with diverse
    public- and private-sector partners, we help provide appropriate health
    technologies and vital strategies that change the way people think and
    act.
        We wish to take this opportunity to recognize the specific and
    unique areas of expertise that the Department of Defense (DOD) brings
    to bear in advancing innovation that ensures that people in low-
    resource settings have access to life-saving interventions and
    technologies. Through DOD, the U.S. Government is able to apply this
    core capacity to improving health throughout the world.
        The global health research efforts of DOD respond to diseases many
    Americans may never see up close, but which military personnel
    stationed in the developing world experience alongside local
    communities. Medicines, vaccines, and diagnostics for health threats
    that disproportionately affect the developing world are critical for
    their protection. Health is also an important factor in global
    stability and security. The heavy burden of disease in the developing
    world hinders economic and social development, which in turn
    perpetuates conditions that breed political instability. DOD health
    research therefore benefits not only the U.S. military but also has the
    potential to reduce this health burden, and by doing so, reduce the
    likelihood of physical conflict.
        PATH requests that in fiscal year 2011, the Subcommittee provide
    robust support for DOD research and development programs aimed at
    addressing these health challenges, particularly two important
    programs. First, we request that the Subcommittee provide increased
    support for military malaria vaccine development efforts. Second, we
    request that the Subcommittee support research at the Defense Advanced
    Research and Projects Agency (DARPA) aimed at delivering healthcare to
    military personnel and civilians in remote, resource-poor, and unstable
    locations. PATH also requests that no funding cuts be made to DOD
    research and development.
    Malaria and Vaccines
        Malaria is a parasitic infection transmitted by mosquitoes. More
    than one-third of the world's population is at risk of malaria, with
    approximately 250 million cases occurring every year. Most of the
    nearly 1 million annual deaths from malaria are among children in
    Africa under the age of five. A malaria vaccine is desperately needed
    to help prevent these deaths. While consistent use of effective
    insecticides, insecticide-treated nets, and malaria medicines saves
    lives, eradicating or even significantly reducing the impact of malaria
    will require additional interventions, including vaccines. Immunization
    is one of the most effective health interventions available. Just as it
    was necessary to use vaccines to control polio and measles in the
    United States, vaccines are needed as part of an effective control
    strategy for malaria. Furthermore, vaccines are typically the most
    efficient means of protecting military personnel from disease threats.
    When troops are deployed, and particularly under combat conditions,
    compliance with drug regimens or other disease-protection protocols can
    be difficult, if not impossible. Vaccination, in contrast, can be
    performed prior to deployment, and allows deployed personnel to remain
    focused on mission success, rather than chemoprophylaxis, bed nets, or
    insecticide application.
    Malaria and the U.S. Military
        A 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report \1\ found that ``malaria
    has affected almost all military deployments since the American Civil
    War and remains a severe and ongoing threat.'' For this reason, the
    military has historically taken an active and leading role in the
    development of health technologies to protect military personnel from
    malaria, or to treat them if they become infected with the disease.
    This work includes a robust, cutting-edge program aimed at developing a
    highly-efficacious malaria vaccine, suitable for use by military
    personnel. The aforementioned IOM study noted ``the fact that a vaccine
    would be the best method of averting the threat of malaria given the
    likely increasing number of deployments to high-risk areas.'' An
    effective vaccine would provide unparalleled protection to servicemen
    and women serving in malaria-endemic countries and regions, and would
    significantly reduce the impact of noncompliance, drug resistance, and
    other significant obstacles that currently limit the military's ability
    to provide protection from malaria. Military researchers within the
    Military Infectious Disease Research Program, including the U.S. Army
    Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, U.S. Naval Medical
    Research Center, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
    (WRAIR), are at the forefront of efforts to develop a malaria vaccine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Battling Malaria--Strengthening the U.S. Military Malaria
    Vaccine Program. National Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, D.C.
    2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Research at WRAIR, for example, contributed to the development of
    the most promising vaccine candidate in existence today, RTS,S. Early
    testing of RTS,S--created by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK Bio)--was
    done in collaboration with the U.S. military. Today, thanks to an
    innovative partnership between GSK Bio and the PATH Malaria Vaccine
    Initiative (MVI)--a PATH program that works to accelerate the
    development of malaria vaccines and ensure their availability and
    accessibility in the developing world--RTS,S is now in a large-scale
    Phase 3 trial, typically the last stage of testing prior to licensure.
    Although the efficacy of RTS,S is unlikely to prove adequate for
    military purposes--despite its potential benefit to young children in
    Africa--it has shown that developing a vaccine against malaria is
    possible and paved the way for other development efforts that could
    ultimately allow the military to vaccinate men and women against
    malaria before deploying them to endemic regions. Since its
    establishment in 1999, MVI has partnered with the military in a number
    of malaria vaccine development projects, including the preclinical
    development of an adenovirus-vectored malaria vaccine candidate
    developed by GenVec, Inc. that used a modified common cold virus to
    deliver multiple malaria antigens.
        Unfortunately, DOD spending on malaria research has been declining
    for several years from levels that were already comparatively small
    given the historic impact of malaria on overseas deployments. PATH
    requests that the Subcommittee reverse this trend, and provide the
    resources needed to develop the necessary tools--including vaccines--to
    protect soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from this deadly and
    debilitating disease threat. This would make possible a continuation of
    the kind of collaboration--characterized by joint funding--that
    currently exists between MVI and the U.S. Military Malaria Vaccine
    Program. In particular, PATH recommends $31.1 million in malaria R&D
    funding for DOD in fiscal year 2011.
    DARPA and DTRA
        The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is DOD's
    primary research and development component and performs work on the
    cutting edge of multiple scientific disciplines, providing a wide range
    of critical new technologies and products for use by the military.
    DARPA has made and could make additional contributions in one area it
    has identified as a priority: developing health technologies that can
    both help the U.S. military, and be of use in DOD-sponsored
    humanitarian relief operations in regions emerging from conflict.
    Military personnel operating in developing countries face many of the
    same challenges to healthcare delivery as do the residents of those
    countries: electricity and transportation interruptions that can
    threaten the integrity of temperature-sensitive medicines and vaccines;
    lack of access to trained medical personnel and facilities; and an
    absence of infrastructures and technologies that allow for the rapid
    manufacture and delivery of medicines and vaccines for the treatment of
    unexpected infectious disease threats. Increased support for this
    research would help the United States to more effectively assist
    developing countries that need vaccines and other basic health
    technologies, while ensuring that health products are delivered as
    efficiently as possible.
        DARPA's investments in austere healthcare delivery systems--through
    their focus on disaster medicine in projects such as ``Real World,''
    ``Rapid Altitude Climatization,'' and ``SAVE II Ventilators''--
    represent a commitment to interventions that could have positive and
    profound health implications for populations in low-resource settings.
    For example, DARPA pioneered technology that has led to electrochemical
    generators of chlorine that may be able to fulfill a community's needs
    for effective disinfectants for water or surfaces by using just salt
    water and a simple battery source, such as a car or motorcycle battery.
        The Smart Electrochlorinator provides a chlorine solution used to
    treat water from a variety of sources, bringing safe water into small-
    community households. The devices effectively inactivate bacteria,
    viruses, and some protozoa to create safe drinking water. Since the
    generators can be powered by solar-charged batteries, they are
    accessible to communities that do not have an electricity
    infrastructure. The only resources required are 75 g of table salt and
    0.1 kWh per person per year, both potentially renewable. These costs
    are significantly less than required for the current large-scale
    community systems, resulting in break-even points that are within reach
    of very poor, small communities. PATH has partnered with Cascade
    Designs, Inc. on a new generation of smart electrochlorinator that has
    the potential to expand the project initiated by DARPA to broader
    community reach for both military and civilian benefit.
        The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is also doing
    groundbreaking work as it investigates innovations in vaccine and
    chemical reagent thermo-stabilization and point of care diagnostic
    tests for infectious diseases that has positive implications for global
    health and U.S. military support in low-resource settings. Such
    technologies will enable rapid pathogen identification in the field and
    threat zone to more rapidly enlist targeted interventions. PATH
    requests that the Subcommittee maintain funding for the DARPA and DTRA
    research aimed at developing solutions to these and other health
    challenges.
    Conclusion
        In light of the critical role that at DOD plays in global health
    research and development, and the fact that investments in this area
    have been falling, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee
    provide the resources to maintain this important core capacity. We
    thank you for your consideration, and hope that you will consider PATH
    as a resource and partner on this issue.

                        ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

        Chairman Inouye. On behalf of the subcommittee, I would
    like to thank all of you, the witnesses, for the testimony
    today.
        The subcommittee has received some additional statements
    which will be inserted into the record at this point.
        [The statements follow:]
          Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
    Overview
        Recognizing its potential to aid the Department of Defense in its
    goal to support research to prepare for and respond to the full range
    of threats, the American Museum of Natural History seeks in $3.5
    million in fiscal year 2011 to contribute its unique resources to the
    advancement of research in areas of science closely aligned with DOD's
    research priorities and to extend the research effort with an
    associated STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)
    education component, to help build a workforce adequate to meet the
    nation's security needs.
    About the American Museum of Natural History
        The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is one of the
    nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
    education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
    mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
    research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
    world, and the universe.'' The AMNH research staff numbers over 200,
    with tenure track faculty carrying out cutting-edge research in fields
    ranging from molecular biology and genome science to earth and space
    science, anthropology, and astrophysics. Museum scientists publish
    nearly 450 scientific articles each year and enjoy a success rate in
    competitive (peer reviewed) scientific grants that is approximately
    double the national average. The work of its scientists forms the basis
    for all the Museum's activities that seek to explain complex issues and
    help people to understand the events and processes that created and
    continue to shape the Earth, life and civilization on this planet, and
    the universe beyond.
    Advancing Research Aligned With National Security Goals
        The Department of Defense (DOD) ensures the nation's security and
    its capacity to understand and respond to threats in this new era of
    complex defense challenges. DOD is committed to the research, tools,
    and technology that will achieve these goals, and to ensuring that the
    nation's 21st century science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
    (STEM) workforce is prepared to meet U.S. preparedness and security
    needs.
        The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), in turn, is a
    preeminent research and public education institution, home to leading
    research programs in biocomputation, comparative genomics, and the
    life, physical, environmental, and social sciences--programs that are
    positioned to advance the Nation's capacity to prepare for and respond
    to security threats. AMNH is also a recognized leader in STEM
    education--in both out-of-school settings and with formal education
    partners--with local, regional, and national reach, and, with the
    recently launched Richard Gilder Graduate School, became the first
    American museum authorized to grant the Ph.D. degree.
        In fiscal year 2005, AMNH and DOD launched a multi-faceted research
    partnership via DARPA that leverages the Museum's unique expertise and
    capacity. Since that time, AMNH has been carrying out research that
    directly relates to DARPA goals by increasing our capacity to predict
    where disease outbreaks might occur and to effectively monitor disease-
    causing agents and their global spread. This research project has been
    centered on the development of a computational system to rapidly
    compare genetic sequences of pathogens, and, utilizing the
    computational system, generating a global map showing the spread of
    disease-causing viruses over time and place.
        Throughout this partnership, DARPA program managers have supported
    AMNH's work, have made the research known to other DOD-supported
    scientists, and have invited AMNH scientists to participate in DARPA
    conferences. With DARPA support to date, the project has: advanced
    understanding of emerging infectious disease through the analysis of
    the origins and genomic evolution of SARS coronavirus; studied re-
    assortment and drug resistance among influenza strains; and developed
    methods for mapping the spread of pathogens over time and geography. We
    are now able to track global evolution of pathogenic viruses such as
    avian influenza, and can identify, for any geographic region, the major
    and minor sources of pathogenic viruses. The research has investigated
    progressively more complex systems, moving from viruses to the study of
    bacteria, including ecological data into the realm of biogeographical
    and host-pathogen research.
        In fiscal year 2011, the Museum seeks DARPA support to advance its
    research in this and other high-priority areas for the Agency, and to
    enhance the research program with an associated STEM education
    component, providing diverse urban students with science content,
    research experiences, and mentoring in the project's STEM areas. In so
    doing, AMNH hopes to help meet the need for a well-educated population
    of college-level graduates in STEM fields. With this support, which
    AMNH will leverage with funds from non-Federal and Federal sources,
    AMNH will be able to continue to draw on its unique research, training,
    and education capabilities to advance goals critical to DOD and our
    national preparedness and security.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Florida State University
        Summary: Florida State University is requesting $5,500,000 from the
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, Force Protection
    Applied Research (PE# 0602123N, Line 5) for the Integration of Electo-
    kinetic Weapons into the Next Generation Navy Ships Program; $4,000,000
    from the Defense, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
    wide, Government/Industry Co-Sponsorship of University Research (PE#
    0601111D8Z, Line 3) for the Integrated Cryo-cooled High Power Density
    Systems; $3,800,000 from the Research, Development, Test and
    Evaluation, Navy, Defense Research Sciences (PE# 0601153N, Line 3), for
    the Jet Engine Noise: Understanding and Reduction program, and
    $4,500,000 from the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
    University and Industry Research Centers Program (PE# 0601104A, Line 4)
    for the Nanotubes Optimized for Lightweight Exceptional Strength
    (NOLES)/Composite Material Program.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
    Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
    Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
    Florida State University.
        Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
    Research university with a rapidly growing research base. The
    University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
    studies, exemplary research, and top-quality undergraduate programs.
    Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
    teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
    a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
    faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
    including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
    of the National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do
    excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
    work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
    results of their research. Florida State University had over $200
    million this past year in sponsored research awards.
        Florida State University attracts students from every state in the
    nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed
    to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
    which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
    Scholars, Rhodes and Goldwater Scholars, as well as students with
    superior creative talent. Since 2005, FSU students have won more than
    30 nationally competitive scholarships and fellowships including 3
    Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman Scholarships, Goldwater, and 18 Fulbright
    Fellowships.
        At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
    well as our emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public
    research universities. Our new President, Dr. Eric Barron, will lead
    FSU to new heights during his tenure.
        Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interest today. The
    first project involves improving our nation's fighting capabilities and
    is called the Integration of Electro-kinetic Weapons into the Next
    Generation Navy Ships Project.
        The U.S. Navy is developing the next-generation integrated power
    system (NGIPS) for future war ships that have an all-electric platform
    of propulsion and weapon loads and electric power systems with rapid
    reconfigurable distribution systems for integrated fight-through power
    (IFTPS). On-demand delivery of the large amounts of energy needed to
    operate these types of nonlinear dynamic loads raises issues that must
    be addressed including the appropriate topology for the ship electric
    distribution system for rapid reconfiguration to battle readiness and
    the energy supply technology for the various nonlinear dynamic load
    systems. The goal of this initiative is to investigate the energy
    delivery technologies for nonlinear dynamic loads, such as electro-
    kinetic weapons systems, and investigate the integration and interface
    issues of these loads on the ship NGIPS through system simulations and
    prototype tests using power hardware-in-the loop strategies. To meet
    these research goals, the FSU facilities will be expanded with a 5 MW
    MVDC power converter and upgrade of the large scale real-time
    simulator. The results of this effort will provide the Navy's ship-
    builders with vital information to design and de-risk deployable ship
    NGIPS and load power supplies.
        With significant support from the Office of Naval Research (ONR),
    FSU has established the Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS), which
    has integrated a real time digital power system simulation and modeling
    capability and hardware test-bed, capable of testing IPS power system
    components at ratings up to 5MW, offering unique hardware-in-the-loop
    simulation capabilities unavailable anywhere in the world. FSU is
    partnering with Florida Atlantic University, Florida International
    University, and General Atomics to combine the best talents for
    modeling and simulation of ship power systems, hardware-in-the-loop
    testing, power supplies for present and future electro-kinetic systems,
    and interfacing of the weapon to a ship power system. General Atomics
    will provide the power requirements for the weapons interface to the
    shipboard power distribution system. The National High Magnetic Field
    Laboratory (NHMFL) will utilize its research expertise and
    infrastructure for the proposed development. NAVSEA will be an advisor
    to the project for weapon system integration. We are requesting
    $5,500,000 for this important program.
        Our second project is also important to our nation's defense and
    involves our Integrated Cryo-cooled High Power Density Systems program.
    The objective of this program is to approach the goal of achieving high
    power densities through systems integration, management of heat
    generation and removal in the electrical system and minimize energy
    consumption and capital expenditures of large scale advanced power
    systems through cryo-cooled superconducting systems. The research
    activities are as follows:
        Systems Analysis.--Extensive system modeling and simulation of the
    integrated electrical and thermal systems to understand dynamic
    performance under normal and adverse conditions is necessary to achieve
    an optimal system configuration. Develop prototypes of key technologies
    and test in hardware-in-the-loop simulations at levels of several
    megawatts (MW) to validate and demonstrate the advanced technologies.
        Materials--Advanced Conductors, Semi-conductors and Insulation.--
    Characterization of conductor materials (both normal and
    superconducting), semi-conductors (for use in power electronic
    components) and insulating materials (both thermal and electrical) at
    cryogenic temperatures to obtain the data needed to model system
    performance and design components for medium voltage dc (MVDC).
        Cryo-thermal Systems.--Optimize thermal system options, including
    conductive heat transfer and gas phase and fluid phase heat transfer
    systems. Modeling to understand effects from heat leaks from the
    ambient to the low temperature environment and internal heat generation
    are critical to successful performance. Adaptability to economical
    fabrication technologies is a major issue for investigation.
        System Components.--Consider new concepts for design of system
    components and interfaces to achieve optimum system integration. A 30
    meter, 10KV DC cable based on 2G HTS wire will be designed, fabricated
    and tested to prove the concept of a MVDC superconducting shipboard
    power distribution system and provide validated design parameters to
    the Navy. NAVSEA will be a scientific adviser to the project.
        We are seeking $4,000,000 for this important program in fiscal year
    2011.
        Third, I would like to tell you about our Jet Engine Noise:
    Understanding and Reduction Program. Engine noise from most modern
    tactical aircraft is dominated by the jet noise due to the exhaust of
    very high-speed (supersonic in most cases) gases from the jet engines;
    this portion of the noise is often referred to as jet noise. Noise
    levels in the vicinities of these aircraft are extremely high--often as
    high as 150 dB. This poses considerable risk to the health and safety
    of the personnel on carrier decks or near aircraft runways. These very
    high noise levels are also a problem due to their impact on the
    communities near military bases. If not properly addressed, the jet
    noise issue will continue to worsen since the noise footprint of future
    aircraft will likely be much higher due to higher exhaust velocities
    from their engines. Recently, the Naval Research Advisory Committee
    (NARC) released a report identifying aircraft exhaust noise as a major
    problem that requires immediate attention.
        Under this proposal, FSU proposes a comprehensive program with the
    short- and long-term goals of (a) developing jet noise suppression
    technologies that can be retrofitted in the current aircraft fleet; (b)
    undertaking a sustained research effort to better understanding the jet
    noise sources and fundamentals which will lead to the development of
    reduction capacities; and (c) to improve noise suppression technologies
    that will become an integral part of the propulsion systems in future
    aircraft.
        This will be achieved by leveraging our significant and unique
    resources and expertise in the study of jet noise and control.
    Leveraging resources provided by this program by the State of Florida,
    FSU will make appropriate improvements to our test and diagnostic
    facilities to provide the needed fundamental understanding for
    controlling jet noise. We will use our considerable expertise in Active
    Flow and Noise Control to rapidly develop and test many of the
    promising noise control concepts; maturing, then transitioning to the
    field, the most practical and promising ones. Our team has significant
    expertise in both the study and control of jet noise and collectively
    represents some of the best scientists and engineers presently working
    in this area. Given the interdisciplinary nature of this problem, we
    are ideally suited to making a notable impact in solving the jet noise
    suppression problem. We are asking for $3,800,000 to initiate this
    vital program.
        Our final project involves Nanotubes Optimized for Lightweight
    Exceptional Strength (NOLES) Composite Materials. The U.S. Army's
    objective of developing effective personnel protection and a lighter,
    stronger fleet of fighting vehicles may be achieved through the
    diminutive nanotubes that (1) are the strongest fiber known, (2) have a
    thermal conductivity two times higher than pure diamond, and (3) have
    unique electrical conductivity properties and an ultra-high current
    carrying capacity. For producing lightweight multifunctional
    composites, resins impregnated with nanotubes hold the promise of
    creating structures, which will be the strongest ever known, and hence
    offer maximum personnel and vehicle protection. Benefits are apparent
    not only to defense, but also throughout the commercial world.
        Partnered with the Army Research Laboratory, FSU's team of multi-
    disciplinary faculty and students has developed unique design,
    characterization and rapid prototyping capabilities in the field of
    nano-composite research, leading to vital defense applications. The
    NOLES research team is developing high performance thermal management
    materials utilizing nanotubes. The NOLES team is using nanotube
    composites for shielding against electromagnetic interference. Also,
    FSU's composites are being tested for missile wings, UAVs and missile
    guidance systems by various defense contractors.
        Three core programs are envisioned for fiscal year 2011: (1)
    innovative lightweight personnel protection based on integrating
    cutting-edge technology and commercially available, proven materials
    for enhanced safety and security of war fighters; (2) developing
    nanotubes as a material platform and supporting manufacturing processes
    for a new generation of devices and structures, giving special
    attention to the design and demonstration for Army and defense
    applications; and (3) utilizing nanotube buckypaper and optically
    transparent nanotube thin films initially for liquid crystal display
    backlighting and eventually for flexible displays. We are seeking
    $4,500,000 to continue this program in fiscal year 2011.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe this research is vitally important to our
    country and would greatly appreciate your support.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Interstitial Cystitis Association
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
    Interstitial Cystitis (IC) and to share my story to the Subcommittee.
    My name is Lauren Snyder, and I am a 29-year-old special needs teacher
    from Haddon Township, New Jersey. I am also a volunteer with the
    Interstitial Cystitis Association (ICA), the nation's foremost
    nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for
    people living with IC. The ICA provides advocacy, research funding, and
    education to ensure early diagnosis and optimal care with dignity for
    people affected by IC. Until the biomedical research community
    discovers a cure for IC, our primary goal remains the discovery of more
    efficient and effective treatments to help patients live with the
    disease.
        IC is a chronic condition characterized by recurring pain,
    pressure, and discomfort in the bladder and pelvic region. The
    condition is often associated with urinary frequency and urgency,
    although this is not a universal symptom. The cause of IC is unknown.
    Diagnosis is made only after excluding other urinary and bladder
    conditions, possibly causing one or more years delay between onset of
    symptoms and treatment. Men suffering from IC are often misdiagnosed
    with bladder infections and chronic prostatitis. Women are frequently
    misdiagnosed with endometriosis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD),
    irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), vulvodynia, and fibromyalgia, which
    commonly co-occur with IC. When healthcare providers are not properly
    educated about IC, patients may suffer for years before receiving an
    accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment.
        Although IC is considered a ``women's disease'', scientific
    evidence shows that all demographic groups are affected by IC. Women,
    men, and children of all ages, ethnicities, and socioeconomic
    backgrounds develop IC, although it is most commonly found in women.
    Recent prevalence data reports that 3 to 8 million American women and 1
    to 4 million American men suffer from IC. Using the most conservative
    estimates, at least one out of every 77 Americans suffer from IC, and
    further study may indicate prevalence rates as high as 1 out of every
    28 people. Based on this information, IC affects more people than
    breast cancer, Alzheimer's diseases, and autism combined.
        The effects of IC are pervasive and insidious, damaging work life
    and productivity, psychological well-being, personal relationships, and
    general health. Quality of life (QoL) studies have found that the
    impact of IC can equal the severity of rheumatoid arthritis and end-
    stage renal disease. Health-related QoL in women with IC is worse than
    in women with endometriosis, vulvodynia, or overactive bladder alone.
    IC patients have significantly more sleep dysfunction, higher rates of
    depression, increased catastrophizing, anxiety and sexual dysfunction.
        After sustaining permanent damage to my gastrointestinal tract as
    the result of salmonella poisoning and developing pelvic floor
    dysfunction, I underwent a number of surgical procedures that revealed
    the extent of damage to my bladder. After other conditions were ruled
    out, I finally received the diagnosis of IC and was able to begin
    meaning and appropriate treatment. In addition to medications, I
    receive Botox injections into my pelvic floor, as well as bladder
    instillations. In my case, these treatments, as well as the multiple
    surgeries I have undergone, require general anesthesia,
    hospitalization, and extended recovery time, causing me to miss work
    and other activities. As a person living with a disability, my work
    with special needs children is particularly rewarding. Unfortunately,
    my job requires bending, lifting, and repositioning my students, which
    is painful and challenging with my IC symptoms. In addition to
    teaching, I am also a swimming coach, but I have had to reduce my hours
    as extended exposure to the chlorine in the pool aggravates my bladder.
        Although IC research is currently conducted through a number of
    Federal entities, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the DOD's Peer-
    Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) remains essential. The PRMRP
    is an indispensable resource for studying emerging areas in IC
    research, such as prevalence in men, the role of environmental
    conditions such as diet in development and diagnosis, barriers to
    treatment, and IC awareness within the medical military community.
    Specifically, IC education and awareness among military medical
    professionals takes on heightened importance, as the President's fiscal
    year 2011 budget request does not include renewed funding for the CDC's
    IC Education and Awareness Program.
        On behalf of the ICA, and as an IC patient, I would like to thank
    the Subcommittee for including IC as a condition eligible for study
    under the DOD's PRMRP in the fiscal year 2010 DOD Appropriations bill.
    The scientific community showed great interest in the program,
    responding to the initial grant announcement with an immense outpouring
    of proposals. We urge Congress to maintain IC's eligibility in the
    PRMRP in the fiscal year 2011 DOD Appropriations bill, as the number of
    current military members, family members, and veterans affected by IC
    increases alongside the general population.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Chairman Inouye. This subcommittee will take these issues
    under serious consideration as we develop our fiscal year 2011
    Defense appropriations bill, and this concludes our scheduled
    hearings for the fiscal year 2011 defense budget.
        And accordingly, the subcommittee will stand in recess,
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., Wednesday, June 23, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement of the....   566

    Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   339
        Questions Submitted by...........................155, 166, 401, 466
    Berman, Colonel Jonathan (Retired), M.D., Ph.D., United States
      Army Medical Corps, on behalf of the American Society of
      Tropical Medicine and Hygiene..................................   541
        Prepared Statement of........................................   543
    Bockel, Major General David, United States Army (Retired),
      Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association...............   548
        Prepared Statement of........................................   550
    Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri:
        Questions Submitted by......................................62, 464
        Statements of.........................................175, 237, 367
    Boslego, John W., M.D., Director, Vaccine Development Global
      Program, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health..........   562
        Prepared Statement of........................................   564
    Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    29
        Questions Submitted by............................56, 286, 288, 407

    Carpenter, Major General Raymond W., Acting Director, Army
      National Guard, Department of Defense........................235, 244
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   289
        Summary Statement of.........................................   266
    Casey, General George W., Chief of Staff, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Army, Department of Defense.......     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     4
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    57
        Summary Statement of.........................................    26
    Coane, Rear Admiral Casey, United States Navy (Retired),
      Executive Director, Association of the United States Navy......   478
        Prepared Statement of........................................   479
    Cochran, Elizabeth, Secretary, Associations for America's Defense   533
        Prepared Statement of........................................   534
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   338
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   51,
                            60, 165, 168, 171, 229, 232, 234, 362, 407, 463
        Statements of...............................174, 237, 370, 410, 473
    Conway, General James T., Commandant, Marine Corps, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.......   201
        Prepared Statement of........................................   203
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   232

    Davis, John R., Director, Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve
      Association....................................................   484
        Prepared Statement of........................................   485
    Debbink, Vice Admiral Dirk J., Chief, Navy Reserve, Department of
      Defense........................................................   297
        Prepared Statement of........................................   298
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   331
    Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.............   365
        Prepared Statement of........................................   372
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   395
        Summary Statement of.........................................   370
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   338
        Questions Submitted by.....................................156, 360
        Statement of.................................................   368

    Elkas, John C., M.D., J.D., on behalf of the Society of
      Gynecologic Oncolo-
      gists..........................................................   520
        Prepared Statement of........................................   521

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by..................................284, 361, 459
    Flaherty, Rear Admiral Karen, Director, Navy Nurse Corps,
      Department of the Navy, Medical Health Programs, Department of
      Defense........................................................   140
        Prepared Statement of........................................   119
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   166
    Florida State University, Prepared Statement of..................   567

    Gates, Hon. Robert M., Secretary of Defense, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Defense...............................   409
        Prepared Statement of........................................   413
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   455
        Summary Statement of.........................................   411
    Gooden, H. James, Chairman, Board of Directors, American Lung
      Association....................................................   473
        Prepared Statement of........................................   475
    Green, Lieutenant General (Dr.) Charles B., Surgeon General,
      Department of the Air Force, Medical Health Programs,
      Department of Defense..........................................    84
        Prepared Statement of........................................    86
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   156

    Horoho, Major General Patricia, Chief, Army Nurse Corps,
      Department of the Army, Medical Health Programs, Department of
      Defense........................................................   138
        Prepared Statement of........................................   110
    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................400, 465

    Inouye, Chairman Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii:
        Opening Statements of...........1, 65, 173, 235, 337, 365, 409, 473
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   43,
      57, 146, 156, 166, 169, 227, 230, 232, 282, 287, 289, 331, 333, 334,
                                                    359, 395, 404, 455, 468
    Interstitial Cystitis Association, Prepared Statement of the.....   570

    Jones, Richard A., Legislative Director, National Association for
      Uniformed Services.............................................   525
        Prepared Statement of........................................   527

    Kelly, Lieutenant General John F., Commander, Marine Forces
      Reserve and Marine Forces North, Department of Defense.........   305
        Prepared Statement of........................................   306
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   333
    Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   398

    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
        Questions Submitted by..............46, 57, 152, 397, 406, 459, 469
        Statement of.................................................   368

    Mabus, Hon. Ray, Secretary of the Navy, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Navy, Department of Defense..................   173
        Prepared Statement of........................................   178
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   227
        Summary Statement of.........................................   176
    Mason, Karen, Registered Nurse, Ovarian Cancer National Alliance.   494
        Prepared Statement of........................................   495
    McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
      Submitted by..................................................53, 465
    McHugh, Hon. John M., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Army, Department of Defense..................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     4
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    43
        Summary Statement of.........................................     3
    McKinley, General Craig R., Chief, National Guard Bureau,
      Department of Defense..........................................   235
        Prepared Statement of........................................   240
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   282
        Summary Statement of.........................................   238
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland,
      Questions Submitted by.......................................153, 159
    Mullen, Admiral Mike, U.S. Navy, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
      Department of Defense..........................................   409
        Prepared Statement of........................................   423
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   468
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington:
        Questions Submitted by..............47, 58, 148, 161, 170, 461, 471
        Statement of.................................................   370

    O'Reilly, Lieutenant General Patrick J., Director, Missile
      Defense Agency, Department of Defense..........................   337
        Prepared Statement of........................................   342
        Summary Statement of.........................................   339

    Putka, Dan, Ph.D., on behalf of the American Psychological
      Association....................................................   516
        Prepared Statement of........................................   517

    Rentfrow, Kathy, Volunteer, Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.   481
        Prepared Statement of........................................   483
    Robinson, Vice Admiral Adam M., Jr., Surgeon General, Department
      of the Navy, Medical Health Programs, Department of Defense....    65
        Prepared Statement of........................................    69
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   146
        Summary Statement of.........................................    66
    Roughead, Admiral Gary, Chief of Naval Operations, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.......   183
        Prepared Statement of........................................   185
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   230

    Savant, Katie, Government Relations Deputy Director, National
      Military Family Association....................................   498
        Prepared Statement of........................................   500
    Schoomaker, Lieutenant General Eric B., M.D., Ph.D., Surgeon
      General; and Commander, U.S. Army Medical Command, Department
      of the Army, Medical Health Programs, Department of Defense....    76
        Prepared Statement of........................................    78
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   156
    Schwartz, General Norton A., Chief of Staff, Department of
      Defense........................................................   381
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   404
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
        Question Submitted by........................................   363
        Statement of.................................................     3
    Simha, Joy, Member, Board of Directors, National Breast Cancer
      Coalition and Co-Founder, Young Survival Coalition.............   556
        Prepared Statement of........................................   557
    Siniscalchi, Major General Kimberly, Assistant Surgeon General
      for Nursing Services, Air Force Nurse Corps, Department of the
      Air Force, Medical Health Programs, Department of Defense......   143
        Prepared Statement of........................................   123
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   169
    Stenner, Lieutenant General Charles E., Jr., Chief, Air Force
      Reserve, Department of Defense.................................   315
        Prepared Statement of........................................   317
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   334
    Stultz, Lieutenant General Jack C., Chief, Army Reserve,
      Department of Defense..........................................   291
        Prepared Statement of........................................   292
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   331
    Sumrall, Major General Michael H., Acting Director, Joint Staff,
      National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense...................   254

    Wicks, Terry C., Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, MHS,
      American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.....................   489
        Prepared Statement of........................................   490
    Wyatt, Lieutenant General Harry M., III, Director, Air National
      Guard, Department of Defense.................................235, 250
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   287
        Summary Statement of.........................................   265

    Zitnay, George A., Ph.D., Co-Founder, Defense and Veterans Brain
      Injury Center..................................................   544
        Prepared Statement of........................................   545

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   395
    Agile Combat Support.............................................   379
    Air Force:
        Five Priorities..............................................   381
        Military Construction........................................   389
    Air Superiority..................................................   374
    Building Partnerships............................................   378
    Command and Control..............................................   378
    Cyberspace Superiority...........................................   375
    C-130 Training...................................................   386
    4.5 Generation Fighter...........................................   385
    Four Objectives in 2010 QDR......................................   370
    F-15E Radar Modernization........................................   384
    F-35 Aircraft for Lackland AFB, Texas............................   401
    Global:
        Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance...............   377
        Precision Attack.............................................   375
    Joint Strike Fighter Unit Costs..................................   388
    KC-X Basing......................................................   390
    Leasing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.................................   383
    Long Range Persistent Strike Development Program.................   401
    Maintenance in the Air Force.....................................   400
    NASA and Solid Rocket Production.................................   392
    Newer Aircraft for Texas Air National Guard......................   401
    Nuclear Deterrence Operations....................................   373
    Personnel Recovery...............................................   378
    Rapid Global Mobility............................................   376
    Readiness and Resourcing.........................................   380
    SBIRS Payloads...................................................   383
    Space Superiority................................................   374
    Special Operations...............................................   377
    Strategic Focus..................................................   372
    Strategy to Resources............................................   373
    Summary..........................................................   380
    World Trade Organization Ruling in Tanker Competition..........391, 393
    Year of the Air Force Family.....................................   371

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    43
    America's Army--The Strength of the Nation.......................    15
    Armed:
        Aerial Scout Helicopter......................................    44
        Scout Helicopter.............................................    51
    Army:
        Funds Running Out in Fiscal Year 2010........................    45
        Guard and Reserve Equipment..................................    46
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.....................................    60
    Bad Contracts....................................................    41
    Behavioral Health................................................    30
    Blue Grass Army Depot............................................    56
    Brigade Combat Team..............................................    55
        Modernization............................................43, 52, 61
    Character of Conflict in the 21st Century........................     6
    Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and Mental Health..................    58
    Contracting Capability...........................................    42
    Counseling Services..............................................    54
    Director of the Army Guard.......................................    46
    Duplication of System............................................    39
    Equipment in Theater.............................................    57
    Families.........................................................    49
    Future Role of MRAP Vehicles.....................................    44
    Global Trends....................................................     5
    Homeland Response Force..........................................    46
    Hospital.........................................................    54
    Housing Barracks.................................................    55
    Joint Cargo Aircraft.............................................    45
    Mental Health....................................................    58
    Mi-17 Helicopter.................................................    35
    Military Construction............................................    63
    Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles..................53, 61
    Modernize the Force..............................................    62
    Modernizing......................................................    28
    Modularity and Rebalance.........................................    27
    National Guard and Reserves......................................    47
    New Military/VA Hospital.........................................    38
    PTSD/TBI.........................................................    55
    Persistent Conflict..............................................     5
    Recapitalization.................................................    57
    Recruitment......................................................    32
    Reset of Army Equipment..........................................    61
    Resiliency of the Force..........................................51, 61
    Response to Bad Contracts........................................    42
    Restoring Balance/Risk...........................................    60
    Restoring Balance: The Army's Four Imperatives...................     7
    Roles of Land Forces.............................................     6
    Schools..........................................................    56
    Setting Conditions for the Future................................    10
    Stewardship and Innovation.......................................    14
    Strategic Context................................................     5
    Stress on the Force..............................................    30
    Stryker..........................................................32, 33
        V Hulls......................................................    59
    Suicide..........................................................    31
        Prevention...................................................    38
    Suicides.........................................................    53
    Tactical Radios..................................................    45
    Title 32 Line Item...............................................    47
    Transients, Trainees, Holdees and Students (TTHS) Account........    63
    Two Critical Challenges..........................................     7
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.........................................    35

                             Department of the Navy

                            Office of the Secretary

    Acquisition Excellence...........................................   181
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   226
    Amphibious Warfare Ships.........................................   193
    Aviation.........................................................   221
        Programs.....................................................   188
    Build Tomorrow's Navy............................................   187
    Develop and Support our Sailors, Navy Civilians and their
      Families.......................................................   198
    Energy Reform....................................................   181
    Information Dominance Programs...................................   194
    Iraq and Afghanistan.............................................   205
    Littoral Combat Ship.............................................   223
    Marine Corps:
        Recruiting and Retention.....................................   217
        Reset/Reconstitution.........................................   217
    Modernization of the MAGTF.......................................   211
    President's Budget Request.......................................   215
    Readiness........................................................   205
    Remain Ready to Fight Today......................................   195
    Ship Count.......................................................   216
        Mission Requirements.........................................   220
    Submarine Programs...............................................   192
    Suicides.........................................................   216
    Surface Ship Programs............................................   190
    Taking Care of Sailors, Marines, Civilians, and their Families...   180
    Technology.......................................................   218
    Unmanned Systems.................................................   182
    Vision...........................................................   212
    Women on Submarines..............................................   226
    Your Marine Corps................................................   203

                            Medical Health Programs

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   146
    Air Force Nursing Research Initiatives...........................   170
    Behavioral Health Providers......................................   166
    Build Patient-Centered Care and Focus on Prevention to Optimize
      Health.........................................................    88
    CBOC.............................................................   146
    Caring for:
        Our Heroes...................................................    71
        Wounded, Ill and Injured.....................................   134
    Cervical Cancer..................................................   160
    Chiropractic Care................................................   166
    Chiropractors....................................................   155
        At MTFs......................................................   155
    Civilian Nurse Transition Programs...............................   169
    Community Based Primary Care Clinics.............................   156
    Concept of Care..................................................    71
    Critical Warfighting-skill Bonuses...............................    92
    Defense Centers of Excellence....................................   152
        Chain of Command for Installation Repairs....................   147
    Department-Wide Nurse Residency Program..........................   167
    Evidence-based Practice: Optimize Performance....................   114
    Excellence in Research and Development (R&D).....................    74
    Expeditionary:
        Medicine and Humanitarian Assistance.........................    87
        Nursing......................................................   124
    Family Readiness and Support.....................................   162
    Force Health Protection..........................................    70
    Funding a World Class Facility...................................   147
    Health Professions Scholarship Program...........................   158
    Hearing Center of Excellence.....................................   157
    Human Capital: Portfolio of Talent...............................   116
    Humanitarian.....................................................   126
        Assistance and Disaster Response.............................    70
    Information Management/Information Technology....................    87
    Investing in Our People: Education, Training, and Research.......    90
    Joint:
        Medical Policies.............................................   169
        Venture Keesler-Biloxi Medical System........................   165
    Leader Development: Build our Bench..............................   111
    Mental Health:
        Assets and Services for Families.............................   150
        Awareness.............................................106, 149, 161
        Care.........................................................   164
        Professionals................................................   153
        Stigma.......................................................   151
    Mental Healthcare for Reserve Component..........................   103
    National Guard and Reserves......................................   104
    Navy:
        Medicine:
            Interaction with Safe Harbor.............................   147
            Use of Software..........................................   152
        Nurse:
            Challenges at FHCC.......................................   167
            Corps Collaboration with VA..............................   168
            Recruiting Mechanisms....................................   167
    Nurse:
        Corps:
            Contributions............................................   170
            Promotions...............................................   159
            Retention................................................   170
        Recruiting...................................................   148
        Resiliency...................................................   169
    Operational Currency.............................................   127
    Organizational Structure.........................................   130
    Our:
        Leadership...................................................   123
        People.......................................................   119
        Practice.....................................................   121
    O-7:
        Air Force Nurse Corps Billet.................................   169
        And O-8 Nurse Corps Billets..................................   146
    Partnerships and Collaboration...................................    74
    Psychological Health and Post-Traumatic Stress...................    72
    Recruiting:
        And Retaining Officers.......................................   101
        And Retention................................................   127
        Bonuses......................................................    92
        Civilian Providers...........................................    99
        For the Reserves.............................................   148
    Recruitment of Mental Health Professionals.......................   159
    Rehabilitation for Wounded Warriors..............................    93
    Research.........................................................   130
    Reserve Components...............................................   164
    Resiliency in the Force........................................168, 171
    Skills Sustainment...............................................   129
    Strategies for the Future........................................   133
    Suicide Prevention.............................................105, 136
    Supporting Families and Children.................................   108
    The Navy Medicine Team...........................................    74
    The Way Forward..................................................    75
    Transforming Expeditionary Medicine and Aeromedical Evacuation
      Capabilities...................................................    87
    Transition of Wounded Warriors to the VA.........................   151
    Traumatic Brain Injury...........................................    73
    VA Sharing Agreements............................................   154
    Value of Combat Medics...........................................   100
    Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.....................    94
    Warrior Care: Back to Basics.....................................   112
    Way Ahead........................................................   134
    Wilford Hall Closure.............................................   158
    Women's Health: Cervical Cancer..................................   153
    Wounded Warrior Care.............................................   163
    Year of the Air Force Family.....................................    90

                             Missile Defense Agency

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   358
    Aegis:
        And GMD Competition..........................................   350
        Standard Missile Acquisition.................................   359
    Airborne Laser Program...........................................   352
    Cruise Missile Defense...........................................   353
    Defense Against Regional Threats.................................   343
    Defense of the Homeland Against Limited Attack...................   342
    Develop New, Fiscally Sustainable Capabilities Over the Long Term   347
    European Land-based versus Sea-based Defense.....................   357
    Expand International Missile Defense Cooperation.................   347
    GBI Numbers and Testing..........................................   349
    Hedging Against Threat Uncertainty...............................   346
    Israeli Cooperative Program Support..............................   362
    Land-based Aegis.................................................   358
    Missile Defense Strategy--European Defense.......................   354
    NATO--Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense...........   362
    Partnership With Japan...........................................   349
    Phased Adaptive Approach--Aegis..................................   348
    Proving the Ballistic Missile Defense System Works...............   345
    Russia and the START Treaty......................................   355
    SM-3:
        Cost.........................................................   350
        Missile Gap..................................................   363
    START Treaty.....................................................   357
        And:
            Iranian Threat...........................................   351
            Limits to Response.......................................   352
        United States and Russia Cooperation.........................   356
    Sea-based Assets.................................................   362
    The New START Treaty.............................................   341
    Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).......................   359

                                 National Guard

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   282
    Air National Guard:
        Aging Fleet..................................................   269
        Fighter Shortfall............................................   287
        Recruiting and Retention.....................................   288
    America's Exceptional Force, Home and Away.......................   250
    Army and Air Guard--Equipment....................................   282
    Best Value for America...........................................   250
    Blackhawk Helicopters............................................   286
    C-130............................................................   275
        Force Structure Changes......................................   287
    Domestic Operations..............................................   254
    Equipment Readiness..............................................   248
    Facilities and Military Construction.............................   248
    Families.........................................................   279
    Family Support and Yellow Ribbon Programs........................   283
    Future Plans--Our Vision.........................................   243
    Health Assessments...............................................   280
    In Memoriam......................................................   259
    Introduction and Executive Overview..............................   240
    Joint and Interagency Training...................................   257
    Message from the Director.................................244, 250, 254
    Military Construction............................................   284
    NGB as a Joint Activity..........................................   243
    National Guard Equipment.........................................   272
    Operational Force................................................   277
    Operations.......................................................   244
    Personnel Strength and Quality Programs..........................   246
    Present and Future Value.........................................   246
    Protecting America's Future......................................   252
    Rapid Evolution..................................................   240
    Readiness........................................................   241
    State Adjutants General..........................................   259
    Suicide..........................................................   275
    Supporting the Warfighter and Family.............................   258
    Training and Technology..........................................   249
    UH-60 Black Hawk Upgrades........................................   289
    Vigilant Guard...................................................   257

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   454
    Advocacy Programs................................................   423
    Afghanistan......................................................   437
    Alternate Engine.................................................   433
    Balancing Global Strategic Risk..................................   429
    Budget Submission................................................   421
    Care for Our All-Volunteer Force.................................   414
    China.....................................................447, 455, 469
    C-17s............................................................   435
    Defend our Interests in the Broader Middle East and South/Central
      Asia...........................................................   425
    Defense Department Spending......................................   457
    Focus on Yemen and Somalia.......................................   452
    Force Structure..................................................   434
    Global Defense Posture...........................................   465
    Health of the Force..............................................   427
    Healthcare:
        Costs........................................................   459
        Projections..................................................   433
    Impact of:
        Changing Health Benefits on Service Members..................   468
        Program Terminations.........................................   456
    Iran to Develop Nuclear Weapon...................................   439
    Iridium Constellation Replenishment..............................   455
    Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.....................................   440
    Joint Strike Fighter.............................................   432
    Key Developments.................................................   424
    Marjah...........................................................   441
    Military Campaign in Kandahar....................................   446
    National Interdiction Unit.......................................   451
    New Government in Iraq...........................................   443
    Rebalancing the Force:
        Preparing for the Future.....................................   416
        The Wars We Are In...........................................   415
    Reforming How DOD Does Business..................................   418
    Security Outposts................................................   422
    Ships for Navy...................................................   443
    Solid Rocket Motors..............................................   449
    Somalia...................................................455, 457, 468
    South Korea......................................................   466
    Supplemental.....................................................   444
    Temporary Task Forces............................................   458

                                    Reserves

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   330
    Air Force Reserve:
        Manpower.....................................................   323
        Modernization................................................   323
        Retention....................................................   334
    Broaden Total Force Initiative Opportunities.....................   322
    Care for our Warrior Force.......................................   299
    Career Intermission Pilot Program................................   332
    Casualty Assistance and Military Funeral Honors..................   315
    Continuum of Service.............................................   331
    Equipment........................................................   310
    Facilities.......................................................   312
    Health Services..................................................   313
    Integration With Active Forces...................................   328
    Maintain a Strategic Reserve While Providing an Operational,
      Mission Ready Force............................................   320
    Marine Corps Reserve--Strain on the Force........................   333
    Military Construction (Milcon) and Infrastructure Modernization..   324
    Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Officer Recruiting.................   332
    Personnel........................................................   308
    Preserve the Care and Viability of the Reserve Triad.............   321
    Progress in Programs for our People..............................   300
    Quality of Life..................................................   314
    Recruiting and Retention.......................................318, 324
    Today's Marine Corps Reserve.....................................   307
    Training.........................................................   311
    Transition to Operational Reserve................................   331
    Way Ahead........................................................   303

                                       -