[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 8 8 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
-