    [Senate Hearing 112-798]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-798

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 5856

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                              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/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations

                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    72-308 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2013

    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
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          MARK KIRK, Illinois
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              DANIEL COATS, Indiana
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    JON TESTER, Montana                  RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

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

                            Subcommittee on Defense

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              DANIEL COATS, Indiana

                               Professional Staff

                                  Betsy Schmid
                                 Colleen Gaydos
                                   Katy Hagan
                                  Kate Kaufer
                                   Erik Raven
                               Jennifer S. Santos
                                  Teri Spoutz
                              Andrew Vanlandingham
                           Stewart Holmes (Minority)
                           Alycia Farrell (Minority)
                             Brian Potts (Minority)
                         Rachelle Schroeder (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                  Rachel Meyer
                                 Maria Veklich

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, March 7, 2012

                                                                       Page

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

                           Wednesday, March 14, 2012

    Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................    95

                           Wednesday, March 21, 2012

    Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   149

                           Wednesday, March 28, 2012

    Department of Defense: Medical Health Programs...................   215

                           Wednesday, April 18, 2012

    Department of Defense: Missile Defense Agency....................   325

                            Wednesday, May 23, 2012

    Department of Defense:
        National Guard...............................................   345
        Reserves.....................................................   387

                            Wednesday, June 6, 2012

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   455

                            Wednesday, June 13, 2012

    Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense........   565

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Kohl, Reed, Cochran, Shelby,
    Collins, Murkowski, and Coats.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Navy

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

                opening statement of senator barbara a. mikulski

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning. Today, the subcommittee
    begins its hearings to review the fiscal year 2013 Department
    of the Navy budget. I want to announce that there has been no
    coup. To see me in the chair is, I am sure, a surprise to me as
    much as it is to you. Senator Inouye cannot be here this
    morning for an unexpected reason that arose. So he asked me to
    chair the subcommittee.
        In the spirit of bipartisanship, I think, as characteristic
    of this subcommittee, it will run very smoothly.
        Because we are expecting really active participation from
    members, we are going to stick to the 5-minute rule. Members
    will be recognized in the order of arrival but, of course,
    starting with Senator Cochran.
        What I will do is wait until the very end, ask my questions
    then, and if there are any Inouye questions, I will ask them.
        Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Mabus, it is so good to see you
    again. I have got some questions for you, as you could imagine.
        The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Jonathan W.
    Greenert is here, as well as the Commandant of the Marine
    Corps, General James F. Amos. General Amos, I understand you
    are recovering from surgery, and you and your wife have
    determined that you can appear today. But anything we need to
    do to accommodate your situation, Sir, we will be happy to do
    it.
        We want to thank you for being here. And I am going to just
    move right along. And Senator Cochran, why don't I turn to you
    for an opening statement, and then we can turn directly to
    Secretary Mabus and get on with the hearing. Does that sound
    like a good way to go?

                       statement of senator thad cochran

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. It
    certainly does.
        I am delighted to join you in welcoming this distinguished
    panel of witnesses, former Governor of our State of
    Mississippi, Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is doing an
    outstanding job in his new capacity. And Admiral Greenert and
    General Amos, who are leaders of our military forces, Navy and
    Marine Corps forces, we appreciate so much your cooperation
    with our subcommittee in responding to our request to be here
    to review the budget for the Department of the Navy and our
    forces in the fleet and in the Marine Corps. And we look
    forward to our opportunity to question you about the priorities
    that we face.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, fire at will.

                  summary statement of the honorable ray mabus

        Mr. Mabus. Senator Mikulski, Senator Cochran, Senator Reed,
    and Senator Coats, let me start by thanking you all for your
    support of the sailors, marines, and civilians in the
    Department of the Navy in ensuring that they get what they need
    to do their mission.
        I also want to say how happy I am to have my wing-man,
    General Amos, back after--yes, I think he is a ``winged man''
    now, but after his surgery last week. And the fact that he is
    here today shows the level of dedication and resilience that
    the marines have, and the pride that he, I, the CNO, Admiral
    Greenert, take in leading the sailors, marines, and civilians
    of the Department of the Navy, who selflessly serve the United
    States, is exceeded only by the accomplishments of these brave
    people.
        Whatever is asked of them by the American people through
    their Commander in Chief, from Afghanistan to Libya, from
    assisting the stricken people of Japan to assuring open sea
    lanes around the world, from bringing Osama bin Laden to final
    justice to bringing hostages out of wherever they may be hidden
    by terrorists or pirates, they answer the call. They get the
    mission done.
        The CNO, the Commandant, and I are confident that the
    United States Navy and Marine Corps are well-prepared to meet
    the requirements of the new defense strategy, to maintain their
    status as the most formidable expeditionary fighting force the
    world has ever known. No one--no one--should ever doubt the
    ability, capability, or superiority of the Navy-Marine Corps
    team.
        As we reposition after two long ground wars, it was
    essential to review our basic strategic posture. The new
    guidance, developed under the leadership of the President and
    the Secretary of Defense, with the full involvement of every
    Service Secretary and Service Chief, responds to changes in
    global security. The budget presented to implement this
    strategy, which was also arrived at through full collaboration
    of all services, ensures the Navy and Marine Corps will be able
    to fully execute this strategy, while meeting the constraints
    imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
        With this new strategy, which has an understandable focus
    on the Western Pacific and Arabian gulf region, maintains our
    worldwide partnerships and our global presence, using
    innovative, low-cost, light-footprint engagements, it requires
    a Navy-Marine Corps team that is built and ready for any
    eventuality on land, in the air, on and under the world's
    oceans, or in the vast cyber-seas, and operated forward to
    protect American interests, respond to crises, and to deter or,
    if necessary, win wars.
        The impact of two ground wars in the last decade on our
    Navy fleet and its force is unmistakable. A fleet that stood at
    316 ships and an end strength of more than 377,000 sailors on
    September 11, 2001, dropped to 283 ships and close to 49,000
    fewer sailors just 8 years later when I took office.
        This administration has made it a priority to rebuild our
    fleet. Despite the budget constraints imposed under the Budget
    Control Act of 2011, our plan assures that we will have no
    fewer ships at the end of the 5-year budget cycle than we have
    today, although the fleet of fiscal year 2017 will include more
    more-capable ships, equipped with state-of-the-art technology
    and manned, as always, by highly skilled people.
        Although we are presenting one 5-year budget plan, one
    Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), this is certainly not a one-
    FYDP issue. As the defense strategy states, we are building a
    force for 2020.
        In the years beyond the current FYDP, we have a plan to
    grow our fleet and ensure capability and capacity continue to
    match missions. In fact, our plan will have us again across the
    threshold of 300 ships by 2019. Overall, we will fully meet the
    requirements of the new status--of the new strategy and protect
    our industrial base.
        The Marine Corps will also return to its maritime roots and
    resume its traditional role as the Nation's expeditionary force
    in readiness. Our marines will retain the lessons of a decade
    of hard and effective fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as they
    transition back to a middle-weight amphibious force, optimized
    for forward presence, engagement, and rapid crisis response. We
    will carefully manage the reduction in active duty end strength
    from 202,000 to 182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016 in order
    to keep faith with our marines and their families to the
    maximum extent possible.
        This restructured Marine Corps, a plan that was arrived at
    after a year and a half of very careful study by the marines,
    will be smaller. But it will be fast; it will be agile; it will
    be lethal. The number of marines in certain critical jobs, like
    special forces and cyber, will be increased, and unit manning
    levels, and thus readiness, will go up.
        Both the Navy and Marine Corps will continue to decrease
    operational vulnerabilities in ways that are cost efficient.
    That means we will maintain our efforts to reduce our
    dependence on foreign oil and use energy more efficiently.
    These efforts have already made us better warfighters. By
    deploying to Afghanistan with solar blankets to charge radios
    and other electrical items, a marine patrol dropped 700 pounds
    in batteries from their packs and decreased the need for risky
    resupply missions.
        Using less fuel in theater can mean fewer fuel convoys,
    which will save lives. For every 50 convoys, we lose a marine,
    killed or wounded. That is too high of a price to pay.
        As much as we have focused on our fleet's assets of ships,
    aircraft, vehicles, and submarines, they don't sail, fly,
    drive, or dive without the men and women who wear the uniform
    and their families. They have taken care of us; they have kept
    the faith with us; and we owe them no less.
        The commitment to sailors, marines, and their families is
    whether they serve 4 or 40 years. It begins the moment they
    raise their hand and take the oath to defend our country. It
    continues through the training and education that spans their
    career. It reaches out to their loved ones because it is not
    just an individual who serves but the entire family.

                               prepared statement

        It supports our wounded warriors with recovery,
    rehabilitation, and reintegration. It continues with transition
    services for our veterans to locate new jobs and the GI bill
    for their continuing education or transfer for a family
    member's education. The list goes on and on and on, as it
    should. Our commitment to sailors and marines can never waver
    and can never end.
        For 236 years, from sail to steam to nuclear, from the USS
    Constitution to the USS Carl Vinson, from Tripoli to Tripoli,
    our maritime warriors have upheld a proud heritage, protected
    our Nation, projected our power, and provided freedom of the
    seas. In the coming years, this new strategy and our plans to
    execute the strategy will assure that our naval heritage not
    only perseveres, but that our Navy and Marine Corps continue to
    prevail.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Hon. Ray Mabus
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye and Senator Cochran, I have the privilege of
    appearing today on behalf of the sailors, marines, and civilians who
    make up the Department of the Navy. This is the fourth year that I have
    been honored to report on the readiness, posture, progress, and
    budgetary requests of the Department. The pride the Commandant of the
    Marine Corps, General James F. Amos; the Chief of Naval Operations
    (CNO), Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert; and I take in leading the
    dedicated men and women of the Department who selflessly serve the
    United States in the air, on land, and at sea is exceeded only by the
    accomplishments of these brave and selfless individuals.
        Whatever is asked of them by the American people through their
    commander in chief--from Afghanistan to Libya, from assisting the
    stricken people of Japan to assuring open sea lanes around the world,
    from bringing Osama bin Laden to final justice to bringing hostages out
    of wherever they may be hidden by terrorists or pirates--they answer
    the call and get the mission done.
        As we pivot away from a decade of war on two fronts in two separate
    nations, the Commandant, CNO, and I are confident that the U.S. Navy
    and the Marine Corps are well-prepared to meet the requirements of the
    new defense strategy and maintain their status as the most formidable
    expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known. No one should
    doubt the ability, capability, or superiority of the Navy-Marine Corps
    team.
        The administration's defense strategic guidance, with its
    understandable focus on the Western Pacific and Arabian gulf region;
    its requirement to maintain our worldwide partnerships; and its call
    for a global presence using innovative, low-cost, light footprint
    engagements requires a Navy-Marine Corps team that is built and ready
    for war--on land, in the air, on and under the world's oceans, or in
    the vast ``cyberspace''--and operated forward to protect American
    interests, respond to crises, and deter and prevent war.
        This new strategy, developed under the leadership of the President
    and the Secretary of Defense, with the full involvement of every
    service Secretary and service Chief, responds to the dynamic global
    security environment, while meeting the constraints imposed under the
    Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) passed by the Congress.
        Our ability to meet the demands of this new strategy depends on the
    improvements we have begun and objectives we have set regarding how we
    design, purchase, and build new platforms, combat systems, and
    equipment; increase the development and deployment of unmanned systems
    to provide increased presence and enhanced persistence at lower cost
    and less danger; and how we use, produce and procure energy. Most
    importantly, our efforts and this new strategic guidance, and the
    budget that guidance informs will assure that we continue to keep faith
    with those who serve our country so selflessly and heroically, our
    sailors and marines, civilians, and their families.
                       fiscal year 2013 budget submission
    Fleet Size
        On September 11, 2001, the Navy's battle force stood at 316 ships
    and 377,000 sailors. Eight years later when I took office, the battle
    force had fallen by 49,000 sailors, and to 283 ships. Today, 3 years
    into the Obama administration, the fleet increased to 285 ships of all
    types.
        Many have noted that we have the lowest number of battle force
    ships since 1917. But today's ``Fleet'' is best thought of as a fully
    integrated battle network comprised of sensors, manned and unmanned
    platforms, modular payload bays, open architecture combat systems, and
    smart, tech-savvy people. Thus, making comparisons between today's
    ``total force battle network'' with the battle force of 1917 is like
    comparing a smart phone to the telegraph. Still, even though the ships
    coming into service today are vastly more capable than their 1917
    predecessors, at some point quantity has a quality of its own. This is
    why building up the number of ships in our Fleet has been a priority
    for this administration from day-one.
        The topline reductions mandated by the BCA made holding to current
    Fleet numbers a difficult challenge. However, I am pleased to report to
    you that we have developed a plan that delivers a Fleet with the same
    number of ships by the end of the future year's defense plan (FYDP), as
    we have today--all while still meeting our fiscal obligation to support
    a responsible end to our ground combat mission in Afghanistan. The
    fiscal year 2013-2017 shipbuilding plan maintains a flexible, balanced
    naval battle force that will be able to prevail in any combat
    situation, including in the most stressing anti-access/area denial (A2/
    AD) environments.
        While our ship count stabilizes in this FYDP, our shipbuilding
    plans aim to build a Fleet designed to support the new defense strategy
    and the joint force for 2020 and beyond. The specific requirements for
    this future Fleet will be determined by an ongoing force structure
    assessment, which should be concluded later this year. Regardless of
    the final battle force objective, however, you can expect to see the
    Fleet's ship count to begin to rise as the littoral combat ship (LCS)
    and joint high-speed vessels (JHSVs) built during the next 5 years
    begin to enter fleet service beyond this FYDP and as we sustain our
    major combatant and submarine building profiles. As a result, even
    under the fiscal constraints imposed by the BCA, the battle force is
    projected to reach 300 ships by 2019.
        While the final ship count will be determined by the FSA, the
    decisions made during the recent President's fiscal year 2013 budget
    (PB-13) deliberations will result in a battle force consisting of:
          Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers and Air Wings.--With delivery
            of USS Gerald R. Ford, the first of a new class of nuclear-
            powered aircraft carriers, in 2015, we will have 11 CVNs in
            commission and will sustain that number at least through 2040.
            Our future carriers will be even more powerful, with new combat
            capabilities resident in the F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike
            Fighter, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler electronic
            attack aircraft, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne early warning
            aircraft, and new unmanned air combat systems.
          Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarines.--SSNs are the key to
            sustaining our dominant lead in undersea warfare. While the
            procurement of one Virginia-class submarine was delayed from
            2014 to 2018 to help free up budget resources in the FYDP, the
            planned fiscal year 2014-2018 Multiyear Procurement of nine
            submarines remains intact. To mitigate the loss of large
            undersea strike capability when SSGNs retire in 2026-2028, we
            invested research and development for the Virginia Payload
            Module (VPM). VPM could provide future Virginia-class SSNs with
            an additional four SSGN-like large diameter payload tubes,
            increasing each SSN's Tomahawk cruise missile capability from
            12 to 40. While we are committed to a long-term force goal of
            48 SSNs, low submarine build rates during the 1990s will cause
            us to fall below that number for some time starting in the late
            2020s. We continue to explore ways to limit the submarine
            shortfall by increasing the near-term submarine build rate,
            improving affordability, and maintaining the health of this
            critical industrial base.
          Guided Missile Cruisers and Destroyers.--The Arleigh Burke-class
            DDGs remain in serial production, with funding in place for a
            nine-ship fiscal year 2013-2017 MYP. The next flight of DDG 51s
            will introduce a more powerful and capable Air and Missile
            Defense Radar in fiscal year 2016. We project that the new
            defense strategy will require slightly fewer large surface
            combatants so we will retire seven Ticonderoga-class CGs in
            this FYDP--all but one before a planned mid-life ballistic
            missile defense upgrade, and that one had serious structural
            issues--achieving considerable cost savings at relatively low
            risk. The long-term inventory of guided missile cruisers and
            destroyers is projected to come down as combatants built at the
            rate of 3-5 per year during the cold war begin to retire in the
            2020s. We are exploring a variety of ways to mitigate these
            losses.
          Littoral Combat Ships.--With their flexible payload bays, open
            combat systems, ability to control unmanned systems, and superb
            aviation and boat handling capabilities, LCSs will be an
            important part of a more agile future Fleet. New crew rotation
            plans, built on a modified version of the highly successful
            SSBN two-crew model, will allow for substantially more LCS
            forward presence than the frigates, mine counter-measures
            ships, and coastal patrol craft they will replace, and will
            free our more capable multimission destroyers for more complex
            missions. Although forced to shift two LCSs outside the current
            FYDP to achieve cost savings, we remain fully committed to our
            plan to ultimately purchase 55 of these warships.
          Amphibious Ships.--Thirty amphibious landing ships can support a
            two-Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) forcible entry operation
            with some risk. To generate 30 operationally available ships,
            the strategic review envisions an amphibious force consisting
            of 32 total ships, or 5 ships more than we have in commission
            today. The ultimate fleet will consist of 11 big deck
            amphibious ships, amphibious transport dock LPD-17s, and 10
            landing ship, dock ships. To support routine forward
            deployments of Marine Expeditionary Units, the amphibious force
            will be organized into nine, three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups
            (ARGs) and one four-ship ARG in Japan, plus an additional big-
            deck amphibious ship available to support contingency
            operations worldwide. We will place two LSDs into reduced
            operations status, allowing us to reconstitute an eleventh ARG
            in the future, or to build up the number of ships in the active
            inventory, if necessary. Consistent with these changes, we have
            deferred procurement of a new LSD, aligning it with LSD-42s
            planned retirement. We also intend to disband the third
            maritime prepositioning force squadron that we placed in
            reserve last year due to fiscal restraints and reorganize the
            two remaining active squadrons with more capable ships, making
            them more effective.
          New Afloat Forward Staging Bases.--Navy is proposing to procure a
            fourth Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) in fiscal year 2014,
            configured to serve as an Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB).
            This AFSB will fulfill an urgent combatant commander request
            for sea-based support for mine warfare, Special Operations
            Forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR),
            and other operations. To speed this capability into the fleet
            and to ultimately provide for continuous AFSB support anywhere
            in the world, we also intend to request congressional approval
            to convert the fiscal year 2012 MLP into the AFSB
            configuration, resulting in a final force of two MLPs and two
            AFSBs. This mix will alleviate the demands on an already
            stressed surface combatant and amphibious fleet while reducing
            our reliance on shore-based infrastructure.
        Most of the ship reductions in the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget submission--16 fewer than the comparable years' in the fiscal
    year 2012 budget--are combat logistics and Fleet support ships and
    reflect prudent adjustments to our new strategy and a lower defense
    topline. For example, 8 of the 16 ships cut from our 5-year plan were
    JHSVs. These cuts reflect the new 10-ship JHSV requirement developed
    during our strategy review.
        In addition, we simply delayed purchasing three new oilers, which
    were part of an early changeover from single-hulled to more
    environmentally safe and internationally accepted double-hulled ships.
    Our current Fleet of oilers will not start to retire until the 2020s,
    so there is no impact on the number of available oilers for Fleet
    operations. Finally, an ocean surveillance ship was added to the Navy's
    plan last year to provide greater operational depth to our current
    Fleet of five ships; however, after careful consideration, we concluded
    we could meet our operational needs with five ships and could cut the
    sixth ship with manageable risk.
        Ships are not the only platforms in our ``total force battle
    network''. Accordingly, the new defense strategic guidance also
    required us to review and evaluate the needs of our naval aviation
    community going forward into the 21st century. We plan to complete our
    purchases of both the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the EA-18 Growler within
    the next 2 years. The Department recently completed a review of our
    aviation requirements for the F-35 that validates our decision to
    purchase for the Navy and Marine Corps 680 F-35s over the life of the
    program. While we plan to slow procurement over the next 5 years to
    address program risks, especially concurrency, we remain committed to
    procuring 680 aircraft. The F-35B, the short-take-off-vertical-landing
    variant, completed successful at-sea trials onboard the USS Wasp and
    overall testing is proceeding very well. For the carrier version, the
    F-35C testing exceeded the plan by 30 percent last year. In light of
    this encouraging testing performance, we are even more confident that
    this multirole, cutting-edge platform will more than meet our tactical
    requirements in the future security environment.
        The Navy and the Marine Corps continue to carefully monitor strike
    fighter capacity requirements as well. Changes in the Marine's force
    structure, accelerated transition from the legacy Hornet aircraft to
    the Super Hornets, and a reduction in use resulted in an appropriately
    sized strike fighter aircraft inventory. Based on current assumptions
    and plans, our strike fighter aircraft shortfall is predicted to remain
    below a manageable 65 aircraft through 2028 with some risk.
        In the far term, the Navy will need to replace its F/A-18E/F Fleet.
    Pre-Milestone A activities are underway to define the follow-on F/A-XX
    aircraft. Options include additional F-35s, a variant of the Unmanned
    Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system, a
    new manned/unmanned platform, or some combination of these. While we
    remain committed to the first-generation UCLASS, which will provide a
    low-observable, long-range, unmanned ISR-strike capability that will
    enhance the carrier's future ability to project power in anticipated
    A2/AD threat environments, the target date for a limited operational
    capability has shifted by 2 years from 2018 to 2020 to reduce schedule
    and technical risk, as well as to meet the savings targets mandated by
    the BCA.
        The planned reduction in our cruiser inventory has decreased
    requirements for MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, allowing us to reduce
    procurement in this program by nine aircraft. Fiscal constraints have
    also led us to reduce E-2D Hawkeye and P-8 Neptune procurement over the
    FYDP. We still intend to procure all the aircraft originally planned
    but at a slower rate.
    Future Force Structure Assessment and Re-Designation of Primary Mission
            Platforms
        Given the broad refocus of the Department of Defense (DOD) program
    objectives reflected in the new defense strategy, the Navy has
    undertaken analysis of the existing force structure requirements and,
    in conjunction with ongoing internal DOD studies and planning efforts,
    is reworking an updated FSA against which future requirements will be
    measured. The new FSA will consider the types of ships included in the
    final ship count based on changes in mission, requirements, deployment
    status, or capabilities. For example, classes of ships previously not
    part of the battle force such as AFSBs developed to support SOF/
    nontraditional missions, patrol combatant craft forward deployed to
    areas requiring that capability, and Comfort-class hospital ships
    deployed to provide humanitarian assistance, an expanded core Navy
    mission, may be counted as primary mission platforms. Any changes in
    ship counting rules will be reported and publicized. Any comments on
    total ship numbers in this statement are based on current counting
    rules.
        As noted earlier, in the years beyond the current FYDP, we have a
    plan that puts us back on track to increase our Fleet and ensure
    capacity matches the demands of the mission. However, with the Fleet
    and force we have today, we will meet the requirements of the new
    strategy, continue to protect our national interests, preserve our
    ability to deter or defeat aggressors, and maintain the industrial base
    needed.
    Marine Corps
        After a decade of hard fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Marine
    Corps will return to its maritime roots and resume its traditional role
    as the Nation's naval expeditionary force-in-readiness. We will
    carefully manage reduction in active duty end strength from 202,000 to
    182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016. Drawing upon its long history
    of aligning its training and structure with areas of operations, the
    Marines will continue to provide tailored security force assistance and
    to build partnership capacity missions with allies and other regional
    partners. Along these same lines, the Marine Corps will continue to
    leverage the experience gained over the past decade of nontraditional
    warfare to strengthen its ties to the special operations community. The
    resulting middleweight force will be optimized for forward presence,
    engagement, and rapid crisis response through strategic positioning at
    forward bases in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as
    renewed participation in traditional Amphibious Ready Group/Marine
    Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) exercises. The Marine Corps shall maintain
    required readiness levels throughout the transition process. Most
    importantly, we will drawdown without breaking faith with Marines and
    their families.
        In summary, the Department's strategy calls for a world-class Navy-
    Marine Corps team, and our plan delivers one that is fully ready to
    meet the current and emerging challenges. We will maintain a strong
    naval presence in the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean, and the Middle
    East. This will be accomplished by adjusting basing assignments for
    some units from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as well as by increasing
    the number of units operating from ports located in theaters of
    interest. We are still committed to strategic dispersal. The Department
    will, for example, operate four LCSs from Singapore. Similarly, we will
    continue to expand our usage of AFSB and coastal patrol boats around
    Africa and in the Arabian gulf to counter the growth of piracy and the
    growing threat of swarming small boats as well as to help partner
    nations build their own maritime capacity while upholding our national
    interests. We also received two high-speed ferries from the Maritime
    Administration, which will most likely operate in the Western Pacific
    supporting the peacetime transport of U.S. Marine Corps forces deployed
    to Okinawa and Australia.
    Seapower and Naval Presence
        Since the end of the second World War, the Navy-Marine Corps team
    has acted as the guarantor of the global maritime commons, upholding a
    sophisticated set of international rules that rest upon two
    inextricably linked principles: free trade and freedom of navigation.
    These principles have supported an era of unprecedented economic
    stability and growth, not just for the United States but for the world
    at large.
        This period of growth has resulted in a truly ``globalized''
    economy which owes much to the unique scalability and flexibility of
    our naval forces. We can reroute Navy ships and Marine Corps units to
    create appropriate responses as actions unfold. We can shift force
    concentrations from the Atlantic to the Pacific or from the southern
    oceans to northern seas with ease. From a single JHSV to a Carrier
    Strike Group and from a Marine Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team to an
    Expeditionary Unit, combatant commanders can scale naval forces and
    their responses appropriately to emerging challenges across the
    spectrum of engagement. Our forces are flexible enough to shift from
    supporting combat air patrols over Afghanistan to providing
    humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in Japan at a moment's
    notice. Much of their flexibility derives from the use of the high seas
    as a vast, unencumbered maneuver space. This freedom of navigation
    allows our naval forces to gather information, perform surveillance and
    reconnaissance of seaborne and airborne threats, defend regional
    partners, interdict weapons of mass destruction, disrupt terrorist
    networks, deter, and, if necessary, defeat prospective adversaries.
                                 law of the sea
        The traditional freedom of the seas for all nations developed over
    centuries, mostly by custom, have been encoded within the United
    Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This important
    treaty continues to enjoy the strong support of DOD and the Department
    of the Navy. The UNCLOS treaty guarantees rights such as innocent
    passage through territorial seas; transit passage through, under and
    over international straits; and the laying and maintaining of submarine
    cables. The convention has been approved by nearly every maritime power
    and all the permanent members of the UN Security Council except the
    United States. Our notable absence as a signatory weakens our position
    with other nations, allowing the introduction of expansive definitions
    of sovereignty on the high seas that undermine our ability to defend
    our mineral rights along our own continental shelf and in the Arctic.
    The Department strongly supports the accession to UNCLOS, an action
    consistently recommended by my predecessors of both parties.
                            naval operations in 2011
        Naval presence serves as a deterrent against those who would
    threaten the national interests of the United States even as it assures
    allies and partners of our consistent commitment. Our enduring national
    security interests require our continued presence to provide the
    President and our Nation with credible response options to deter
    conflict and, if necessary, defend the United States' national security
    interests from the sea. From counterinsurgency and security force
    assistance operations in Afghanistan to ballistic missile defense and
    humanitarian assistance missions in Europe and the Western Pacific and
    naval engagement in South America and Africa, our sailors and marines
    are making a difference around the globe every day. On any given day,
    more than 72,000 sailors and marines are deployed and almost one-half
    of our 285 ships are underway, responding to tasking where needed by
    the combatant commanders.
        Visiting our forward-deployed forces and meeting with allies and
    partners, commanders and staffs, and our marines and sailors on the
    ground provides insights as to how we can better support all of their
    critical efforts. In June, September, and again in December, I
    travelled to Helmand province in Afghanistan on behalf of the
    Department and visited forward operating bases. These were my fifth,
    sixth, and seventh trips to theater in Afghanistan. In each area,
    Taliban offenses and infiltration had been forcefully rebuffed.
    Critical relations had been built with local Afghan leaders and
    significant progress has been made towards the goal of creating
    effective Afghan security forces that will be able to build on these
    efforts. I also visited Camp Leatherneck and, among other things,
    toured the Concussion Restoration Care Center where I met with wounded
    warriors. At all of my stops, I expressed the appreciation of the
    American people for the courage and sacrifices of our marines and
    sailors who serve alongside them on the field of battle.
        For more than 6 decades, our Navy-Marine Corps team has been the
    strongest naval force afloat and we are committed to maintaining this
    position of influence. Our strength, versatility, and efficacy derive
    from our unique capacity for global reach, our focus on warfighting
    excellence and our commitment to maintaining naval presence in regions
    vital to our national interests. We cannot predict the exact nature of
    the challenges facing the Department in the 21st century, but a glimpse
    back at operations in 2011 illustrate the increasing variability of
    events that required a flexible naval response.
        Special Operations.--United States Navy SEALs remain decisively
    engaged throughout the globe conducting the Nation's most sensitive and
    important counterterrorism operations. They served with great
    distinction in Iraq and continue to serve in Afghanistan with telling
    effect. From the killing or capturing of the most wanted terrorists to
    the rescue and recovery of captured American citizens abroad, we ask
    them to do the most daunting of missions.
        Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.--Having completed
    operations in Iraq, the Department has maintained more than 23,000
    marines and sailors in Afghanistan, largely associated with Regional
    Command-Southwest based in Helmand province. This force provides
    security and seeks to build the self-defense capacity of our Afghan
    partners. Currently, the Navy has deployed just more than 8,000 sailors
    on the ground, 2,920 of whom are reservists, across the Central Command
    supporting joint and coalition efforts. Another 10,000 sailors are in
    the Arabian gulf and the Indian Ocean supporting combat operations from
    destroyers, submarines, supply vessels, and aircraft carriers, which
    launch around 30 percent of the aircraft conducting combat air patrols
    over Afghanistan. On the first day during the opening moments of
    Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, the U.S. Navy launched 122 Tomahawk
    cruise missiles from two surface ships and three submarines, including
    the guided missile submarine USS Florida, the first time one of these
    converted ballistic missile submarines has fired ordnance in live
    operations. Ground-based Navy E/A-18G Growlers flying combat missions
    in Iraq were repositioned to support Odyssey Dawn, and within 44 hours,
    engaged hostile forces in Libya. When violence erupted across northern
    Africa and the Middle East, significant portions of the USS Kearsage
    ARG and 26th MEU, then off the coast of Pakistan, were directed to take
    station off the coast of Libya.
        Ballistic Missile Defense.--Another newly emergent mission centers
    on the ballistic missile defense (BMD) capable Ticonderoga-class
    cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that provide homeland
    defense-in-depth as well as the protection of U.S. and allied forces in
    distant theaters. As ballistic missile capabilities have proliferated
    around the globe, the demand for BMD capable ships has increased
    dramatically. For example, over the past year, BMD ships like the USS
    Ramage, USS Monterey, and USS Stout took up station in the Eastern
    Mediterranean to provide BMD for both Europe and Israel. Elsewhere,
    elements of Destroyer Squadron Fifteen provided similar support in the
    waters surrounding Japan.
        Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.--Following the
    devastating earthquake and tsunami last year that resulted in the
    deaths of more than 15,000 Japanese citizens, the displacement of
    thousands, and the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the Ronald
    Reagan Strike Group, en route to support combat operations missions in
    Afghanistan, was diverted to Japan to provide humanitarian assistance.
    Upon arrival, instead of combat, the crews were employed to shuttle
    tons of water, food, and blankets to displaced victims ashore, while
    the strike group's ships simultaneously served as landing and refueling
    stations for Japanese self-defense force (JSDF) rescue helicopters
    operating in the region. The Reagan Strike Group supplemented units of
    the USS Essex ARG with its embarked 31st MEU, which is forward deployed
    in Japan, in what became known as Operation Tomodachi--``Friendship''
    in Japanese. Elements of the USS Essex ARG airlifted more than 300 JSDF
    personnel and 90 vehicles from Hokkaido to disaster areas while USNS
    Safeguard and Mobile Dive and Salvage Unit One transported relief
    supplies to Yokosuka for distribution throughout the affected areas.
    Additionally, the Navy transported the equipment and personnel of the
    Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard's Radiological Control Team as well as the
    Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force to Japan to
    assist with nuclear monitoring efforts.
        Anti-Piracy.--Throughout the year the Navy performed the critical
    mission of combating piracy and supporting the anti-piracy efforts of
    our allies and partners in the region. Ships operated in conjunction
    with allies and partners in the vicinity of the Horn of Africa to
    prevent the disruption of the free flow of trade in the Gulf of Aden.
    More recently elements of the Stennis Strike Group freed Iranian
    citizens who were being held hostage by pirates in the Arabian Sea.
    Their actions directly resulted in the capture or killing of 21 pirates
    and the freeing of 38 hostages.
        Partnership Stations and Maritime Exercises.--The Navy remains
    committed to building our partner nations' capacities to provide for
    their own maritime security. This year we once again created
    ``partnership stations'' in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, off
    the coast of South America and around the continent of Africa to work
    with local navies to educate their leaders, train their sailors,
    strengthen their material infrastructure, increase their maritime
    domain awareness, and raise their response capacity. USS Cleveland, USS
    Oak Hill, USS Robert G. Bradley, the hospital ship USNS Comfort and
    high-speed vessel Swift were strategically deployed to work with the
    maximum number of partner navies to provide medical care and security
    training while building local naval capacity to plan and conduct
    operations in the maritime environment.
        Last, with an eye to the future of naval and maritime operations in
    an increasingly ice-free Arctic, the Virginia-class submarine USS New
    Hampshire and the Seawolf-class submarine USS Connecticut conducted Ice
    Exercise 2011 with Canadian and United Kingdom counterparts in the
    Arctic Ocean.
                                 air-sea battle
        The Navy and Marine Corps are working with the Air Force to
    implement the Air-Sea Battle concept which seeks to improve integration
    of air, land, maritime, space, and cyberspace forces in order to
    provide combatant commanders the range of military capabilities
    necessary to maintain operational access and deter, and if necessary
    defeat, an adversary employing sophisticated A2/AD capabilities and
    strategies.
        The Air-Sea Battle concept leverages the military and technological
    capabilities as well as unprecedented Naval and Air Force
    collaboration, cooperation, integration, and resource investments
    within the services' purview to organize, train, and equip.
        The jointly manned Air-Sea Battle Office has defined a series of
    initiatives to achieve the capabilities and integration required in
    future naval and air forces so that combatant commanders have the tools
    necessary to ensure U.S. freedom of action in future years.
        As we work to implement and enhance the Air-Sea Battle concept, the
    Navy continues to invest in capabilities to counter advanced A2/AD
    challenges, including:
      --BMD enhancements both in the Aegis Combat System and the Standard
            Missile, as well as myriad ``soft-kill'' initiatives;
      --integration of advanced air and cruise missile defense
            capabilities;
      --harpoon missile replacement, which will increase the range (and
            speed) at which we can engage enemy surface combatants armed
            with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles;
      --Virginia-class submarines and the VPM, which has the potential to
            mitigate the loss of the SSGN undersea strike capacity when
            they retire in the mid-2020s;
      --improvements in Joint Force Command, Control, Communications,
            Computers; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
            capabilities which will significantly increase our information
            gathering and warfighting coverage in access-challenged areas,
            as well as provide counters to adversary capabilities; and
      --cyberspace capabilities.
                            departmental priorities
        The Department must adhere to four key priorities with strategic,
    tactical, operational and management elements if we are to maintain our
    position as the world's most formidable expeditionary fighting force
    while continuously evolving our Navy and Marine Corps as a strategic
    asset that provides our Commander-in-Chief with the broadest range of
    options in a highly dynamic international security environment. These
    priorities remain:
      --taking care of our sailors, marines, civilians, and their families;
      --treating energy as a strategic national security issue;
      --promoting acquisition excellence and integrity; and
      --continuing development and deployment of unmanned systems.
        These principles guide the direction of the Department, from
    training our recruits at Great Lakes, Parris Island, and San Diego, to
    our ongoing operations in central Asia and the Western Pacific, to
    acquiring the Navy and Marine Corps of the future.
        In the end it all comes down to stewardship; the careful management
    of our people, platforms, infrastructure, and energy to guarantee that
    your Navy and Marine Corps are ready to defend our Nation's interests.
    Taking Care of Sailors, Marines, Civilians, and Their Families
        As we move forward, the Department is committed to our most
    important asset--our sailors, marines, civilians, and their families. A
    large part of our commitment is the careful attention to pay and
    benefits. No one's pay will be cut; only the growth of pay is slowed in
    the later years of our 5-year plan. Specifically, we are proposing
    continued pay raises at 1.7 percent for military personnel in fiscal
    year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, in line with the private sector,
    recognizing the continued stress on our forces and their families, and
    providing time for families to adjust.
        We support asking the Congress to establish a commission with
    authority to conduct a comprehensive review of military retirement in
    the context of overall compensation. The Commission should seek ways to
    identify improvements in the military retirement system, ensuring any
    proposed change to military retirement supports required force profiles
    of DON in a cost-effective manner. We believe that the Commission
    should protect, through grandfathering, the retirement benefits of
    those currently serving.
        With so much of our defense strategy dependent upon our Navy and
    Marine Corps, we must ensure that our resources support the most combat
    effective and the most resilient force in our history. We must set high
    standards, but at the same time we must provide individuals with the
    services needed to meet those standards. The Department will soon
    announce the 21st century sailor and marine initiative, which is a set
    of objectives and policies across a spectrum of wellness that maximizes
    sailor and marine personal readiness. The program consists of five
    pillars:
      --readiness;
      --safety;
      --physical fitness;
      --inclusion; and
      --the continuum of service.
        Readiness will ensure sailors, marines, civilians, and their
    families are prepared to handle the mental and emotional rigors of
    military service. Both services are introducing campaigns this year to
    deglamorize, treat, and track alcohol use. We will also develop new
    means to reduce suicides and increase our family and personal
    preparedness programs. This includes zero tolerance for sexual assault.
    The DON Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office was created and
    made part of the secretarial staff to keep the issue at the front of
    the discussion, to strengthen the lines of communication with the Navy
    Judge Advocate General (JAG) and Naval Criminal Investigative Service
    (NCIS), and to make sure the Secretariat received frequent updates
    about the incidents of sexual assault and our progress towards reducing
    the number of attacks. We are continually working to improve the
    reporting, investigation, and disposition of sexual assault cases
    ensuring commanders, investigators, and prosecutors receive sufficient
    training and appropriate resources. Last year, JAG finalized a complete
    revision of the advanced trial advocacy courses that train litigators
    involved in sexual assault cases as well as filled the Deputy Director
    of the Trial Counsel Assistance program position with a senior civilian
    sexual assault litigator. JAG and NCIS are working aggressively to
    educate lawyers and agents on the unique aspects of sexual assault
    cases. NCIS has hired personnel to provide assistance and support to
    NCIS special agents; this will enable special agents to focus on
    conducting investigative activities, trial preparation, and
    prosecutorial testimony relative to adult sexual assaults.
        Our efforts to ensure the safest and most secure force in the
    Department's history extend to encouraging the safe use of motor
    vehicles and motorcycles.
        Physical fitness is an important central pillar that resonates
    throughout the 21st century sailor and marine program. Personal fitness
    standards throughout the force will be emphasized. We will also improve
    nutrition standards at our dining facilities with the introduction of
    ``Fueled to Fight''. Fueled to Fight ensures that healthy food items
    will be available and emphasized at every meal.
        The Department will be inclusive and consist of a force that
    reflects the Nation it defends in a manner consistent with military
    efficiency and effectiveness. The Department will also reduce
    restrictions to military assignments for personnel to the greatest
    extent possible, consistent with our mission and military requirements.
    We must ensure that all who want to serve have opportunities to succeed
    and barriers that deny success are removed. Nothing reflects our core
    values of honor, courage, and commitment better than having an
    organization characterized by fairness and dedication. Last year for
    the first time ever, 16 women were assigned to submarines. This will
    expand command-at-sea opportunities and eventually increase the chances
    for more women to be promoted to admiral. Additionally, we need an
    officer corps that is representative of the enlisted force it leads.
    Through increased minority applications from diverse markets, the
    United States Naval Academy and Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps
    (NROTC) programs are achieving historical racial and ethnic diversity
    rates. The United States Naval Academy received nearly 7,000 minority
    applications for its class of 2014, nearly double that of the class of
    2010. Along with recent NROTC additions at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and
    Arizona State University (with the largest undergraduate population in
    the country), next we are establishing an NROTC unit at Rutgers
    University. Not only is it one of the Nation's top engineering schools,
    but more than one-half of its class of 2014 identify themselves as
    minority.
        The final pillar, continuum of service, will provide the most
    robust transition support in the Department's history. Individuals
    choosing or selected for either separation or retirement will be
    afforded a myriad of assistance programs and benefits that are
    available to them as they transition to civilian life. These programs,
    which include education benefits, transition assistance, career
    management training, counseling, life-work balance programs, and
    morale, welfare, and recreation programs, have been recognized by human
    resource experts as some of the best corporate-level personnel support
    mechanisms in the Nation.
        Because the Navy and the Marine Corps were highly successful in
    meeting their recruiting goals, we have been able to be very selective,
    accepting only the very best candidates who are morally, mentally, and
    physically ready to serve. Historically high-retention rates have put
    us below our active duty manning ceiling of 322,700 sailors and 202,100
    marines. Our recruiting classes have gotten smaller, as have our ``A''
    school classes, and promotion rates from E-4 to E-6 have fallen as
    well. More officers in the O-5 and O-6 pay grades are choosing to
    remain on active duty rather than retire, leading to smaller promotion
    selection groups and repeated adjustments to promotion zones.
        We have attempted to deal with this challenge within the enlisted
    ranks by instituting the ``Perform to Serve'' program that used a
    detailed algorithm to advise personnel specialists on who should be
    allowed to re-enlist, but this approach did not fully address either
    the systemic manning challenge confronting us or the unsustainable
    overmanning in certain enlisted ratings. This past year, given fiscal
    constraints and manpower draw-downs, we decided to confront the problem
    head on and convened special administrative enlisted retention boards,
    senior enlisted continuation boards, and officer selective early
    retirement boards to pare back overmanned enlisted ratings and officer
    ranks. It was a difficult decision to use these force management tools,
    but the future of the Department requires us to fix the problem now
    rather than further delaying a decision.
        Another vital support program that we remain committed to is the
    support we provide to our wounded warriors. Since 2001, more than 900
    sailors and nearly 13,000 marines have been wounded as a result of
    combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This year we completed the
    alignment of the Army's Walter Reed Medical Center with our own
    National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, and we continued to invest
    in the doctors, techniques, and technologies to care for the injuries
    that have become representative of modern warfare:
      --traumatic brain injury;
      --amputations;
      --burns; and
      --post-traumatic stress disorder.
        The requirements for the Purple Heart were updated to include the
    immediate and lasting damage associated with brain injuries.
        Part of our commitment centers around the families and caregivers
    that support our wounded warriors as they endure the challenges of
    recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration. The 2010 National Defense
    Authorization Act provided a Special Compensation for Assistance with
    Activities in Daily Living to help offset income lost by those who
    provide nonmedical care and support to servicemembers who have incurred
    a permanent catastrophic injury or illness.
        Driven by the moral obligation to assist our injured heroes, the
    Department has set a goal of being able to offer every combat wounded
    sailor or marine an opportunity to continue their service as a civilian
    on the Navy/Marine Corps team. Our Wounded Warrior Hiring and Support
    Initiative aims to increase the number of veterans with a 30 percent
    and above service-connected disability into our workforce. Through this
    initiative, we have hired more than 1,000 veterans with 30 percent and
    above service-connected disability rating in fiscal year 2010 and
    fiscal year 2011. Our Naval Sea Systems Command alone hired 509
    service-disabled veterans for fiscal year 2011, exceeding its goal of
    hiring one veteran for each day of the fiscal year. We recently held
    our second annual Wounded Warrior Hiring and Support Conference to
    provide prospective employers and human resource professionals with the
    tools and resources to enable them to hire, train, and retain our
    wounded warriors in the civilian workplace.
        This past August the President announced his Veteran's Employment
    Initiative that extends tax credits to businesses that hire veterans.
    We work with the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Labor to establish
    programs that ease the transition of veterans into the civilian world.
    We are also heavily engaged through the Yellow Ribbon Program in
    supporting the reintegration efforts of our reserve forces.
        I want to address the defense budget proposals regarding healthcare
    costs. The DON and DOD on the whole continue to face rapidly rising
    costs in healthcare. In 2001, DOD healthcare costs were approximately
    $19 billion. By 2010 that amount had risen to $51 billion and as a
    percentage of our budget is approaching 10 percent. This rate of rise
    cannot be sustained. We continue to streamline our staffs and standard
    operating procedures in an ongoing effort to manage costs while
    retaining quality patient care and overall customer satisfaction. One
    area where we continue to be challenged is system accessibility for our
    retiree community, especially in areas where bases have been closed due
    to the base realignment and closure process, leaving behind a large
    retiree population with no local access to military treatment
    facilities. Increasing use of the affordable Mail Order Pharmacy
    program and implementing modest fee increases, where appropriate, would
    go far toward ensuring the long-term fiscal viability of the system
    while preserving equity in benefits for our retirees.
        I consider my obligations to the well-being of every sailor and
    marine, and every family member under their care to be sacrosanct. We
    worked carefully to develop these proposals, with all participants--the
    Government, the providers of healthcare, and the beneficiaries-sharing
    in the responsibility to better manage our healthcare costs. I have
    previously asserted that as a former Governor, I well know that the
    growth in healthcare costs is an issue for the country, not just the
    military. But, we all have to do our part. The TRICARE benefit remains
    one of the best benefits in the country. I hope you will support our
    proposed changes.
        Also this past year the Department, along with the other military
    departments, worked with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and more than 70
    employers to launch a program targeted at expanding the career
    opportunities for military spouses. The Military Spouse Employment
    Partnership seeks to help the business community recognize the skills
    and talents that military spouses bring to the workforce but are unable
    to fully leverage due to frequent moves of the servicemember in the
    family. This partnership between the military and the business
    community promises to tap into the energy of one of the most hard-
    working, highly skilled, educated, and yet under-utilized segments of
    our population.
        Overall, the fiscal year 2013 budget reflects a responsible request
    for the fiscal support and resources required to support our marines,
    sailors, their families, and our retirees in the face of increasing
    operational pressures and financial demands upon them. Thank you for
    your continuing support.
    Energy Security and Sustained Leadership
        We must reform how the Navy and the Marine Corps use, produce, and
    procure energy, especially in this fiscally constrained environment. We
    must use energy more efficiently; however, the Department must also
    lead on alternative energy or we will leave a critical military
    vulnerability unaddressed, further straining the readiness of our
    sailors and marines to be able to respond wherever and whenever called
    to defend and protect America's interests.
        Fuel is a tactical and operational vulnerability in theater;
    guarding fuel convoys puts our sailors' and marines' lives at risk and
    takes them away from what we sent them there to do:
      --to fight;
      --to engage; and
      --to rebuild.
    The Department is also exposed to price shocks in the global market
    because too much fuel comes from volatile regions, places that are
    vulnerable to instability and ruled by regimes that do not support our
    interests. Every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up $1, it costs
    the Department $30 million in extra fuel costs. In fiscal year 2012
    alone, in large part due to political unrest in oil-producing regions,
    the price per barrel of oil is $38 more than was budgeted increasing
    the Navy's fuel bill by more than $1 billion. These price spikes must
    be paid for out of our operations funds. That means that our sailors
    and marines are forced to steam less, fly less, and train less. The
    threat of price spikes is increased by the vulnerability of choke
    points. Energy analyst have speculated that if Iran ever succeeded in
    closing the Strait of Hormuz, the price of oil could rise by 50 percent
    or more in global markets within days.
        We would never let the countries we buy oil from build our ships or
    our aircraft or our ground vehicles, but we give them a say on whether
    those ships sail, whether those aircraft fly, whether those ground
    vehicles operate because we buy their oil. As a Nation we use more than
    22 percent of the world's fuel, but only possess less than 2 percent of
    the world's oil reserves. Even if we tap every domestic resource we do
    not have enough to meet all of our needs over time, and as a minority
    producer of fuel we will never control the price.
        That is why in the fall of 2009, I established five goals for the
    Department, the broadest of which is that by no later than 2020, 50
    percent of the Department's energy will come from alternative sources.
    These goals drive the Navy and the Marine Corps to use energy more
    efficiently, to explore wider use of alternative energy, and to make
    energy a factor in the acquisition of our next ships, tactical
    vehicles, and aircraft.
        As one example of our success, the Marine Corps continues to
    aggressively pursue technologies that will help achieve greater energy
    efficiency while increasing combat effectiveness in the theater. The
    Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, deployed to the Helmand Province in
    Afghanistan with solar blankets to power radios, LED lights to
    illuminate tents, and solar generators to provide power. One 3-week
    patrol was able to reduce their carrying weight by 700 pounds, reducing
    the number of dangerous resupply missions needed. Even in a tough fight
    in Sangin, the marines managed to cut fuel use and logistical support
    requirements by 25 percent at main operating bases and up to 90 percent
    at combat outposts by relying on these alternative energy technologies.
    The Marine Corps is committed to finding more innovative solutions to
    decreasing dependence on convoys by conducting two experimental forward
    operating bases per year (one in Twentynine Palms and one in Camp
    Lejeune).
        Another initiative to increase alternative energy supply is using
    advanced, drop-in biofuel in aircraft and ships. Our criteria for this
    fuel are straightforward. It must be ``drop in'' fuel requiring no
    changes to our aircraft or our ship or our infrastructure; it must be
    derived from nonfood sources; and its production should not increase
    our carbon footprint as required by law. In 2011, the Department
    completed testing on 50/50 blends of drop in biofuel and jet fuel on
    all manned and unmanned aircraft, including an F/A-18 Hornet at MACH
    1.7 and all six Blue Angels during an air show. The Department has also
    tested an experimental Riverine Command Boat, a self-defense test ship,
    a ridged hull inflatable boat, and a Landing Craft Air Cushion that
    traveled at more than 50 knots.
        In March of this past year, the President directed the Departments
    of Agriculture, Energy, and the Navy to partner with the private sector
    to catalyze a domestic, geographically dispersed, advanced biofuel
    industry for the United States. In response to this directive, Energy
    Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and I
    signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing our departments
    to jointly partner with industry to construct or retrofit multiple
    domestic commercial or pre-commercial scale advanced drop-in biofuel
    refineries capable of producing cost competitive fuels. Under the MOU
    we issued a request for information in August, which drew more than 100
    responses in 30 days from companies ranging from major oil companies
    and large defense contractors to small businesses.
        In December, Defense Logistics Agency energy awarded a contract on
    our behalf to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel; the single largest
    purchase of biofuel in Government history. The Department will use fuel
    from this purchase--awarded to the most competitive bidder under full
    and open competition--to demonstrate the capability of a carrier Strike
    Group and its air wing to burn alternative fuels in a full operational
    environment including underway replenishments for destroyers and
    refueling of helos and jets on the deck of an aircraft carrier. The
    demonstration will take place as part of the Rim of the Pacific naval
    exercise.
        We are also pursuing efficiencies measures in our fleet. The USS
    Makin Island, the Navy's first hybrid electric-drive ship, saved $2
    million on its maiden voyage from Pascagoula, Mississippi to its
    homeport in San Diego, California. It is estimated to save
    approximately $250 million in fuel costs over the course of its
    lifetime--approximately 40 years--at current energy prices.
        A hybrid electric drive system will also be installed as a retrofit
    proof of concept on the USS Truxtun (DDG 103)--an existing Navy
    destroyer. We estimate that successful testing will result in fuel
    savings of up to 8,500 barrels per year. If these tests are successful
    we will continue to install hybrid electric drives as a retrofit on
    other DDGs in the fleet. The U.S. Navy has been installing stern flaps
    to reduce drag and energy on amphibious ships in an effort to make them
    more fuel-efficient, which could save up to $450,000 annually in fuel
    costs per ship.
        Whether it is the procurement of new ships and aircraft or the
    retrofit of existing platforms, we are making energy a consideration in
    the acquisition process. In addition to traditional performance
    parameters such as speed, range, and payload, the Department is
    institutionalizing energy initiatives that will save lives, money, and
    increase warfighting capability. Analyzing energy costs during the
    ``analysis of alternatives'' phase of major defense acquisition
    programs will ensure warfighters get the speed, range, and power they
    require, as well as help the Department manage the life-cycle costs of
    its systems. The Marine Corps pioneered this approach last year by
    including system energy performance parameters in developing a new
    surveillance system and the Navy has included energy criteria as part
    of the procurement of the LSD-X.
        All across our shore installations, the Navy and the Marine Corps
    are also undertaking energy-efficiency initiatives and installing
    alternative energy wherever practical. As just one example, at China
    Lake Naval Air Weapons Station we are a net contributor to the local
    power grid, creating more than 270 megawatts (MW) of clean, affordable
    geothermal power in partnership with the private sector.
        And in January, we tapped the vast renewable energy resources
    available at China Lake again breaking ground on a 13.8MW solar array,
    offsetting 30 percent of the base's electric load. The contract is a
    20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) having no upfront costs to the
    Navy and saving the Navy $13 million during its term.
        To meet the energy goal of 50-percent alternative energy ashore, I
    have directed the Navy and the Marine Corps to produce or consume one
    gigawatt of new, renewable energy to power naval installations across
    the country using existing authorities such as PPAs, enhanced use
    leases, and joint ventures. One gigawatt of renewable energy could
    power 250,000 homes, or a city the size of Orlando. This will be a
    broad and dynamic project that, over the life of the contract, will not
    cost the taxpayer any additional money, and will create domestic
    private sector jobs. This will be our path to unlocking our Nation's
    clean-energy potential that leaves our military more secure, agile,
    flexible, and ready.
        To further facilitate our partnerships with industry, the
    Department is trying to make our contracting opportunities more
    accessible. Two years ago, we introduced a Web site called Green Biz
    Ops which aggregates our energy and efficiency opportunities for
    procurement. This site helps all companies interested in doing business
    with the Navy--and especially small businesses--find opportunities in
    one place. In partnership with the Small Business Administration last
    year our agencies launched a ``2.0'' version of Green Biz Ops called
    the Green Procurement Portal which expands the site to include more
    features as well as energy opportunities across DOD and the Federal
    Government.
        To prepare our leadership to achieve our energy goals, this fall
    the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) began offering a dedicated energy
    graduate degree program, the first military educational institution to
    do so. Later this year, NPS will launch an Executive Energy Series to
    bring our senior leadership together to discuss specific energy
    challenges that confront the Navy and the Marine Corps. This energy-
    focused masters degree program and the executive energy series will
    target both the current and future civilian and military leadership of
    the Navy and the Marine Corps.
        Further, promotion boards have been directed to specifically
    consider the background and experience in energy some of our men and
    women in uniform are gaining today. Energy is not just an issue for the
    future or just the young officers and policy experts that attend NPS.
    It is an issue for all of us.
        Those who question why the Navy should be leading on energy should
    study their history. The Navy has always led in new forms of energy:
    shifting from wind to coal-powered steam in the middle of the 19th
    century, from coal to oil in the early 20th century, and pioneering
    nuclear power in the middle of the 20th century.
    Promoting Acquisition Excellence and Integrity
        Especially given the fiscal reality of our budget deficit, we are
    fully cognizant of our responsibility to the President, the Congress,
    and the American people to spend this money wisely. What history shows
    us is that when budgets are tight we should get smarter about the way
    we spend our money. As noted earlier, rebuilding our fleet has been and
    will continue to be a top priority of this administration. Achieving
    this lies at the heart of the acquisition excellence initiative that
    has been a priority for the Department for almost 2 years now, because
    if we do not get smarter about how we buy, in addition to what we buy,
    we are not going to be able to afford the Navy and the Marine Corps
    that the Nation needs in the future.
        Improving how we buy means that we have to take actions against
    fraud and shoddy contractors. The Department's General Counsel and the
    Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
    Acquisition are authorized to take the swiftest and strongest action in
    any case where bribery or attempts to gain preferential contracting
    treatment are substantiated. When a violation occurs, RDA may terminate
    the contract and assess damages immediately, in addition to pursuing
    suspension and debarment. The Department's Acquisition Integrity
    Program was recently recognized by the Government Accountability Office
    as one of the more effective at using suspension and debarment
    practices.
        The Department's role in the President's new defense strategy is
    clear and will drive acquisition programs underway or in development.
    We will carefully define program requirements and then drive
    affordability through aggressive ``should cost'' oversight and
    competition where possible, such as the fixed-price contracts we
    negotiated for the LCS or the multiyear procurements that we negotiated
    for Virginia-class submarines. Innovative funding strategies and stable
    industrial base workload further allow for efficiencies that provide
    opportunities to acquire more ships more affordably.
        To keep our technological advantage, we plan to invest in science
    and technology and research and development to maintain the knowledge
    base and keep it moving forward. This is the lesson of the 1920s and
    1930s when so much of the technologies that became critical to our
    victory in World War II were kept alive in military, academic, and
    industrial laboratories. Times and technologies change, and we need to
    preserve the capability to change with them. Proper funding of our labs
    and research centers is key to incubating the next ``game-changing''
    breakthroughs that will sustain the United States military advantage
    over time.
        The acquisition workforce was downsized over the past 15 years and,
    in truth, was stretched too thin. Accordingly, and with your strong
    support, we are increasing the number of acquisition professionals and
    restoring to the Government the core competencies inherent to their
    profession and to our responsibilities in the Department to organize,
    train, and equip the Navy and the Marine Corps. The Department has
    grown its acquisition workforce by 4,400 personnel since starting the
    effort 2 years ago, increasing its technical authority and business
    skill sets.
        Additionally, the Department is keeping program managers in place
    longer to build up their experience, expertise, and oversight on
    individual programs. We are also investing in education for our program
    managers. As an example, we send all of our program managers to an
    intensive short course at the graduate business school at the
    University of North Carolina, specifically targeting a better
    understanding of our defense contractors:
      --what motivates them;
      --what are their financial situations; and
      --how can we work with them to achieve a win-win contract award for
            both the taxpayer and the stockholder.
        We are also changing the way in which we evaluate our program
    leaders to incentivize them to work with their industry counterparts to
    manage costs.
        Over the FYDP, affordability will continue to be a central concern
    of this Department. As resources are tight, cost has got to be one of
    the primary considerations of every program, and it ought to be driven
    by ``should cost, will cost'', methods. ``Should cost'' scrutinizes
    each contributing ingredient of program cost and seeks to justify it.
    The ``will cost'' method represents an effort to budget and plan
    weapons acquisition programs using realistic independent cost estimates
    rather than relying on those supplied by the manufacturer. Make no
    mistake, our focus will remain on the security of our primary customer,
    the American people, for whom we will build the best possible Fleet for
    the future.
                Shipbuilding/Industrial Base
        A healthy industrial base is critical to supporting the
    Department's top priorities. The dangerous downward trend in our ship
    inventory has been and must stay reversed. Even though we face
    increased fiscal constraints, we still plan, as we noted earlier, to
    grow the fleet to 300 ships by 2019. We want to increase the number of
    our highly capable large surface combatants to meet the President's
    directive that we confront the growing ballistic missile threat to the
    United States and its allies, while strengthening our small combatant
    inventory to provide the presence needed to maintain freedom of
    navigation. We have to make significant investments in support vessels
    while continuing our investment in our nuclear submarine force and
    maintaining the viability of our last yard capable of building nuclear-
    powered aircraft carriers.
        What all this means is that we will need to closely monitor the
    shipbuilding industrial base as we move forward. Much as with energy,
    we need to ensure diversity in supply moving forward. We need to
    strengthen our relationship with traditional shipbuilders, but we need
    to reach beyond them to small- and mid-tier shipbuilders to develop
    innovative designs and new construction techniques to meet emerging
    threats.
    Developing and Deploying Unmanned Systems
        When I took office in 2009, unmanned systems were already at work
    within the Department. To assist our troops on the ground in Iraq and
    in Afghanistan we had either purchased or contracted for thousands of
    unmanned aerial vehicles that flew hundreds of thousands of hours in
    support of our mission. Despite their demonstrated utility, there was
    no vision of where unmanned systems belonged in the Navy and the Marine
    Corps future force structure or coherent plan to achieve that vision.
    Over the past 2 years, the Services have worked hard to develop a plan
    and the presence and reach of our unmanned systems have expanded,
    including the first expeditionary deployment of a Fire Scout Vertical
    Takeoff and Landing unmanned aerial vehicle, and the first successful
    flight of the unmanned combat air system, which will begin carrier
    demonstrations later this year. In total, nearly 1,500 unmanned aerial
    systems deployed into theater.
        In the fleet, unmanned systems need to be integrated into
    established operational communities. The Marine Corps have been out in
    front on this effort, having established four unmanned aerial system
    squadrons over the past quarter century, and the Navy is working on
    these capabilities as well. This past year a detachment of Helicopter
    AntiSubmarine Squadron 42 deployed with a SH-60B Helicopter and a MQ-8B
    Firescout and supported combat operations in Libya and counter piracy
    operations in the Gulf of Aden. In both environments, they leveraged
    the operational flexibility and low-signature characteristics of
    unmanned systems to support local commanders while keeping sailors and
    marines safe from danger. Additionally, our Tactical Air Control
    Community took possession of their first small tactical unmanned aerial
    system this past year and began to integrate it into the Surface
    Warfare community's day-to-day operations. In the future, the Maritime
    Patrol and Reconnaissance Aviation community, soon to take delivery of
    the P-8A Poseidon, will add the MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
    unmanned aerial system to their squadrons and hangars, extending the
    reach and persistence of maritime reconnaissance capabilities.
        We will test and field mine hunting and then mine sweeping
    capability of the Mine Countermeasures Mission Module in LCS, employing
    airborne and remotely operated vehicles to reduce the risk to sailors
    and the cost. Current developmental testing of the Increment I Mine
    Warfare mission package is underway in USS Independence, demonstrating
    mine hunting capability with the AN/AQS 20A mine hunting sonar set,
    towed by the remote multimission vehicle. Future increments will
    incorporate autonomous mine sweeping and the ability to find buried
    mines using unmanned surface and underwater vehicles.
        The UCLASS system is changing the way we plan to deliver
    reconnaissance and strike capabilities from our venerable aircraft
    carrier platforms. Designed to operate in contested airspace and
    conduct ISR or strike missions over extended periods of time, the
    UCLASS at sea will differ fundamentally from the standard operating
    procedures of both manned carrier aircraft or land-based unmanned
    aircraft. Unlike with a manned carrier aircraft that is mostly used to
    maintain the qualifications of its pilot, a UCLASS airframe will be
    employed only for operational missions and pilots will maintain
    qualifications in the simulator, extending its useful life expectancy
    considerably. Its airborne mission time will not be limited by human
    physiology but rather will be determined by the availability of tankers
    to refuel it, ordnance expenditure, or the need to change the oil after
    many hours of flight time. This will allow us to launch from greater
    distances, effectively negating emergent A2/AD technologies. We have
    only just begun to understand the potential of this unmanned system and
    the capabilities that will spiral from it.
                                   conclusion
        Our Constitution requires that the Congress ``maintain a Navy.'' We
    do so with the world's most advanced platforms, equipped with cutting-
    edge weapons systems and manned by crews who receive the best training
    possible is a credit to our Nation. The Navy that fought and defeated a
    more advanced British Navy in the War of 1812 looked very different
    from the Navy of 2012. But our sailors and marines continue to live up
    to that legacy forged 200 years ago. Today, your Navy and Marine Corps
    are deployed across the spectrum of engagement from rendering
    humanitarian assistance to combat. They often seem to be everywhere
    except at home. They bring to these efforts skills, training, and
    dedication unmatched anywhere else in the world. The enduring support
    of this subcommittee for our key programs and our people enables us to
    fulfill the ancient charge of the founders that we should sail as the
    Shield of the Republic, and we thank you.
        The goals and programs discussed today will determine our future as
    a global force. At the direction of the President, we have worked to
    streamline our processes, to eliminate programs that no longer fit in
    the current strategic environment, and to construct new approaches to
    the challenges of the modern world while retaining the ability to deter
    regional conflict and respond rapidly and decisively to emerging
    crises. Our specific requests are reflected in the President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission.
        The process by which we arrived at these requests was both
    deliberate and determined. We are fully aware of the economic
    environment and the fiscal constraints that our Government faces today.
    We have attempted to balance these considerations with the President's
    requirement that we maintain a ready and agile force capable of
    conducting the full-range of military operations. We want to assure you
    that the Department has considered the risks and applied our available
    resources efficiently and carefully. This year's request aligns with
    the Defense Strategic Guidance and the priorities and missions
    contained within it while balancing trade-offs that you and the
    American taxpayer expect of us.
        For 236 years, from sail to steam to nuclear; from the USS
    Constitution to the USS Carl Vinson; from Tripoli to Tripoli; our
    maritime warriors have upheld a proud heritage, protected our Nation,
    projected our power, and provided freedom of the seas. In the coming
    years, this new strategy and our plans to execute that strategy will
    assure that our naval heritage not only perseveres, but that our Navy
    and Marine Corps continue to prevail.
        Thank you and Godspeed.

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Admiral.
    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JONATHAN W. GREENERT, CHIEF OF
                NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY
        Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you
    for the first time to discuss the Navy's budget submission.
    Because of the dedication of our 625,000 active and reserve
    sailors and civilians, and their families, the Navy and our
    primary joint partner, the Marine Corps, remain a vital part of
    our national security. I am honored to serve and lead the Navy
    in these challenging times, and I thank the subcommittee for
    your continued support.
        This morning, I would like to address three points: the
    Navy's importance to the Nation's security; some enduring
    tenets and priorities that guided our decisions in this budget;
    and how these decisions shaped our budget submission.
        Today, our Navy is the world's pre-eminent maritime force.
    Our global fleet operates forward from U.S. bases and partner-
    nation places around the world to deter aggression, respond to
    crisis, and, when needed and when called upon, win our Nation's
    wars.
        If you refer to the chartlet in front of you, you can see
    that on any given day we have about 50,000 sailors and 145
    ships underway, with about 100 of those ships deployed
    overseas. These ships and sailors allow us to influence events
    abroad because they ensure access to what I refer to as the
    maritime crossroads. These are areas where shipping lanes and
    our security interests intersect, and they are indicated on the
    chartlet by little orange bow-ties.
        We can remain forward in these areas because of the
    facilities and the support from nearby allies and partners. For
    example, in the Middle East, we have 30 ships and more than
    22,000 sailors at sea and ashore. They are combating piracy,
    supporting operations in Afghanistan, assuring our allies, and
    maintaining a presence in the region to deter or counter
    destabilizing activities. These forces rely on facilities in
    Bahrain, a U.S. partner for six decades.
        In the Asia-Pacific, we have about 50 ships supported by
    our base on Guam and facilities or places in Singapore, the
    Republic of Korea, and Japan. They will be joined next spring
    by our first littoral combat ship (LCS), USS Freedom, which
    will deploy to Singapore for several months to evaluate our
    operational concepts.
        In the Indian Ocean, we depend on Diego Garcia and the
    fleet tender and the airfield there for ship repair and
    logistics support.
        Around the Horn of Africa, we depend on the airfield and
    the port in Djibouti to support our forces conducting
    counterterrorism and counterpiracy operations.
        In Europe, we rely on places in Spain, Italy, and Greece to
    sustain our forces forward in support of our North Atlantic
    Treaty Organization (NATO) allies.
        And in our own hemisphere, our port and airfield at
    Guantanamo Bay will grow more important in the next several
    years as the Panama Canal is widened.
        When I assumed the watch as Chief of Naval Operations about
    6 months ago, I established three tenets, which I call
    ``unambiguous direction'', for our Navy leadership. And they
    are warfighting first, operate forward, and be ready.
        Warfighting first. This means the Navy must be ready to
    fight and prevail today while building the ability to prevail
    tomorrow. This is our primary mission, and all our efforts must
    be grounded in this fundamental responsibility.
        Iran's recent provocative rhetoric highlights the need for
    us to have forward-deployed warfighting capability. In our
    fiscal year 2013 budget submission, we redirected funding
    toward weapons systems, sensors, and tactical training that can
    be more rapidly fielded to the fleet. This includes
    demonstrators and prototypes that could quickly improve our
    force's capability.
        Operate forward. This means we will provide the Nation an
    offshore option to deter, influence, and win in an era of
    uncertainty. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission supports
    several initiatives to establish our forward posture at the
    maritime crossroads. These include placing forward deployed
    naval force destroyers in Rota, Spain, and forward stationing
    LCSs in Singapore, and patrol coastal ships in Bahrain. One
    ship that is operating from an overseas location can provide
    the same presence as about four ships rotationally deployed
    from the continental United States.
        We are also collaborating with the Marine Corps to
    determine the support and the lift needed for marines to
    effectively operate forward in Darwin, Australia, in the
    future.
        Be ready. That means we harness the teamwork, the talent,
    and the imagination of our diverse force to be ready to fight
    and to responsibly use our resources. This is more than
    completing required maintenance and ensuring parts and supplies
    are available. Being ready also means being proficient,
    confident, and understanding our weapons, our sensors, command-
    and-control communications, and our engineering systems as
    well.
        Now, applying these tenets to meet the defense strategic
    guidance, we built our fiscal year 2013 budget submission to
    implement three main investment priorities.
        Number one, we will remain ready to meet our current
    challenges today. Consistent with the defense strategic
    guidance, we will continue to prioritize readiness over
    capacity and focus our warfighting presence in the Asia-Pacific
    and the Middle East. We will also sustain the Nation's most
    survivable strategic deterrent in our ballistic missile
    submarines (SSBNs).
        Priority two, we will build a relevant and capable future
    force. Our Navy will evolve to remain the world's pre-eminent
    maritime force, and our shipbuilding and aircraft construction
    investments will form the foundation of the future fleet.
        In developing our aircraft and ship procurement plans, we
    really focused on three approaches: one, to sustain the serial
    production of today's proven platforms, including Arleigh Burke
    destroyers, Virginia-class submarines, and our F/A-18 Super
    Hornets; number two, to promptly field new platforms in
    development, such as the LCS, the Joint Strike Fighter, the
    Ford-class carrier, the P-8A Poseidon aircraft, and the
    America-class amphibious assault ship; and three, we wanted to
    improve the capability of today's platforms through new
    weapons, sensors, and unmanned vehicles, including advanced
    missile defense radar, the Fire Scout, and its follow-on, the
    Fire-X. New payloads like these will help ensure we project
    power, despite threats to access, as described in the new
    defense strategic guidance. They will also enable our continued
    dominance in the undersea environment and support our goal to
    operate effectively in cyberspace and fully exploit the
    electromagnetic spectrum.
        In developing the future force, we will continue to
    emphasize jointness, as described in our Air-Sea Battle
    concept. And we will also emphasize affordability by
    controlling requirements creep and making cost an entering
    argument for new systems.
        And priority three, we will enable the support of our
    sailors, civilians, and their families. I am extremely proud of
    our people. We have a professional and a moral obligation to
    lead, to train, to equip, and to motivate them.
        Our personnel programs deliver a high return on investment
    in readiness. We fully funded our programs to address
    operational stress, to support our families, eliminate the use
    of synthetic drugs such as Spice, and to aggressively prevent
    suicides and sexual assaults.
        I support the compensation reforms included in the Defense
    Department's fiscal year 2013 budget submission, which I
    believe are appropriate changes to manage the costs of the All-
    Volunteer Force.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, your Navy will continue to be critical to our
    Nation's security and prosperity by assuring access to the
    global commons and by being at the front line of our Nation's
    efforts in war and in peace. I assure the committee and the
    Congress and the American people that we will focus on
    warfighting first, we will operate forward, and we will be
    ready.
        I want to thank you, Senator Mikulski, and the subcommittee
    and your staff that are behind you and around this room for
    helping us in preparing our submission. And I thank you and the
    subcommittee for your support.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, it is my honor and pleasure to appear before you
    to submit my first budget as Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Thanks to
    our 625,000 active and reserve sailors and civilians and your continued
    support, the Navy-Marine Corps team remains vital to our national
    security and economic prosperity. Operating globally at the front line
    of our Nation's efforts in war and peace, our fleet protects the
    interconnected systems of trade, information, and security that
    underpin our own economy and those of our friends and allies. Our Navy
    and Marine Corps are the first responders to international crises
    through combat operations or humanitarian assistance. And after U.S.
    ground forces have drawn down in the Middle East, the naval services
    will remain on watch with offshore options to deter aggression and,
    when necessary, fight and win on, over, and under the sea. Despite the
    economic and military challenges facing our Nation, your Navy will
    evolve and adapt to fight and win our Nation's wars, remain forward,
    and be ready. I appreciate your continued support and look forward to
    working together in pursuing our national security objectives.
      the navy has been important to our nation's security and prosperity
        Today, our Navy is the world's pre-eminent maritime force but that
    has not always been the case. Leading up to the War of 1812, Britain's
    Royal Navy held that distinction. Our own fleet, lacking warfighting
    capability, forward posture, and readiness, was bottled up in port
    early in the war. It was unable to break the British blockade of the
    Atlantic coast or stop the Royal Navy from wreaking havoc along the
    mid-Atlantic seaboard and burning parts of Washington, DC in 1814. Our
    Nation's economy suffered as shipping costs soared and imports from
    Europe and the Caribbean grew scarce. Soon, however, the fleet
    developed a warfighting focus and engaged the British, winning
    victories on Lake Erie, at New Orleans, and in the Atlantic that,
    combined with concerns about France, brought Britain to the negotiating
    table. However, outside of a determined effort from privateers, the
    U.S. Navy still could not project power away from home, could not
    control the sea, and could not deter aggression against our interests.
    We needed these key capabilities--outlined in our Maritime Strategy--
    then, just as much as now. The War of 1812 offered a number of hard
    lessons, and for the next century our Navy focused on preventing an
    aggressor from restricting our trade or isolating us from the sea as
    our Nation expanded across the North American continent.
        Our Navy operated farther forward as our Nation's economy grew and,
    by necessity, became more integrated with Eurasia. In the midst of the
    world's first wave of globalization, the Great White Fleet from 1907 to
    1909 demonstrated to the world America's emerging power and capability
    to project it globally. These episodes of ``operating forward'' became
    sustained during World War I as our Fleet convoyed supplies and forces
    to Europe and combated German submarines across the Atlantic Ocean. And
    in World War II, our Navy established dominance in the air, sea, and
    undersea domains, going forward around the world to protect sea lanes
    and project power to Europe and Africa, and take the fight across the
    Pacific to Asia. We sustained our maritime dominance and remained
    forward and global throughout the cold war to contain Soviet expansion
    and provide tangible support to allies and partners with whom we were
    highly interdependent diplomatically, economically, and militarily.
        Our Navy today remains global, operating forward from U.S. bases
    and international ``places'' around the world. From these ``places'' we
    continue to support and operate with allies and partners who face a
    range of challenges, from piracy and terrorism to aggressive neighbors
    and natural disasters. ``Places'', from Guantanamo Bay to Singapore,
    enable us to remain present or have access to the world's strategic
    maritime crossroads--areas where shipping lanes, energy resources,
    information networks, and security interests intersect. On any given
    day over the last year, more than 50,000 sailors were underway or
    deployed on 145 of the Navy's 285 ships and submarines, 100 of them
    deployed overseas (see Figure 1). They were joined by more than 125
    land-based patrol aircraft and helicopters, 1,000 information dominance
    personnel, and more than 4,000 Naval Expeditionary Combat Command
    sailors on the ground and in the littorals, building the ability of
    partners to protect their people, resources, and territory.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   Figure 1.

        The security and prosperity of our Nation, and that of our friends
    and allies, depend on the freedom of the seas, particularly at the
    strategic maritime crossroads. Twenty percent of the world's oil flows
    through the Strait of Hormuz, the center of a region where more than
    12,000 sailors on 30 ships combat piracy, smuggling, terrorism, deter
    Iranian aggression, and fly about 30 percent of the close air support
    missions in Operation Enduring Freedom. These sailors directly
    supported the special operations forces mission that resulted in the
    death of Osama Bin Laden, provided ballistic missile defense to our
    Arabian Gulf partners, and just last month rescued the crew of the
    Iranian dhow, Al Morai, from Somali pirates. Our forces there depend on
    facilities in Bahrain, a United States partner for more than 60 years,
    for supplies, communications, and repairs, while our maritime patrol
    and reconnaissance aircraft, patrol craft, and minesweepers in the
    region are based on the island. Our forces at sea are joined by another
    10,000 sailors on the ground, most supporting our combat forces in
    Afghanistan as we continue to transition that effort to the Afghan
    Government.
        In the Asia-Pacific, about 40 percent of the world's trade passes
    through the 1.7-mile wide Strait of Malacca, while the broader region
    is home to 5 of our 7 treaty alliances and many of the world's largest
    economies. About 50 United States ships are deployed in the Asia-
    Pacific region every day, supported by facilities (or ``places'') in
    Singapore, the Republic of Korea, and Japan in addition to our bases on
    Guam. Our forward posture and ready-and-available capability proved
    invaluable to our allies in Japan following the Great East Japan
    earthquake and tsunami last March. Twenty-four ships, 140 aircraft and
    more than 15,000 sailors and marines delivered more than 280 tons of
    relief supplies to beleaguered survivors as part of Operation
    Tomodachi. Working from offshore and unhindered by road and rail
    damage, Navy efforts helped save lives and fostered a stronger
    alliance.
        Our combined readiness with our Pacific allies and partners is a
    result of the nearly 170 exercises and training events we conduct in
    the region each year. Our Talisman Sabre exercise with Australia last
    year brought together 18 ships and more than 22,500 sailors and marines
    to practice operations from maritime security to amphibious assault.
    Our Malabar series of exercises continues to expand our
    interoperability with India, a key partner in an important part of the
    world. From simple maneuvers and replenishment-at-sea in 2002, Malabar
    has gone on to include dual carrier flight operations, gunnery
    practice, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training, and maritime
    interdiction exercises. And this year, the U.S. Navy will host Rim of
    the Pacific (RIMPAC), the world's largest maritime exercise, bringing
    together more than 20,000 sailors from 14 nations to practice the
    entire range of maritime missions from counterpiracy to missile defense
    and ASW.
        Africa is adjacent to several key strategic crossroads:
      --Bab El Mandeb on the southern end of the Red Sea;
      --the Suez Canal at its northern end; and
      --the Strait of Gibraltar at the western edge of the Mediterranean.
    Events at each of these crossroads can significantly impact the global
    economy and regional security. Supported by our air and port facilities
    in Djibouti (Camp Lemonier), our ships form the backbone of
    multinational forces from more than 20 nations that combat pirates and
    terrorists around East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In the
    Mediterranean and Northern Africa our forward forces enabled a rapid
    response to the Libyan civil war. During North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) Operations Odyssey Dawn and Unified Protector, our
    ships and submarines fired 221 Tomahawk land attack missiles and
    Growler electronic attack aircraft (EA-18G) redeployed from Iraq in
    less than 48 hours to suppress and destroy Libya's air defense network.
    The Navy-Marine Corps team aboard USS Kearsarge supported NATO forces
    with air strikes and personnel recovery, while on USS Mount Whitney,
    NATO leaders managed and coordinated the fight.
        We continue our commitment to our NATO allies in the Mediterranean
    and other waters around Europe. Supported by facilities in Rota, Spain;
    Souda Bay, Greece; and Naples, Italy, our destroyers and cruisers
    conducted, among other critical U.S. and NATO missions, continuous
    ballistic missile defense patrols in the Mediterranean to counter the
    growing Iranian ballistic missile threat. Europe also continues to be a
    source of security. Our fleet trains routinely with allied navies from
    the Mediterranean to the Baltic in security cooperation exercises such
    as Proud Manta, NATO's largest ASW exercise. Outside the continent, we
    operate with our European allies and partners to address our shared
    concerns around the world, such as maintaining freedom of navigation
    through the Strait of Hormuz, countering piracy around the Horn of
    Africa, supporting our African partners with training and assistance,
    and responding to crises such as the conflict in Libya.
        In Latin America, the ongoing expansion of the Panama Canal will
    increase the importance of that strategic maritime crossroad. Today,
    the waters around Central America already experience a high level of
    illegal trafficking, which could adversely affect the increasing volume
    of shipping through an expanded canal. Our first littoral combat ship
    (LCS), USS Freedom, made its first operational deployment to the region
    in 2011, preventing more than 3 tons of cocaine from entering the
    United States as part of Joint Interagency Task Force--South. We
    leveraged our port and airfield in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to continue
    supporting operations in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. And as the
    capability of our Latin American partners has grown, so has the
    sophistication of our cooperation. In 2011, we conducted ASW training
    with Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and Chile, where their diesel submarines
    helped to train our surface and submarine crews and our crews,
    exchanged lessons learned on effective undersea operations.
                         establishing first principles
        These are challenging and dynamic times for the U.S. military
    services and the U.S. national security enterprise. We need to remain
    focused on our enduring principles and contributions that hold true
    regardless of funding, force structure size or day-to-day world events.
    Upon taking office as the CNO, I established these first principles for
    Navy leaders to follow in my ``Sailing Directions''.
        I believe historical and current events demonstrate that the Navy
    is most effective and best able to support our national security
    objectives when fleet leaders and sailors are focused on three tenets:
      --warfighting first;
      --operate forward; and
      --be ready.
        I incorporated these tenets into ``Sailing Directions''. Similar to
    their nautical counterpart, my directions describe in general terms
    where the Navy needs to go in the next 10-15 years, and the approach we
    will take to get there. We applied ``Sailing Directions'' to the final
    decisions we made in building our fiscal year 2013 budget submission,
    and I believe they are consistent with the Defense Strategic Guidance
    that emerged from our collaborative efforts with the Chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President. I
    am in the process of drafting a ``Navigation Plan'' to define our
    course and speed now that our defense strategy is established and our
    budget request submitted.
                  my guidance for the navy and what we believe
        We use these three tenets--warfighting first, operate forward, and
    be ready--as ``lenses'' through which we view each decision as we
    organize, train, and equip the Navy.
        Warfighting First.--The Navy must be ready to fight and win today
    while building the ability to win tomorrow. This is our primary mission
    and all our efforts from the ``wardroom to the boardroom'' must be
    grounded in this fundamental responsibility. The recent posturing and
    rhetoric from Iran highlight the importance of our ability to deter
    aggression, promptly respond to crisis, and deny any aggressors'
    objectives. This requires getting relevant and effective warfighting
    capability to the fleet today, not waiting for perfect solutions on
    paper that may not arrive for 10 years. We can no longer afford,
    strategically or fiscally, to let the perfect be the enemy of the
    good--or the good enough--when it comes to critical warfighting
    capability. Our history and the contemporary cases of Iran, North
    Korea, violent extremists, and pirates show that conflict is unlikely
    to appear in the form of the scenarios for which we traditionally plan.
    Therefore, our ships, aircraft, and sailors that operate forward must
    be able to decisively act and defeat an adversary's actions in situ to
    deter continued aggression and preclude escalation. To that end, in our
    fiscal year 2013 budget submission we shifted procurement, research and
    development, and readiness funds toward weapons, systems, sensors, and
    tactical training that can be rapidly fielded to the fleet, including
    demonstrators and prototypes that can quickly improve our forces'
    capability. I request that you support those investments.
        Operate Forward.--The Navy-Marine Corps team provides the Nation
    offshore options to deter, influence, and win in an era of uncertainty.
    Our naval forces are at their best when they are forward, assuring
    allies and building partnerships, deterring aggression without
    escalation, defusing threats without fanfare, and containing conflict
    without regional disruption. We keep the fleet forward through a
    combination of rotational deployments from the United States, Forward
    Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) in Japan, Guam, and Italy, and forward
    stationing ships in places such as Bahrain or Diego Garcia. Our ability
    to operate forward depends on our U.S. bases and strategic partnerships
    overseas that provide ``places'' where the Navy-Marine Corps team can
    rest, repair, refuel, and resupply.
        Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission supports several initiatives
    to establish our forward posture including placing FDNF destroyers in
    Rota, Spain, and forward stationing LCS in Singapore and patrol coastal
    (PC) ships in Bahrain. We are also now collaborating with Headquarters
    Marine Corps to determine the support and lift needed for marines to
    effectively operate forward in Darwin, Australia. In the FDNF
    construct, the ships, crews, and families all reside in the host
    nation. This is in contrast to forward stationing, where the ship's
    families reside in the United States and the crew rotates to the ship's
    overseas location for deployment. We will rely on both of these basing
    constructs and the ``places'' that support them to remain forward
    without increases to the fleet's size. I request your support funding
    for these initiatives so our Navy-Marine Corps team can continue
    delivering the rapid response our Nation requires of us. We will
    continue to pursue innovative concepts for operating forward such as
    rotational crewing and employing new classes of ships such as joint
    high speed vessels (JHSV), mobile landing platforms (MLP), and afloat
    forward staging bases (AFSB).
        Be Ready.--We will harness the teamwork, talent, and imagination of
    our diverse force to be ready to fight and responsibly use our
    resources. This is more than simply completing required maintenance and
    ensuring parts and supplies are available. Those things are essential,
    but ``being ready'' also means being proficient and confident in our
    ability to use our weapons, employ and rely on our sensors, and operate
    our command and control, communication, and engineering systems. This
    requires practice, so in our fiscal year 2013 budget submission we
    increased readiness and procurement funding for training deploying
    personnel and for exercise ordnance--funding that I request you
    support. Further, we are employing simulation and adjusting our Fleet
    Readiness and Training Plan (FRTP) to afford more time to train prior
    to deployment. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission provides the
    opportunity to build on events such as this year's Bold Alligator, our
    largest amphibious assault exercise in more than a decade, which
    brought together more than 20,000 sailors and marines and 25 ships from
    five nations. Fundamentally, being ready depends on our ability to
    train, lead, and motivate our sailors and marines through events such
    as Bold Alligator. As we continue to move through challenging times
    strategically and fiscally, we will increasingly depend on their
    resolve and imagination.
    president's budget for fiscal year 2013 shaped by three main priorities
                        of the chief of naval operations
        The Budget Control Act of 2011 placed new constraints on our
    budget, which required hard choices and prioritization to address. I
    applied our tenets to my three main investment priorities as we built
    our fiscal year 2013 budget submission to support the new Defense
    Strategic Guidance.
    Priority 1: Remain Ready To Meet Current Challenges, Today
        Readiness means operational capability where it needs to be to
    deter aggression, respond to crises, and win our Nation's wars. I will
    continue to prioritize readiness over capacity and focus our
    warfighting presence on the Asia Pacific and Middle East. Our fiscal
    year 2013 decision to decommission seven Ticonderoga-class guided
    missile cruisers (CG) and two dock landing ships (LSD) exemplify our
    resolve to provide a more ready and sustainable fleet within our budget
    constraints. The resources made available by these retirements will
    allow increased funding for training and maintenance. To ensure these
    investments improve readiness, we adjusted the FRTP to be more
    sustainable and provide units adequate time to train, maintain, and
    achieve the needed ``fit'' and ``fill'' in their manning between
    deployments. The FRTP is aligned to and supports the fiscal year 2013
    Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP), which is the
    authoritative, Secretary of Defense-approved plan for supporting
    combatant commander presence requirements.
        A ready fleet requires proper maintenance of our ships and
    aircraft, and our long-term force structure inventory plans require
    each of them to affordably reach expected service life. Our fiscal year
    2013 budget submission fully funds ship maintenance and midlife
    modernization periods. We are also continuing a series of actions to
    address surface ship material condition. We increased the number of
    sailors in select surface ships and established Integrated Material
    Assistance Teams to ensure adequate personnel for preventive
    maintenance and at-sea repairs. To improve maintenance planning and
    budgeting, the new surface ship life-cycle engineering and support
    organization develops comprehensive plans for maintenance and
    modernization of non-nuclear ships. These plans will allow us to refine
    our assessments of ship material condition, improve our ability to
    estimate maintenance costs, and identify actions needed to achieve
    expected service life. These initiatives, supported in this budget
    submission, have tangibly improved ship readiness and enable more
    efficient maintenance periods. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
    also funds aircraft depot maintenance requirements to 94 percent,
    meeting our goal for available airframes and engines.
        Readiness involves more than material condition. Our capabilities
    must also be ``whole'', meaning our weapons, combat systems, and
    sensors must be able to interface with one another, are available in
    adequate numbers, and our sailors are proficient and confident in their
    use. We emphasized training in our fiscal year 2013 budget submission--
    allocating time, ordnance, and targets for increased live-fire training
    as well as funds to improve the fidelity, capacity, and
    interoperability of our fleet simulators. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
    submission also funds improved data links and radar reliability to
    enhance the interoperability and availability of weapons and sensors.
    In aviation, we fully funded the Flying Hour Program and invested in F/
    A-18 A-F life-cycle sustainment and system capability upgrades to
    ensure these ``workhorses'' of the carrier air wing remain ready and
    relevant. F/A-18 A-F sustainment helps ensure our strike fighters reach
    their expected service lives and our strike fighter inventory remains
    sufficient to meet anticipated needs. Ashore, we fully funded air and
    port operations and nuclear weapons infrastructure and security. Our
    fiscal year 2013 budget submission accepts some risk in facilities
    sustainment and recapitalization, but we anticipate minimal impact on
    fleet readiness. We will continue to closely monitor our shore
    infrastructure to ensure it remains capable of supporting the needed
    level of fleet operations. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
    maintains funding for Homeport Ashore to provide quality housing for
    our single sailors and increases funding for family readiness programs
    such as child development centers.
        We must continue improving our fuel efficiency to sustain a ready
    and relevant fleet and our goal remains to reduce our tactical energy
    use 15 percent by 2020. We will combine modernization, research and
    development, acquisition, and efficient behavior by operators at sea
    and on the waterfront to achieve that goal. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
    submission continues to incorporate technological advances
    incrementally, but steadily. Our Lewis and Clark-class supply ships now
    employ all-electric propulsion, as will our new Zumwalt-class
    destroyers (DDG). Our new hybrid-electric powered amphibious assault
    ship USS Makin Island saved more than $2 million in fuel costs on its
    maiden voyage from the gulf coast to its San Diego homeport. The
    insights we gain from these efforts will be applied in developing
    requirements for future ships, where energy usage was established last
    year as a key performance parameter.
    Priority 2: Build a Relevant and Capable Future Force
        Our Navy will evolve to remain the world's pre-eminent maritime
    force in the face of emerging threats and our shipbuilding and aircraft
    construction investments form the foundation of the future fleet. In
    developing our aircraft and ship procurement plans, we focused on three
    approaches:
      --sustaining serial production of today's proven platforms;
      --rapidly fielding new platforms in development; and
      --improving the capability of today's platforms through new payloads
            of weapons, sensors, and unmanned vehicles.
        First, sustained production of today's platforms maintains the
    fleet's capacity, improves the affordability of ships and aircraft, and
    fosters the health of the industrial base. Examples of this serial
    investment in our fiscal year 2013 budget submission include Arleigh
    Burke DDG, MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and
    Virginia-class submarines (SSN). These proven ships and aircraft
    represent a known quantity to both the Government and contractor and
    provide opportunities for cost savings through multiyear procurement.
    Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission requests multiyear procurement
    of nine Arleigh Burke DDGs and nine Virginia SSNs. Your support for
    continued block purchases of DDGs and SSNs is essential to our fleet's
    capacity over the next decade when decommissionings and the procurement
    of the new ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) combine to reduce the
    number of these fleet workhorses. In addition to the capacity they
    bring, our experience with proven platforms also allows us to
    incrementally improve their capabilities with new weapons, sensors, and
    unmanned vehicles, such as we are doing with Arleigh Burke DDG by
    adding the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), SM-6
    missile, Advanced Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), and MQ-8 Firescout
    unmanned air vehicles.
        Second, we will rapidly field the classes of ships and aircraft in
    development which are needed to recapitalize the fleet and pace
    emerging threats. Each of these platforms are nearing completion or are
    in initial production and offer a significant return on our research
    and development investment over the past 2 decades. We will harvest
    this return and focus on capability improvement via new weapons,
    sensors, and unmanned systems before we begin our next generation of
    platforms. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission prudently moves into
    sustained production of Freedom and Independence-class LCS, MQ-4C broad
    area maritime surveillance (BAMS) unmanned air system (UAS), Poseidon
    maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft (P-8A) and Lightning II
    strike fighter (F-35C). We slowed production of the F-35C to allow
    lessons from testing to be better incorporated into the aircraft, and
    it will be a key element of the future carrier air wing. The fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission continues funding for Gerald R. Ford
    aircraft carriers (CVN), although the delivery of CVN-79 was delayed to
    most cost effectively maintain our fleet of 11 CVNs by not delivering
    the ship ahead of need. Our budget submission continues funding for the
    Zumwalt-class DDG, which will provide an exceptional improvement in
    littoral and land-attack capability while also proving several new
    technologies to be incorporated into future ships. To sustain our
    capacity for amphibious operations, our fiscal year 2013 budget
    submission funds continued production of the America-class amphibious
    assault ships (LHA), the first of which (LHA-6) is nearing completion.
    Each of these new platforms is designed to be adaptable and allow
    future capability evolution through new payloads. The physical and
    electronic open architecture of LCS, for example, will allow it to
    change missions in a short refit, but will also allow it to be widely
    adaptable over its lifetime. The P-8A has a similar reserve capacity
    for adaptation, as well as an operating profile which will allow it to
    do a wide range of missions, depending on the weapons and sensors
    placed aboard.
        And third, we will evolve the force to maintain our warfighting
    edge by exploiting the ability of new payloads to dramatically change
    what our existing ships and aircraft can do. A focus on what our
    platforms carry will be increasingly important as anti-access/area-
    denial (A2/AD) threats including new radars and more sophisticated
    surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles limit the ability of manned
    platforms to get close to an adversary in wartime. Our Air-Sea Battle
    concept, developed with the Marine Corps and the Air Force, describes
    our response to these growing A2/AD threats. This concept emphasizes
    the ability of new weapons, sensors, and unmanned systems to expand the
    reach, capability, and persistence of our current manned ships and
    aircraft. Our focus on payloads also allows more rapid evolution of our
    capabilities compared to changing the platform itself. This approach is
    exemplified by our fiscal year 2013 investment in LCS, which will carry
    an adaptable portfolio of unmanned vehicles, weapons, manned
    helicopters, and personnel. In aviation, new weapons such as the small
    diameter bomb, joint standoff weapon and Mark-54 torpedo will give our
    legacy aircraft the stand-off range, penetration, and lethality to
    defeat adversaries even if they employ advanced A2/AD capabilities.
        Our focus on payloads includes unmanned systems such as the
    Firescout UAS (MQ-8B), which already demonstrated in Libya and the
    Middle East how it can add significant capability to our legacy
    frigates (FFG) and amphibious transport dock (LPD) ships. Our fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission continues production of the MQ-8B and adds
    the longer-range, higher-payload MQ-8C. The submission also continues
    our investment in the unmanned combat air system (UCAS) demonstrator
    and the follow-on unmanned carrier launched air surveillance and strike
    (UCLASS) system, which will expand the reach and persistence of our
    current carrier-based air wings.
        Improved sensors and new unmanned systems are essential to our
    continued domination of the undersea environment. Our fiscal year 2013
    budget submission funds the development of Virginia SSN payload modules
    that will be able to carry a mix of missiles, sensors, and unmanned
    undersea vehicles (UUV) such as the new Large Displacement UUV. These
    undersea systems are joined by investments in the P-8A and Arleigh
    Burke DDG to improve cueing and close-in ASW operations. Our undersea
    superiority provides U.S. forces an asymmetric advantage in being able
    to project power or impose unacceptable costs on adversaries. Our
    fiscal year 2013 budget submission funds continued development of a new
    SSBN to begin replacing the Ohio-class late in the next decade and
    sustain the most survivable element of the Nation's nuclear triad. Our
    fiscal year 2013 budget submission also includes funding to study the
    possible use of Ohio-class guided missile submarine (SSGN) and
    Virginia-class SSN as platforms for a future conventional prompt strike
    capability.
        While we currently dominate the undersea domain, cyberspace, and
    the electromagnetic spectrum present a different set of challenges and
    a lower barrier to entry for our potential adversaries. Our fiscal year
    2013 budget submission furthers our goal to operate effectively in
    cyberspace and fully exploit the electromagnetic spectrum. Investments
    including SEWIP, EA-18G, Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise System
    (CANES), Hawkeye (E-2D) early-warning aircraft, Next-Generation
    Enterprise Network and Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) support
    development of a common operational picture of cyberspace and the
    electromagnetic spectrum. They also support robust defense of our
    networks and improve our ability to use nonkinetic effects to defend
    our ships from attack, conduct offensive operations, and conduct
    superior command and control.
        It is imperative as we pursue these three approaches to the future
    force that we consider both affordability and ``jointness.'' Our fiscal
    situation makes affordability essential to sustaining the fleet's
    capacity and improving its capability. Working with the Secretary of
    the Navy's staff, we are ensuring cost is considered as an entering
    assumption in developing requirements for new systems, while
    controlling the ``requirements creep'' that impacts the cost of our
    programs already in development. Joint capabilities may also be a way
    to improve affordability, although we are primarily concerned with how
    they can improve our warfighting effectiveness. Our Air-Sea Battle
    concept describes how naval and air forces will develop and field
    capabilities in a more integrated manner to allow them to defeat
    improving A2/AD threats through tightly coordinated operations across
    warfighting domains. Using the Air-Sea Battle concept and Joint
    Operational Access Concept (JOAC) as the starting point, the Navy-
    Marine Corps team will continue to expand our integration with the Air
    Force and Army in doctrine, systems, training, and exercises to sustain
    the ability of U.S. forces to project power.
    Priority 3: Enable and Support our Sailors, Navy Civilians, and Their
            Families
        Today's active and reserve sailors and Navy civilians are the most
    highly trained, motivated, and educated force we have ever employed.
    Our people are the source of our warfighting capability, and our fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission continues the investments needed to ably
    lead, equip, train, and motivate them.
        Our personnel programs deliver a high return on investment in the
    readiness of our sailors and civilians. We fully funded our programs to
    address operational stress, support families, prevent suicides,
    eliminate the use of synthetic drugs like Spice, and aggressively
    reduce the number of sexual assaults. I view each of these challenges
    as safety and readiness concerns that can be just as damaging to our
    warfighting capability as operational accidents and mishaps. To ensure
    sailors and their families have a quality environment in which to live,
    we sustained our support for quality housing, including Homeport Ashore
    for Sailors, and expanded our child development and youth programs.
        Our wounded warriors are a top priority. Our fiscal year 2013
    budget submission fully funds programs that support the mental,
    emotional, and financial well-being of our returning warriors and their
    families.
        The Navy continues to face a unique manpower challenge. Retention
    is high, attrition remains steady at a very low level, and highly
    qualified people continue to want to join the service. To continue
    bringing in new sailors with new and diverse backgrounds and ideas, we
    must have turnover in the force. To manage our end strength, sustain
    upward mobility, and address overmanning in some specialties, we
    selected 2,947 sailors for separation in 2012 by conducting an Enlisted
    Retention Board (ERB). These sailors served honorably and we are now
    focused on providing the best transition possible for them, including
    early retirement for sailors selected for ERB who will have completed
    at least 15 years of active service as of September 1, 2012. Thank you
    for providing this Temporary Early Retirement Authority in the fiscal
    year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. We do not plan another
    ERB for fiscal year 2013. Nor do we plan to offer early retirement more
    broadly, but we will evaluate this option if overmanning in individual
    specialty ratings/warfare communities again becomes a concern.
        We will continue to use a range of force shaping tools to ensure we
    keep our best performers and align our people with needed skills and
    specialties. Perform-to-Serve (PTS), our centralized re-enlistment
    program, will remain the principal method to shape the force. While in
    some cases we will be unable to offer re-enlistment for sailors due to
    high retention and overmanning, PTS also offers sailors the opportunity
    to change specialties or enter the reserves when they come up for re-
    enlistment if their current specialty is overmanned. We will continue
    to offer and regularly adjust selective re-enlistment bonuses and
    incentive pays for critical specialties to ensure we properly sustain
    the skills required in the force.
        By managing the size and composition of the force, we are able to
    bring in new sailors and civilians. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
    submission continues to invest in recruiting quality people, including
    diversity outreach and programs to develop science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics candidates for the service. Our future
    depends on the innovation and creativity that people with diverse
    backgrounds, experience, and ideas can bring to the Navy.
    department of defense and navy's turning point--and the need for a new
                                    strategy
        We built our fiscal year 2013 budget submission by applying the
    tenets of warfighting first, operate forward, and be ready to our three
    enduring priorities. This approach focused our resources on investments
    that are most important to the Navy's ability to be relevant to the
    challenges we face as a Nation. Today, three main trends place America
    and our Navy at a turning point. First, the Federal Government has to
    get its fiscal house in order by reducing deficits and putting the
    Federal budget on a path toward balance. Second, the security
    environment around the world is becoming more dynamic as exemplified by
    the ``Arab Awakening,'' ongoing piracy and terrorism, and the continued
    threat of aggression from countries including Iran and North Korea.
    Third, after a decade of war in the Middle East, we are completing
    ground operations and stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        This confluence of factors was emerging when I wrote my sailing
    directions and, as they clarified, were the drivers behind the
    ``Defense Strategic Guidance Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership:
    Priorities for 21st Century Defense'' issued by the President and
    Secretary of Defense. The Defense Strategic Guidance was developed in a
    collaborative and transparent process, and I believe it is aligned with
    sailing directions. The guidance calls for a more agile, lethal, and
    flexible force to address the challenges and opportunities facing our
    Nation and has clear implications for the Navy as a force provider,
    including:
    Emphasize Readiness Over Capacity
        We will not let the force become ``hollow'' by having more force
    structure than we can afford to maintain, equip, and man. Our fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission inactivates seven Ticonderoga CGs and two
    LSDs. These ships were in need of significant maintenance investment
    and 6 of the 7 cruisers required further investment to install
    ballistic missile defense capability. Inactivating these ships allowed
    almost $2 billion in readiness funding to be shifted to other portions
    of the fleet. This reduction in capacity and our shift to a more
    sustainable deployment model will result in some reductions to the
    amount of presence we provide overseas in some select areas, or a
    change in the nature of that presence to favor innovative and lower-
    cost approaches.
    Invest in Current Warfighting Capability
        Our ability to deter aggression rests on our current warfighting
    capability. During the final stages of developing our fiscal year 2013
    budget submission, we worked closely with the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense to shift more than $700 million into procurement, operations
    and maintenance, and research and development to rapidly improve the
    readiness of warfighting capabilities being deployed to the Middle East
    and Asia-Pacific. These changes focused on countering A2/AD threats
    through mine warfare (MIW), integrated air and missile defense,
    antisurface warfare (ASuW) against fast attack craft and ASW. Our
    investments included training targets and ordnance, mine warfare
    maintenance and prototype systems, antisurface and ASW sensors and
    weapons, and kinetic and nonkinetic systems for self-defense against
    torpedoes, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.
    Maintain Middle East Presence and Rebalance our Focus Toward Asia-
            Pacific
        The Asia-Pacific and Middle East are the most consequential regions
    for our future security and prosperity. Two factors drive the Navy's
    ability to provide presence: The size of the fleet and the amount of
    time ships can remain deployed. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
    reduces the size of the fleet in the next year by decommissioning some
    ships, but the fleet returns to its current size by 2017 and grows to
    about 300 ships by 2019. We will work with the Joint Staff and
    Secretary of Defense's office to focus our presence on the Middle East
    and Asia-Pacific as part of the GFMAP. The mix of ships in the fleet
    between now and 2020 will evolve to include more small combatants and
    support vessels that can provide innovative, low-cost platforms for
    security cooperation and partnership building activities in Latin
    America and Africa. This will enable our carriers, large surface
    combatants, submarines, and amphibious ships to focus on the Middle
    East, Asia-Pacific, and Europe.
        As described above, we are fostering a series of bases and
    ``places'' with our allies and partners around the world to provide
    access and support forward operations at the strategic maritime
    crossroads. Some of these facilities will host FDNF or forward
    stationed ships and aircraft, while others will extend the range and
    duration of deployments by providing places to rest, repair, refuel,
    and resupply. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission includes funding
    to support these facilities, while we are studying options for
    rotational crewing which may allow overseas ``places'' to host crew
    exchanges for additional classes of ships such as we plan to do for
    LCSs and currently conduct for PCs, SSGNs, and mine countermeasures
    ships (MCMs).
    Develop Innovative, Low-Cost, and Small Footprint Approaches to
            Partnerships
        The United States will continue to be the security partner of
    choice, and the Navy will tailor our partnership efforts to be both
    affordable and appropriate. The evolution of the Fleet's mix over the
    next 8 years will provide ships suited to cooperative operations such
    as maritime security; building partner capacity; countering terrorism,
    illegal trafficking and proliferation; and providing humanitarian
    assistance/disaster response (HA/DR). Ships including LCS (with ASuW
    mission packages), JHSV, MLP, AFSB, hospital ships (T-AH) and combat
    logistics force ships will provide platforms to conduct the low-cost,
    small footprint missions called for in the Defense Strategic Guidance.
    These ships will free up higher-end combatants for other missions and
    will employ innovative crewing concepts such as civilian mariners and
    rotational military crews that will provide more time forward per ship.
        our fiscal year 2013 investments support the department's most
                               important missions
        Within the fiscal constraints of the Budget Control Act of 2011, we
    applied our priorities and tenets to develop our fiscal year 2013
    budget submission, which strongly supports the missions described the
    new Defense Strategic Guidance.
    Counterterrorism and Irregular Warfare
        We will support the joint force in an active approach to countering
    terrorist and extremist threats. With the drawdown in Afghanistan and
    sensitivity to U.S. forces ashore, these efforts will increasingly be
    conducted from the sea. The Navy's fiscal year 2013 budget submission
    increases our ability to support these operations through investments
    including the sea-based MQ-8B and longer-range, higher-payload MQ-8C
    UAS, MLP, AFSB, LCS, BAMS, tailored language and culture training, and
    increases in SEAL manning. Places including Djibouti, Singapore,
    Bahrain, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will continue to support small-
    footprint, long-duration operations to counter illegal activities--
    including terrorism, piracy, and trafficking--from the Horn of Africa
    and Arabian Gulf to the South China Sea and the Caribbean.
    Deter and Defeat Aggression
        The Navy-Marine Corps team is the Nation's front line to deny an
    aggressor's objectives or promptly impose costs on the aggressor. Naval
    forces bring two essential qualities to this mission: Presence or
    prompt access forward where conflict occurs, and credible warfighting
    capability to counter the aggressor. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
    submission supports forward operations at the places where conflict is
    most likely or consequential--the strategic maritime crossroads. In
    addition to the readiness and operations funding that allow our forces
    to operate forward, our fiscal year 2013 budget submission also invests
    in establishing FDNF DDGs in Rota, Spain, forward-stationed LCSs in
    Singapore, additional forward stationed PCs in Bahrain and a
    sustainable tempo of rotational deployments.
        Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission improves the warfighting
    capability of the forces we send forward. The centerpieces of naval
    capability remain the Carrier Strike Group and Amphibious Ready Group.
    Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission sustains funding for CVNs and
    the strike fighters (F-35C and F/A-18 E/F), E-2Ds, and EA-18Gs they
    deliver to the fight, as well as the unmanned NUCAS and UCLASS aircraft
    that will expand the reach and persistence of the future air wing. To
    complement our aviation capabilities, our fiscal year 2013 submission
    funds a ``big deck'' LHA in fiscal year 2017 to support power
    projection by Marine Air-Ground Task Forces. These ships, aircraft,
    sailors, and marines have deterred and defeated aggression since World
    War II and will continue to do so well into the future.
        Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission invests in capabilities to
    counter specific types of aggression, such as Iranian threats to deny
    access to the Strait of Hormuz through mine warfare. While we develop
    the LCS as the future host of MIW capabilities, our fiscal year 2013
    budget submission invests in sonar upgrades and maintenance for our
    current MCMs, new mine detection and neutralization UUVs, establishment
    of an AFSB in the Arabian Gulf to support air and surface MIW
    operations, and sea-based intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission also funds ASW
    improvements geared toward the Iranian threat such as air-launched
    Mark-54 torpedoes and torpedo defense systems, as well as ASuW weapons
    to counter fast attack craft such as Griffin and Spike missiles for PCs
    and rockets for helicopters.
    Project Power Despite A2/AD Challenges
        Potential adversaries are mounting strategies to prevent U.S.
    forces from entering their theater (anti-access) or operating
    effectively once within the theater (area-denial). These adversaries
    intend to prevent U.S. forces from defeating their aggression or coming
    to the aid of allies and partners. Both state and nonstate actors are
    undertaking these strategies using capabilities including mines,
    submarines, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, anti-satellite
    weapons, cyber attack, and communications jamming. The Navy fiscal year
    2013 budget submission addresses these threats through a wide range of
    investments that support the multiservice Air-Sea Battle concept and
    the Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC). In addition to the MIW,
    ASuW and ASW investments identified above, our fiscal year 2013 budget
    submission funds upgrades in electronic warfare (EW), integrated fire
    control, cyber operations, networks, Virginia SSN and payload modules,
    and the F-35C.
        The Navy's ability to retain access to international waters and
    airspace as well as critical chokepoints throughout the world would be
    enhanced by accession to UNCLOS. As the world's pre-eminent maritime
    power, the United States has much to gain from the legal certainty and
    global order brought by UNCLOS. The United States should not rely on
    customs and traditions for the legal basis of our military and
    commercial activity when we can instead use a formal mechanism such as
    UNCLOS. As a party to UNCLOS, we will be in a better position to
    counter the efforts of coastal nations to restrict freedom of the seas.
    Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction
        The Navy's primary contribution to countering weapons of mass
    destruction (WMD) is interdicting WMD and their precursors through the
    international Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Our fiscal year
    2013 budget submission funds the readiness and force structure
    necessary to maintain forces forward at the strategic maritime
    crossroads where these interdictions are most common, while continuing
    to enable PSI by sustaining the command and control and sensors needed
    to find and track WMD transporters.
    Operate Effectively in Space and Cyberspace
        As a forward-deployed force, our fleet is highly dependent upon
    space-based systems, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum.
    Naval forces rely on long-haul communications for command and control,
    positioning, navigation and timing, and administration. Given the
    growing A2/AD threat from communications jamming and anti-satellite
    weapons, our fiscal year 2013 budget submission includes investment in
    the maritime portion of the Joint Airborne Layer Network, a UAV-based
    system to assure our ability to communicate and conduct command and
    control.
        Cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum are a key area of
    emphasis for our future force development. In the past 2 years, we made
    significant investments in personnel for Navy Cyber Command/Tenth Fleet
    as well as U.S. Cyber Command, which continue in our fiscal year 2013
    budget submission. These highly skilled operators are developing a
    ``common operational picture'' (COP) of cyberspace and the tools to
    effectively defend our interests within it. Cyberspace and the
    electromagnetic spectrum are inextricably linked, and in our fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission, we fund a range of EW and electronic
    support systems including EA-18G, SEWIP, Next-Generation Jammer,
    shipboard prototype and demonstrator systems, Ship Signal Exploitation
    Equipment (SSEE), and the E-2D. These systems sustain our ability
    exploit the electromagnetic spectrum for sensing and communication,
    while denying our adversaries accurate or effective information. We are
    also developing the conceptual and doctrinal framework to fully exploit
    the electromagnetic spectrum as a warfighting domain.
    Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent
        The Navy provides the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear triad
    with the SSBN and associated nuclear command and control, maintenance,
    and support infrastructure. Our fiscal year 2013 program continues to
    fund the recapitalization of our Ohio-class submarines and the safe
    handling of Trident D-5 missiles through investment in an additional
    explosive handling wharf at Naval Base Kitsap. Consistent with the
    Defense Strategic Guidance, we delayed the Ohio replacement program by
    2 years. This delay will result in an SSBN force of 10 ships in the
    2030s and will require a high state of readiness to meet the Nation's
    strategic deterrence needs. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
    fully funds the maintenance and support to today's Ohio-class SSBNs to
    help maximize their operational availability throughout their service
    lives.
    Homeland Defense and Support to Civil Authorities
        We maintain approximately 45 ships underway around the United
    States and another 50 available within days to meet U.S. Northern
    Command's homeland defense requirements through our FRTP. The Navy's
    fiscal year 2013 budget submission also funds DDG modernization that
    can support homeland ballistic and cruise missile defense missions.
    Provide a Stabilizing Presence; Conduct Counterinsurgency, Humanitarian
            Assistance/Disaster Relief and Other Operations
        Although our warfighting capability will be focused on the Middle
    East and Asia-Pacific, other regions will retain naval presence. The
    nature of that presence, however, will change over the next several
    years. While today DDGs and amphibious ships conduct security
    cooperation operations with partners in Latin America and Africa, our
    fiscal year 2013 budget submission funds procurement of JHSV, AFSB,
    MLP, and LCS and sustainment of PCs and T-AHs to take on these missions
    in the future. To support an expanding range of partnership missions,
    they will increasingly carry tailored force packages of marines to
    conduct security cooperation activities with partner armies and
    marines.
        These same ships will support humanitarian assistance operations
    and rapid response by U.S. forces to crisis or disaster. They can
    embark a wide range of interagency and nongovernmental personnel,
    allowing them to support the whole range of development, defense and
    diplomacy activities, and contribute to nonmilitary efforts to counter
    insurgencies and conduct stabilization operations. As naval forces,
    they can be backed up by the robust multimission capability and
    transportation capacity of amphibious ships and embarked marines.
            evaluating impacts of the new defense strategic guidance
        The new Defense Strategic Guidance is not without risk. In
    particular, we will need to assess the impacts of capacity reductions
    on the force's ability to address highly likely or highly consequential
    security challenges. Senior defense leaders are conducting this
    assessment in a series of seminars over the next several months. Within
    the Navy, we are also re-evaluating our force structure requirements in
    light of the Defense Strategic Guidance. We are assessing the
    capabilities needed to implement the strategy, what force structure
    could deliver those capabilities, and the resulting inventory of ships
    and aircraft that will be required. The results of this assessment will
    indicate the risk in the ability of the Navy's investment plans to
    implement the Defense Strategic Guidance. The force structure
    assessment will also indicate what ships should be counted as part of
    the battle force, and the extent to which the Navy will need to
    implement innovative concepts such as rotational crewing to deliver the
    needed level of forward presence.
        We will also evaluate the impact of our investment plans on our
    industrial base, including ship and aircraft builders, depot
    maintenance facilities, equipment and weapons manufacturers, and
    science and technology researchers. Some of our suppliers, especially
    in specialized areas such as nuclear power, have the government as
    their only customer. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission addresses
    the health of the industrial base, and we will work closely with our
    industry partners to manage the risk of any further budget reductions.
        Ship inactivations in the fiscal year 2013 budget submission, when
    combined with those of previous budgets, may cause an imbalance in the
    Fleet's overall distribution. We are assessing what will be affordable
    and appropriate in homeporting new ships or moving existing ships to
    ensure we efficiently employ our shore infrastructure, balance our port
    loading, and take advantage of collocating ships with common
    configurations and equipment.
        The healthcare proposals in the President's budget are consistent
    with our efforts over the last several years to pursue a multipronged
    strategy to control the rate of growth in defense health costs:
      --identifying more efficient processes internally;
      --incentivizing healthy behaviors and wellness; and
      --keeping our sailors and marines fit and ready to deploy.
        This budget maintains our commitment to those who serve and have
    served, and responsibly meets the demands dictated by Federal budget
    constraints. I hope you will agree, and support our efforts. I also
    support the establishment of a commission to study changes to the
    structure and benefits of our retirement program for those who have not
    yet entered the service. That assessment must include an evaluation of
    the combined impact to our future recruiting and retention of changes
    to retirement benefits, pay, and healthcare.
                                   conclusion
        I believe the risks of the new Defense Strategic Guidance are
    manageable and can be mitigated with good management of the joint
    force. Our Navy will continue to be critical to our Nation's security
    and prosperity by assuring access to the global commons and being at
    the front line of our Nation's efforts in war and peace. I assure the
    Congress, the American people, and those who would seek to do our
    Nation harm, that we will be focused on warfighting, operating forward,
    and being ready.

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        General Amos.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES F. AMOS, COMMANDANT, UNITED
                STATES MARINE CORPS
        General Amos. Madam Chairman, Vice Chairman Cochran, and
    members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to speak today on
    behalf of your United States Marine Corps.
        As we sit today in this chamber, 30,000 marines are forward
    deployed around the world defending our Nation's liberty,
    shaping strategic environments, engaging our partners and
    allies, and ensuring freedom of the seas while they deter
    aggression.
        Over the past year alone, the forward presence and crisis
    response of America's marines, working in concert with our most
    important joint partner, the United States Navy, has created
    opportunities and provided decision space for our Nation's
    leaders.
        Your marines were first on the scene to provide
    humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in Japan in the
    aftermath of last year's monumental natural disasters and the
    first to fly air strikes over Libya. They evacuated
    noncombatants from Tunisia and reinforced our embassies in
    Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain. While accomplishing all of that,
    your Corps continued to conduct sustained combat and
    counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan.
        Having just returned a little more than 3 weeks ago from
    visiting many of the nearly 20,000 marines and sailors
    currently deployed there, I can tell you firsthand that their
    professionalism and morale remain notably strong. There is an
    indomitable spirit displayed in all that they do. Their best
    interests and the needs of all our joint forces in combat
    remain my number-one priority.
        History has shown that it is impossible to predict where,
    when, and how America's interests will be threatened.
    Regardless of the global economic strain placed on governments
    and their military forces today, crises requiring military
    intervention will undoubtedly continue tomorrow and in the
    years to come.
        As a maritime Nation dependent on the sea for the free
    exchange of ideas and trade, America requires security both at
    home and abroad. To maintain a strong economy, to access
    overseas markets, and to assure our allies, in an era of fiscal
    constraint, the United States Marine Corps is our Nation's risk
    mitigator, a certain force during uncertain times, one that
    will be the most ready when the Nation is the least ready.
        There is a cost to maintaining this capability, but it is
    nominal in the context of the total defense budget and provides
    true value to the American taxpayer. This fiscal year, I am
    asking the Congress for $30.8 billion, a combination of both
    base and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding.
        Your continued support will fund ongoing operations around
    the world, provide quality resources for our marines, our
    sailors, and their families. It will reset the equipment that
    is worn out from more than 10 years at war, and lastly, it will
    posture our forces for the future.
        When the Nation pays the sticker price for its marines, it
    buys the ability to respond to crises anywhere in the world
    through forward deployed and forward engaged forces. This same
    force can be reinforced quickly to project power and contribute
    to joint assured access anywhere in the world in the event of a
    major contingency. No other force possesses the flexibility and
    organic sustainment to provide these capabilities.
        As our Nation begins to direct its attention to the
    challenges and opportunities of a post-Afghanistan world, a
    world where the Middle East and the Pacific take center stage,
    the United States Marine Corps will be ever mindful of the
    traditional friction points in other regions and prepared to
    respond accordingly as needed.
        The strategic guidance directs that we rebalance and reset
    for the future. We have a solid plan to do so, and we have
    begun execution already. As we execute a strategic pivot, I
    have made it a priority to keep faith with those who have
    served during the past 10 years of war.
        Through judicious choices and forward planning, ever
    mindful of the economy in which we live, we have built a
    quality force that meets the needs of our Nation. By the end of
    fiscal year 2016, your United States Marine Corps will be
    streamlined down to 182,100 marines. This active-duty force
    will be complemented by the diverse depth of our operational
    reserve component that will remain at 39,600 strong.
        Our emerging United States Marine Corps will be optimized
    for forward presence, engagement, and rapid crisis response. It
    will be enhanced by critical enablers, special operators, and
    cyber warfare marines, all necessary on the modern battlefield.
        To build down the United States Marine Corps from its
    current end strength of 202,000, I will need the assistance of
    the Congress for the fiscal resources necessary to execute the
    drawdown at a measured and responsible pace of approximately
    5,000 marines a year, a rate that guards against a precipitous
    reduction that would be harmful to our force.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        As we continue to work with our Nation's leadership and my
    fellow joint partners, you have my assurance that your United
    States Marine Corps will be ever faithful in meeting our
    Nation's need for an expeditionary force in readiness, a force
    that can respond to today's crises with today's force today.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
    Madam Chairwoman and fellow members, I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of General James F. Amos
                   the indomitable spirit of the u.s. marine
    Your Marines are Ready Today
        We remain a Nation at war. Currently, nearly 20,000 marines are
    conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. Operation Enduring Freedom
    (OEF) remains our top priority. Having recently returned from visiting
    marines and sailors currently deployed throughout Central Command, I am
    pleased to report their professionalism and morale remains notably
    strong. Whether patrolling in Afghanistan or planning at the Pentagon,
    serving on Navy amphibious warships or engaging our partners around the
    world, the indomitable spirit of our greatest asset, the individual
    marine, stands ready--ready to safeguard our Nation's liberty, to
    ensure freedom of the seas, and to protect our Nation's interests
    abroad. With your assistance, we will continue to resource this
    National Treasure . . . the U.S. marine.
    2011 Operational Highlights
        During the past year, marines have conducted counterinsurgency
    operations in Afghanistan and have responded to a rapid succession of
    unpredicted political upheavals, natural disasters, social unrest,
    piracy, and emerging threats in various unstable areas of the world's
    littoral regions.
                Operation Enduring Freedom
        We are seeing measurable progress along all lines of operation in
    the Helmand Province:
      --security;
      --reintegration;
      --rule of law;
      --governance;
      --development;
      --education; and
      --health.
        Over the past year, violence and the level of collateral damage
    have decreased significantly. Throughout 2012, marines in Regional
    Command-Southwest (RC(SW)) will continue transitioning to partnership
    training missions as we transfer even greater security responsibility
    to the maturing Afghan national security forces; police and army forces
    in Helmand Province have progressed in training and capability. There
    is a strong sense of optimism among our forces in Helmand Province.
                Operation Tomodachi
        Following a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan last
    spring, 3,600 marines and sailors from our amphibious forces in the
    Pacific responded within 24-hour notice. They served as the lead
    element of the joint force, delivered humanitarian aid (i.e. 500 tons
    of food and supplies; 2,150,000 gallons of water; and 51,000 gallons of
    fuel), rescued those in danger, provided consequence management, and
    facilitated the evacuation of almost 8,000 American citizens. For weeks
    following this disaster, Marine aircrews flew through a radioactive
    environment to save lives, deliver aid, and assist the afflicted.
                Operation Unified Protector/Odyssey Dawn
        Amidst a wave of civil turmoil spreading across Northern Africa,
    two amphibious warships with embarked marines sped to the Mediterranean
    and took up station off the coast of Libya. The 26th Marine
    Expeditionary Unit (MEU), an air-ground-logistics task force, provided
    our Nation's leaders invaluable decision time that allowed the
    determination of a way ahead and later integration with the joint force
    with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enforce a no-fly zone.
    Marine aviation assets were an important component of the joint force.
    Short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Harriers, operating from
    USS Kearsarge, conducted the first precision airstrikes and provided
    airborne command and control. Our KC-130Js evacuated noncombatant
    foreign nationals repatriating them to their homeland, and our MV-22B
    Ospreys rescued a downed American aviator using unprecedented
    operational reach.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The MV-22B Osprey rescue of an American combat aviator on March
    22, 2011, was conducted within 95 minutes over a distance of 300
    nautical miles (from launch aboard amphibious shipping to recovery of
    pilot and then back to shipping).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Security Cooperation
        In 2011, we supported all six geographic combatant commands with
    task-organized forces of marines who conducted hundreds of security
    cooperation (SC) activities with the Armed Forces of more than 75
    countries. Aligned with Defense Strategic Guidance to ``develop
    innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our
    security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence and
    advisory capabilities'', our SC missions focus on internal defense and
    participation in coalition operations.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
    Defense, January 2012, p. 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Embassy Reinforcement
        We continue providing security for 154 U.S. Embassies and
    consulates in 137 countries around the world through the Marine Corps
    Embassy Security Group. To augment this mission, marines from our Fleet
    Anti-Terrorism Security Teams rapidly deployed to reinforce Embassies.
    This past year they deployed to protect American lives and property in
    Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen as crisis events unfolded across the Middle
    East.
    The New Strategic Guidance; How Your Marine Corps is Changing
        New strategic guidance issued by the President and the Secretary of
    Defense provides the framework by which the Marine Corps will balance
    the demands of the future security environment with the realities of
    our current budget. The guidance calls for a future force that will
    ``remain capable across the spectrum of missions, fully prepared to
    deter and defeat aggression, and to defend the homeland and our allies
    in a complex security environment''.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
    Defense, Fact Sheet, January 5, 2012 p. 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have built a quality force that is fully capable of executing
    its assigned missions. Our strategic guidance rightfully focuses our
    attention on the Pacific and Central Command regions. Navy-Marine Corps
    forward basing, response capabilities, and plans are already positioned
    to support that strategy, yet we will remain vigilant and capable to
    respond on short notice in other areas of the world as the Nation
    requires. Marines continually stand ready to contribute decisively to a
    joint force, and can help provide access for that force wherever
    needed.
        Though the fiscal choices made over the past year were difficult,
    we are confident that we are managing risk by balancing capacity and
    capabilities across our forces while maintaining the high levels of
    readiness for which the Nation relies on its marines. The Corps of
    today and tomorrow will maintain its high standards of training,
    education, leadership and discipline, while contributing vital
    capabilities to the joint force across the spectrum of military
    operations. The emerging strategy revalidates our role as America's
    expeditionary force in readiness. Our partnership with the Navy enables
    a forward-deployed and engaged force that shapes, deters, responds, and
    projects power well into the future.
        During our force structure assessment, we cross-checked
    recommendations against approved Department of Defense (DOD) Operations
    and Contingency Plans, and incorporated lessons learned from 10 years
    of combat. The resulting force structure decisions to support the new
    strategy are:
      --reduced the end strength of the active component of the Marine
            Corps from 202,100 beginning this fiscal year to 182,100 by the
            end of fiscal year 2016;
      --designed a force with capabilities optimized for forward-presence,
            engagement, and rapid crisis response;
      --funded readiness levels required for immediate deployment and
            crisis response;
      --properly re-shaped organizations, capabilities, and capacities to
            increase aggregate utility and flexibility across the range of
            military operations; also enhancing support provided to U.S.
            Special Operations and Cyber Commands;
      --properly balanced critical capabilities and enablers across our
            air-ground-logistics task forces, ensuring that identified low-
            density/high-demand assets became right-density/high-demand
            assets;
      --incorporated the lessons learned from 10 years of war--in
            particular, the requirements to field a force that is manned,
            trained, and equipped to conduct distributed operations;
      --created an operational reserve component capability without any
            reductions in reserve force structure; and
      --designed the force for more closely integrated operations with our
            Navy, special operations, and inter-agency partners.
        Throughout this period of adjustment, we will ``keep faith with our
    marines, sailors, and their families''. Our approach to caring for them
    is based on our recognition and appreciation for their unwavering
    loyalty and unfailing service through a decade of combat operations.
    This strong commitment will not change.
    Maintaining a High State of Readiness
        The Navy and Marine Corps team is the Nation's resource for
    mitigating risk. Given likely future operations set forth in the
    Defense Strategic Guidance ranging from defeating rogue actors to
    responding to natural disasters, the Nation can afford and should
    invest in the small premium it pays for high-readiness levels within
    its naval amphibious forces. Because our Nation cannot afford to hold
    the entire joint force at such high rates of readiness, it has
    historically ensured that marines remain ready; and has used us often
    to plug gaps, buy time for decisionmakers, ensure access or respond
    when and where needed.
        In order for the Marine Corps to achieve institutional readiness
    for crisis and contingency response, we must maintain balance in the
    following five pillars:
          High-Quality People (Recruiting and Retaining High-Quality People
            Plays a Key Role in Maintaining our High State of Readiness).--
            Recruiting quality youth ultimately translates into higher
            performance, reduced attrition, increased retention, and
            improved readiness for the operating forces. By retaining the
            highest-quality people, the Marine Corps will continue to
            achieve success in today's dynamic environment and meet the
            challenges posed to our Nation. We will not lower our
            standards.
          Unit Readiness (Maintaining Readiness of the Operating Forces,
            Including Appropriate Operations and Maintenance Funding to
            Train to Core Missions and Maintain Equipment).--The Marine
            Corps deploys units at high levels of readiness for assigned
            missions. We source our best-trained, most-ready forces to meet
            Geographic Combatant Commander requirements. One hundred
            percent of deployed units report the highest levels of
            readiness for their assigned mission. We will be ready to
            deploy on a moment's notice.
          Capacity Versus Requirements (Force-Sizing To Meet Geographic
            Combatant Commander Requirements With the Right Mix of Capacity
            and Capability).--The Marine Corps must maintain a force that
            meets our ongoing operational requirements to include our
            commitment to OEF, our rotational presence abroad, our many
            security cooperation and engagement activities, along with
            anticipated missions as we reorient to the Pacific.
          Infrastructure Sustainment (Investing in Real Property,
            Maintenance, and Infrastructure).--We must adequately resource
            the sustainment of our bases and stations to maintain our
            physical infrastructure and the means to train and deploy our
            forces. As resources become more constrained, we will become
            even better stewards of our installations to maintain our
            facilities for the next generation of marines.
          Equipment Modernization (Ensuring Ground and Aviation Equipment
            Matches the Needs of the Emerging Security Environment).--As we
            explore options to adjust to changing fiscal realities, there
            is a clear imperative for our Corps to reset portions of our
            legacy equipment used in OEF and Operation Iraqi Freedom while
            we modernize what we must to guarantee our dominance and
            relevance against future threats.
                       fiscal year 2013 budget highlights
    The Frugal Force
        The Marine Corps is fully aware of the fiscal challenges facing our
    Nation and has critically examined and streamlined our force needs for
    the future. We continually strive to be good stewards of the public
    trust by maintaining the very best financial management practices. The
    Marine Corps has undergone an independent audit in fiscal year 2010,
    and our fiscal year 2011 audit is still ongoing. We plan to pursue an
    independent audit again for fiscal year 2012 and fully expect an audit
    opinion for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012. To date, we are the
    only service to undertake such independent scrutiny. By the end of
    2012, we will complete initial Service-wide implementation of our
    Enterprise Resource Planning System--Global Combat Support System--
    Marine Corps (GCSS-MC). GCSS-MC will significantly improve our
    inventory accountability and contribute to clean audit requirements. We
    are proud of our reputation for frugality and remain one of the best
    values for the defense dollar.
        We have four major accounts governing our operations:
      --investment;
      --operations and maintenance;
      --military construction (MILCON) and family housing; and
      --manpower.
        These are our priorities:
                Investment
      --Enhancing programs vital to our ground combat elements.
        --Light armored vehicles (LAV), high-mobility artillery rocket
                system (HIMARS), small tactical unmanned aerial system
                (STUAS).
      --Maintaining the same investment levels in other enabling programs.
        --Ground/Aviation Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR), Next Generation
                Enterprise Network (NGEN), Command and Control Situational
                Awareness (C2/SA).
      --Fully funding critical research and development efforts.
        --Joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), amphibious combat vehicle
                (ACV).
      --Sustaining other ground and tactical vehicles until their
            replacements can be procured.
        --High-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) and
                amphibious assault vehicle (AAV).
      --Procuring full programs of record critical to aviation
            modernization.
        --F-35B, H-1 Upgrades, MV-22B, KC-130J, CH-53K.
                Operations and Maintenance
      --Fully funding our education, training, and readiness accounts.
      --Resourcing civilian work force at fiscal year 2010 end-of-year
            levels.
      --Enhancing support of Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and
            Marine Forces Cyber Command (MARFORCYBER).
      --Providing continued support to family readiness and Wounded Warrior
            programs.
      --Supporting transition from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) to
            NGEN.
      --Maintaining energy mandates.
                Military Construction and Family Housing
      --Maintaining facility sustainment at 90 percent of required funding.
      --Increasing facilities demolition funds.
      --Preserving essential MILCON funding.
          Aviation.--Joint Strike Fighter, MV-22B Osprey.
          Ground.--Marine Corps Security Forces, Marine Corps University.
      --Preserving environmental restoration funding, family housing
            operations and construction.
                Manpower
      --Reducing end strength from 202,100 marines to 182,100 marines by
            the end of fiscal year 2016 in a responsible and measured way
            to keep faith with all who have served.
      --Realigning force structure across the entire Marine Corps.
      --Maintaining our reserve component at 39,600 marines.
        During these times of constrained resources, we remain committed to
    refining operations, identifying efficiencies, and reinvesting savings
    to conserve scarce public funds. We have met or exceeded all DOD
    efficiency measures to date. This fiscal year, we are seeking $30.8
    billion ($23.9 billion baseline + $6.9 billion in overseas contingency
    operations) to fund our operations, provide quality resources for our
    marines, sailors, and their families, conduct reset of equipment worn
    from more than 10 years at war and posture our forces for the future.
    Marines account for only 8.2 percent \4\ of the total DOD budget. With
    that, our Nation gains the ability to respond to unexpected crises,
    from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts to
    noncombatant evacuation operations, to counterpiracy operations, to
    full-scale combat. When the Nation pays the ``sticker price'' for its
    marines, it buys the ability to remain forward deployed and forward
    engaged, to reinforce alliances and build partner capacity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ This percentage is based on the enacted fiscal year 2012 DOD
    budget authorization and is slightly larger than the 7.8-percent sum
    cited in the past. This percentage includes $3 billion in fiscal year
    2012 funding for amphibious warship new construction as well as Navy
    funding for chaplains, medical personnel, amphibious warships
    (operations and maintenance), and Marine Corps aircraft.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             the role of marines in the future security environment
    The Future Security Environment
        The rapidly evolving events of the past year alone indicate a new
    constant. Competition for resources; natural disasters; social unrest;
    hostile cyber activity, violent extremism (criminal, terrorist, and
    religious); regional conflict; proliferation of weapons of mass
    destruction; and advanced weaponry in the hands of the irresponsible
    are becoming all too common. Marine Corps intelligence estimates
    rightfully point out that ``more than half of the world's population
    lives in fragile states, vulnerable to ruinous economic, ideological,
    and environmental stresses. In these unstable regions, ever-present
    local instability and crises will erupt, prompting U.S. responses in
    the form of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations,
    actions to curtail piracy, stability operations, and the rescue and
    evacuation of U.S. citizens and diplomats''.\5\ These and other sources
    of stress are challenging industrialized nations just as they do
    emerging and failed ones. Further increased fragility of the global
    systems impacts both international markets and our Nation's economic
    stability. These challenges are harbingers of potential crisis around
    the world and more specifically for naval forces in the littoral
    regions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Five Year Forecast: 2012-2017 Assessment of International
    Challenges and Opportunities That May Affect Marine Expeditionary
    Forces, January 2012, p. 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        History has shown that crises usually come with little or no
    warning; stemming from the same conditions of uncertainty, complexity,
    and chaos we observe across the world today. Regardless of the
    financial pressures placed on governments and markets today, crises
    requiring military intervention undoubtedly will continue tomorrow. In
    this environment, physical presence and readiness matter significantly.
    Since the 1990s, America has been reducing its foreign basing and
    presence, bringing forces back home. This trend is not likely to change
    in the face of the strategic and budget realities we currently face.
    There remains an enduring requirement to balance presence with cost. In
    the past, the Nation has chosen to depend on the Navy and Marine Corps
    to provide a lean and economical force of an expeditionary nature,
    operating forward and in close proximity to potential trouble spots.
    Investing in naval forces that can respond to a wide-range of crisis
    situations, creates options and decision space for our Nation's
    leaders, and protects our citizens and interests is a prudent measure
    in today's world.
    The Navy and Marine Corps Team
        Partnered with the United States Navy in a state of persistent
    forward presence aboard amphibious warships, your United States Navy
    and Marine Corps team remains the most economical, agile, and ready
    force immediately available to deter aggression and respond to crises.
    Such a flexible and multicapable force that maintains high-readiness
    levels can mitigate risk, satisfy the standing strategic need for
    crisis response, and when necessary, spearhead entry and access for the
    joint force. More than 60 years ago and arising out of the lessons
    learned from the Korean War, the 82nd Congress envisioned the need for
    a force that ``is highly mobile, always at a high state of combat
    readiness . . . in a position to hold a full-scale aggression at bay
    while the American Nation mobilizes its vast defense machinery''.\6\
    This statement continues to describe your Navy and Marine Corps team
    today. It is these qualities that allow your Marine Corps to protect
    our Nation's interests, reassure our allies, and demonstrate America's
    resolve.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Committee report accompanying S. 677 and H.R. 666 of June 30,
    1951.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reorienting to the Pacific
        As our security strategy looks increasingly toward the Pacific,
    forward-deployed naval forces will become increasingly vital. The
    ``geographic realities'' of the Pacific theater demand naval
    responsiveness. The genesis of the amphibious and power projection
    capabilities of the Navy and Marine Corps traces back more than 70
    years to operations in the Pacific--where today key terrain and
    strategic chokepoints are separated by large expanses of ocean. The
    Pacific theater is where 30 percent of the world's population and the
    same percentage of our primary trading partners reside; where five
    major defense treaties are focused; \7\ where 50 percent of the world's
    megacities are situated; and where natural disasters over the past
    decade have required the greatest attention from the international
    community.\8\ The geography of the Pacific has not changed, though our
    tactics and operations continually evolve with the changing character
    and lethality of modern warfare. Approximately 24,000 marines already
    in the Pacific conduct an ambitious, annual training cycle of more than
    80 exercises, engagements and initiatives, in addition to the crises we
    respond to such as Operation Tomodachi in Japan last year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (1951); Australia, New
    Zealand, U.S. (ANZUS) Treaty; U.S. Alliance with South Korea (1954);
    Thailand (Manila Pact of 1954); U.S. Japan Security Treaty (1960).
        \8\ According to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission
    for Asia and the Pacific, during the period 2001 to 2010 in the Asia-
    Pacific region more than 200 million people per year were affected by
    natural disasters. This total amounts to 95 percent of the total people
    affected by natural disasters annually. Approximately 70,000 people per
    year were killed due to natural disasters (65 percent of the world's
    total that died of such causes). An average of $35 billion of economic
    damage occurred per year to the region due to natural disasters.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Forward presence involves a combination of land- and sea-based
    naval forces. Our enduring bases and presence have served U.S. national
    security interests well for decades. Our rotational presence in
    locations such as Japan, Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand,
    and Singapore reassures our allies and partners. Sea-basing, the act of
    using amphibious warships with support from maritime prepositioned
    ships with various types of connectors, is uniquely suited to provide
    the geographic combatant commander with the flexibility to deploy
    forces anywhere in the Pacific region without having to rely on
    multiple bases ashore or imposing our presence on a sovereign nation.
    Sea-basing enables forward deployed presence at an affordable cost.
    Forward-deployed naval forces serve as a deterrent and provide a
    flexible, agile response capability for crises or contingencies.
    Maritime prepositioning offers the ability to rapidly support and
    sustain Marine forces in the Pacific during training, exercises, or
    emerging crises, and delivers the full-range of logistical support
    those forces require.
    A Middleweight Force From the Sea
        As a ``middleweight force'', Marines do not seek to supplant any
    service or ``own'' any domain. Rather, Marine forces operate in a
    ``lane'' that passes through all domains--land, sea, air, space, and
    cyber--operating capably and freely throughout the spectrum of threats,
    whether they be conventional, hybrid, irregular, or the uncertain areas
    where they overlap. Whereas other forces are optimized for a particular
    mission and domain, the Marine Corps is optimized for rapid deployment,
    versatile employment, and self-sustainment via Marine Air-Ground Task
    Forces (MAGTF), which are balanced, combined-arms formations under a
    single commander. All MAGTFs consist of four core elements:
      --a command element;
      --ground combat element;
      --aviation combat element; and
      --logistics combat element.
        MAGTFs are scalable in size and capability.
        Bridging a seam in our Nation's defense between heavy conventional
    and special operations forces (SOF), the United States Marine Corps is
    light enough to arrive rapidly at the scene of a crisis, but heavy
    enough to carry the day and sustain itself upon arrival. The Marine
    Corps is not designed to be a second-land army. That said, throughout
    the history of our Nation, its Marines have been called to support
    sustained operations from time to time. We are proud of our ability to
    contribute to land campaigns when required by leveraging and rapidly
    aggregating our capabilities and capacities. Primarily though, the
    Corps is a critical portion of our integrated naval forces and designed
    to project power ashore from the sea. This capability does not
    currently reside in any other service; a capability that has been
    called upon time and again to deter aggression and to respond quickly
    to threatening situations with appropriate military action.
        Marine Corps and SOF roles are complementary, not redundant.
    Special forces contribute to the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism
    demands of the geographic combatant commanders in numerous and
    specialized ways, but they are not a substitute for conventional
    forces, and they do not have a broader range of capabilities and
    sustainability. SOF lack the organic logistic capability and capacity
    to execute a noncombatant operation, serve as a ``fire brigade'' in a
    crisis or conduct combined amphibious and airborne assaults against a
    competent enemy. Middleweight naval forces, trained in combined arms
    warfare and knowledgeable in the art of maneuver warfare from the sea,
    are ideally trained and prepared for these types of operations.
    The Littorals
        The United States remains a maritime Nation that relies heavily on
    the oceans and waterways of the world for the free exchange of ideas
    and trade. The maritime commons are where 95 percent of the world's
    commerce flows, where more than 42,000 commercial ships are under way
    daily, where most of the world's digital information flows via undersea
    cables, and where one-half the world's oil travels through seven
    strategic chokepoints. To secure our way of life and ensure
    uninterrupted freedom of navigation, we must retain the ability to
    operate simultaneously and seamlessly while at sea, ashore, from the
    sea, in the air, and perhaps most importantly, where these domains
    converge--the littorals. These littoral areas exist not only in the
    Pacific but throughout the world. Operating in the littoral environment
    demands the close integration of air, sea, and land power. By using the
    sea as maneuver space, flexible naval forces can quickly respond to
    crises in the bordering environment of the littorals.
        In the context of the new strategy, the Navy and Marine Corps team
    is increasingly relevant in meeting the exigent military needs of our
    Nation. Together, we provide the capability for massing potent forces
    close to a foreign shore, while maintaining a diplomatically sensitive
    profile. Additionally, when necessary, we are able to project this
    power ashore across the range of military operations at a time of our
    Nation's choosing. Amphibious capabilities provide the means to conduct
    littoral maneuver--the ability to maneuver combat-ready forces from the
    sea to the shore and inland in order to achieve a positional advantage
    over the enemy. Working seamlessly as a single naval force, your Navy
    and Marine Corps team provides the essential elements of access and
    forcible entry capabilities that are necessary components of a joint
    campaign.
    Engagement
        In order to keep large crises from breaking out or spilling over to
    destabilize an entire region, 21st century security challenges also
    require expansion of global engagement with partner and allied
    nations--facilitated through persistent forward naval presence--to
    promote collective approaches to common security concerns. Our
    engagement contributions in support of the geographic combatant
    commanders minimize conditions for conflict and enable host nation
    forces to effectively address instability on their own as it occurs.
    They promote regional stability and the growth of democracy while also
    deterring regional aggression. History has shown that it is often far
    cheaper to prevent a conflict than to respond to one. This thrust will
    necessitate amphibious forces that are not only fighters, but who can
    also serve as trainers, mentors, and advisers to host nation military
    forces.
    Integration with the Joint Force
        In our new defense strategy, the Marine Corps will fill a unique
    lane in the capability range of America's Armed Forces. Whether first-
    on-the scene, part of, or leading a joint force, marines instinctively
    understand the logic and synergy behind joint operations. Our ability
    to deploy rapidly and globally allows us to set the stage and enable
    the transition to follow-on joint forces in a timely manner. Our MAGTF
    structure--with organic logistics, aviation, intelligence, fires, and
    other assets--enables us to seamlessly team with others and provides
    options for the joint force commander to:
      --provide a visible deterrent to would-be threats without requiring a
            vulnerable presence ashore at fixed bases or airfields;
      --swiftly respond to small-scale crises with a range of options
            beyond precision strike, potentially containing crises before
            they erupt into major contingencies;
      --partner with the Navy and United States Special Operations Command
            (SOCOM) to shape the operational environment;
      --use the sea as maneuver space, avoiding enemy strengths, and
            striking his weaknesses;
      --directly seize or obtain operational objectives from the sea,
            without the requirement for large force build-ups or sustained
            presence ashore;
      --extend the operational reach of the Joint Force hundreds of miles
            inland to achieve effects from the sea through organic MAGTF
            assets; and
      --overcome anti-access and area denial threats in a single-naval
            battle approach through the use of landing forces aboard
            amphibious warships integrated with other capabilities to
            include mine countermeasures and naval surface fires.
    Day-to-Day Crisis Response
        Engagement and crisis response are the most frequent reasons to
    employ our amphibious forces. The same capabilities and flexibility
    that allow an amphibious task force to deliver and support a landing
    force on a hostile shore enable it to support forward engagement and
    crisis response. The geographic combatant commanders have increased
    their demand for forward-postured amphibious forces capable of
    conducting security cooperation, regional deterrence, and crisis
    response.
        Marines have conducted amphibious operations and responded to
    crises throughout the world more than 100 times in the past two
    decades. The vast majority of our expeditionary service has involved
    crisis response and limited contingency operations, usually conducted
    in periods when the Nation has otherwise been at peace. Some of these
    were relatively short-term rescue or raid expeditions, while others
    evolved into contingencies that were limited in force size but not
    limited in duration, complexity and level of integration with the other
    elements of national power. We will contribute to the missions of our
    Nation's security strategy in the same way.\9\ On a day-to-day basis,
    marines will be forward-deployed and engaged, working closely with our
    joint and allied partners. When crises or contingencies arise, these
    same marines will respond--locally, regionally, or globally if
    necessary--to accomplish whatever mission the Nation requires.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The Marine Corps is capable of performing 9 of the 10 stated
    missions in the Defense Strategic Guidance to include:
          -- Counterterrorism and irregular warfare;
          -- Deter and defeat aggression;
          -- Project power despite anti-access/area denial challenges;
          -- Counter weapons of mass destruction;
          -- Operate effectively in cyberspace and space;
          -- Defend the Homeland and provide support to civil authorities;
          -- Provide a stabilizing presence;
          -- Conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations; and
          -- Conduct humanitarian, disaster relief; and other operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    America's Expeditionary Force in Readiness
        The new strategic guidance underscores the Marine Corps role as
    America's expeditionary force in readiness. Reliant on a strategically
    relevant and appropriately resourced Navy fleet of amphibious warships
    and maritime prepositioning force (MPF) vessels, we are forward
    deployed and forward engaged: shaping strategic environments; training
    partner nation and allied forces; deterring adversaries; and responding
    to all manner of crises contingencies.\10\ Alert and ready, we respond
    to today's crisis with today's force . . . today. Marines are ready to
    respond whenever the Nation calls and wherever and however the
    President may direct.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ As of January 2012, approximately 30,000 marines were forward
    deployed in operations supporting our Nation's defense. This number
    includes approximately 19,500 marines in Afghanistan including those
    serving in external billets (transition teams, joint/interagency
    support, etc.), approximately 5,000 marines at sea on Marine
    Expeditionary Units (MEU), and approximately 6,000 marines engaged in
    various other missions, operations, and exercises. The 30,000 marine
    statistic does not include more than 18,000 marines permanently
    assigned to garrison locations outside the continental United States
    such as in Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific, etc.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              we have worked diligently to prepare for the future
    Force Structure Review
        In an effort to ensure the Marine Corps is organized for the
    challenges of the emerging security environment, we conducted a
    capabilities-based force structure review beginning in the fall of 2010
    to identify ways we could rebalance and posture for the future. The
    force structure review incorporated the lessons learned from 10 years
    of combat and addressed 21st century challenges confronting our Nation
    and its Marine Corps. The review sought to provide the ``best value''
    in terms of capability, cost, and readiness relative to the operational
    requirements of our forward-engaged geographic combatant commanders.
    The results of that effort have been shared with the Congress over the
    past year. While affirming this strategy-driven effort, we have aligned
    our force based on the realities of constrained spending levels and
    strategic guidance.
    End Strength
        During our comprehensive force structure review, we tailored a
    force structure to ensure a sufficient type and quantity of force
    available to meet the forward presence, engagement, and crisis response
    requirements of the geographic combatant commanders. The resulting
    force structure is intended to meet title 10 responsibilities, broaden
    capabilities, enhance speed and response options, and foster the
    partnerships necessary to execute the range of military operations
    while providing the ``best value'' to the Nation. This force structure
    also accounted for the addition of enabling assets (e.g. combat
    engineers, information operations specialists, civil affairs personnel,
    specialized intelligence marines, cyber operators, special operators,
    etc.) necessary to meet the demands of the battlefields of today and
    tomorrow.
        As directed, we will draw-down our force in a measured way
    beginning in fiscal year 2013. Our fiscal year 2013 programmed end
    strength is 197,300 marines. In accordance with Defense Strategic
    Guidance, we are resisting the ``temptation to sacrifice readiness in
    order to retain force structure''.\11\ Personnel costs account for
    about 60 cents of every marine $1; through our force structure efforts
    we balanced the requisite capabilities across a smaller force, in
    effect trading capacity for modernization and readiness.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ ``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st
    Century Defense'', January 2012, p. 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The resulting 182,100 marine active-duty force, supported by our
    operational reserve component, retains the capacity and capability to
    support steady state and crisis response operations through rotational
    deployments, and to rapidly surge in support of major contingency
    operations. Although reshaping the Marine Corps from 202,100 marines to
    a force of approximately 182,100 marines entails some risk to our
    ability to simultaneously respond to multiple large-scale
    contingencies, it is manageable. We intend to leverage the diverse
    depth and range of assets within our reserve component both to mitigate
    risk and maximize opportunities where available.
        As we reduce end strength, we must manage the rate carefully so we
    reduce the force responsibly. We will draw-down our end strength by
    approximately 5,000 marines per year. The continued resourcing of this
    gradual ramp-down is vital to keeping faith with those who have already
    served in combat and for those with families who have experienced
    resulting extended separations. The pace of active component draw-down
    will account for completion of our mission in Afghanistan, ensuring
    proper resiliency in the force relative to dwell times. As our Nation
    continues to draw-down its Armed Forces, we must guard against the
    tendency to focus on pre-9/11 end strength levels that neither account
    for the lessons learned of 10 years at war nor address the irregular
    warfare needs of the modern battlefield. Our 182,100 Marine Corps
    represents fewer infantry battalions, artillery battalions, fixed-wing
    aviation squadrons, and general support combat logistics battalions
    than we had prior to 9/11. However, it adds cyber operations
    capability, Marine special operators, wartime enablers, and higher unit
    manning levels--all lessons gleaned from 10 years of combat operations;
    it is a very capable force.
        My promise to the Congress is that at the end of the day, I will
    build and maintain the best Marine Corps our Nation can afford with the
    resources it is willing to invest. We are also committed to keeping
    faith with marines, sailors, and their families who have sacrificed so
    much over the past decade at war. Personnel reductions that become
    precipitous are among the worst measures that can be employed to save
    money. Our All-Volunteer Force is built upon a reasonable opportunity
    for retention and advancement; unplanned and unexpected wholesale cuts
    undermine the faith and confidence in service leadership, and create
    long-term experience deficits with negative operational impacts. Such
    an approach would no doubt do significant long-term damage to our
    ability to recruit and maintain a quality force.
    Civilian Marines
        Our civilian marines support the mission and daily functions of the
    Marine Corps and are an integral part of our total force. In
    recognition of the need to study and clearly define our civilian work
    force requirements to ensure we had the right workforce in the right
    location, at a cost that aligned with our budget, I directed a full
    review of the total force in late 2010. This measure necessitated a
    hiring freeze but resulted in prioritized requirements within
    affordable levels and the alignment of resources with capabilities. It
    also ensured the civilian labor force was shaped to support the mission
    of the Corps today and that projected for the future.
        During the fiscal year 2012 budget cycle, there was no growth in
    our fiscal year 2011 civilian work force levels due to necessary
    efficiency measures. Consequently, our civilian work force went from a
    planned level of 21,000 personnel in direct funded full-time equivalent
    (FTE) personnel to 17,501 personnel. This number of FTE personnel will
    remain constant in each year of the current future year's defense plan
    (FYDP)--there is no growth planned. The end result is a 17-percent
    reduction in planned growth between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year
    2012 budget requests.
        Our fiscal year 2013 civilian personnel budget reflects efforts to
    restrain growth in direct funded personnel. By establishing budgetary
    targets consistent with current fiscal realities, we will be able to
    hold our civilian labor force at fiscal year 2010 end-of-year levels,
    except for limited growth in critical areas such as the acquisition
    workforce, the intelligence community, the information technology
    community (i.e. conversion from NMCI to NGEN), in-sourcing of security
    personnel (i.e. Marine Corps civilian law enforcement personnel), and
    personnel in our cyber community. Our civilian marine work force
    remains the leanest among DOD with only 1 civilian for every 10
    marines.
                                 our priorities
    Commandant's Four Priorities
        To best meet the demands of the future and the many types of
    missions marines will be expected to perform now and beyond the post-
    OEF security environment, I established four enduring priorities in
    2010. To that end, we will:
      --provide the best trained and equipped marine units to Afghanistan.
            This will not change and remains our top priority;
      --rebalance our Corps, posture it for the future and aggressively
            experiment with and implement new capabilities and
            organizations;
      --better educate and train our marines to succeed in distributed
            operations and increasingly complex environments; and
      --keep faith with our marines, our sailors, and our families.
        We are making significant progress within each of these four
    critical areas; however, there are pressing issues facing our Corps
    today that require the special attention and assistance of the
    Congress. These include specific programs and initiatives within the
    command, ground, logistics, and aviation portfolios of the MAGTF.
    Reset
        The Marine Corps is conducting a comprehensive review of its
    equipment inventory to validate reset strategies, future acquisition
    plans, and depot maintenance programming and modernization initiatives.
    As already stated, after 10 years of constant combat operations, the
    Marine Corps must reset the force coming out of Afghanistan. The reset
    of equipment retrograded to home station from Iraq (approximately
    64,000 principal items) is complete. However, the equipment density
    list currently supporting combat operations in Afghanistan totals
    approximately 95,000 principal items, of which approximately 42 percent
    was retransferred directly from Iraq to support the surge of 2009. The
    bulk of this transferred equipment included high-demand items such as
    communications equipment and vehicles to include the majority of our
    mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles and 100 percent of our medium
    tactical vehicle fleet.
        Sustaining current combat operations has reduced the aggregate
    readiness of the nondeployed force. Nondeployed unit readiness is
    degraded and has been the ``bill payer'' for deployed unit readiness.
    We sacrificed readiness levels of our home station units to ensure
    marines in combat had the very best equipment. Through the support of
    the Congress over the past few years, we have received a good portion
    of the required funding for reset and have made significant progress at
    our depots in restoring and procuring required materiel. But there is
    more to do at our home stations. Thirty-three percent of nondeployed
    units report the highest-readiness levels for their designed mission,
    which leaves 67 percent of nondeployed units in a degraded state of
    readiness. The largest contributing factor to degraded readiness within
    nondeployed units is equipment supply. The nondeployed force provides
    the Nation depth in responsiveness and options when confronted with the
    unexpected. Our marines at home must be ``geared up'' and ready to be
    called at a moment's notice. Low levels of readiness within the
    nondeployed force increases risk in the timely and successful execution
    of a military response to crises or contingencies. Therefore, it is
    critical that the Marine Corps continues to receive congressional
    assistance on required funding to reset our equipment from the
    conflicts of the past decade.
        In January 2012, I signed the ``Marine Corps OEF Ground Equipment
    Reset Strategy'', rooted in the lessons learned from our successful
    redeployment and retrograde from Iraq. This strategy is helping to
    identify what equipment we will reset and what we will divest. It
    prioritizes investment and modernization decisions in accordance with
    the capabilities of our middleweight force construct, defining unit-
    level mission essential tasks and equipment requirements to support the
    range of military operations, and equips to core capabilities for
    immediate crisis response deployment and building strategic depth. We
    have issued disposition instructions on 8,400 principal items
    associated with the initial draw-down of forces that will occur this
    fall. In Afghanistan, 35 percent of that equipment has entered the
    redeployment and retrograde pipeline. Initial shipments of equipment
    have arrived at home stations and depots, and are being entered into
    the maintenance cycle. We currently expect divestment of approximately
    21 percent of the total Afghanistan equipment density list as obsolete,
    combat loss, or otherwise beyond economical repair. These are combat
    capability items that must be replaced.
        The reset of our equipment after more than a decade of combat
    requires an unprecedented level of effort. Our Marine Corps depots will
    be asked to do more once again; they stand ready to do so. As our
    Nation looks to efficiencies in its Armed Forces, we must maintain a
    keen awareness of the role that depots play in keeping our country
    strong. The continued availability of our depot capacity both at
    Barstow, California and Albany, Georgia is essential to our ability to
    self-generate readiness and to respond when we must surge in response
    to wartime demand. Acknowledging fiscal realities, I directed, with the
    Secretary of the Navy's approval, the consolidation of the two Marine
    Corps depots under a single command with two operating plant locations.
    Consolidating our depots under a single commander is the right balance
    between fiscal efficiency and meeting the unique requirements of the
    Marine Corps. This consolidation will reduce costs, standardize
    processes between industrial plants, and increase efficiency.
    Modernization
        In conjunction with our reset efforts, we are undertaking several
    initiatives to conduct only essential modernization of the Marine Corps
    Total Force. This will place us on a sustainable course to achieve
    institutional balance. We are doing so by judiciously developing and
    procuring the right equipment needed for success in the conflicts of
    tomorrow, especially in those areas that underpin our core
    competencies. As such, I ask for continued congressional support to
    modernize equipment and maintain a high state of readiness that will
    place us on solid footing in a post-Afghanistan security environment.
    While budgetary pressures will likely constrain modernization
    initiatives, we will mitigate pressure by continuing to prioritize and
    sequence both our modernization and sustainment programs to ensure that
    our equipment is always ready and that we are proceeding in a fiscally
    responsible manner. Modernization programs that require significant
    additional funding above current levels will be evaluated for continued
    operational requirement and capability/capacity modification.
        We recognize that our planned, force structure reduction following
    our commitment in Afghanistan will accommodate a level of decreased
    modernization investment due to a requirement for a smaller quantity of
    modernized equipment. However, any qualitative modernization reductions
    will impact our ability to respond to future adversaries and threats.
    The current baseline budget allows for equipment modernization on a
    reasonable timeline across the FYDP. Possible future reductions in the
    baseline budget will result in delays, modification or elimination of
    key modernization programs. Modernization in the following areas is
    critical to maintaining operational capabilities and readiness:
      --ground combat tactical vehicles;
      --aviation;
      --preparing for future battlefields;
      --amphibious and prepositioning ships;
      --expeditionary energy; and
      --intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
    Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle Strategy
        The programmatic priority for our ground forces is the seamless
    maneuver of marines from the sea to conduct operations ashore whether
    for training, humanitarian assistance, or combat. Our ground combat
    tactical vehicle (GCTV) strategy is focused on achieving the right mix
    of assets, while balancing performance, payload, survivability, fuel
    efficiency, transportability, and cost. Vehicles comprising our GCTV
    strategy include our entire inventory of wheeled and tracked vehicles
    and planned future capabilities including the JLTV, amphibious combat
    vehicle (ACV) and the marine personnel carrier (MPC). Throughout 2011
    and informed by cost, we conducted a comprehensive systems engineering
    review of amphibious vehicle operational requirements. The review
    evaluated the requirements for water mobility, land mobility,
    lethality, and force protection of the future environment. The
    identification of essential requirements helped to drive down both the
    production and the sustainment costs for the amphibious vehicles of the
    future.
        We are conducting an analysis of alternatives on six ACV options,
    the results of which will help to inform the direction and scope of the
    ACV program. The MPC program is maturing as a wheeled armored personnel
    carrier and complements the ACV as a possible solution to the general
    support lift capacity requirements of Marine forces operating in the
    littorals.
        We are firmly partnered with the U.S. Army in fielding a JLTV to
    replace a portion of our legacy medium lift utility vehicles. Our long-
    term participation in this program remains predicated on development of
    a cost-effective vehicle, whose payload integrates seamlessly with our
    expeditionary operations and likely amphibious and strategic lift
    profiles.\12\ The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has approved the
    JLTV Capability Development Document, and our combat development
    command in Quantico is leading the Army and Marine Corps effort to
    establish a program of record at Milestone B in the third quarter of
    fiscal year 2012. Our approach to JLTV is as an incremental
    acquisition, and our objective for Increment I currently stands at more
    than 5,000 vehicles. Factoring all the above considerations, the
    current pathway for our GCTV strategy includes the following actions:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ For two-axle combat vehicles, this equates to combat weights
    in the 18,000 to 19,000 lbs range, translating to empty vehicle weights
    in the range of 12,000 to 13,000 lbs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --develop a modern ACV;
      --develop and procure JLTV;
      --sustain HMMWVs through 2030 by utilizing an Inspect and Repair Only
            As Necessary Depot Maintenance Program and a HMMWV Modification
            Line; \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ HMMWV recapitalization does not meet Marine Corps requirements
    for those light vehicles with the most demanding missions. They cannot
    deliver reliability, payload, service life, mobility, the ability to
    fit on MPF shipping, and growth potential. The JLTV is the most cost-
    effective program to meet capability gaps for those light combat
    vehicles with the most demanding missions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --initiate a legacy amphibious assault vehicle upgrade as a bridge to
            ACV;
      --continue research and development in MPC through fiscal year 2014
            to identify the most effective portfolio mix of vehicles; and
      --limit procurement of vehicles to reduced approved acquisition
            objective estimates as identified.
    Marine Corps Aviation
        Marine Corps Aviation is proud to celebrate its centennial of
    service to our Nation this year. Our priority for aviation is support
    of marines in Afghanistan and wherever marines are deployed. On
    average, more than 40 percent of our aviation force is deployed at any
    time with an additional 25 percent preparing to deploy. All told, this
    equates to two-thirds of Marine Aviation forces currently deployed or
    preparing to deploy. We are continuing a modernization effort that
    began more than a decade ago. Today, the Marine Corps is challenged to
    replace aging platforms that have reached the end of their service
    lives or suffered accelerated wear in harsh operating environments,
    thus reducing service life and resulting in the loss of critical war-
    fighting capabilities. Our aviation plan is a phased multiyear approach
    to modernization that encompasses aircraft transitions, readiness,
    aircraft inventory shortfalls, manpower challenges, safety, and fiscal
    requirements.
        In an era of budgetary constraint and amidst calls for reductions
    in the collective aviation assets within DOD, it is important to
    understand that Marine air is not redundant with other services'
    capabilities. The U.S. Air Force is not designed to operate from the
    sea, nor are most of its aircraft suited for operations in the types of
    austere environments often associated with expeditionary missions. The
    Navy currently does not possess sufficient capability to operate their
    aircraft ashore once deployed forward on carriers--and yet history has
    shown that our Nation often needs an expeditionary aviation capability
    in support of both naval and land campaigns. The following programs
    form the backbone of our aviation modernization effort:
          F-35B.--As we modernize Marine fixed-wing aviation assets for the
            future, the continued development and fielding of the short
            take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Joint Strike
            Fighter remains the centerpiece of this effort. The capability
            inherent in a STOVL jet allows the Marine Corps to operate in
            harsh conditions and from remote locations where few airfields
            are available for conventional aircraft. It is also
            specifically designed to operate from amphibious ships--a
            capability that no other tactical aircraft possesses. The
            ability to employ a fifth-generation aircraft from amphibious
            ships doubles the number of ``carriers''--11 CVN and 11 LHD/
            LHAs--from which the United States can employ fixed wing
            aviation. Once fully fielded, the F-35B will replace three
            legacy aircraft--F/A-18, EA-6B, and AV-8B--saving DOD
            approximately $1 billion in legacy operations and maintenance
            costs.
          The F-35B program has been a success story over the past year.
            Due to the performance of F-35B prototypes in 2011, the program
            was recently removed 12 months early from a fixed period of
            scrutiny. The F-35B completed all planned test points, made a
            total of 260 vertical landings (versus 10 total in 2010) and
            successfully completed initial ship trials on USS Wasp.
            Delivery is still on track; the first three F-35Bs arrived at
            Eglin Air Force Base in January of this year. Continued funding
            and support from the Congress for this program is of utmost
            importance for the Marine Corps as we continue with a plan to
            ``sundown'' three different legacy platforms.
          MV-22B.--The MV-22B Osprey has performed exceedingly well for the
            Corps and the joint force. To date, this revolutionary
            tiltrotor aircraft has changed the way Marines operate on the
            battlefield, giving American and Coalition forces the maneuver
            advantage and operational reach unmatched by any other tactical
            aircraft. Since achieving initial operating capability (IOC) in
            2008, the MV-22B has flown more than 18,000 hours in combat and
            carried more than 129,000 personnel and 5.7 million pounds of
            cargo. The MV-22B has made multiple combat deployments to Iraq,
            four deployments with MEUs at sea, and it is currently on its
            fifth deployment to Afghanistan. Our squadron fielding plan is
            well under way as we continue to replace our 44-year-old,
            Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopters. We must procure all required
            quantities of the MV-22B in accordance with the program of
            record. Continued calls for cancellation of this program are
            ill-informed and rooted in anachronisms when measured against
            the proven record of performance and safety this force
            multiplier brings to today's battlefields in support of marines
            and the joint force.
          CH-53K.--We are transitioning our rotary-wing assets for the
            future. The CH-53K is a new build heavy-lift helicopter that
            evolves the legacy CH-53E design to improve operational
            capability, reliability, maintainability, survivability, and
            cost. The CH-53K will be capable of transporting 27,000 pounds
            of external cargo under high altitude/hot conditions out to 110
            nautical miles, nearly three times the lift capacity of the
            legacy CH-53E. It is the only marinized rotorcraft \14\ able to
            lift 100 percent of Marine Corps air-transportable equipment
            from amphibious shipping (MPF included). Our force structure
            review validated the need for a CH-53K program of record of
            nine CH-53K squadrons.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ The term ``marinized'' indicates that an aircraft meets naval
    aviation requirements for use and storage in a maritime environment.
    Aviation platforms used by the Navy and Marine Corps require special
    outfitting unique for use on and from naval vessels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          UH-1/AH-1.--The H-1 program, comprised of the UH-1Y utility
            helicopter and the AH-1Z attack helicopter, is a single
            acquisition program that leverages 84-percent commonality of
            major components, thereby enhancing deployability and
            maintainability while reducing training requirements and
            logistical footprints. Both aircraft are in full-rate
            production. The H-1 procurement objective is 160 UH-1Ys and 189
            AH-1Zs for a total of 349 aircraft. Currently, 131 H-1 aircraft
            are on contract, with 51 UH-1Ys and 21 AH-1Zs delivered to
            date. The UH-1Y has already deployed with the 13th MEU and has
            supported sustained combat operations in OEF since November
            2009. The AH-1Z achieved IOC in February 2011 and saw its first
            deployment alongside the UH-1Y in November 2011 as part of the
            11th MEU. The continued procurement and rapid transition to
            these two platforms from legacy UH-1N and AH-1W assets in our
            rotary-wing squadrons remains a priority.
          KC-130J.--The new KC-130J Hercules has been fielded throughout
            our active component, bringing increased capability,
            performance and survivability with lower operating and
            sustainment costs to the Marine air ground task force. Using
            the Harvest HAWK weapon mission kit, the KC-130J is providing
            extended endurance close air support to our marines in harm's
            way. Currently, we have procured 47 KC-130Js of the stated
            program of record requirement totaling 79 aircraft. Continued
            procurement of the program of record will allow us to fully
            integrate our active and reserve force with this unique,
            multimission assault support platform.
    Preparing for Tomorrow's Fight
        The irregular battlefields of today, and those of tomorrow, dictate
    that operations be more distributed, command and control be
    decentralized, and forces be more dispersed. Using our force structure
    review as a guide, we are continuing to build the right capacity and
    capability to enable marines operate rapidly as befits the tempo of our
    role as a crisis response force. Several important areas to enable our
    operations are:
          Cyber.--The Defense Strategic Guidance rightly informs that
            ``modern armed forces cannot conduct high-tempo, effective
            operations without reliable information and communications
            networks and assured access to cyberspace and space''.\15\
            Marines have been conducting cyber operations for more than a
            decade, and we are in a multiyear effort to expand our capacity
            via U.S. Marine Corps Forces Cyber Command as we increase our
            cyber force by approximately 700 marines through fiscal year
            2016. Given the fiscally constrained environment and complexity
            of cyberspace, our approach is strategically focused on
            ensuring efficiency in operations and quality of service. The
            Marine Corps will aggressively operate and defend its networks
            in order to enable critical command and control systems for
            marines forward deployed around the world. Recent cyber
            accreditations and readiness inspections validate our network
            operations command and control processes and procedures. As we
            transition to a Government-owned/operated network environment,
            the Marine Corps will pursue efficiencies through automation,
            consolidation, and standardization to ensure availability,
            reliability, and security of cyber assets.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
    Defense, January 2012, p. 5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Special Operation Forces.--As the Marine Corps contribution to
            SOCOM, Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) maintains a
            shared heritage and correspondingly strong bond with its parent
            service as ``soldiers from the sea''. MARSOC will provide a
            total of 32 employable Marine special operations teams in
            fiscal year 2013 while establishing the staff of the Marine
            special operations school, maintaining a targeted dwell ratio
            and continuing creation of a robust language capability. Based
            on our force structure review of last year and a programmed end
            strength of 182,100 marines, I have authorized an increase of
            821 marines in MARSOC.
          Command and Control.--Technology and network-based forces are an
            essential part of modern operations. Our command and control
            (C2) modernization efforts for the future build upon lessons
            learned during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
            Recent operations have shown that moving data to lower levels
            (i.e. the digital divide) increases operational effectiveness.
            We are mitigating the decision to cancel the ground mobile
            radio by building on investments already made in tactical
            communications modernization. We will continue efforts to
            ensure C2 Situational Awareness convergence and
            interoperability with the joint force.
          Advisers and Trainers.--In recognition that preventing conflict
            may be easier than responding to it and that we can prevent it
            through selective engagement and employment of advisers/
            trainers, we have invested in a new organization called Marine
            Corps Security Cooperation Group that consolidates advisers
            skills, training and assessment expertise focused on building
            partnership capacity. We are investigating how we can
            regionally focus the expertise of this organization.
    Amphibious Warships and Maritime Prepositioning Shipping
        Our Service-level requirement to deploy globally, respond
    regionally, and train locally necessitates a combination of tactical
    airlift, high-speed vessels, amphibious warships, maritime
    prepositioning shipping, organic tactical aviation, and strategic
    airlift. Significant contributions to U.S. security are made by our
    rotational forces embarked aboard amphibious warships. These forces
    combine the advantages of an immediate, yet temporary presence,
    graduated visibility, and tailored, scalable force packages structured
    around the MAGTF. Rotational amphibious ready groups and Marine
    expeditionary units form together to provide forward-deployed naval
    forces in four geographic combatant command areas of responsibility.
    Not only do they provide the capability for crisis response, but they
    also present a means for day-to-day engagement with partner nations and
    a deterrent to conflict in key trouble spots.
        We maintain the requirement for an amphibious warship fleet for
    contingencies requiring our role in joint operational access. One
    Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault echelon requires 17
    operationally available amphibious warships. The Nation's forcible
    entry requirement includes two simultaneously employed MEBs supported
    by one or more MPF-MEB to fight as a Marine expeditionary force from a
    sea base.
        Amphibious warships and the requisite number of ship-to-shore
    connectors provides the base-line needed for steady state operations
    and represents the minimum number of ships needed to provide the Nation
    with a sea-based power projection capability for full spectrum
    amphibious operations. As of January 2012, there were 29 ships in the
    Navy's amphibious fleet, with three scheduled for decommissioning and
    four new ships under construction in the yards. Within the coming FYDP,
    the inventory will decline in fiscal year 2014 before rising to an
    average of 30 amphibious warships over the next 30 years. The lack of
    amphibious warship lift capacity translates to risk for the Nation,
    particularly as it reorients to the Pacific.
        The continued procurement of scheduled amphibious warships and
    planning for MPF shipping is essential to ensure greater levels of risk
    are not incurred in coming years.
          San Antonio Class Amphibious Transport Dock.--The San Antonio
            class landing platform/docks (LPDs) continue to gain stability
            with overall warship performance improving. Through the
            generosity of the Congress, the final two warships in this
            program are fully funded, and we expect delivery of all 11
            planned warships by fiscal year 2017.
          America Class Amphibious Assault Ship Replacement.--A growing
            maritime threat coupled with aircraft/ground combat equipment
            modernization dictates the need for continued optimization of
            the America-class amphibious assault ship (LHA-6) hull form,
            which is now 60-percent complete. As stated last year, delivery
            of this amphibious assault warship is scheduled for fiscal year
            2014. The earliest reasonable deployment after allowing time
            for sea trials, crew training and other factors would be in
            fiscal year 2017. Construction of LHA-7 is scheduled to
            commence in early fiscal year 2013 but is not yet under
            contract. The Marine Corps is grateful for and firmly supports
            the Navy's plan to reintroduce a well deck in our large deck
            amphibious assault ships, beginning with LHA-8 in fiscal year
            2017 and fiscal year 2018 timeframe.
          2 x Maritime Prepositioned Squadrons.--Providing a significant
            contribution to global coverage, forward presence and crisis
            response, the MPF program exists to enable the rapid deployment
            and engagement of a MAGTF anywhere in the world in support of
            our National Military Strategy. This strategic capability
            combines the capacity and endurance of sealift with the speed
            of airlift. The current MPF program is comprised of 15 ships
            divided into three Maritime Prepositioned Squadrons (MPSRONs)
            located in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia)
            and Pacific Ocean (Guam and Saipan). In fiscal year 2013, the
            Department of the Navy (DON) plans to eliminate one of these
            squadrons as an efficiency measure. We are currently reviewing
            options to develop a balanced MPF posture and MPSRON
            composition that supports geographic combatant commander
            requirements, achieves approximately $125 million in savings
            across the FYDP, attains a higher lift capacity of the MEB
            requirement per MPSRON, and retains critical sea-basing
            enabling capabilities. The continued support of the Congress
            for the vital capabilities inherent in our MPF program is
            essential to the overall warfighting readiness of the Corps.
    Expeditionary Energy
        For marines, the term ``expeditionary'' is a mindset that
    determines how we man, train, and equip our force. We know that
    resource efficiency aids in combat effectiveness, and that our
    investments in reset and modernization will provide a force that
    operates lighter, faster, and at reduced risk. Likewise, our force will
    be more energy-efficient to support the type of operations expected of
    us in the future. To do this, we are changing the way we think about
    and use energy.
        Over the last 10 years of near continuous combat operations, our
    need for fuel and batteries on the battlefield has grown exponentially.
    Since 2001, we have increased the number of radios our infantry
    battalions use by 250 percent, and the number of computers/information
    technology equipment by 300 percent. The number of vehicles has risen
    by 200 percent with their associated weight increasing more than 75
    percent as a result of force protection requirements. In the end, our
    force today is more lethal, but we have become critically dependent on
    fuel and batteries, which has increased the risk to our logistics
    trains. Moreover, a 2010 study found that one marine is wounded for
    every 50 fuel and water convoys.
        To reduce our risk and increase our combat effectiveness, in March
    2011, I issued the ``Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and
    Implementation Plan'' to change the way we think about and value
    energy. This is a ``bases-to-battlefield'' strategy, which means all
    marines will be trained to understand the relationship between resource
    efficiency and combat effectiveness. We will consider energy
    performance in all our requirements and acquisitions decisions. We are
    creating the tools to provide commanders the information necessary to
    understand their energy consumption in real-time.
        Over the FYDP, I have directed $350 million to ``Expeditionary
    Energy'' initiatives. Fifty-eight percent of this investment is
    directed toward procuring renewable and energy efficient equipment.
    Some of this gear has already demonstrated effectiveness on the
    battlefield in Helmand Province. Twenty-one percent of this investment
    is directed toward research and development of new capabilities, and
    the remaining investment is to support operations and maintenance. We
    expect this investment to improve the energy efficiency of our MEBs by
    9 percent. As such, we will enable ourselves to sustain longer and go
    further, incurring less risk. The MEB of 2017 will be able to operate 1
    month longer on the same amount of fuel that we plan to use today, and
    it will need 208 fewer fuel trucks, thereby saving 7 million gallons of
    fuel per year. This translates to a lighter, more agile, and more
    capable Marine Corps.
           providing capable bases, stations, and support facilities
    Fiscal Year 2013 Military Construction
        The Marine Corps maintains a commitment to facilities and
    infrastructure supporting both operations and quality of life. Our
    military construction and family programs are important to sustain our
    force structure and maintaining readiness. This fiscal year we are
    proposing a $761 million MILCON program to support warfighting, family
    housing, and infrastructure improvements. The focus of our efforts this
    fiscal year is the construction of Joint Strike Fighter and MV-22B
    support facilities, infrastructure improvements, and training and
    education facility improvements. Additionally, this budget request
    includes replacement of inadequate and obsolete facilities at various
    locations.
        Through the support of the Congress, between fiscal year 2008-
    fiscal year 2012 we programmed 70 bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ)
    projects resulting in 149 barracks buildings primarily located at Camp
    Lejeune, North Carolina; Camp Pendleton and Twentynine Palms,
    California; and Marine Corps Base, Hawaii. These BEQ projects were
    typically completed in 2 years, with most at or below cost. These
    facilities, that incorporated energy efficiency measures, have
    significantly improved the quality of life of our single marines, who
    for many years, lived in substandard, World War II-era barracks. Our
    fiscal year 2013 MILCON program includes a $49 million request for
    barracks, a motor pool, and other facilities to support the
    consolidation of Marine Corps Security Force Regiment assets at Naval
    Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia. This project was not a part of our
    original BEQ initiative but is necessary as the current facilities used
    by the Regiment at Naval Station Norfolk have been condemned.
    Infrastructure Sustainment
        As resources and MILCON funds become more constrained, the Marine
    Corps will continue to rely on the sound stewardship of existing
    facilities and infrastructure to support our needs. In fiscal year
    2013, the Marine Corps will again program facilities sustainment
    funding at 90 percent of the DOD Facilities Sustainment Model,
    resulting in a facilities sustainment budget of $653 million.
    Installation Energy Initiatives
        The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $164 million in operations and
    maintenance funding to continue progress in achieving mandated energy
    goals by 2015. This funding will target energy efficiency goals
    established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 aimed
    at reducing energy intensity by 30 percent from a 2003 baseline. This
    progress will be made by replacing older heating, cooling, lighting,
    and other energy-consuming building components with more efficient
    technologies. We will use this funding to achieve renewable energy
    goals established by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007.
    Overall, the planned investments are intended to increase energy
    security on our installations while reducing the cost of purchased
    utilities.
             investing in the education and training of our marines
    Courses and Facilities
        A broadly-capable middleweight force will meet future requirements
    through the integration of newly acquired and traditional operational
    competencies. To remain America's expeditionary force in readiness, the
    Marine Corps requires balanced, high-quality training and education at
    all levels. As history has repeatedly shown, wars are won by the
    better-trained force, not necessarily the larger one. In the midst of
    ongoing combat operations, we are realigning our education and training
    efforts to enable our marines and sailors to succeed in conducting
    distributed operations in increasingly complex environments against any
    threat. Training and education, with an emphasis on experimentation and
    innovation, will help our Nation maintain global relevance by
    developing solutions that continue to outpace emerging threats. These
    efforts include continued emphasis on our core values of honor, courage
    and commitment, and on building principled warriors who understand the
    value of being an ethical warrior. Moreover, in the post-Afghanistan
    security environment of reduced defense dollars, we will need to offset
    reductions in end strength with better educated and more capable
    marines and marine units. The current and future fiscal environment
    requires a selective, strategic investment in training and education .
    . . put another way, ``When you're low on money, it's a good time to
    think''.
    Training
        Our current training is focused on preparing marine units for
    combat, counterinsurgency and stability operations in support of OEF.
    If anything, the past 10 years of combat have demonstrated that there
    is a positive correlation between quality training and education and
    individual/unit readiness; both directly translate to operational
    success. Therefore, as we draw-down from Afghanistan, our training will
    rebalance to support the execution of a wider range of operational
    capabilities. We will achieve this balance by leveraging competencies
    in entry-level and skills progression training and by re-emphasizing
    core competencies in combined arms and amphibious operations to include
    MEB level core capabilities. Training will also feature significant
    attention to irregular warfare, humanitarian assistance, and inter-
    agency coordination. All our training programs will provide
    standardized, mission-essential, task-based training that directly
    supports unit readiness in a cost-effective manner.
        Specifically, future training will center on the MAGTF training
    program. Through a standardized training approach, the MAGTF training
    program will develop the essential unit capabilities necessary to
    conduct integrated MAGTF operations. Building on lessons learned over
    the past 10 years, this approach includes focused battle staff training
    and a service assessment exercise modeled on the current exercise,
    Enhanced Mojave Viper. Additionally, we will continue conducting large-
    scale exercises that integrate training and assessment of the MAGTF as
    a whole. The MAGTF Training Program facilitates the Marine Corps'
    ability to provide multicapable MAGTFs prepared for operations in
    complex, joint, and multinational environments against hybrid threats.
    Education
        We are making steady progress in implementing the recommendations
    of the 2006 Officer Professional Military Education (PME) Study (The
    Wilhelm Report) to transform the Marine Corps University (MCU) into a
    ``World Class Institution''. There are two primary resource components
    in doing so--funding for military construction and for faculty and
    staff. These two components are not mutually exclusive. New facilities
    coupled with increases in resident student through-put require
    additional faculty and staff. We will remain engaged with the Congress
    over the coming years on the approximately $330 million in necessary
    funding for facilities, faculty, and staff as we continue the
    transformation of the MCU. This is a high priority for me. This year, I
    committed $125 million to get this initiative moving.
        We are widening opportunities for resident professional education
    by doubling available school seats in courses such as the Marine Corps
    Command and Staff College beginning in the academic year 2014. We are
    making adjustments to triple through-put at the Expeditionary Warfare
    School for our company grade officers. We are increasing enlisted
    resident PME courses as well and are adding more distance education
    learning opportunities and requirements, especially at the junior
    enlisted and noncommissioned officer level.
        As we look to ``whole of government approaches'' and the goal of
    improved integration in joint and combined operations, we are adding
    fellowships to allow more marines the opportunity to benefit from
    nontraditional education outside DOD institutions. In the past year, we
    have increased our number of marines assigned to the Department of
    State and the United States Agency for International Development
    through fellowships and the State-Defense Exchange Memorandum of
    Understanding. Later this year, we are adding fellowships at the
    Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury, as well as
    at Yale University. We are expanding the scope of training at existing
    institutions like the Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational
    Culture Learning and the Center for Irregular Warfare Integration
    Division that focus on readying marines for engagement, security
    cooperation and partner capacity building missions. Our goal is to
    develop a corps of marines that have the skills needed to operate and
    engage effectively in culturally complex environments.
        Our education and training programs benefit from our relationships
    with allies and partners in the international community. Each year,
    hundreds of international military students attend Marine Corps
    training and education venues ranging from Marine Corps Command and
    Staff College to military occupation specialty producing schools. The
    International Military Education and Training (IMET) program and
    similar security assistance opportunities promote regional stability,
    maintain U.S. defense partnerships, and promote civilian control of the
    military in student home countries. Many military leaders from around
    the world have benefited from the IMET program. To better support DOD's
    goal of providing PME to international military students, we have
    created a blended seminar program where foreign officers participate in
    Marine Corps PME through a mix of nonresident online courses and
    resident instruction in the United States.
    Training Enablers
        In order to fully realize these training and education
    enhancements, we will keep investing in the resources, technologies,
    and innovations that enable them. This investment includes modernizing
    our training ranges, training devices, and infrastructure to ensure
    quality resources are available to support the training of marines,
    individual to MAGTF. We will also leverage advanced technologies and
    simulation systems to create realistic, fully immersive training
    environments.
            keeping faith with marines, sailors, and their families
    Mission First, Marines Always
        We expect and require extraordinary loyalty from our marines and
    sailors--loyalty to country, family, and Corps. Our Nation has been at
    war more than a decade, placing unprecedented burdens on marines,
    sailors, families, wounded warriors, and the families of the fallen.
    They have all made tremendous sacrifices, many in the face of danger;
    we owe our complete loyalty back to them all.
        We will work to ensure the critical needs of our families are met
    during times of deployment and in garrison by providing the services,
    facilities, and programs to develop the strength and skills needed to
    thrive while facing the challenges of operational tempo. If wounded,
    injured or ill (WII), we will seek out every available resource to
    restore marines to health. We will enable the return to active duty for
    those seeking it. For those unable to do so, we will responsibly
    transition them to civilian life. We will support and protect the
    spouses and families of our wounded and those of our fallen marines.
    There are several areas and programs central to our tenet of ``keeping
    faith with marines, sailors and their families''.
    Recruiting and Retention
        As first stated, the individual marine is our greatest asset; we
    will continue to recruit and retain the best and brightest of America's
    sons and daughters. Recruiting is the lifeblood of our Corps, and is
    our bedrock to ``Make Marines, Win Battles, and Return Quality
    Citizens''; citizens who, once transformed, will be marines for life.
    To operate and succeed in potentially volatile times, marines must be
    physically fit, morally strong, intelligent, and capable of operating
    advanced weapon systems using the latest technology. We will not
    compromise on these standards. Recruiting quality youth ultimately
    translates into higher performance, reduced attrition, increased
    retention, and improved readiness for the operating forces. We need
    your continued support in maintaining quality accessions.
        Our officer accessions mission has continued to decline over the
    past 2 years in light of a planned draw-down of forces. Our fiscal year
    2013 accession officer mission is 1,500 active duty and 125 reserve
    officers. For enlisted marines, the accession figures include 28,500
    regular (active component) and 5,700 reservists. We traditionally
    achieve 100-103 percent of our total accession goals, and expect to do
    so again in fiscal year 2013. We have continued to achieve
    unprecedented levels of enlisted and officer retention. This effort is
    critical to the proper grade shaping of the Marine Corps, regardless of
    force size. Combined officer, enlisted, and reserve retention efforts
    ensure the Marine Corps maintains essential operational experience and
    leadership. Although overall retention is excellent, shortages do exist
    in certain grades and skills within the officer and enlisted ranks,
    requiring careful management and innovative solutions. At a minimum,
    sustained congressional funding to incentivize retention is necessary
    to maintaining quality personnel in these critical skill sets.
    Diversity
        Diversity, in both representation and assignment of marines,
    remains a strategic issue. The Marine Corps diversity effort is
    structured with the understanding that the objective of diversity is
    not merely to strive for a force that reflects a representational
    connectedness with the rich fabric of all the American people but to
    raise total capability through leveraging the strengths and talents of
    all marines. We are near completion of a new comprehensive campaign
    plan to focus our diversity effort in areas where improvement is most
    needed and anticipate release of this roadmap this year. The accession
    and retention of minority officers is an enduring challenge for our
    Corps. Mentoring and career development of all minority officers has
    become increasingly important in order to change officer profile
    projections. Since 2010, we have conducted leadership seminars,
    introducing diverse college undergraduates to Marine leadership traits
    and leadership opportunities in the Marine Corps, at various locations
    throughout our country, and are actively seeking out new communities
    within which to continue this effort. Overall, we seek to communicate
    the Marine Corps diversity mission through community outreach and
    recruit marketing; to ensure continued opportunities for merit-based
    development and advancement; and to optimize training and education to
    increase the understanding for all marines of the value that diversity
    brings to the total force.
    Wounded Warrior Outreach Programs
        Through the wounded warrior regiment (WWR) and our ever-expanding
    outreach programs, the Marine Corps keeps faith with WII marines and
    their families. This enduring commitment includes full-spectrum care
    and support for WII marines from point of injury or illness through
    return to duty or reintegration to the civilian community. The WWR
    continues to enhance its capabilities to provide added care and support
    to WII marines. Whether WII marines are joined to the WWR or remain
    with their parent commands, they are provided nonmedical support
    through the recovery phases. Congressional funding for our WII marines
    allows us to provide robust, interconnected support in the following
    areas:
      --administrative support;
      --recovery care coordination;
      --transition assistance;
      --warrior athlete reconditioning programs;
      --integrated disability evaluation system support;
      --the Sergeant Merlin German Wounded Warrior 24/7 Call Center; and
      --our Hope and Care Centers.
        The challenging nature of the terrain in Afghanistan requires a
    greater level of dismounted operations than was the case in Iraq. This
    fact coupled with the prevalence of improvised explosive devices has
    caused a growing class of marines and soldiers to suffer catastrophic
    injuries--injuries involving multiple amputations that present
    significant quality-of-life challenges. Our Corps, the DON, DOD, the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Congress are concerned
    about this special group of wounded warriors must remain committed to
    supporting this special group of wounded warriors. To help the
    catastrophically injured (those who will likely transition to veteran
    status) and their families successfully meet these challenges, we must
    continue engaging in a high level of care coordination between our WWR
    advocates, the VA's Federal Recovery Coordinators, VA Liaisons for
    Healthcare stationed at DOD Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs),
    Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Case Managers and medical providers to ensure all of our wounded
    marines' needs are met. This includes arranging for assistive
    technologies, adaptive housing, and all available healthcare and
    benefits (DOD and VA) they have earned. Additionally, WWR's Marine Corp
    Liaison assigned at the VA collaborates closely with VA Care Management
    team to resolve Marine Corp issues or care management needs.
    Combat Health and Resiliency of the Force
        Marines, sailors, and their families have experienced significant
    stress from multiple deployment cycles, the rigors of combat, high
    operational tempos, the anxieties of separation, and countless other
    sources from a decade at war. We remain engaged in developing ways to
    reduce the traditional stigmas associated with seeking mental
    healthcare, but perhaps more importantly, we continue to add resources
    and access to care to meet the mental health needs of marines, sailors,
    and their families.
        Post-traumatic stress (PTS) will be a long-term issue for all DOD
    leadership, requiring close attention and early identification of those
    affected in every service. PTS is diagnosed as a disorder (PTSD) once
    the symptoms become distressful to a marine and his or her ability to
    function in the military environment is impacted.\16\ Although most
    marines with PTS symptoms will not develop PTSD, our leaders require
    the skills and training to identify and intervene earlier for those at
    the highest risk of developing PTSD, especially given that often there
    are long delays in the development of this condition. As such, we are
    empowering leaders to identify and intervene earlier through increased
    training and awareness using programs like our Marine Corps Combat
    Operational Stress Control program and embedded Operational Stress
    Control and Readiness teams in our ground units. We are employing
    better screening practices in our standard health assessments,
    establishing deployment health clinics (i.e., facilities not labeled as
    mental health clinics nor associated with a Military Treatment Facility
    in an overall effort to reduce stigma) and tracking those with
    significant injuries often leading to PTSD via our wounded warrior
    regiment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ The current yearly rate of PTS diagnosis in active duty
    marines is less than 2 percent as compared to 3.5 percent in the
    civilian population. The percentage of marines who will be diagnosed
    over their lifetime with PTS is estimated to be 10-18 percent while the
    civilian population lifetime diagnosis is estimated to be 6.8 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are engaged on multiple fronts to diagnose and treat those with
    a traumatic brain injury (TBI) including prevention, education, early
    identification, treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration. We are
    actively implementing the requirements of DOD Directive Type Memorandum
    09-033 regarding mild TBI/concussion. Moreover, the Marine Corps, with
    Navy support, has established a Concussion and Musculoskeletal
    Restoration Care Center in-theater. This center provides front-line
    care to patients with mild TBI/concussion and has dramatically improved
    identification, diagnosis, treatment, outcomes, and return to duty
    rates. In concert with Navy Medicine, we are fielding a TBI module
    within the Medical Readiness Reporting System to track TBI exposures
    and diagnoses.
    Suicide Prevention in the Force
        We continue to report a positive, steady decrease in the number of
    suicides within the Corps from high levels seen in 2009. While we
    cannot yet draw a conclusion between our prevention efforts and the
    reduced suicide rate, we are cautiously optimistic our programs are
    having a positive effect. However, reported suicide attempts have
    continued to increase. We suspect this increase in attempts may be due
    to improved surveillance--fellow marines recognizing the signs of
    suicide and intervening to stop attempts, and more marines reporting
    past attempts when coming forward for help.\17\ Regardless, we still
    need to do better because one suicide completed is one too many.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ There were 33 confirmed suicides and 175 attempts in the
    Marine Corps during calendar year 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Suicide is a preventable loss of life that diminishes readiness and
    deeply affects our Marine Corps family. We believe that suicide is
    preventable through engaged leadership, focused on efforts aimed at the
    total fitness of each marine to include physical, social, spiritual,
    and psychological dimensions. The marine corps is involved with five
    major studies to better understand suicide risk among servicemembers,
    contributing factors, and ways at prevention. This past year, we
    expanded our ``Never Leave a Marine Behind'' suicide prevention program
    for noncommissioned officers (NCO) and junior marines to the staff
    noncommissioned officer and commissioned officer ranks. Our DSTRESS
    hotline and Web site, implemented last year on the west coast as a
    pilot program, will be expanded to serve those across the Corps. We
    will remain engaged on multiple fronts to combat suicide in our ranks.
    Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
        The key to preventing sexual assault is ensuring everyone
    understands his or her role and responsibilities in preventing it. A
    consistent, vigorous training and education element are crucial.
    Bystander intervention has been identified as a best practice for
    engaging marines in their role to prevent sexual assault and is being
    incorporated into our Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)
    training. In January 2012, we launched the video-based NCO Bystander
    Intervention course, called ``Take A Stand''. This course was modeled
    after our successful, award-wining Suicide Prevention Program awareness
    campaign entitled ``Never Leave a Marine Behind''.
        We have initiated aggressive actions to elevate and highlight the
    importance of our SAPR program. Our victim-centric SAPR program focuses
    on:
      --preventing sexual assault;
      --improving a victim's access to services; and
      --increasing the frequency and quality of information provided to the
            victim regarding all aspects of his or her case and expediting
            the proper handling and resolution of a sexual assault case.
        We are credentialing our Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and
    Victim Advocates on victim advocacy. We have standardized training
    protocols for our 24/7 hotline, in use at all major bases and stations
    to provide information, resources, and advocacy of sexual assault. We
    have increased SAPR training at all levels for our judge advocates
    (JA). This year, mobile training teams from our Trial Counsel
    Assistance Program will continue to instruct Navy Criminal
    Investigative Service agents and JAs on sexual assault investigation
    and best practices at bases and stations in Japan, Hawaii, and on the
    east and west coasts.
    Veteran Marines
        The concept of keeping faith also applies to our veteran marines.
    In 2011, the Marine Corps launched a comprehensive effort to anchor the
    legacy of our Montford Point Marines--20,000 African-American men who
    underwent segregated training from 1942-1949 and ultimately integrated
    the Corps--into our training and education curricula. The Montford
    Point Marine legacy will be used to educate and inspire all men and
    women who enter the Marine Corps today regardless of race, religion, or
    creed. We will teach the importance of varying perspectives,
    compassion, courage, perseverance, and self-sacrifice through the
    Montford Point Marine history. We are thankful to the Congress for
    recently conferring the Congressional Gold Medal on the Montford Point
    Marines, a fitting tribute to a pioneering group of marines who fought
    valiantly in some of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific and later
    went on to serve in Korea and Vietnam.
    Family Readiness Programs
        As directed in my Planning Guidance issued to the Corps in October
    2010, we are in the final stages of a review of all family readiness
    programs to identify ways we can better assist and provide services to
    our families. Over the past year, Marine Corps Community Services
    conducted dozens of focus groups at bases and stations throughout the
    Marine Corps with active and reserve component marines, commanders,
    senior enlisted advisers and spouses. The focus groups, survey and
    prioritization results found that the top-rated programs conformed to
    the Commandant's Planning Guidance priorities or congressional
    mandates. These assessments revealed opportunities to increase program
    success in three areas:
      --defining future capabilities and sustainability standards that
            correlate to the Commandant's Planning Guidance priorities, but
            also recognized unique installation or command missions,
            locations, or market conditions;
      --balancing available resources to support priorities and defined
            capabilities; and
      --developing accountability and inspection processes to support
            capability sustainment.
        Efforts are currently under way to apply these results and develop
    actionable program plans and supporting resource requirements to
    provide and maintain capabilities at the appropriate level for the
    right duration.
        With at least 50 percent of our Corps composed of unmarried men and
    women, this year we mandated that every battalion and squadron have a
    representative from the Single Marine Program serving on its unit
    family readiness command team. This will provide an advocate on behalf
    of single marines to ensure information, normally communicated solely
    from leadership to marine spouses and families, is shared with their
    parents and siblings.
    Transition Assistance
        There are three things the Marine Corps does for our Nation:
      --make marines;
      --win our Nation's battles; and
      --return quality citizens.
        We are conducting a wholesale revision of our Transition Assistance
    Management Program (TAMP) to better meet the needs of our transitioning
    marines in support of returning quality citizens. We are integrating
    TAMP, as part of the Professional and Personal Development Program,
    into the lifecycle of a marine from recruitment, through separation or
    retirement, and through veteran marine status.
        We have transformed our Transition Readiness Seminar from a mass
    training event, in need of great improvement, into an individualized
    and practical learning experience with specific transition readiness
    standards that are effective and beneficial to marines. In January
    2012, we began holding a revised and improved Transition Readiness
    Seminar Pilot Program at four separate installations with full
    implementation scheduled for March 2012; early feedback on our pilot
    program has been very favorable. The revised 5-day Transition Readiness
    Seminar includes 2 days of mandatory standardized core curriculum with
    four well-defined military-civilian pathways:
      --university/college;
      --vocational/technical training;
      --employment; and
      --entrepreneurial endeavors.
        In this new system, a marine will choose the pathway that best
    meets his or her future goals and will have access to individual
    counseling services related to each pathway. The enhanced TAMP program
    will support improved reach-back and outreach support for those who may
    require more localized support in their hometowns with information,
    opportunities, or other specific needs. We are determined to make the
    Marine Corps TAMP program more value added for our departing marines.
    Compensation
        The President's budget acknowledges the reality that military pay,
    allowances, and healthcare consume roughly one-third of the Defense
    budget. These costs cannot be ignored in a comprehensive effort to
    achieve savings. In my judgment, this budget achieves the appropriate
    balance in compensation, force structure, and modernization. It
    sustains the recruitment, retention, and readiness of the talented
    personnel that defend our Nation.
        The proposed compensation reforms are sensible. Basic pay raises in
    fiscal years 2013 and 2014 will match increases in the private sector.
    We propose more modest raises in later years--but no reductions, no
    freezes. TRICARE enrollment fees and deductibles increase for retirees,
    but they are tiered based on retired pay and remain significantly below
    market rates. Pharmacy co-pays will trend towards market rates for
    retail purchases but will be substantially lower for generic drugs and
    mail-order delivery.
        These changes are not intended to alter care services currently
    provided to our active-duty personnel and their families. Those who
    have been medically retired as a result of their service, particularly
    our wounded warriors, are also exempted. So are our Gold Star families.
    It is the right thing to do for those who have given so much.
        Finally, I endorse creating a commission to recommend reforms in
    retired pay. Any changes should grandfather benefits for those
    currently serving. We cannot break faith.
                                    summary
        History has shown that it is impossible to predict where, when, and
    how America's interests will be threatened. What is known, however, is
    America cannot maintain a strong economy, cannot have a strong
    industrial base, cannot have access to overseas markets, and cannot
    assure its allies without security . . . at home and abroad. Looking
    ahead at the fiscal challenges we face as a Nation, our country will
    still need to respond to crisis and project power abroad, wherever and
    whenever needed. The optimum and most economical means to do so is
    through a multicapable force afloat that can also come ashore rapidly.
        The Navy and Marine Corps team is the Nation's risk mitigator for
    an unknown future and the crisis response force that will be ``the most
    ready when the nation is least ready''. There is a cost to maintaining
    this capability. But, with that cost, our Nation gains the ability to
    respond to unexpected crises, from humanitarian assistance and disaster
    relief efforts, to noncombatant evacuation operations, to the conduct
    of counterpiracy operations, raids, or strikes. This same force can be
    reinforced quickly to contribute to assured access anywhere in the
    world in the event of a major contingency. It can be ``dialed up or
    dialed down'' like a rheostat to be relevant across the range of
    military operations. No other force possesses the flexibility to
    provide these capabilities but yet can sustain itself logistically for
    significant periods of time, at a time and place of its choosing.
        Through the fidelity and support of the Congress, our marines and
    sailors in the fight have received everything necessary to ensure
    success over the past decade of near constant combat operations. Our
    combat forces' best interests and needs remain my number one focus
    until our national objectives in the long war have been achieved.
    However, as we rightfully begin to transition to the challenges and
    opportunities of the post-OEF world and reorient to the Pacific under
    our new Defense Strategic Guidance, the Marine Corps must begin to
    rebalance and modernize for the future.
        Through judicious choices, forward planning, and wise investments--
    ever mindful of the economy in which we live--we have worked diligently
    to determine the right size our Corps needs to be and to identify the
    resources we will require to respond to crises around the world,
    regardless of clime or place. As we continue to work with the Congress,
    the Navy, and the DOD in maintaining the institutional pillars of our
    high state of readiness, you have my assurance that your Corps will be
    ``ever faithful'' in meeting our Nation's need for military crisis
    response.

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you for your testimony and, of
    course, for your service.
        With Senator Inouye's absence, the way we are going to do
    this is we are going to turn to Senator Cochran first. I am
    going to call upon members in their order of arrival, and we
    are going to ask that we stick to the 5-minute rule because
    there are others, and we know there are multiple hearings going
    on.
        So, Senator Cochran, as the ranking member and a naval
    officer yourself, as I believe--weren't you a naval officer?
        Senator Cochran. I certainly was--one of the proudest
    periods of my life, on our heavy cruiser operating out of
    Boston, Massachusetts.
        Thank you. Let me join you, Madam Chairman, in welcoming
    this distinguished panel.
        We appreciate your service. We appreciate your leadership.
    We want to be sure that we understand the needs that are of
    highest priority to all of you as we endeavor to help assure
    that our Navy and Marine Corps are the strongest as any in the
    world, stronger than any in the world--and are fully prepared
    to protect our interests around the world and our safety and
    security here at home.

                               NAVAL FORCE NEEDS

        I know that one of the challenges that we face is keeping
    an up-to-date naval force with ships and equipment ready to be
    used in an emergency. And I wanted to ask Secretary Mabus, who
    is fully familiar with shipbuilding in our State of
    Mississippi, but in this new responsibility, all of the needs
    of the U.S. Navy, could you comment about how well we are or
    are not meeting the needs for an up-to-date, modern naval
    force?
        Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir. And thank you, Senator Cochran. There
    is something about political figures from Mississippi serving
    on cruisers out of New England, since both Senator Cochran and
    I did that several years ago now.
        As I said in my opening statement, Senator, the Navy that
    was here in 2009 when I took office was 30 ships smaller, down
    from 316 ships on September 11, 2001, to 283 ships in 2009. We
    were down almost 47,000 sailors in that time. So, during one of
    the great military build-ups in America, the United States Navy
    actually got smaller.
        One of the primary focuses has been to rebuild the fleet
    and increase the size of the fleet. Today, we have 36 ships
    under contract to come into the naval fleet. And I do want to
    point out that they are all firm fixed-price contracts, that
    was one of the challenges that we faced was making sure we got
    the right price for our naval vessels.
        Going forward, we will--we have 285 ships in the battle
    fleet today. At the end of the FYDP, the end of the 5 years, we
    will again have at least 285 ships. And by 2019, we will again
    pass the 300-ship mark. We have done this by working with
    industry. We think that we owe industry certain things--a
    stable design, a mature technology, and some transparency into
    what ships we hope to build and when.
        In response, we think industry owes us some things--to
    invest in the infrastructure and the training that will be
    necessary; to have a learning curve so that every ship of a
    class, of the same type ship that the design does not change,
    that the number of man-hours and, thus, the cost goes down. And
    in all our shipyards today, in virtually all of our shipyards
    today, that this is the case.
        Your colleague sitting to your left, Senator Shelby,
    working with Austal in Mobile, we have a fixed-price contract
    for 10 LCSs from Austal, and the last one will be--the 10th
    ship will be significantly cheaper than the first ship.
        So I think that your fleet is positioned to do everything
    that the new defense strategy requires it to do. The CNO may
    want to comment because we are going to have to use our ships a
    little differently, forward deploy them so that one ship will
    do the job of many more that were--if they were kept in the
    United States. But the CNO, Commandant, and I have no doubt
    that this fleet that we have today and the one that we are
    taking forward will meet all the requirements of the new
    defense strategy and everything that we need to do to keep the
    United States safe and secure.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral Greenert.

                         NAVAL FORCE CAPABILITIES/NEEDS

        Admiral Greenert. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
        What I would add, I am on the capabilities end of this, and
    I am very satisfied with the capabilities delivered.
        The Virginia-class submarine is the finest submarine in the
    world, and I have empirical data to attest to that. The DDG-51
    remains a multimission, very relevant ship. The LPD-17 class
    and the Makin Island are on deployment now, and they are doing
    fabulous. The LPD-17 is a quantum leap over its predecessor.
        As we bring in LCSs and the joint high speed vessels
    (JHSVs), these are relevant ships for a relevant future, and
    they resonate with the need out there. We will operate them
    forward, and I am very high on them getting the job done.
    Volume, speed, and modularity, that is the wave of the future.
        Thank you for the opportunity.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        I will reserve my time and ask General Amos a question
    later, but yield to other members of the subcommittee.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Reed.

                         STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Now, he is a West Point guy.
        Senator Reed. Senator Cochran, Secretary Mabus, and I have
    something in common. One of my predecessors at West Point was a
    Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis. So it is a small,
    small world.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you, General Amos, thank you, Admiral
    Greenert, thank you for your service and your dedication to the
    sailors and the marines that you lead so well.
        I want to take off where you left off, Admiral, by saying
    that the Virginia-class submarine is the finest submarine in
    the world. I agree with that, and I am glad you do, too.
        I think it also has operational capabilities, particularly
    in the Pacific, where access is a critical issue. In regards to
    some of our surface systems, the submarine is far more capable
    of access and delivering fires and delivering personnel and
    getting intelligence, et cetera. And in that regard, your
    colleague, Admiral Willard, said essentially the same thing.
    And I just, for the record, I presume you agree with that. It
    has a special role in terms of access-denial situations.
        Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir, I do.

                      VIRGINIA-CLASS SUBMARINE PROCUREMENT

        Senator Reed. For the Virginia-class submarine, we are
    doing two boats a year in fiscal year 2013. However, in fiscal
    year 2014, because of the budget constraints, a ship is being
    slipped back to fiscal year 2018.
        Given the capabilities, given the new mission in the
    Pacific particularly, with a big anti-access component, I think
    this is, as you said before, a budgetary decision, not a
    strategic or operational decision.
        Having said all that, and without getting into any specific
    negotiation, are you working on a plan with the contractor to
    see if there are ways that we can pull forward some
    construction so that the fleet does not lose a valuable asset
    for 6 years or so?
        Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir, we are. We are looking for any
    fiscal means, if you will, acquisition means, and contractor
    performance incentives that we could. As you know, we have a
    block-buy of 9, and if we could get to a block-buy of 10 during
    those years 2014 through 2018, that would be terrific. And by
    all means, we will work by any means capable to do that.
        Senator Reed. And that would require, I presume, some help
    by this subcommittee in that regard?
        Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir, it would.

                          OHIO-CLASS SUBMARINE PROGRAM

        Senator Reed. So I, for one, would be very happy to help
    because I think this is important for the Navy and for the
    Nation.
        There is another aspect of the submarine program, and that
    is the replacement of the Ohio class. And that has been slipped
    2 years in terms of proposed construction. Design work is going
    on. We have a partner with the British.
        And one of the issues that always comes to mind when we
    talk about the Ohio-class replacement in its ballistic missile
    role is that this is really, in my view, a DOD asset, not just
    a Navy asset.
        So, Mr. Secretary, have you had discussions with DOD in
    ways that they can help you ensure that this slippage is
    temporary, and not a sign of failure to fund the program?
        Mr. Mabus. Senator, I can assure you that the slippage is 2
    years, and that is it. We have also, as you pointed out, we
    have been in discussions with our British counterparts to make
    sure that the schedule meets up with their requirements as
    well. And as you know, we have committed a substantial amount
    of money now for the research, development, and engineering
    work that will be necessary to begin the build in 2021.
        I think that this most survivable leg of our triad, this
    strategic weapon that we have in the Ohio-class replacement,
    that a discussion needs to be had on exactly how we do pay for
    that. That discussion would not only include DOD but also the
    Congress in how that is best to be handled. Because the flip
    side of that is that our industrial base for the rest of
    shipbuilding during the time that the SSBN(X), the Ohio-class
    replacement, is being built could be seriously harmed,
    including our attack submarine industrial base during that
    time. And I don't know of anyone anywhere that would want to do
    that.
        Senator Reed. No, I hope not. Just a quick follow-on, and
    it is probably more of a comment than requiring a comment from
    you, is that as we go forward there is a larger issue, which is
    the nuclear triad--how it is going to be constituted; what
    elements might be bulked up; what elements might not. And that
    is in the context both of budget and strategic policy and
    nonproliferation policy.
        And my view is that the submarine has always seemed to be
    the most significant part of this in terms of its
    invulnerability, relatively speaking, its ability to deploy,
    its stealthiness, et cetera. And so, in those conversations
    about the future of the triad, I would hope that the submarine
    would be in the forefront.
        Thank you. Thank you all.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Coats.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS

        Senator Coats. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, first I want to start by thanking you for
    visiting the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Crane, in Indiana.
    People say, ``What in the world is the Navy doing in Indiana,
    the center of Indiana?'' But as you have found out and it is
    expressed to me, that it is a little gem out there. Not so
    little, but it is a gem out there in terms of electronic
    warfare, special missions, a whole number of pretty cutting-
    edge stuff that is important to not only the Navy, but the
    Marines, Army, and Air Force. So we thank you for that visit.
        And I would extend that to Admiral Greenert and General
    Amos because what happens there affects both of your services.
    And we will throw in an Indiana University basketball game if
    we can get our timing right. I would be happy to travel with
    you for that visit.
        But that really doesn't go to my question. My question is
    this. Shortly after the conclusion of Desert Storm I, I was
    flying back from Indianapolis with then-Secretary Cheney. And
    we spent the entire flight talking about how the history of the
    Congress's support and military readiness has gone through the
    ups and downs of postconflict drawdowns.
        And I asked him, and this was in response to a question I
    asked, it was, ``What is your biggest challenge now that we
    have had this success?'' And he said, ``Avoiding hollowing out
    or drawing down too fast, too far. That is the biggest
    challenge in front of me.''
        And you know, you go all the way back to World War I and
    the hollowing out afterward, and the cost that it was to our
    country to rebuild to be prepared to address World War II. And
    then, following that, we thought we had solved the world's
    problems, and Korea came along. And following that, Vietnam,
    Desert Storm, and so forth. And it just seems like, well, I
    guess I just really reacted, General Amos, when you said
    history has shown it is impossible to predict the how, when,
    and where of what might come next. Except history tells us it
    is coming somewhere and to be prepared.
        So my question is this. The military has stepped up to the
    plate relative to nearly $500 billion of cuts over a 10-year
    period of time. And you discussed some of that in terms of how
    we get there.
        My concern is the potential impact, given the kind of
    conflicts that we can potentially predict in the future. But
    there is always the unpredictable.

                              SEQUESTRATION IMPACT

        But my question to you is this. We have this sequester
    sitting there, about to add an additional $500 billion unless
    the Congress addresses this before the end of the year. That
    was presented as something that would never happen because it
    would force decisions relative to how we deal with our budget.
    But the ``never'' did happen.
        And so, my question to all three of you really is what is
    your reaction to this possibility? And what would it mean for
    the ability to be prepared and not to be so hollowed out that
    we are not prepared for that next how, when, and where?
        Mr. Mabus. I will quote the Secretary of Defense, who said,
    ``It would be a disaster if sequestration happens, not only in
    terms of the amount of money that would be taken out of
    defense, but also in the way it would be taken out.''
        The $487 billion in cuts during the next 10 years, the DOD
    has worked very hard over the course of several months to make
    sure that this was done carefully, to make sure that we avoided
    hollowing out the force, in your term, to make sure that we had
    the training, to make sure we had the manning, to make sure
    that our force structure could be maintained, and that it was
    an effective and lethal force structure that we continued
    forward.
        Because of the very nature of sequestration, what you would
    have is automatic percentage cuts to everything, without regard
    to strategy, without regard to importance, without regard to
    any sort of setting priorities. And so, both those items would
    make sequestration, I think, a very difficult and, again in the
    words of Secretary Panetta, a disastrous occurrence.
        Senator Coats. Admiral Greenert, do you want to tell us how
    it would affect the Navy?
        Admiral Greenert. Sir, the way, as Secretary Mabus said,
    you know, this going into each and every account, we would have
    to prepare for such a thing, probably a few months ahead of
    time. And I am just talking about the mechanics of trying to
    figure out how to recoup pay, so we can pay our people, pay our
    civilians, then get contracts which would, I assume, we would
    be in breach because, all of a sudden, there is no funding for
    commitments that we have made--the Federal Government has made.
        And so, my point is we would have our people distracted for
    months, just to do the execution of such a thing to meet the
    requirements that the Federal Government is held to.
        And that bothers me a lot. I mean, we talked in the past
    about, you know, when we have had a threat of a Government
    shutdown, and we stopped everything for a few weeks to prepare
    for such a thing. This would be that to the nth degree.
        And so, I think that is just really not understood. As I
    sit down and think about just the mechanics of this, the
    amount, we need a totally new strategy for an amount of this
    kind. And we can never do what we are doing today under those
    kinds of funding. We would need a new strategy, as our bosses
    have testified.
        Thank you.
        Senator Coats. General Amos.
        General Amos. Senator, thank you for asking that question.
    That is a tough one and one we have talked about often within
    the DOD, as you are well aware.
        I would like the subcommittee to believe that where we sit
    today, and I can speak for my service, we have built a force,
    as we come down from 202,000, which is where we sit today, down
    to 182,100, we will do that by the end of 2016. That force will
    be very capable. It will be anything but a hollow force.
        That force will be--the readiness will be high. The manning
    will be high. The equipment readiness will be high. So that
    force that we have built with this Budget Control Act of 2011
    is anything but a hollow force. So I want to put--allay any
    fears there.
        To go beyond that into sequestration, it is my
    understanding that it could happen a couple of ways. One, it
    can come with either we are going to preserve manpower and not
    take any cuts out of the manpower account, in which case that
    leaves only two other areas that you can really--that the cuts
    will come from. They will come from procurement, things: ships,
    equipment. They will come from my reset of the equipment that I
    spoke about in my opening statement, after 10 years of combat.
    It will stunt, if not completely negate, my ability to reset
    the Marine Corps.
        So, if the manpower account is set aside, it is procurement
    of things, and then it is operations and maintenance. And what
    that means to the subcommittee is that is training. That is the
    ability to go to, in my case, Twentynine Palms, to go to the
    ranges in the Philippines to train with the Filipinos, to be
    able to train with the Australians, to be forward deployed and
    forward engaged, to buy fuel, to buy ammunition, to buy the
    kind of equipment that we need to train with.
        So training and readiness will become what I consider to be
    almost a recipe for a hollow force, if we end up in
    sequestration.
        If you leave manpower in it and you say we are going to
    just take a percentage cut across manpower, operations and
    maintenance, and the procurement of things, then you are going
    to end up with a force that is significantly less dense than
    the one we have today. And what that means is less capable. We
    will have to go back in, redo the strategy, because the
    strategy that we have developed for the last 6 months is a
    strategy based on the current budget.
        Senator Coats. Well, I thank all three of you.
        Madam Chairman, my time has expired, but I think it is a
    good reminder to all of us that we have got a pretty big
    challenge laying ahead here between now and the end of the
    year.
        Senator Mikulski. And that was an excellent question. I
    think all of the questions have been very good, but yours, I
    think, is the one that we all wanted to ask. So, thank you.
        Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome.
        Mr. Secretary, you know all of this stuff, the JHSV, which
    is the Navy's vessel. I believe it is a valuable addition to
    the Navy's fleet. Just for the record, it has an expansive
    mission bay of some 20,000 square feet, which enables the ship
    to move 600 tons of cargo at more than 35 knots--that is
    moving--while carrying more than 300 combat-ready troops.

                      JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL PROCUREMENT

        The Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2013 stops
    production of the JHSV at 10 ships, rather than continuing to
    build toward the 21 ships that was projected. I know budgets
    are tight. We really know that. But it seems it is a pretty
    good price. And as you know, the more you build, the better
    price you have been able to get in this environment.
        What drove the Navy's decision to reduce the JHSV buy? And
    is that a decision that we could revisit as the ships enter
    service if you see the needs there?
        Mr. Mabus. A couple of things drove this decision, Senator.
    One was, as you said, finances. We had to find money,
    particularly out of procurement accounts, to meet the $487
    billion cut over 10 years.
        Second is that when you look at our war plans, you look at
    the requirements for these JHSVs; the 10 that we have under
    contract today will meet all those requirements.
        And third, as we were looking at ships to defer, we first
    looked at support ships like the JHSV, instead of combat ships
    like the LCS.
        And so, given that combination of factors, we thought that
    stopping the buy at 10 in this FYDP would make sense. The thing
    that we give up is engagement capability, using the JHSV to go
    around places like Africa or South America to do partnership
    training engagement and those sorts of things.
        The final thing that we looked at was the health of the
    industrial base. And since the JHSV is made in the same
    shipyard that the version 2 of the LCS is made, and since the
    gear-up of that workforce is going to require the hiring of at
    least 2,000 more people during the next couple of years, we
    thought that it was a very healthy industrial base, and that at
    least for this 5 years, that contract could be ended at 10
    without any harm there.
        Senator Shelby. You mentioned the LCS earlier. The Navy had
    to move two LCS ships out of the 5-year shipbuilding plan. I
    hope we can work together. I know the Navy has said good things
    about them.

                 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP MISSION MODULE READINESS

        I am concerned that issues relating to LCS mission modules
    have delayed sea trials for the vessel, and that is very
    important. How do you plan on dealing with the troubles
    affecting the module program?
        Mr. Mabus. Right now, Senator, the module program is on
    schedule, exactly where we thought it would be.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Mr. Mabus. It has always been a spiral development. We are
    doing, in fact, testing today off Panama City on the unmanned
    underwater system for LCS. We are using the LCS 2 to do that
    testing. And we are absolutely confident that----
        Senator Shelby. You feel good about where you are.
        Mr. Mabus. I feel very good. Yes, Sir. And I think the CNO
    does, too.
        Senator Shelby. Admiral.
        Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir. You know, we took Freedom, the
    mission modules weren't ready. The surface module was going to
    come out first. So we took Freedom, and we said, well, we will
    go on down to the Gulf of Mexico. And we needed to shake the
    ship down and figure out the concept of operations. So she got
    involved in drug operations and took part in two busts.
        Then we sent her over to Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC), and
    we have had a lot of inquiries about this ship, this new ship
    that you brought. That has, I think, subsequently led to,
    although I cannot be completely sure it was because of RIMPAC,
    but the Singapore Government offered us, invited us to bring
    Freedom--in fact, encouraged us to bring Freedom to Singapore
    to operate there. And we are going to do that in about a year.
        And so, we are moving out with what we call ``sea frames''
    because we have got a lot of work to do to get the concept
    down. At the same time, as Secretary Mabus said, the mission
    modules move apace, as we need them to be integrated.
        Senator Shelby. Good.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Kohl.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And gentlemen, welcome. And I, too, join with my colleagues
    in expressing my appreciation for your leadership to our
    country. Greatly, greatly appreciated.

                               ARCTIC OPERATIONS

        Secretary, I want to ask you some questions about the
    North. It is probably not going to be a surprise to you. But
    with the discussion about the shifting focus within the
    military toward Asia and the Pacific, when you look at Alaska,
    we are sitting right up there on top. We have got a larger
    interface with the Asia-Pacific theater than any other State
    out there.
        We have 5,580 miles of coastline that touch the Pacific and
    the Arctic Oceans. And as we all know, this coastline is
    becoming certainly more accessible. It presents great
    opportunities, but it clearly presents some real challenges as
    well.
        Can you inform me what the Navy has been doing over this
    past year to essentially get up to speed on the changing Arctic
    and what the near-term future holds for Navy involvement?
        Mr. Mabus. Senator, in 2009, the Navy laid out the road map
    for the Arctic, things that we plan to do. And we are following
    that road map.
        Last year, almost exactly at this time, I was at the Ice
    Exercise (ICEX) off the coast of Alaska, where we set up a
    camp, as you know, to do scientific work, but also bring last
    year two submarines up through the ice to do exercises in the
    Arctic.
        We also operate with our Canadian allies in Operation
    Nanook. We have at least three operations on an ongoing basis,
    on a routine basis, in the Arctic.
        The one area that we have said before that would be helpful
    to us is for the United States to become a signatory to the Law
    of the Sea Treaty because it would make dealings in the Arctic,
    it would give us easier--it would give us a seat at the table.
    It would allow us to state claims on the outer continental
    shelf that are certain under the Law of the Sea.
        And as we go forward, because the Arctic, as you pointed
    out, as the Arctic will become ice free, it appears, within the
    next quarter century, at least in the summer, there will be
    increased shipping. There will be increased tourism. There will
    be increased commerce of all types through there. The naval
    requirements in things as diverse as search-and-rescue, as well
    as purely military functions, will increase every year.
        And we are very focused on our responsibilities in the
    Arctic. And I will just repeat, one thing that would help us
    would be the Law of the Sea.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would certainly concur. We want
    to be able to work with you to try to advance it. I believe it
    is critically important.
        I am concerned, though, that while other Arctic nations are
    moving forward with policies that build out infrastructure,
    that provide assets, that we are not prioritizing it to the
    extent possible. But I appreciate your commitment.
        It is amazing to me to see the volume of shipping traffic,
    the cruise ships that are traveling through these northern
    waters. And we recognize that there is not a lot up there if
    there were an incident. So it is something that we need to
    remain vigilant.
        I wanted to ask, I have got a host of different questions,
    but I don't know whether we will have a chance to go to a
    second round.

                       SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION PROGRAMS

        But I do want to ask about an article that was in
    yesterday's news. And this relates to a new Federal lawsuit
    where eight members of the military, seven of whom who served
    in the Navy and the Marine Corps, have made allegations of
    sexual assault. And the allegations contained in at least the
    report that I read are pretty serious--a high tolerance for
    sexual predators in the ranks, fostering a hostile environment
    that discourages victims of sexual assault from coming forward,
    and punishing them when they do.
        What are we doing, not only within the Navy, but what are
    we doing within the military to ensure that there is a level of
    safety? That if, in fact, one is a victim, that they are not
    further victimized by retribution when they come forward? Are
    we making any headway on this?
        Mr. Mabus. One of the things that I committed to when I
    took this job and one of the things that I have focused on the
    most intently is sexual assault in the Navy and Marine Corps.
    It is a crime. It is an attack. It is an attack on a shipmate.
        And we have a force that is willing to lay down its life
    for other shipmates. This should be no different. We have to
    make sure that the force understands the severity of this and
    is willing to intervene to stop this before it happens. I will
    give you some specific things that we have done.
        I set up a sexual assault prevention office that reports
    directly to me, and I get reports on a very routine basis. And
    that office has been going around the fleet, around the Marine
    Corps to, number one, find out exactly the size of the problem
    and what we can do about it.
        Some of the things that have come out of that is that now
    in boot camp--coming out of boot camp, we found that programs
    inside boot camp were not that effective because there are just
    too many things coming at people when they were at basic
    training, but that every sailor going to ``A'' School, and
    every sailor does go to ``A'' School, they will get three 90-
    minute sessions on sexual assault, on how to prevent it, on how
    to intervene.
        Second, I announced Monday of this week that we are
    undertaking a major initiative called 21st century sailor and
    marine that has five different areas in it. And one of them is
    that people should feel safe.
        Some of the things we are doing there is doing everything
    we can to remove the stigma of reporting, including--and this
    is a DOD-wide effort--some Federal forms that you have to fill
    out now for things like security clearances, you would have to
    put down counseling that you received after an attack. We have
    got to end that requirement. Including, if the victim wants to
    go to another command immediately, that person can go to
    another command immediately to get away from any sexual
    predators that they may have come in contact with.
        And the one that got the most press was, we are instituting
    breathalyzer for alcohol on duty stations coming aboard our
    ships, coming to work at our surface locations. And the reason
    we are doing this is because alcohol has been shown to be the
    common factor in sexual assault, in domestic violence, in
    suicide, in fitness, in readiness.
        And we have run a pilot program with Pacific submarines
    (SUBPAC) in Washington State, and we have also run a pilot
    program at the U.S. Naval Academy using these breathalyzers.
    The incidence of sexual assault, the incidence of domestic
    violence, of everything across the board has gone down
    dramatically when we have done that.
        And I just thought if we have that opportunity and we know
    that sort of--we could get that sort of response in these pilot
    programs, that we had an obligation to put this in fleet-wide
    to guard against any not only sexual assault, but also the
    other risks that sailors and the marines face.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, and the
    attention and the focus on the safety.
        I look forward to welcoming you to Anchorage this summer
    when the USS Anchorage is commissioned. We are looking forward
    to that visit.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Mabus. We were at least bright enough to do that in the
    summer.
        Senator Murkowski. Much better weather and good fishing.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Before I turn to Senator Kohl, I just want to add and
    amplify the gentlelady's remarks and yours, Secretary Mabus.
        All of the women in the Senate--and we don't have a caucus,
    we just come together on where we can find common ground--are
    very concerned about women in the military, their ability to
    serve and to be promoted and utilized in every capacity.
        But this issue of alcohol is something that runs through
    all of the services. And for having the Naval Academy in
    Maryland, I am on the Board of Visitors, one of the things we
    find, because there is unwanted sexual--there is a continuum,
    the unwanted sexual contact, which would be very aggressive
    coming-on, but it is not assault, it is not harassment--to
    harassment, all the way up to a violent, violent situation like
    rape.
        In 90 percent of those situations at the Academy, again, it
    is alcohol, alcohol, alcohol. We would hope that the
    Secretaries of all the service academies would look at alcohol
    on their campuses the way the Naval Academy is looking at
    theirs, lessons learned from civilian universities.
        But I really want to encourage you to look at this. We are
    not prohibitionists. We understand human behavior, et cetera,
    that people are people, and human beings are human beings.
    There are two things that contribute to the kind of climate
    that Senator Murkowski raised. One, a cultural climate of
    hostility. And I think the military has dealt with that and has
    been dealing with that for more than 20 years and certainly
    this administration and, I believe, Secretary, President Bush
    did as well.
        But this alcohol thing is big. And it also impedes the
    ability to serve and to be fit for duty.
        So we just want to encourage you on that. I wanted to just
    congratulate the gentlelady for raising that question because
    it was going to be one of mine as well.
        So, having said that, I am going to turn to Senator Kohl
    from Wisconsin.

                         STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

        Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Mabus, the Navy's budget fully funds the current
    plan to split the purchase of 20 LCSs evenly between the
    variants built in Wisconsin and Alabama. I support this
    approach and commend you for requesting the funding necessary
    to carry it out.

                    LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP PROCUREMENT PROGRAM

        However, the Navy's 5-year budget window cuts two LCS ships
    after the 20-ship purchase plan is complete. In light of that
    proposed cut in future years, does the Navy still support long-
    term plans to purchase 55 LCSs?
        Mr. Mabus. Absolutely, Senator. The two ships, and it goes
    from three to two each year, we lost one ship in 2016, one ship
    in 2017, but it was just slid to the right.
        We want to build out the 55 ships as quickly as we can. We
    still believe in that number and that need for our fleet.
        Senator Kohl. Good.
        Just to push it to a final comment from you, if the
    Congress were to delay the Navy's plans to bring these ships
    into the fleet, the Navy's effectiveness would be hurt. I hope
    you would agree with that. We understand that the LCS is going
    to replace an aging fleet of frigates and minesweepers and that
    Navy readiness would suffer without them.
        Is that true? And what will happen if the LCS is delayed?
        Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir, the LCS is one of our--one of the
    backbones of our fleet today and for the future. As the CNO
    mentioned a little bit earlier, Singapore has invited us not
    only to bring the first LCS there next year, but also to
    forward deploy LCSs in Singapore in the future. And that is
    something that we are certainly planning to do and certainly is
    going to be one of the prime capabilities that we have in the
    Pacific.
        Senator Kohl. All the hopes that you had for LCS are on
    plan and following, moving along as you guys had discussed?
        Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir. We are--it is an amazingly capable
    ship, shallow draft, very fast. But also I think it is one of
    the ships of the future because of its modularity.
        Because every time the technology improves, every time we
    get a different weapons system, we don't have to build a new
    ship. We simply pull out the weapons system or the whatever
    system off the ship, put in a new one, a different one, and go
    back to sea.
        And I think that capability, the first three systems, as
    you know, are anti-surface, anti-sub, anti-mine, and if you
    look at some of the things that we are facing in the world
    today, that we are relying, as you pointed out, on patrol boats
    and minesweepers, or mine-countermeasure ships to do, we need
    this capability very badly.
        Senator Kohl. And you are pleased that you are building two
    variants on that LCS?
        Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir, I am. I think that they give us a
    wider range of options for our operators. As you know, and
    thanks to this subcommittee and the Congress, we were able to
    buy both variants at a greatly reduced rate.
        Both variants are on firm fixed-price contracts. The price
    is going down for each successive ship. And we are very pleased
    with the shipyards that are building them. We are very pleased
    with the product that is coming out.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Collins.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

        Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        I apologize for being late. The Armed Services Committee is
    having a hearing with Secretary Panetta on Syria, even as we
    are meeting today. And I clearly need a clone, but I have yet
    to figure that out.
        Senator Mikulski. We will support that.
        Senator Collins. Mr. Secretary, first of all, it is good to
    see you again.

                                DDG-1000 PROGRAM

        As you know, Bath Iron Works is building the first two
    Zumwalt-class destroyers and will commence construction of the
    third DDG-1000 later this year. The first ship was 60-percent
    complete when the keel was laid. The construction rework rate
    is less than 1 percent, which is astonishing for the first ship
    of a new class. And the Navy retired a significant portion of
    the program's cost risk during the last year.
        I think it would be helpful for the record, in light of the
    department's commitment to maintaining combat capability in
    anti-access/area denial environments, if you would comment on
    the combat capabilities that you expect these three DDG-1000
    ships to bring to the fleet.
        Mr. Mabus. I will be happy to, Senator. And I would also
    like to ask the CNO to follow along after I do.
        These ships, with their new stealth technology, with the
    fire support for ground troops that they bring, with their
    anti-air, anti-surface, anti-submarine capabilities certainly
    fit very precisely into the anti-access/area denial areas that
    we have planned to use these ships in.
        As you know, because of the truncation from 10 ships to 3,
    a Nunn-McCurdy breach occurred, but it was solely because the
    number of ships went down. At that time, the program was
    recertified as crucial to national security, and the building,
    the fabrication, at Bath has gone along very well. And I am
    happy that we now have the further two, 1001 and 1002, now
    under contract so that we can move forward with them to join
    the fleet.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Admiral, is another advantage the smaller crew size that
    can be used on these ships, given the high cost of personnel?
        Admiral Greenert. Yes, Senator. We are talking 100 less on
    a ship of a comparable capability, 150 versus 250, for example,
    the DDG-1000 being 150.
        We don't talk a lot about its undersea capability. It has a
    dual-frequency sonar capability, which means it can be
    searching for long-range underwater vehicles, submarines, but
    at the same time tracking something closer. Eighty-cruise
    missile capability, not a lot of people talk about that. That
    is extraordinary.
        So it has a good land attack mode, the long-range gun,
    which we are really excited about, what it will bring--two of
    them, advanced long-range projectiles--and it also maintains
    three drones. We are going unmanned. It is very important. So
    it can employ three unmanned systems, vertical take-off and
    landing tactical unmanned air vehicle (VTUAV) Fire Scout or
    Fire-X, as well as a helicopter. So it is quite capable. And on
    radar, it looks like a fishing boat.

                                 DDG-51 PROGRAM

        Senator Collins. Mr. Secretary, your strategy to introduce
    competition into the restart of the DDG-51 program earlier than
    planned reaps some significant savings for the taxpayer, and I
    applaud you for that effort. In addition, it is my
    understanding that the Navy estimates that it could save up to
    $1.5 billion by exercising multiyear procurement authority for
    the DDG-51 program during the next 5 years.
        I understand that Senator Reed mentioned some possible uses
    for those savings. So I would be remiss if I did not also
    follow that line of questioning.
        That amount, as luck would have it, would be sufficient to
    procure one additional DDG-51 in the 5-year budget window. And
    currently, the Navy intends to procure nine ships during the 5
    years. But the Navy's own requirements, plus the fragility of
    the industrial base, call for an absolute minimum procurement
    rate of two large surface combatants per year.
        So, Mr. Secretary, if the Navy does reap the savings
    expected from the multiyear procurement authority and the
    increased competition and you have the opportunity to reinvest
    that funding, would adding an additional destroyer in the 5-
    year budget window also be one of your priorities?
        Mr. Mabus. Senator, we will certainly be requesting
    multiyear authority for the DDG-51. I think it is exactly the
    type program, and your numbers are accurate in terms of the
    savings that we forecast.
        What we have done, however, is we have already used those
    savings to get the nine ships. Without a multiyear, we would
    only be able to procure eight. And so, we have taken the
    savings that we anticipate from the multiyear to procure the
    ninth ship.
        Senator Collins. I am concerned particularly, and I realize
    my time has expired, but particularly with the focus on the
    Asian Pacific, that we are not going to have enough ships to
    really do the job. And I hope that is something that we can
    focus on as we set priorities.
        Also for the record, I will be, with the chairwoman's
    permission, submitting some additional questions involving
    investment in our public shipyards. There is a long, long
    backlog, which the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
    documented.
        And unfortunately, there, I believe, is only one new
    military construction project identified in this year's budget
    request, for Norfolk. And the needs are great at the Portsmouth
    Naval Shipyard and elsewhere. So that is something we need to
    look at as well.
        Mr. Mabus. Madam Chairman, if I could.
        Senator Mikulski. Sure.

                         NAVY FLEET SIZE AND CAPABILITY

        Mr. Mabus. Just in terms of numbers of ships, you and I
    share the concern, even though the fleet we have today is far
    more capable than any fleet we have had before. But one of the
    things that I think is important to note is that at the end of
    this 5 years, this FYDP, we will have the same size fleet, in
    spite of some early retirements of ships, in spite of the
    requirements of the Budget Control Act of 2011, in spite of
    having to defer the building of some ships, and that by 2019 we
    will be back at 300 ships. We will build the fleet to 300 ships
    because at some point, as we have discussed, quantity becomes a
    quality all its own.
        So, thank you, Senator.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Collins, and also to other
    Senators, I know their staffs are here, the record will remain
    open for subsequent questions of members, and also Senator
    Inouye will be submitting his questions for the record.
        I have some questions of my own. I really wanted to be at
    this hearing because we in Maryland, we are a Navy State. We
    are not just a Navy State. We love our Army presence, whether
    it is the National Security Agency at Fort Meade or Aberdeen or
    its bases. We love the Air Force because of being there at
    Andrews.
        But we are crazy about the Navy. We have the Naval Academy,
    Naval Bethesda.
        Mr. Mabus. Your ardor is returned, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we will get to that--Naval
    Bethesda, Pax River, the Office of Naval Intelligence.

                            USNS COMFORT RELOCATION

        And we think we offer a fantastic set of home ports. We are
    the home port to the Constellation. We are the home port to the
    10th fleet, the dynamic, cyber 10th fleet that has no aircraft
    carrier, submarines, or whatever, but is defending the fleet.
    And we are also the home to the Comfort.
        Now, we feel real bad that we are going to lose the
    Comfort. And in fact, we feel so bad in Maryland that it has
    the same magnitude, if you were in Baltimore when we heard the
    Comfort was going to leave us, we have had the same feeling as
    when the Colts left us.
        And I am not joking. We love the Comfort, the hospital ship
    that we have watched since 1987 steam down the bay for really
    significant missions, serving the Nation, whether it has been
    to respond to Desert Storm, and we were there along with the
    hospital ship Mercy, whether it was responding to 9/11 off the
    coast of New York, where Senator Collins and I stood side-by-
    side looking at the wreckage and the debris, and so on.
        So I want to know how we can keep the Comfort in Baltimore?
        Mr. Mabus. Senator, the decision to move Comfort was a
    purely financial one. The pier in Baltimore is a private pier
    that we pay a little more than $2 million a year to keep the
    Comfort berthed there. The pier that it will be moving to is a
    Navy pier. So we will save in excess of $2 million a year to
    move the Comfort.
        Two other things went into the decision. One was the
    facilities at the new pier for the ship and its permanent crew,
    the 57 permanent crew members. And the other was that, as
    Comfort is manned by medical professionals----
        Senator Mikulski. You have two mannings. You have those who
    keep the ship afloat and operational, and then you have this
    extraordinary medical team that is just amazing.
        Mr. Mabus. Me, too. And that manning has changed over the
    years so that most of those health professionals now--doctors
    and nurses--come out of Portsmouth, Virginia, the hospital
    there, instead of the way they used to, out of Bethesda.
        And so, those were the things that went into the decision.
    But it was primarily financial.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I have a couple of questions about
    that.
        First of all, let us go to the pier part of it. And I
    understand we are in a frugal environment. That has been the
    point of the testimony and many of your comments as you support
    the Secretary of Defense and the President's initiative to have
    a more frugal but still muscular defense. We understand cost.
        But tell me about this pier. Don't you have to build a new
    pier for the Comfort?
        Mr. Mabus. No, ma'am. We upgraded the pier----
        Senator Mikulski. And how much did that cost?
        Mr. Mabus [continuing]. To provide for the Comfort. Three
    and a half million dollars.
        Senator Mikulski. So it cost $3.5 million to upgrade it?
        Mr. Mabus. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Now, let us go to the mission. And I
    understand the fact that the manpower used to be at Naval
    Bethesda. So I don't dispute that.
        But have you looked at the hurricane impact? Let me be
    specific so this isn't a trick question.
        The Comfort, since the Comfort has deployed since 1987, I
    think, 9 or 10 times, two-thirds of that has been during
    hurricane season. Literally, when it went down the bay, it has
    been hurricane season. What Norfolk has to do when hurricanes
    come is they have to go to sea.
        Okay. So the President says send the Comfort to wherever.
    It has been to Haiti, you know, and God knows what lies ahead,
    given the turmoil in the world.
        So, have you looked at the hurricane impact statement, that
    while it is berthed at Norfolk, you are in a hurricane, the
    Comfort is out at sea riding it out, but you have to get ready
    to deploy? Have you looked at the hurricane impact?
        Admiral Greenert. I can't tell you that we have, Senator.
    What we would do is we would sortie the ship, like we do with
    the others. And I think that is your question, the cost to
    sortie----
        Senator Mikulski. I don't know the military lingo. I just
    know----
        Admiral Greenert. We would get underway. The ship gets
    underway----
        Senator Mikulski. Because while we are looking at Norfolk
    during the hurricane, we are up the coast at Ocean City, and so
    on.
        Admiral Greenert. Right.
        Senator Mikulski. So we are all kind of in it together. So,
    go ahead.
        Admiral Greenert. I have to take it for the record, so that
    I--because I would want to make sure I understand your
    question.
        I believe this ship will have to get underway like the
    other ships in Norfolk do when there is a hurricane in the
    region. And so, have we accommodated that factor, as opposed to
    remaining in Baltimore, the number of times ships sortie
    because of weather in Norfolk versus weather in Baltimore? I
    think that is your question, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Admiral Greenert. I have to get back to you on that and see
    what that would be.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Admiral, I would really appreciate
    this.
        Admiral Greenert. Sure.
        [The information follows:]

        After revising our cost estimates to account for hurricanes, the
    case for moving USNS Comfort to Norfolk remains cost effective. The
    Navy will still save approximately $2 million annually. Details are as
    follows:
        USNS Comfort has not conducted a weather sortie from her berth in
    Baltimore in the past 10 years, while Navy ships homeported in Norfolk
    have conducted two weather sorties during this period. If USNS Comfort
    was berthed in Norfolk, each weather sortie would incur operational
    costs of $0.5 million (assumes a 5-day sortie at a cost of $100,000/
    day). Over a 10-year period, two sorties would thus cost $1 million (2
     $0.5 million) or an average of $0.1 million/year.
        Despite the potential operational cost for USNS Comfort to conduct
    weather sorties, the decision to berth her in Norfolk remains cost
    effective. Our report to the Congress on the Cost Benefit of Relocation
    of USNS Comfort estimated a $2.1 million/year savings. Factoring in the
    contingency of weather sorties reduces this estimate by $0.1 million to
    $2 million/year in savings. Also, the location in Norfolk would reduce
    the transit time to open ocean by 12 hours compared to a Baltimore
    berth.

        Senator Mikulski. You know, it is my job to fight to keep
    the Comfort----
        Admiral Greenert. I understand.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Both for economic reasons
    and jobs, and yet we have developed just an affectionate
    relationship. And I think the crew of the Comfort feels the
    same, that we are a welcoming home port.
        So, Mr. Secretary, with the cooperation of the Admiral, I
    would like you to look at that impact and see if it affects
    your judgment so we get to keep the Comfort.
        If we cannot, if we cannot--and facts must speak for
    themselves--would you also take the opportunity to look and see
    if there are other home port opportunities for us? Because we
    have a 50-foot channel, we now have port capacity that is going
    to welcome the new ships coming through the Panama Canal. And
    if we can welcome these new ships from the canal, we sure would
    like to welcome a vessel from the United States Navy.
        We have the Constellation, the older ship. We would welcome
    a new ship, and we would love to keep the Comfort.
        Would you take a look at----
        Mr. Mabus. We would be happy to look at both of those. Yes,
    Ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you.
        General Amos, there is one question that I omitted asking
    for the record to you, and it relates to our amphibious warship
    fleet lift capacity.

                          AMPHIBIOUS SHIP REQUIREMENTS

        What I would like to have for the record is what is the
    current inventory of amphibious ships in the fleet? And what is
    the maximum lift requirement? And are there operational
    readiness concerns? And are you aware of any unmet combatant
    commander demands for amphibious ships?
        General Amos. Senator, I can answer, I think, all of those
    or at least get a head start on those things, and we will come
    in on the record for the rest of it.
        But I believe the current inventory--and John, Admiral
    Greenert can just keep me honest here--I think our current
    inventory is at 29 today, amphibious ships.
        We have a few decommissions coming underway. We have some,
    as you know, new construction. I made a comment about 2 weeks
    ago that the agony that the CNO and the Commandant and the
    Secretary of the Navy went through in this FYDP cycle to cut
    Solomon's baby, to try to determine, what ships, you know,
    where are we going to spend our money was, I think, very
    responsible.
        And I think, from my perspective, I mean, I would like to
    add 55 amphibious ships, but we can't afford it. My sense right
    now is that I am very satisfied with what we have done inside
    this FYDP.
        There is going to be an effort underway over the next
    little bit to take a look at what is our real requirement? We
    know how much it takes to put a marine expeditionary brigade on
    a ship. That takes 17 amphibious ships. So if you just say,
    okay, let's put one of these brigades onboard, what is it going
    to take? It is 17.
        Well, our Nation has an agreed-upon requirement for two of
    these in a forcible entry operation. Well, that is a lot of
    ships, and we can't afford that.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. What is the current inventory of amphibious ships in the
    fleet?
        Answer. There are currently 28 amphibious warships in the fleet.
        Question. What is the maximum lift requirement?
        Answer. The Department of the Navy has identified a requirement of
    38 amphibious warships to lift two Marine Expeditionary Brigade assault
    echelons. Compelled by fiscal realities, we have accepted risk down to
    33 ships. Thirty operationally available ships is the baseline number
    to support day-to-day operations.
        Question. Are there operational readiness concerns?
        Answer. We currently have 27 operationally available amphibious
    warships in the inventory. With the commissioning of the USS San Diego
    (LPD 22) during May 2012, the number of operationally available
    amphibious ships will rise to 28. The current inventory does not
    support operational plan (OPLAN) lift requirements and defers critical
    warfighting capability to follow-on-shipping, and increases closure
    time. Additionally, it does not fully support single-ship deployer
    requirements requested by combatant commanders to meet their theater
    engagement plans. Last, there is little flexibility in the amphibious
    warship inventory, limiting the Navy's ability to provide a ``reserve''
    in the case of a catastrophic casualty to a ship or class of ship.
        Question. Are you aware of any unmet combatant commander demands
    for amphibious ships?
        Answer. Specific demand signals are classified and can be provided
    in a separate venue; however, the overall delta between global
    combatant command demand of Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary
    Units and what has actually been sourced for fiscal year 2012 is 53
    percent. For independent amphibious warship deployers, less than 10
    percent of global combatant command demand is sourced.

        General Amos. So we are working right now, you know, what
    is it we can't afford? What are the elements of risk, as you
    come off of the number? And then how do you mitigate that risk?
    Because there are ways that you can mitigate risk.
        But as the Secretary said, quantity has a quality all its
    own. It does reach a point, there is a knee in the curve where
    we want to make sure that we have the ability to be able to put
    these, deploy this forcible entry force. Hard to imagine that
    it could ever happen. It is almost out of the realm of our
    imagination. But let me give you a sense for magnitude.
        When we surrounded the town of Fallujah in the fall of
    2003--excuse me, 2004, we put 5 marine infantry battalions
    around there, 3 Army battalions, and 2 Iraqi battalions--10
    infantry battalions. What we are talking about here for this
    forcible entry capability for the entire United States of
    America are basically six battalions, or two brigades worth of
    marines coming ashore.
        So when you think of relativity, it is a pretty nominal
    capability for a nation that is a global power, that somewhere
    down the road may have to exercise its forcible entry
    capability.
        Does that answer your question, Sir?
        Senator Cochran. It does. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, General Amos, and Admiral
    Greenert, first of all, I think the subcommittee really wants
    to thank you for your service and for your leadership. In
    thanking you, we want to thank all the men and women who serve
    in the Navy and the Marine Corps.
        So, for those who are active duty, Reserves, and part of
    our civilian workforce that supports the Navy, we really just
    want to say thank you in every way and every day.

                        FORCE SIZE AND DEPLOYMENT IMPACT

        I want to ask a question really that then goes to
    deployment and our families. One of things we know that the
    health and vitality of our military personally--the individual
    soldier, sailor, airman, and marine--often depends on the
    frequency of the deployment.
        With the drawdown of personnel and the fact that we are
    still in combat, my question to you is, given this current
    manpower that is being recommended in the appropriations, how
    do you see this affecting the deployments? Will they deploy
    more frequently? Will they deploy less? What is your view on
    that?
        Admiral, can we start with you, and then go to General
    Amos?
        Admiral Greenert. Yes, Senator.
        The demand signal which defines our deployment is called
    the global force management allocation plan. It is the
    distribution, the allocation of forces around the world. And
    one of the in-going foundations, if you will, or givens, for
    our budget as submitted and that we signed up to was what we
    call--my process is called the fleet response plan. And I
    respond to the global force management allocation plan.
        We established what that is, and I am comfortable that we
    can--and it will be less deployments than today, subject to the
    world voting and things changing.
        The thing, the key in this is the combatant commanders'
    having a request for forces. This is a supplemental to the
    plan, if you will. Today, we are living with a fairly extensive
    number of requests for forces. These are deployments over and
    above what the budget is laid out to give. And due to the
    generosity, if you will, the support of this subcommittee and
    the Congress through the overseas contingency operations (OCO)
    appropriation, we are able to reconcile that.
        So what I am telling you, Senator, is with the plan, the
    global force management plan that is laid out there, I am
    comfortable. If we are unable to, if you will, sustain that
    appetite for additional forces, then there is going to be a
    stress on that, and we are going to be deploying more than what
    is assumed in this budget. And that will be difficult.
        Senator Mikulski. General.
        General Amos. Senator, several years ago, I remember
    answering your question about what would be the ideal what we
    call deployment-to-dwell ratio. And that is----
        Senator Mikulski. That is exactly what I am trying to also
    get at.
        General Amos. Right. And it is deployment-to-dwell. And
    that was at the height of when the Marine Corps, my service,
    was essentially almost on a 1-to-1. So you are gone 7 months,
    and you are home 7 months. And while you are home at 7 months,
    you are training and you are doing all these things. So it is
    not like you are home in your house for 7 months. But that
    becomes a 1-to-1.
        We are sitting today in our infantry battalions, which is
    the standard unit of measure in the Marine Corps--everything
    else is built around an infantry battalion--at about 1
    deployment to 1.5, which means you are gone for 7 months and
    you are home for 10, 11.
        Now, I will tell you that is going to change dramatically
    this year. As the Marine forces come down, as that surge force
    comes down in Afghanistan that we have talked about, our
    deployment-to-dwell ratio will increase. In other words, we
    will have more time at home.
        So, as I look at a post-Afghanistan world, and I think
    about now being forward deployed and forward engaged in the
    Pacific, and being in Okinawa and being in Guam and being down
    in Australia, and doing all the things that marines do, my
    sense is that even at a 182,000 force--in other words, that
    force that we are going to go down to--that we will, when it is
    all said and done, we will settle down to something more than a
    1-to-2 deployment-to-dwell.
        So it will probably be--we will have some units that are 1-
    to-3. In other words, you are gone, we will get out of the 7-
    month deployments. We will get back to 6. You are gone 6
    months, then you are home 18 months. And marines get bored. And
    quite honestly, they like to deploy, and they like to be out at
    the cutting edge. So that is the 1-to-3 that we would probably,
    as a Nation, like our services to all kind of be at.
        Are we going to ever see that again? I don't know. Will I
    be happy if I see 1-to-1.2, as a Commandant? Yes. Will the
    marines be happy? I think so. I think we are going--that is
    where we are headed. So I think if we are just patient for
    about another year, we will get this recocked and reset back to
    I believe where you would like to see it, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, what I would like to see is that I
    know that our Marines and our Navy like to fight. That is why
    they join the military. I mean, like to be ready to protect and
    defend, and we love them for it. We really do.
        And part of that love for them is to protect them while
    they are protecting us. Our job is to protect them. And
    deployment and the rate of deployment, the ratio of deploy-to-
    dwell has a dramatic, demonstrable effect now. We know this
    from our experiences on their physical and mental health.
        So I am for them. And I know you are. God knows, I know you
    are. And so, I want to be sure that, as we look at the forces
    that we are going to have, we protect them as they protect us.
        And Mr. Secretary, and I would hope the Service Secretaries
    and the Secretary of Defense also speak out at hearings, that
    if we are going to reduce the number of our military, we need
    to be careful with our rhetoric about where we want to just
    send them. So just know that. I think all of us want to work
    with you on it.

                       SERVICEMEMBER TRANSITION PROGRAMS

        And then that goes to my last question. After they serve
    and they are ready to be discharged, I worry that they have
    jobs. I just worry about that. And I know many of the Members
    do. The women have talked about this. So, often when they are
    discharged, is there an actual plan that helps them sort out
    where they can work?
        And also, it was something, I think, Mr. Secretary, you in
    your old hat as a Governor said, sometimes they had these
    fantastic skills in the military and serve us so well and
    bravely, but it doesn't count toward licensing in their home
    State. So we have heard about just wonderful people that have
    done incredible Medical Corps service in the most grim and
    violent of circumstances, where their performance has been
    amazing to prevent mortality and morbidity, and then it didn't
    count for anything when they came home to get a job, where we
    have a civilian workforce shortage--EMTs, nursing, et cetera.
        Could I ask you, Mr. Secretary, and so I know I am going
    over my time, really, first of all, I think their service ought
    to count, and I think it ought to count in every State in the
    United States of America. Are you looking at that? And then,
    also, can you tell me about the discharge planning that goes on
    so that we help them be able to find their way in the civilian
    workforce?
        Mr. Mabus. I would very much like to talk about that.
        In terms of credentialing, whether it is for things like
    nurses or other things, two things spring to mind. One is the
    First Lady's initiative to make sure that every State in the
    Union signs up to accept credentials from particularly military
    spouses. Because we ask our military to move a lot. Military
    spouses who are nurses or realtors or anything else that
    requires a certificate or a license sometimes have to wait 6
    months or a year when they get there.
        Second, for the members of the service, we have a thing
    called Navy COOL, which is Credentialing Opportunities On-Line.
        Senator Mikulski. ``Cool,'' like ``You are a cool guy?''
        Mr. Mabus. You are a cool guy.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay. Is it C-O-O-L----
        Mr. Mabus. I think that is why they picked it. No, it is C-
    O-O-L, Navy COOL. And what it will----
        Senator Mikulski. I notice it is not ``CNO.''
        Mr. Mabus. Well, he is a pretty cool guy, too.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. You all are.
        Mr. Mabus. Navy COOL allows sailors to go online, get the
    certificate that they need to match the job they are doing in
    the military with a civilian credential. And we have this lined
    up with every naval job, what is a comparable civilian job and
    if you need a credential. And if you are leaving the Navy, we
    will pay for the things that you need to do to get that.
        Senator Mikulski. Get that credential.
        Mr. Mabus. Get a credential.

                      SERVICEMEMBER TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

        The other things I want to talk about, and CNO and
    Commandant may want to give some more detail, too, as people
    separate from either the Navy or the Marine Corps, we are
    taking that transition very seriously. We are giving one-on-one
    counseling. We are doing things like, if you want to go to a
    job fair anywhere in the United States, we will pay for you to
    go there.
        If you are overseas when you are being separated, we
    guarantee you 60 days back in the United States before that
    separation. The marines have a four-door process of ``Tell us
    where you want to aim for.'' Do you want to aim for more
    education? Do you want to aim for apprenticeship? Do you want
    to aim for a certificate? Or do you want to aim to go right
    into the job market? And we will send you through the
    preparation to do that.
        And the last thing I would like to say is that the Navy
    itself has taken it very seriously. Last year, we hired in the
    Navy almost 13,000 former sailors and marines to come in as
    civilians once their service was finished because they have a
    lot of the skills that we need. So far this year we have hired
    almost 3,000.
        And we feel a special obligation to our wounded warriors.
    We have had two hiring conferences with private employers for
    wounded warriors, both of which all three of us have spoken at.
        The second thing, though, is that the Department of the
    Navy, through Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA, had a goal
    last year of hiring at least one wounded warrior per day for
    the entire year, and we exceeded that. We hired more than 400
    wounded warriors into NAVSEA.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, I am going to ask you not
    only for the record, but for me personally, if I could have
    whatever your policy papers are on this, because I want to talk
    to my colleagues about how we can promote the First Lady's
    initiative not only in the budget. And I know both the Admiral
    and General could elaborate, but the hearing is getting longer.
        [The information follows:]

        Prior to 2009, the Department of the Navy (DON) had several
    initiatives and programs for hiring wounded warriors, but these efforts
    were consolidated under Executive Order 13518, ``Employment of Veterans
    in the Federal Government'' which DON now follows as its guiding
    policy. DON utilizes the Defense Outplacement Referral System (DORS) to
    help wounded warriors find employment opportunities within the
    Department of Defense (DOD). Wounded warriors who register in DORS have
    the opportunity to upload their resumes which are then available to
    hiring managers across DOD. DON is committed to recruiting and
    employing veterans, and our HR Wounded Warrior Coordinators help
    qualifying veterans register in DORS; 976 wounded warriors have been
    hired in fiscal year 2012.
        In compliance with Executive Order 13518, DON provides the required
    veterans' employment training via human resources reference guides,
    online education tools, and in-person seminars. DON also recently
    published a wounded warrior reference guide for the use of employers,
    managers, and supervisors which provides information on how to
    successfully support veterans who have transitioned to the civilian
    workplace.

        Senator Mikulski. And then I think there will be some of us
    who will want to take this on ourselves. You know, when World
    War II ended, we had a tremendous demand for workers and so on.
    And again, as part of it, if you are going to get out there and
    protect and defend us and be in the front line, we don't want
    them on the unemployment line.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And so, we would like to work with you to really, really
    ensure that. I would like to have the policy papers and do
    that.
        So, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Greenert and General Amos, we
    want to thank you for your testimony and for your service.
    Senator Inouye also said to please commend his regards to you.
        [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
                            end-strength reductions
        Question. Secretary Mabus, as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget
    proposal, the Department of Defense (DOD) has put forward a plan to
    reduce the size of the active duty Navy by 6,200 sailors and Marine
    Corps by 20,000 marines over 5 years. What is the plan for reducing the
    force beginning in fiscal year 2013, and what are the risks associated
    with this downsizing?
        Answer. Navy and Marine Corps end-strength reductions are a result
    of DOD Strategic Guidance released January 2012. This guidance
    emphasizes a smaller, leaner force structure that is agile, flexible,
    ready, innovative, and technologically advanced. This quality force is
    fully capable of executing its assigned missions, and is a force with
    capabilities optimized for forward-presence, engagement, and rapid
    crisis response. It also balances capacity and capabilities across our
    forces while maintaining the high levels of readiness on which the
    Nation relies.
        Navy end-strength reductions are primarily the result of changes in
    force structure, such as ship decommissionings. To manage these
    reductions, the Navy will primarily rely on voluntary measures and
    attrition, before resorting to involuntary actions. The challenge is to
    shape and balance the force to achieve a mix of officers and enlisted
    personnel that ensures the right person, with the right skills is in
    the right job at the right time.
        Marine Corps end-strength reduction result from right-sizing the
    Marine Corps to meet the anticipated security environment and needs of
    the Nation after the drawdown in Afghanistan, and the impacts of the
    Budget Control Act of 2011 on DOD budgets. This force adjustment
    follows the Marine Corps growth of 27,000 marines in 2006 and 2007. The
    force funded in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request is
    fully capable of executing all assigned missions in the new strategic
    guidance, and is a force with capabilities optimized for forward-
    presence, engagement and rapid crisis response. It balances capacity
    and capabilities across our forces while maintaining the high levels of
    readiness for which the Nation relies on the Marine Corps.
        The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has approved the use of
    several force shaping tools as we reduce Marine Corps end strength by
    approximately 5,000 marines per year beginning in fiscal year 2013. The
    Marine Corps will accomplish the drawdown by maximizing the use of
    voluntary measures such as attrition and early separation/retirement
    authorities. This reduced level of end strength creates some additional
    risk in capacity as the operating force manning levels will go from 99
    percent for both officer and enlisted ranks to 95 percent for officers
    and 97 percent for enlisted; however, it is a manageable and affordable
    solution that maintains a ready, capable, and more senior force in
    support of the new strategic guidance.
        This enduring strength level and force structure ensures that the
    Marine Corps retains the necessary level of noncommissioned officer and
    field grade officer experience and war-fighting enablers to support the
    future security environment. The Marine Corps drawdown plan ensures the
    Marine Corps remains the Nation's expeditionary force in readiness
    while simultaneously keeping faith with our marines and their families
    who have excelled during the last 10 years of combat operations.
                                    biofuels
        Question. Secretary Mabus, I am encouraged by the administration's
    proposal on biofuels and your leadership in DOD on alternate energy and
    biofuels in particular. I have heard concerns raised questioning the
    rationale for DOD's participation in this initiative. Can you comment
    on the national security justification for DOD's involvement in the
    biofuels project? Furthermore, does the administration still support
    this tri-Agency initiative?
        Answer. By continuing to rely on petroleum fuels, DOD is subject to
    price volatility in the global petroleum market and bears potential
    exposure to foreign supply disruptions. Last year after the Libyan
    crisis occurred, the price per barrel charged by the Defense Logistics
    Agency (DLA) energy increased $38 to $165 per barrel. With this
    increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the Department of the Navy
    (DON) realized a $1.1 billion increase in our fuel bill. These midyear
    increases equate to less flying hours, less steaming hours, and less
    training, ultimately impacting readiness. Additionally, national
    security is threatened by the potential to be physically cut off from
    foreign sources of petroleum.
        Because of the imperative for energy and national security, DON
    believes the United States must reduce its dependence on petroleum but
    especially foreign oil. DON is making investments in the American
    biofuels industry because this is vital to our operations. This effort
    can help to dampen price volatility while also developing an assured
    domestic source for tactical fuels. Currently, the Navy uses about 50
    percent of its tactical fuels stateside, and 50-percent deployed
    overseas. The stateside portion is where most of our crucial training
    and readiness events take place. When petroleum prices exceed budget
    forecasts or supplies constrained, the amount of training can get
    reduced. To ensure the Navy is ready to serve national interests, this
    training must not be subject to the vagaries of the petroleum market.
    Domestically sourced and produced advanced alternative fuels could
    provide energy security for training and readiness and more budgetary
    certainty as alternative fuel prices will not move directly with the
    petroleum prices. The need to find cost competitive alternative fuels
    has never been greater. Unrest in Libya, Iran, and elsewhere in the
    Middle East drove up the price of a barrel of oil by $38, which
    increases Navy's fuel bill by more than $1 billion. Because every $1
    rise in a barrel of oil is effectively a $30 million unbudgeted bill to
    the Navy, in fiscal year 2012 the Navy is facing a $1 billion
    additional fuel cost because the price has risen faster than that
    estimated when the budget was passed.
        The administration is 100 percent behind this ``tri-Agency
    initiative''. Currently, the three agencies participating (U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, and DON) expect to
    contribute $170 million each to the effort for a total of $510 million.
    There is a minimum requirement that industry provides a 1-to-1 cost
    share, resulting in a total investment of at least $1 billion.
        With the total investment, DON anticipates that multiple integrated
    biorefineries could be constructed through new builds and retrofits.
    This investment, combined with a strong demand signal for alternative
    fuels from the military and commercial sector, will be the impetus
    necessary to sustain the overall alternative fuels industry sector.
    Creating a strong, domestic fuel market that insulates the United
    States from foreign oil and price volatility has been, and continues to
    be, a goal of the current administration.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                 broad area maritime surveillance--global hawk
        Question. Secretary Mabus, as you know, the Air Force has decided
    to cancel the Global Hawk Block 30 program and announced it does not
    intend to procure the last three assets appropriated in the fiscal year
    2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It is expected this
    will have a negative effect on the supplier base and will more than
    likely increase the unit price given the reduction of units procured.
        Given the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program is
    based upon the Global Hawk airframe, do you think the unit cost will
    increase now that the Air Force has decided to cancel the Global Hawk
    Block 30 and has decided not to procure the last three assets
    appropriated in the fiscal year 2012?
        Answer. The cancellation of the Global Hawk Block 30 adds risk of
    some cost increases to the BAMS program. The unit cost impact will
    primarily affect the System Demonstration Test Articles (SDTA) and Low
    Rate Initial Production Lot 1 since these procurements are below the
    minimum sustaining production rate of four aircraft per year.
        Question. Do you anticipate a break in the production line?
        Answer. There is risk of a production line break if North Atlantic
    Treaty Organization Alliance Ground Surveillance does not procure an
    aircraft in at least 1 of the slots planned for Global Hawk lot 11.
        Question. How will a break in production affect the Navy's BAMS
    program?
        Answer. Exact cost impacts to BAMS Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
    are being discussed with the prime contractor. If a production line
    break is avoided and only a delay occurs, costs are estimated to
    increase by at least $40 million for the SDTA lot with additional
    potential cost for low rate initial production (LRIP) 1 lot. However,
    if a production line break occurs then the costs are estimated to be
    closer to $220 million, $140 million immediate impact plus $80 million
    across total production for lost learning. The most significant impacts
    are felt if a supplier business fails; work to identify impacts at this
    subtier supplier level is ongoing.
        Question. If you anticipate an increase in unit cost, will the Navy
    still be able to procure the 68 aircraft you intend to buy?
        Answer. The Navy does not anticipate the BAMS UAS unit cost to
    increase above the current Acquisition Program Baseline estimate
    developed at Milestone B. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Navy
    will continue with plans to procure all 68 aircraft.
                              joint strike fighter
        Question. This past January 20, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta
    announced ``there had been enough progress in fixing technical problems
    on the Marine variant that he could reverse the decision by his
    predecessor, Secretary Robert M. Gates, to put the plane on a
    probationary testing status. However, the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget slowed the acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter by 69
    previously planned aircraft to outside the Future Years Defense Program
    (FYDP) to save $15.1 billion in savings. Lockheed-Martin has stated
    they have fixed their production and suppliers issues and are ready to
    accelerate their production line. It is a well-known fact that in order
    to achieve economies of scale you need to maximize your production
    capacity and supplier base to get the best price and yet that is
    exactly opposite of what we are doing here.
        Mr. Secretary, in your opinion based on the testing data known to
    date, is the Joint Strike Fighter mechanically sound given its current
    design?
        Answer. Yes. The three F-35 variants are encountering the types of
    development problems historically encountered on highly sophisticated
    state-of-the-art high performance aircraft development programs at this
    stage of maturity. While risks do remain in the balance of the
    development and flight test program, there are no known design issues
    that cannot be overcome by effective engineering. The program's
    management over the past year has put in-place the right fundamentals
    and realistic plans using sound systems engineering processes, and we
    are monitoring and tracking performance using detailed metrics.
    Additionally, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) commissioned an internal/
    independent quick look review (QLR) of the F-35 program during 2011.
    This USD(AT&L) review also found that while risks remain in the program
    the overall F-35 design is sound.
        Question. If it is--what is the projected cost comparison of buying
    the 69 aircraft within the FYDP and retrofitting the necessary changes
    as compared to delaying the 69 and potential increased unit cost?
        Answer. The cost to retrofit 69 aircraft within the FYDP is
    approximately $10 million each (fiscal year 2013-fiscal year 2017). The
    cost of delaying the aircraft procurement increases the average
    aircraft unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost over the total buy profile
    by $4-$6 million depending upon the variant.
        Question. What is the new projected unit cost if the 69 aircraft
    are delayed?
        Answer.

                               PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 (SAR 11 REPORT) URF
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Buy year                         2013         2014         2015         2016         2017
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conventional take-off and landing (CTOL).......        127.3        118.0        104.4         94.5         90.6
    Carrier-variant (CV)...........................        148.4        138.2        118.4        108.0        104.2
    Short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL)....        163.9        149.9        137.1        125.1        118.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Will Lockheed-Martin request contract consideration for
    reducing the number of aircraft procured, if yes how much?
        Answer. No. The impact of the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
    will be incorporated into the respective negotiated and awarded LRIP
    contracts at the outset. Therefore, Lockheed-Martin will not have a
    basis to request ``consideration'' against any negotiated contract.
        Question. Will this unit cost increase induce another Nunn-McCurdy
    Breach?
        Answer. No. The Nunn-McCurdy calculation is heavily influenced by
    the total aircraft buy. There has been no reduction to the total
    planned Department of Defense aircraft procurement.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                                  usns comfort
        Question. The Congress authorized the Navy $10 million in fiscal
    year 2011 military construction funding (P862) to modify Norfolk Naval
    Station Pier 1 to serve as a permanent berth for USNS Comfort (T-AH
    20). USNS Comfort has been homeported in Baltimore since 1987 and is a
    crucial tool of America's ``smart power'' strategy and its ability to
    achieve its missions must not be impacted for relatively small savings.
    Since 1987, the USNS Comfort has deployed nine times, six of those have
    occurred during hurricane season (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration defines hurricane season as June 1 to November 30).
        Did the Navy consider the increased risk of berthing the USNS
    Comfort in Norfolk during the hurricane season?
        Answer. The risk associated with both locations was carefully
    considered. During hurricane season, potential storms are tracked
    throughout their lives. U.S. Navy ships at storm-hardened piers or
    ships that are unable to meet underway timelines remain at the pier and
    weather the storm. On the east coast, there is normally plenty of
    advance warning to a hurricane making landfall in order to prepare
    ships for sea. If the fleet were to sortie from Hampton Roads,
    depending on the pier hardening for USNS Comfort's pier, she may not be
    required to sortie. For example, Military Sealift Command's (MSC)
    prepositioning ships berthed at Newport News CSX at storm-hardened
    piers do not necessarily sortie when the Atlantic Fleet sorties.
        We recognize that each hurricane situation will be different. We
    understand that hurricane tracks are notoriously unpredictable. Should
    a storm track take an unexpected turn, the ability for USNS Comfort to
    quickly sortie into open ocean from a Norfolk berth was considered in
    our risk assessment. The Atlantic Fleet has sortied twice in the last 5
    years. If USNS Comfort were required to crew and sortie every year,
    there would still be significant cost savings by departing from Norfolk
    vice her commercial berth in Baltimore. If a hurricane were to threaten
    Norfolk, USNS Comfort could get underway within 72-hours notice for
    hurricane evasion when required and be able to quickly steam to safer
    open waters offshore away from the storm. In summation, we consider
    USNS Comfort being berthed in Norfolk to significantly decrease risk to
    her and her ability to carry out her mission during hurricane seasons.
        Question. How can the USNS Comfort respond to posthurricane
    disaster relief mission if it has to sortie to avoid an impending
    hurricane?
        Answer. The ideal situation is to load medical equipment and
    personnel onboard USNS Comfort prior to sortie. Otherwise, USNS Comfort
    would sortie to a modified load out port and then proceed to the relief
    mission. In the case of a scenario like Hurricane Irene heading up the
    east coast last year, USNS Comfort would sortie out to sea and then
    return to a load-out port unaffected by the storm before responding to
    the disaster area. (Normally, official notification to deploy for a
    disaster relief mission is not provided until several days after a
    hurricane occurs and a Presidential Declaration is given or until a
    formal request for assistance is requested from a foreign nation).
        Question. Would having to first sortie from Norfolk to avoid the
    hurricane storm significantly delay the USNS Comfort's response time in
    providing disaster relief and humanitarian assistance?
        Answer. No. While USNS Comfort sorties, the required provisions,
    supplies, and manning could be directed to a selected load out port.
    From the time of the order to sortie, USNS Comfort would be in open
    waters much more quickly, ready to respond to further orders if she was
    berthed in Norfolk. Steaming the ship to the selected load-out port
    while simultaneously preparing the load-out cargo at that port would
    allow the most flexible and efficient response. This is the normal
    process for responding to combat mission taskings as well, and was
    utilized for USNS Comfort's response to Hurricane Katrina.
        Question. What would have been the impact on the USNS Comfort
    mission to New York City in September 2001 if the ship had been
    stationed in Norfolk and the base was responding in a defensive,
    heightened security posture?
        Answer. The response would have improved. The civil service mariner
    (CIVMAR) manning of the USNS Comfort crew would be sourced from the
    manpower pool onboard the naval base, and cargo and supplies for onload
    would be facilitated by the cargo handling equipment and facilities
    resident on the Norfolk Naval Base. Personnel responding from the
    Portsmouth Naval Hospital would have less direct travel time to the
    ship if she was berthed in Norfolk, Virginia.
        Question. Did the Navy undertake a cost-benefit analysis based on
    the cost to sortie the USNS Comfort while also attempting to prepare
    and provide disaster and humanitarian relief assistance?
        Answer. Hurricane sortie risk was taken into consideration.
    Avoiding the 12-hour Chesapeake Bay transit time offers a cost savings
    when comparing Baltimore to a coastal port.
                      united states marine corps drawdown
        Question. The Marine Corps has requested a reduction of 20,000
    marines by fiscal year 2017. For many servicemembers, returning home
    and transitioning into civilian life will be challenging. The
    percentage of veterans in poverty increased significantly in recent
    years, rising from 5.4 percent in 2007 to nearly 7 percent in 2010.
    Across periods of service, those veterans who have served since
    September 2001, have the highest poverty rate. In 2010, 12.4 percent of
    post-9/11 veterans lived in poverty, compared with 7.9 percent of Gulf
    War I veterans and 7.1 percent of Vietnam era veterans.
        As the Marine Corps prepares to drawdown troop levels, what is the
    Department of the Navy (DON) doing to ensure soon-to-be veterans do not
    end up in poverty?
        Answer. The Marine Corps provides support to veterans throughout
    the Nation. Our Marine For Life program will support improved reach-
    back and outreach support for those veteran marines who require
    localized support in their hometowns with information, opportunities or
    other specific needs. We are enhancing our Marine for Life program and
    its nationwide network of Hometown Links, both of which are integral
    parts of our ``cradle-to-grave'' approach of Transition Assistance.
    These assets help veterans develop and maintain local networks of
    marine-friendly individuals, employers, and organizations and present a
    proactive approach to help marines before problems arise.
        Question. How does this budget address the unacceptably high-
    unemployment rate for veterans?
        Answer. The Marine Corps does three things for our Nation:
      --it makes marines;
      --it wins our Nation's battles; and
      --it returns quality citizens.
        We are improving our transition assistance program in order to
    better meet the needs of our transitioning marines and return quality
    citizens. Our program will be integrated and mapped into the lifecycle
    of a marine from recruitment, through separation or retirement, and
    beyond as veteran marines. There will be several ``touch points'' that
    are mapped into a marine's career. Because 75 percent of our marines
    will transition from active service after their first enlistment, these
    contact points are focused on the first term of a marine.
        Our initial step in this planned process to improve transition
    assistance is our revised Transition Readiness Seminar (TRS). The
    revised week-long TRS includes a mandatory core curriculum with four
    well-defined military-civilian pathways:
      --university/college education;
      --vocational/technical training;
      --employment; or
      --entrepreneurship.
        A marine will choose the pathway that best meets his or her future
    goals and will have access to individual counseling services within
    each pathway. Additionally, pre-work requirements will be expected from
    each attendee to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the
    seminar. This tailored approach to the TRS will greatly reduce
    information overload and target the individual circumstances and needs
    of the marine.
        Question. Many marines find it difficult to translate what they
    have done in their military occupations to civilian workforce, what is
    DON doing to ensure the skills our troops have developed while in the
    Marine Corps can be applied to civilian workforce?
        Answer. The Verification of Military Experience and Training
    (VMET), DD form 2586, document is an overview of a marine's military
    career. The military experience and training listed on the VMET is
    verified as official. The purpose of the VMET document is to help
    marines create a resume and complete job applications. In addition,
    they can elect to show the VMET document to potential employers,
    employment/government agencies or to educational institutions. In some
    cases, it can be used to support the awarding of training or academic
    credit. Along with VMET document, marines can use DD Form 214s,
    performance and evaluation reports, training certificates, military and
    civilian transcripts, diplomas, certification, and other available
    documentation to achieve the best results in these endeavors. Military
    Occupation Specialty (MOS) Crosswalk is an activity that is conducted
    in our revised Transition Readiness Seminars (TRS).
        The marine will be trained to use their VMET document to do a gap
    analysis between their work experience, education, available jobs and
    Labor Market Information in order to help marines choose the
    appropriate pathway:
      --university/college education;
      --vocational/technical training;
      --employment; or
      --entrepreneurship.
        We teach these online tools in our TRS:
      --O*NET Online (Department of Labor):
        --Find occupations;
        --Apprenticeship programs; and
        --MOS Crosswalk.
      --My Next Move for Vets (Department of Labor):
        --Military Skills translator;
        --Bright outlook jobs (high growth jobs over the next 5 years);
        --Green jobs; and
        --Department of Labor-registered apprenticeship programs.
      --Hire 2 Hero (Department of Defense):
        --Job search, military occupational codes military skills
                translator; and
        --Can submit resumes online to employers.
      --VetSuccess (Department of Veterans Affairs):
        --Military skills translators; and
        --Can view and apply for jobs by geographic locations.
      --Career One Stop (Department of Labor):
        --Explore careers;
        --Job searches;
        --Resumes and interviews; and
        --Salary and benefits.
        Question. Is the Marine Corps partnering with the private sector to
    assist in the transition to civilian life?
        Answer. The purpose of the Marine for Life program is to develop
    and maintain a network of marine-friendly employers, organizations, and
    individuals in order to provide all marines with a reach back
    capability and ongoing support in finding employment, pursuing
    educational opportunities and realizing life goals. These partnerships
    currently encompass more than 1,300 employers nationwide with a
    demonstrated interest in employing marines as they leave active duty.
    In addition, Marine for Life works closely with national level,
    nonprofit organizations including the Marine Corps League, the Marine
    Corps Executive Association, and the American Legion in leveraging
    their members to assist transitioning marines with employment,
    educational goals, and relocation.
                            f-35 test and evaluation
        Question. A Pentagon study on the F-35 recently reported that the
    aircraft had completed only a small percent of its developmental test
    and evaluation program. The report listed problems with the program
    including the inability to land on an aircraft carrier. The Congress,
    in the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act in 2009, established in
    title 10, a stronger developmental test and evaluation office inside
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to provide better
    oversight to correct deficiencies on new systems before they enter
    operational test and evaluation.
        Does OSD provide DON with the proper levels of resources and
    authority to be effective in its mission to correct deficiencies on new
    systems before they enter operational test and evaluation?
        Answer. In general, DON has adequate resources and authority to
    ensure known deficiencies are identified and corrected prior to a
    system entering operational test and evaluation.
        With regard to F-35, since the 2010 Nunn-McCurdy breach (and the
    resulting Technical Baseline Review), the program has undergone
    significant reorganization and has been appropriately resourced to
    address future deficiencies. As part of the program reorganization,
    test, and evaluation (T&E) processes have now been better integrated
    with operational test (OT) involvement. Resource requirements are being
    further refined to support updated requirements that will be defined in
    a new F-35 Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP/Rev. 4). This TEMP
    revision is currently being drafted and due to be signed in early
    fiscal year 2013. Additionally, a Joint Operational Test Team (JOTT)
    has been established and is actively involved with identifying
    deficiencies of the F-35 weapon system on an on-going basis. The JOTT
    does this through the conduct of Operational Assessments, as well as
    via an integrated test process now in place, to provide continuous
    feedback to the Program Executive Officer for the Joint Strike Fighter
    (PEO(JSF)) and the warfighter/acquisition communities. PEO(JSF) is
    directly involved in Ready-to-Test processes which culminates in an
    Operational Test Readiness Review prior to test. All deficiencies and
    the maturity of corrective action will be assessed as key criteria for
    OT readiness to enter test. As the F-35 program further matures, and OT
    begins to receive aircraft, it is expected that all of these processes
    will continue to improve resulting in even a better understanding of
    the F-35 Weapon System and insights to the PEO and the Department's
    test community oversight activities.
        Question. How can OSD provide better oversight and guidance as DON
    develops new weapon systems?
        Answer. Current OSD oversight and guidance is adequate for DON to
    develop new weapon systems. On-going OSD efforts to gain efficiencies
    in application of existing guidance should be continued.
        With regard to F-35, OSD has been directly involved at all phases
    of T&E planning. Specifically, Defense Operational Test and Evaluation
    (DOT&E) leadership and action officers (or their designated
    representatives) are present at all meetings and actively
    participating. In the recent years there has been an increased presence
    of design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) representatives at
    all key test and evaluation meetings as well.
        Question. Do you believe prime contractors have assumed too much
    responsibility for the execution of developmental test and evaluation
    on large weapons systems?
        Answer. The responsibility for developmental test is assigned, not
    assumed, and the level of developmental test conducted by the prime
    contractor is determined by the program manager and the Component
    Acquisition Executive as the developmental test strategy is formulated
    to ensure the system under development is adequately engineered and
    tested to meet the requirements set out by DON. This strategy is vetted
    with appropriate stakeholders and overseen by the Deputy Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Development Test and Evaluation (DASD(DT&E)).
        In the case of the F-35 program, the prime contractor was assigned
    responsibility for the execution of DT&E. Due to the misapplication of
    Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) authority, there was
    inadequate communication from the prime contractor about interim
    capabilities and interim performance of the overall air-system--which
    led to systems engineering solutions that differed from the intended
    requirements and sometimes falling short of the Services original
    desires. For DON, Aviation Developmental Test (DT) is robust and has a
    well established community of interest. A more tightly integrated
    testing strategy with Government DT and Operational Test Authority
    (OTA) involvement earlier in the program might have better served in
    sustaining the original service requirements. These processes are now
    in-place today and PEO(JSF) and the Prime Contractor (Lockheed-Martin)
    are actively responding to government OTA inputs and guidance.
        Question. How does the fiscal year 2013 DON budget provide for the
    right balance between Government oversight on testing and contractor
    execution of acquisition programs?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2013 DON budget provides a balanced mix
    between contractor and Government in the T&E workforce. We utilize
    Government personnel to conduct inherently governmental oversight
    functions and contractor personnel in technical support and surge
    roles. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes all the necessary funding,
    both contractor and Government, for the approved test strategies that
    have been developed by program managers and approved by leadership for
    their respective programs.
        For F-35, there is an integrated test force of Government and
    contractor personnel and operational test is adequately resourced to
    support all planned T&E program activities. As the U.S. Air Force
    Operational Test and Evaluation Command (AFOTEC) is the lead test
    organization, DON is using AFOTEC processes to conduct OT. Future F-35
    resources requirements are subject to formal review and approval by DON
    leadership and are currently being refined to ensure OT's active
    participation through the entire F-35 Initial Operational Test and
    Evaluation program. Operational test personnel are also funded to
    participate in DT activities to provide insights and understanding of
    accomplishments during developmental test and to allow them to
    leverage, rather than repeat, DT tests.
                      ultra high frequency satellite fleet
        Question. The existing satellite fleet providing ultra high
    frequency (UHF) capacity for U.S. Government agencies is nearing the
    end of its lifespan. The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellite
    program will ultimately replace the existing satellite fleet by 2015.
    However, the initial MUOS satellite orbits are not projected to cover
    North and Latin America which creates a capability gap, especially if
    one the aging satellites fail. Furthermore, apparently an existing UHF
    capacity exists today, industry experts claim that only 10 percent to
    20 percent of requests are filled.
        What is the status of the MUOS-1 advance waveform terminal program;
    to include:
      --when the terminals will be available for global deployment;
      --how long the U.S. military will need to rely on legacy UHF
            satellite services; and
      --what are the intentions of our allies and partners regarding
            adopting the advanced waveform or is there a security issue
            associated with their use of this new platform?
        Answer. The Joint Tactical Radio System Network Enterprise Domain
    (JTRS NED) program office is projecting Formal Qualification Testing
    (FQT) of the MUOS Waveform v3.1 (a.k.a. Red/Black Waveform) in August
    2012, which would enable it to be ported to the JTRS Handheld, Manpack,
    Small Form Fit (HMS) Manpack radio by February 2013. This would mean
    that an operationally representative user terminal would be available
    in time for the MUOS Developmental Testing (DT)/Operational Testing
    (OT) period in early fiscal year 2014.
        Navy intends to buy 202 JTRS HMS Manpack radios across the FYDP,
    including 50 radios in fiscal year 2013 to support MUOS testing, as
    part of an inventory objective of approximately 450.
        Statistical reliability analysis conducted by the Navy has shown
    that the MUOS satellite launch schedule anticipated by the Navy (actual
    launch dates will be set by the Air Force Current Launch Schedule
    Review Board) will meet or exceed the legacy UHF satellite
    communications (SATCOM) requirements set by the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council (JROC) through 2018. The new MUOS Wideband Code
    Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) capability will be operationalized
    with the launch and completion of on-orbit testing of the MUOS-2
    satellite, projected in the late calendar year 2013, and will reach
    full operational capability by the end of 2016, at which time the JROC
    mandated requirement for legacy UHF SATCOM is retired. Legacy
    capability will continue to be maintained beyond 2018, although at
    lower capacity levels, to allow time for remaining users to transition
    to the new WCDMA capability.
        The National Security Agency (NSA) currently restricts the MUOS
    WCDMA waveform from being released outside of the United States
    Government.
        Question. What is the status of the Navy's UHF satellite fleet;
    include data on how many, in percentage terms, are within 12 months of
    their nominal design life?
        Answer. Seventy-five percent of the eight UHF follow-on (UFO)
    satellites currently on orbit are at or beyond their 14-year design
    life. The remaining two have been on orbit for 12.3 and 8.3 years,
    respectively. The Navy's UHF satellite fleet (eight UFO satellites and
    two fleet satellites), with the help of actions taken by the Navy to
    mitigate unplanned losses of UHF communications satellites, the launch
    of the MUOS-1 legacy payload, and the projected launches of MUOS-2
    through MUOS-5, are projected to meet the Legacy UHF SATCOM requirement
    through 2018. Legacy capability will be maintained beyond 2018 to
    continue to facilitate the shift of remaining users to the WCDMA
    capability and support coalition operations but not at the currently
    required capacity.
        Question. Even with the launch of MUOS-1, what is the risk that
    current UHF satellites will fail? What would be the training and
    mission impact if UHF satellites fail?
        Answer. As noted above, statistical reliability analysis conducted
    by the Navy has shown that the launch schedule anticipated by the Navy
    for MUOS satellites (actual dates will be set by the Air Force Current
    Launch Schedule Review Board) will maintain the legacy UHF SATCOM
    requirements set by the JROC through 2018.
        In an effort to reduce the risk of an unplanned loss of a UHF
    satellite to acceptable levels, the Navy has aggressively implemented
    several mitigation activities to extend the service life of the
    existing constellation and increase on-orbit capacity. As a result, the
    current legacy UHF SATCOM capacity provides the warfighter with
    approximately 459 more accesses (111 more channels) worldwide than
    required by the stated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS)
    capacity requirement. This additional capacity is equivalent to three
    UFO satellites, provides a buffer against unplanned losses in the
    future, and minimizes the training and mission impact to a manageable
    level.
        Question. The U.S. Government made the decision in 2010 to partner
    with the Australians on a commercially provided, UHF hosted payload in
    the Indian Ocean region. Now that the private sector intends to launch
    an identical payload into the Atlantic Ocean region, what are the
    United States and Allied plans to take advantage of this capability?
        Answer. DOD partnered with the Australian Minister of Defense (not
    the commercial provider) for access to 250 kHz of UHF Narrowband SATCOM
    on a commercial satellite payload that Australia is leasing over the
    Indian Ocean Region from 2012 to 2027. In exchange, the United States
    will provide the Australians access to 200 kHz of spectrum over the
    Pacific and 50kHz of spectrum globally from 2018-2033. DOD has
    additional commercial UHF SATCOM capacity through leases the Navy has
    procured on Leased Satellite (LEASAT) 5 and Skynet 5C and an agreement
    with the Italian Government for access to a UHF SATCOM channel on
    Sistema Italiano per Comunicazioni Riservate ed Allarmi (SICRAL) 1B.
        As noted in preceding questions, the Navy is maximizing technical
    and fiduciary efficiencies through a combination of the implemented gap
    mitigation actions, commercial leases, international partnerships, and
    the MUOS legacy payloads, to ensure the warfighter has access to legacy
    UHF SATCOM capacity that meets the CJCS requirements and provides a
    buffer against unplanned losses. Since all DOD requirements for UHF
    SATCOM capacity are currently projected to be met over the Atlantic
    Ocean region through 2018, DOD is not planning to take advantage of
    this commercially provided UHF hosted payload in the Atlantic Ocean
    region or any additional commercial UHF SATCOM capacity at this time.
        The Navy will continue to monitor the health of the current UHF
    SATCOM constellation for any signs that it is degrading more rapidly
    than currently projected. If it appears the level of legacy UHF SATCOM
    service will fall below CJCS requirements, the Navy will revisit all
    options, including commercial leases and hosted payloads, to maintain
    the current level of legacy service to the warfighter until the
    transition to the MUOS WCDMA capability is complete.
        Additional details are available in the Report to the Senate Armed
    Services Committee on ``Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Satellite
    Communications (SATCOM) Requirements and Options for Additional
    Capacity'' signed on March 19, 2012, by the Assistant Secretary of the
    Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition in response to the
    fiscal year 2012 Senate Armed Service Committee Report 112-26.
        Question. How does the fiscal year 2013 DON budget provide for
    increased demand for UHF SATCOM both in the field and during training?
    Does the Navy have a multitiered approach towards ensuring the U.S.
    military has adequate UHF satellite access? If so, what is that
    approach?
        Answer. Current and future DOD Narrowband SATCOM requirements will
    be met by the MUOS program through 2026. CJCS sets requirements for
    Narrowband MILSATCOM for all DOD users based on warfighter needs and
    the Navy fills those as the DOD Acquisition Agent for Narrowband
    SATCOM. The current CJCS requirements are captured in the MUOS
    Capabilities Production Document dated January 15, 2008, and the MUOS
    program is on track to meet all key performance parameters given in
    that document. Increased capacity requirements, combined with inherent
    limitations of the military UHF SATCOM spectrum, drive the need to move
    beyond legacy UHF waveforms found in current military and commercial
    UHF SATCOM systems to the new WCDMA capability found in MUOS. Finally,
    instead of a multitiered approach, MUOS reliability and availability
    requirements are met by launching a fifth MUOS satellite as an on-orbit
    spare.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                         lha 8 amphibious assault ship
        Question. Secretary Mabus, Senate Report 112-77 which accompanied
    the Senate's version of the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year
    2012 included language about building the LHA 8 Amphibious Assault Ship
    in the most cost-effective manner. Specifically, the subcommittee
    directed the Navy ``to fully fund advance planning and design of LHA 8
    and work with industry to identify affordability and producibility
    strategies that will lead to more efficient construction of a large
    deck amphibious assault ship to best meet combatant commander needs''.
    Can you please provide the subcommittee details on efforts being
    undertaken by the Department of the Navy (DON) to comply with this
    direction?
        Answer. The Navy intends to engage industry via two Early Industry
    Involvement contracts that are focused on affordability and
    producibility. The goal is to have these contracts in place by the end
    of the calendar year. The contracts will utilize technical instructions
    (tasks) to focus industry involvement on areas that have the potential
    to reduce acquisition and life-cycle costs. These tasks will range from
    assessing select technologies for their potential to be integrated into
    the ship, such as Flexible Compartment Infrastructure, to more
    production-friendly design requirements and arrangements, to evaluating
    alternative C5I acquisition strategies. An Industry Day will be held
    prior to the release of the Early Industry Involvement contracts to
    ensure potential industry partners completely understand our
    expectations for their assistance in reducing the cost of LHA(R) Flight
    1 ships.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                                     ddg-51
        Question. Last year, your strategy to introduce competition into
    the DDG-51 program earlier than planned reaped significant savings for
    the taxpayer, and I applaud you for that effort. In addition, the Navy
    estimates that it could save up to $1.5 billion by exercising multiyear
    procurement authority for the DDG-51 program during the next 5 years
    for a nine ship buy over that period. I appreciated your description
    during the hearing of how the multiyear procurement authority pending
    before the Congress would result in savings for the DDG-51 program
    during the next 5 years.
        As I have stated in the past--based upon the Navy's own
    requirements and the fragility of the industrial base--we need to
    sustain an absolute minimum procurement rate of two large surface
    combatants per year. However, you did not comment specifically on the
    Navy's interest in procuring an additional DDG-51 in the multiyear
    procurement if the Navy was provided authority to reinvest unexpected
    savings from previous DDG-51 competitions or future competitions. I
    would like to provide you an opportunity to clarify your view regarding
    this matter. If the Navy were to take advantage of savings from
    previous DDG competitions and to realize savings above those projected
    for the upcoming multiyear procurement, would adding an additional
    destroyer as part of the multiyear procurement be at or near the top of
    your priority list?
        Answer. Thank you for your strong support of our Navy and
    especially our shipbuilding industry. As we build the future fleet, we
    continually strive to maximize competition which will result in savings
    that can be applied to purchasing additional ships.
        In evaluating the merits of a multiyear contract for the fiscal
    year 2013 through fiscal year 2017 DDG-51s, the Navy projected $1.5
    billion in savings for nine ships across that time period. The
    President's budget request has leveraged these savings in the
    procurement of the nine ships. As you pointed out in your letter, the
    Navy has achieved significant savings in previous competitions on the
    DDG-51 program. There are savings in the DDG-51 budget line in prior
    years. These savings alone are not adequate to procure an additional
    DDG-51 as part of the multiyear.
        However, if the Navy had the authority to reinvest savings from
    previous destroyer competitions and were to achieve savings beyond what
    was projected on this upcoming competition, the Navy would certainly
    like to take advantage of the opportunity to procure an additional ship
    in the fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017 DDG-51 Multiyear
    Procurement Program. In order to provide maximum flexibility, the Navy
    intends to request pricing for nine or ten ships in the solicitation.
    The Navy believes that this is the most affordable path to meet our
    surface combatant requirements while also addressing industrial base
    concerns.
        The Navy looks forward to working with the Congress to maximize the
    numbers of ships that we buy under these competitive multiyear
    contracts. Again, thank you for your continued support for Navy
    shipbuilding.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                               energy initiatives
        Question. Each of our armed services is a significant consumer of
    energy and each is leading in its own way in addressing the challenges
    of diminished fossil fuel supplies and increased costs. How is the Navy
    leading in its efforts to diversify its fuel sources?
        Answer. Because of the imperative for energy and national security,
    the Department of the Navy (DON) believes the United States must reduce
    its dependence on foreign oil. DON is making investments in the
    American biofuels industry because this is vital to our operations and,
    therefore, the security of the Nation. Currently, the Department of
    Agriculture, Department of Energy, and DON have entered into a
    Memorandum of Understanding for this Alternative Fuels Initiative that
    will be using the Defense Production Act title III authority. The three
    agencies are expecting to contribute $170 million each to the effort--
    $510 million total. There is a minimum requirement that industry
    provides a 1-to-1 cost share, resulting in a total investment of no
    less than $1 billion.
        With the total investment, DON anticipates that 3-5 integrated
    biorefineries could be constructed through new builds and retrofits.
    This investment, combined with a strong demand signal for alternative
    fuels from the military and commercial aviation, will be the impetus
    necessary to sustain the overall alternative fuels industry sector.
        The Navy has nearly completed the test and certification process
    for hydrotreated renewable (HR) fuels and is moving on to evaluate
    drop-in alternative fuel products from additional production pathways,
    such as alcohol-to-jet and pyrolysis. Navy plans to have HR fuel in the
    fuel specification by the end of fiscal year 2012.
        In July 2012, the U.S. Navy will be demonstrating its Green Strike
    Group, which is a carrier strike group comprised of a carrier, two
    destroyers, and a cruiser, all operating on alternative fuels. The
    destroyers, cruiser, and the airwing on the carrier will be using a 50/
    50 blend of fossil fuel and biofuel. This demonstration will be a part
    of the Rim of the Pacific exercise off the coast of Hawaii. In 2016, we
    plan to deploy this Great Green Fleet overseas. These aggressive
    efforts are a major part of the Secretary of the Navy's broader energy
    goals.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
                       next generation enterprise network
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand that the Navy is weeks if not
    days away from issuing the request for proposal (RFP) for its Next
    Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN)--a highly complex information
    technology (IT) program that involves transitioning the Navy's largest
    and most secure network to a new contract. The Navy's acquisition
    strategy for NGEN has been much maligned. In addition to frequent
    criticism of the pass/fail technical requirements/lowest price
    selection from acquisition authorities, the U.S. Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) issued its 2012 annual report on
    ``Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation,
    Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue'' strongly suggest that NGEN
    should receive further scrutiny.
        How can you convince us that the current course on NGEN will be the
    best approach for the Navy and for the taxpayer? Is there value in
    considering a more straightforward recompete of your current services
    contract cost/performance trade-off since it apparently meets your
    needs, and should be well understood by those who will be evaluating
    proposals? If this lower-risk alternative is not being considered, why?
        Answer. NGEN is a continuation of the Navy Marine Corps Intranet
    (NMCI) 2010 under the Continuity of Services Contract (CoSC). The
    current strategy is to competitively select either one or two vendors
    for the two main segments of the network (Transport and Enterprise
    Services) using a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source
    selection; a best value determination in accordance with Federal
    Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-2. This approach for NGEN has
    been endorsed as appropriate at the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    (OSD) level via a robust oversight process that included multiple
    Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT), OSD Peer and Milestone
    Decision Authority (MDA) reviews. LPTA is considered appropriate when
    the requirement is well-defined, price control is paramount, and the
    risk of nonperformance is low. The performance requirement for NGEN is
    NMCI as it performed on September 30, 2010. It is well understood. As
    the network operates today, there is no development under NGEN. The
    major changes in requirements are for increased Government Command and
    Control (C2), enhanced Information Assurance (IA) and Government
    ownership of the network infrastructure; there are no significant
    changes in the technology required or how the contractor executes the
    contract. Furthermore, the technologies integral to NGEN are widely
    used Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) technologies. Finally, the
    Department of the Navy (DON) has determined that there are no clear
    discriminators for which the Government would be willing to pay more,
    and, given that there are several companies that are capable of
    delivering this service in accordance with the DON's requirements,
    price was determined to be the overriding factor.
        While a straight-forward recompete would continue to provide the
    required level of service, it would not give the DON the needed insight
    into the elements that make up an enterprise network. Under NGEN, the
    38 services to be delivered are individually priced and available to be
    recompeted separately or collectively as part of a FAR Part 15
    contract; different from CoSC which was a FAR Part 12 contract that did
    not give insight into pricing or allow for severability of services or
    segments. This construct enables evolutions like the Joint Information
    Environment, enterprise email, Data Center Consolidation and other
    Department of Defense-level efficiencies without the burden of
    recompeting the entire enterprise contract. Increased competition will
    drive future innovation and price reduction without sacrificing
    performance or security of the DON's network.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted to Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                   electromagnetic aircraft launching system
        Question. Among the revolutionary changes in the USS Gerald R.
    Ford-class aircraft carrier is a new electromagnetic aircraft launching
    system (EMALS). The Navy continues to test a variety of aircraft on the
    system, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The question is
    whether that technology will be ready in time, in order to avoid either
    costly delays to the program--or an even more costly redesign of the
    first ship of class.
        What is the status of EMALS development and testing?
        Answer. EMALS continues to meet its development and test
    objectives. To date, the system has successfully completed 134 aircraft
    launches (including F/A-18E clean and with stores, C-2A, T-45C, E-2D,
    and F-35C) and more than 1,800 operationally representative deadload
    launches. Concurrent environmental qualification testing, including
    extensive aircraft, weapons, and personnel electromagnetic
    compatibility testing at the component and system level, have
    demonstrated EMALS suitability for use.
        All deliveries to date of CVN 78 shipboard EMALS hardware have met
    ship construction need dates. All future EMALS component deliveries are
    likewise projected to meet shipyard need dates.
        Question. Considering the criticality of this new technology, is
    the Navy considering building a second test facility at Naval Air
    Station Patuxent River to ensure the Navy has built in redundancy so
    that the USS Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier delivers on
    schedule?
        Answer. The Navy has no plans to build a second test facility at
    the Naval Air Station Patuxent River in support of the Ford-class
    aircraft carrier program.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                         shipbuilding production rates
        Question. Admiral Greenert, the new Strategic Guidance for the
    Department of Defense highlights the importance of Nation's maritime
    presence and calls for increasing our posture in the Pacific. However,
    when compared to the last budget submission, this request reduces ship
    procurement from 57 to 41 ships. Admiral, if the Navy had additional
    resources in fiscal year 2013 or 2014, what ships would the Navy
    procure?
        Answer. If appropriate fiscal resources were available in fiscal
    year 2013 and/or 2014 the Navy would likely allocate more funding to
    shipbuilding. The first priority would be restoring the attack
    submarine (SSN) removed from fiscal year 2014 in our budget submission.
    There will be a significant shortfall in ``SSN-years'' in the 2020s
    that can be best addressed by sustained submarine procurement. Our
    second priority would be restoring a destroyer (DDG) removed from
    fiscal year 2014 in our budget submission. A shortfall of DDGs will
    develop late in the 2020s that can be best addressed by sustained DDG
    procurement. Both of these actions would require advance procurement
    (AP) funding in fiscal year 2013; further, these changes would also
    contribute immensely to a more stable industrial base.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                       joint pacific alaska range complex
        Question. One of the contributions to our national security that
    Alaska is proudest of is the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex
    (JPARC). Alaskan Command reminds me that it is a unique national asset
    because it is in every respect a joint range. The Navy participates in
    exercises on the JPARC from platforms in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). How
    does the Navy's participation in exercises utilizing the JPARC add
    value from a national security standpoint?
        Answer. Since the 1990s, the Navy has participated in major joint
    exercises in the GOA involving each of the services in the Department
    of Defense and the Coast Guard. Participants report to a unified or
    joint commander who coordinates the activities of the forces. Services
    are able to demonstrate and be evaluated on their ability to
    participate in a joint force in simulated conflict and carryout plans
    in response to a national security threat.
        Given the unique training environment provided by the JPARC, the
    range contributes to Navy readiness by:
      --Supporting U.S. Pacific Command training requirements.
      --Supporting Joint Task Force Commander training requirements.
      --Providing realistic, expansive areas to replicate actual
            operations.
                                    biofuels
        Question. I wonder if you might address the Navy's interest in
    biofuels. Has the Navy determined that the benefits of biofuels
    (potential decreased price volatility, diversified suppliers)
    outweighed the costs (research and development investment, uncertain
    future price of biofuels)?
        Answer. Our alternative fuel initiative is an important investment
    for the Navy. It addresses a core concern of our national strategic and
    military operational need for energy security and energy independence.
    Investing in sustainable future technologies is critical to Navy's
    ability to remain the world's premier maritime force.
        Navy is pursuing multiple paths to achieve a future less dependent
    on petroleum and the fiscal effects of rising energy costs. The current
    price volatility of oil increases the complexity of adequately funding
    our global operations. Already in this fiscal year, unanticipated fuel
    price increases have caused our operations accounts to become
    underfunded by approximately $900 million. To technologically hedge
    these execution year risks, the Navy will spend nearly $16 million on
    laboratory capabilities to examine, test, and certify alternative
    fuels. This expenditure positions us to validate the safe use of a wide
    variety of drop-in replacement fuels in the future. Although the Navy
    must pay a premium price to obtain biofuel for research and
    development, as well as for test and certification purposes, the Navy
    cannot and will not purchase alternative fuels for operations unless
    the price is competitive with conventional fossil fuels.
        Question. How has this comparison been done between biofuels and
    the traditional fossil fuels?
        Answer. There are a number of studies that state the case that
    biofuels will be cost competitive as early as the 2018-2025 timeframe
    without Government investment. A large majority of alternative energy
    firms also believe that the infusion of capital (from Defense
    Production Act title III or other investment sources) will measurably
    speed up the timeline.
        Question. How can a robust biofuel industry domestically change
    that balance?
        Answer. With a strong demand signal from the military and
    commercial aviation, there could be enough pull to entice more
    companies to enter this market. From the supply side, there are many
    feedstocks, numerous pathways, and multiple processes being identified
    for use in the alternative fuel industry. No single solution alone will
    reduce our reliance on foreign sources of liquid fuel. With many
    domestic biofuel companies in the market taking advantage of continued
    research, the costs for biofuels will eventually be competitive with
    conventional sources of petroleum.
        Question. I understand that the Navy is quite interested in hybrid
    power and other fuel conservation efforts. Can you elaborate some on
    these efforts?
        Answer. Navy is very interested in energy-efficiency efforts both
    afloat and ashore. It is the ``first fuel'' because what we don't
    consume or use directly enhances Navy's combat capability by extending
    the range and on-station time, in the air, on the water, or over land.
    The logistics tether of resupply has been exploited by the likes of al
    Qaeda in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is also a vulnerability at
    sea. By reducing fuel consumption for ships and aircraft, Navy reduces
    its reliance on a vulnerable logistics chain and improves its agility
    to meet the mission.
        Initiatives range from simple lighting changes that are more energy
    efficient and last much longer than fluorescent bulbs to more efficient
    engines and a hybrid electric drive (HED) that drastically reduces fuel
    consumption for DDG-51. Below are some examples of energy initiatives
    that Navy is implementing in fiscal year 2013.
      --A HED is in development for use in the DDG-51. The proof of concept
            is scheduled to be installed in fiscal year 2013.
      --The Navy replaced the steam boilers on USS Makin Island (LHD 8)
            with gas turbines and an Auxiliary Propulsion System or HED.
            This propulsion system saved approximately $2 million in fuel
            cost during her transit from Pascagoula, Mississippi to San
            Diego, California. Over the ship's lifetime the Navy expects to
            save more than $250 million. This system will be installed on
            the LHA 6 class ships.
      --Installation of ship-wide, energy consumption monitoring systems
            that compute the power usage and operating conditions of
            energy-consuming systems on the ship and display this
            information for leadership. Estimated efficiency gain is 2,179
            Bbls/ship/yr.
      --Replacement of fluorescent and incandescent lamps aboard DDG-51,
            CG-47, LSD 41/49, and LHD 1 class ships with more efficient
            solid-state lighting. Estimated efficiency gain is 100-500
            Bbls/ship/yr.
      --Development and installation of stern flaps on LHD 1 and LSD 41/49
            class ships for improved hydrodynamics as demonstrated on USS
            Kearsage (LHD 3). The USS Kearsage will have an annual fuel
            reduction of 6,241 Bbls/yr. Overall estimated efficiency gain
            is 4,000-5,000 Bbls/ship/yr through the LHD 1 and LSD 41/49
            classes.
      --Replacement of obsolete fuel-air mixture monitors for main
            propulsion boilers on LHA 1 and LHD 1 class ships with a new
            automated system to control the fuel air mixture to increase
            efficiency. Estimated efficiency gain of >3,000 Bbls/ship/yr.
        Intelligent Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning and Refrigerating
    (HVAC&R): HVAC&R plants on Military Sealift Command T-AKE ships consume
    approximately 36 percent of the total ship's power generated and lack
    the ability to be optimized to variable demands. Modifications to
    improve efficiency will increase HVAC&R systems efficiency by 30-40
    percent which translates into more than 4,000 Bbls/ship/yr.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted to General James F. Amos
                 Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                           amphibious combat vehicle
        Question. General Amos, the amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) is a
    part of the Marine Corps integrated and complementary portfolio of
    combat vehicles critical to the future expeditionary Marine Air Ground
    Task Force Operation. Last year, the Marine Corps terminated the
    expeditionary fighting vehicle because it was too expensive. Since then
    you have stated the need to deliver the ACV within 4 years as well as
    be more affordable and sustainable. What measures are being taken to
    ensure this vehicle meets the cost and schedule goals set forth?
        Answer. The Marine Corps acquisition and requirements communities
    are working side-by-side to ensure that capabilities and requirements
    for the ACV are developed with an understanding of the costs associated
    with each. We have conducted upfront systems trade studies to drive
    technically feasible and affordable requirements decisions. We have
    conducted an extensive Systems Engineering Operational Planning Team
    that evaluated various system concepts to better define capability
    versus affordability trade space. As part of the ongoing analysis of
    alternatives we will conduct an affordability analysis to ensure the
    selected system meets life-cycle affordability targets. All of these
    efforts will ensure that cost goals are met, and if feasible and
    affordable, will deliver a prototype capability in 4 years.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                       marine corps cold weather training
        Question. The Army takes great pride in the fact that Alaska's
    training grounds produce ``Arctic tough'' soldiers. In fact the Web
    site of the Army's Northern Warfare Training Center at Fort Wainwright
    displays this inspirational message, ``A Soldier trained in winter is
    also a good summer fighter; trained only in summer he is helpless in
    the winter!'' This is something we've not discussed with the Corps
    before. I'm wondering how the Marine Corps trains to operate in cold
    climates and whether Alaska's ranges and training grounds might offer
    some value to the Corps.
        Answer. The Marine Corps trains to operate in cold weather and
    alpine environments in medium to high-altitude aboard the Marine Corps
    Mountain Warfare Training Center (MCMWTC) in Bridgeport, California.
                                    mission
        MCMWTC conducts unit and individual training courses to prepare
    Marine Corps, Joint, and Allied Forces for operations in mountainous,
    high-altitude and cold weather environments; and the development of
    warfighting doctrine and specialized equipment for use in mountain and
    cold weather operations.
                             history and background
        MCMWTC is one of the Corps' most remote and isolated posts. The
    Center was established in 1951 with the mission of providing cold
    weather training for replacement personnel bound for Korea. After the
    Korean conflict the name was changed to the Marine Corps Cold Weather
    Training Center. As a result of its expanded role it was renamed the
    Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in 1963.
        The Center occupies 52,000 acres in the summer and 62,000 acres in
    the winter of Toiyabe National Forest under management of the U.S.
    Forest Service (USFS). A letter of agreement between USFS and the
    Marine Corps permits the use of the area to train marines in mountain
    and cold weather operations.
        The Center is sited at 6,762 feet, with elevations in the training
    areas ranging to just under 12,000 feet. During the winter season
    (October-April) snow accumulation can reach 6 to 8 feet. Of note,
    severe storms can deposit as much as 4 feet in a 12-hour period. Annual
    temperatures range from -20 degrees to +90 degrees Fahrenheit.
        Marines at the Center are also involved in testing cold weather
    equipment and clothing, and developing doctrine and concepts to enhance
    our Corp's ability to fight and win in mountain and cold weather
    environments.
                                 unit training
        The premier training evolution aboard MCMWTC is a 35-day exercise
    called Mountain Exercise (MTNEX). The Center trains an infantry
    battalion and its attachments and enablers from across the Department
    of Defense (DOD). MCMWTC averages six MTNEXs per year with two being
    conducted in the winter and four conducted in the summer. A MTNEX
    trains elements of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) across the
    warfighting functions for operations in complex, compartmentalized, and
    mountainous terrain utilizing military mountaineering skills in order
    to enhance a unit's ability to shoot, move, communicate, sustain, and
    survive in mountainous regions of the world.
        The winter MTNEX focuses on over the snow mobility by way of
    instructing a battalion on survival ski techniques, snowshoe
    application, short- to long-range movements via both methods, survival/
    field skills, and sustained operations in a cold weather environment.
    The winter and summer training conducted at the MCMWTC is designed to
    provide individuals and units the requisite technical skills to gain a
    tactical advantage. Survival in extreme cold temperatures, maneuvering
    long distances in snowshoes or skis to defeat an enemy force, and using
    rope systems and climbing techniques, all of which allow a maneuver
    commander to achieve surprise through unsuspected routes and to
    maintain the initiative in complex, compartmentalized, mountainous
    terrain.
                              individual training
    Winter Mountain Leaders Course
        The Winter Mountain Leaders course is designed to train marines to
    become subject-matter experts to a high degree in cold weather
    operations on ice and snow covered terrain. The mountain operations
    cold weather skills will enable enhanced movement, control of fires,
    intelligence gathering, sustainment, and force protection in complex
    snow and ice-covered terrain that is inaccessible to untrained marines.
        Students are taught avalanche awareness, over the snow mobility to
    Military Skier level, survivability, bivouac routine, mountain patrol
    techniques, tactical considerations, weapons employment, fire support
    considerations, the necessary skills to plan, organize, and lead
    mountain/cold weather operations; to act as Scout Skier element leaders
    on ridgeline flank security, picketing and recon patrols; to train
    their units for mountain/cold weather operations; and advise MAGTF or
    MAGTF element commanders and staffs.
    Mountain Scout Sniper Course
        The purpose of this course is to train Scout Snipers to be
    tactically and technically proficient in a mountainous environment.
    This course includes instruction in advanced marksmanship at high
    angles with the M40A3 sniper rifle, M82A3 Special Application Scoped
    Rifle (SASR), M16A2 service rifle, and combat marksmanship with the M9
    service pistol. Instruction in high angle marksmanship includes range
    estimation, determining slope angle and flat line distance, effects of
    vertical and angular distortion, effects of elevation, and effects of
    extreme weather. Instruction in field craft includes stalking and
    concealment techniques in a mountain environment, man tracking,
    counter-tracking, over snow mobility, mountain communications, and
    mountain survival. Tactical instruction includes employment
    considerations for scout snipers in a mountainous environment, detailed
    mission planning, preparation and conduct of patrolling, and collecting
    and reporting information.
    Cold Weather Medicine
        The purpose of this course is to give operating forces medical
    personnel the knowledge needed to support their units in a cold
    weather, mountainous environment. This course of instruction is
    designed to bring the students to a high standard of tactical and
    medical proficiency peculiar to a cold weather environment. The course
    subjects cover movement, survival, bivouac routine, leadership,
    diagnosing, treating, and preventing high altitude, cold-weather-
    related illness and injuries, and techniques of transporting casualties
    in a snow covered mountainous environment.
    Mountain Command, Control, Communications Course
        This course is designed to train communicators in the employment of
    communications assets in a cold weather/mountainous environment. It
    also covers communications planning for command posts and disaggregated
    units in highly complex, compartmentalized terrain. Additionally,
    graduates can be used by their parent units to train more marines in
    basic principles of mountain communications. Instruction is provided in
    wave theory and propagation, field expedient antennas, and re-
    transmission operations, advantages/disadvantages of varied radio
    equipment, planning for coverage through the use of all communication
    assets available and speed.
    Mountain Operations Staff Planners Course
        This course is designed to provide staff officers and staff
    noncommissioned officers academic instruction and field application in
    planning, conducting, and supporting combat operations in complex,
    compartmentalized, mountainous terrain. MWTC staff sections provide
    additional in-depth instruction relating to all aspects of operations
    and support functions in mountain warfare. Historical case studies and
    guest speakers play a key role in highlighting numerous lessons
    learned. Students then conduct operations in the local training area to
    familiarize them with operating in mountainous terrain. The course
    builds towards an intensive staff planning exercise and a follow on
    field combat operations center operations and tactical exercise without
    troops. This course is conducted once a year with an abbreviated
    version conducted during MTNEX for the training battalion.
                                     alaska
        Alaska provides ample opportunities for cold weather training
    however there are limiting factors that restrict the Marine Corps from
    conducting training in Alaska. The elevation at the Black Rapids
    Training Site starts at 440 feet above sea level and the terrain is not
    true complex, compartmentalized terrain that marines will operate in.
    Additionally the opportunity for the Marine Corps to train in Alaska is
    cost prohibitive due to military air for movement of units by Naval Air
    Logistics Operations being extremely limited, lack of an equipment
    allowance pool for a marine unit to fall in on, and the training area
    being 365 miles from the nearest port. Transportation of things and
    transportation of personnel to include civilian labor costs to run the
    ammunition supply point are additional cost factors.
                                    summary
        As it has since being established in 1951, the Marine Corps
    Mountain Warfare Training Center provides the individual and collective
    training opportunities necessary to ensure the Marine Corps is prepared
    to operate in cold weather and mountain environments.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. The Department of Defense subcommittee
    will reconvene on Wednesday, March 14 at 10:30 a.m., and we are
    going to hear from the Department of the Air Force.
        This subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, March 14.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012

                                           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, Feinstein, Johnson, Cochran,
    Hutchison, Alexander, Murkowski, and Coats.

                             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. The subcommittee meets this morning to
    receive testimony on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for
    the United States Air Force. I am pleased to welcome the
    Secretary of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, and the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force, Norton Schwartz. Gentlemen, thank you
    for being here with us to today and for sharing your
    perspectives.
        The Air Force's fiscal year 2013 base budget request is
    $110 billion, about $5 billion less than last year's enacted
    base budget. The Air Force is also requesting $12 billion for
    overseas contingency operations, which is a decrease of $2
    billion from last year's enacted amount.
        To aid in the Governmentwide deficit reduction efforts, the
    Air Force laid in significant fiscal reductions and realigned
    resources to correspond with newly developed strategic
    guidance. Obviously taking risk in certain mission areas was
    unavoidable, so in the fiscal year 2013 budget the Air Force
    requests divestiture of aircraft, decreases in end-strength,
    and delays to some modernization efforts.
        In fiscal year 2013 alone, the Air Force plans to retire
    227 aircraft by reducing fighter squadrons, less capable
    mobility aircraft, and older tanker refueling aircraft.
    Additionally, the Air Force proposes to retire some of its
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to
    include the Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned aircraft and an
    economically unrepairable Joint Surveillance Target Attack
    Radar System aircraft. I know there is great consternation
    across the Senate regarding loss of mission assets and, in
    particular, changes to the Guard and Reserve forces. I hope to
    hear from you on how you plan to mitigate these losses with new
    mission assets to ensure our Guard and Reserve forces maintain
    high-readiness levels.
        In line with these aircraft reductions are decreases in
    manpower. The Air Force will reduce to the smallest force since
    its establishment in 1947. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the
    Air Force will reduce military forces to 501,000. I look
    forward to hearing how you plan to achieve this end-strength
    reduction without causing undue hardship on those airmen who
    have served our country so dutifully.
        In the fiscal year 2013 request, the Air Force protects
    high-priority modernization programs such as the KC-46
    refueling tanker, the Joint Strike Fighter, the Long Range
    Bomber, and critical space assets. Unfortunately, there are
    many other modernization programs that you propose to terminate
    or restructure. I hope you will explain how you determined the
    appropriate risk levels for these programs.
        Gentlemen, there is no doubt that we are entering another
    period of decreased defense spending similar to what we
    experienced at the end of previous wars. I look to your
    expertise and vision to ensure our Air Force remains the most
    effective Air Force in the world. I believe this is the fourth
    time the two of you have testified together in front of this
    subcommittee. I sincerely thank you for your service to our
    Nation and for your continued unity and professionalism during
    this difficult fiscal environment. We are also deeply grateful
    for the dedication and sacrifices made daily by the men and
    women in our Air Force. I look forward to working with you to
    ensure that the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill reflects
    the most optimal balance between resources and risk to best
    meet the needs of the United States Air Force.
        Your full statements will be included in the record. I now
    turn to the Vice Chairman, Senator Cochran, for his opening
    statement.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I join you with pleasure in
    welcoming the Secretary and the Chairman to the hearing and all
    of you who are attending this very important review of the
    budget request for the Department of the Air Force for the next
    fiscal year.
        We thank you for your service to the country and your
    dedication to your role in helping protect the security
    interests of our great country.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. And may I now call
    upon the Secretary, Michael Donley.
        Mr. Donley. Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Cochran, members of
    the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today
    representing more than 690,000 Active Duty, Reserve, Guard, and
    civilian airmen. I'm also honored to be here today with my
    teammate, who is now the dean of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
    certainly one of America's finest public servants, General
    Norty Schwartz.
        General Schwartz and I are joined today by Lieutenant
    General Charlie Stenner, the Chief of the Air Force Reserve,
    and Lieutenant General Bud Wyatt, who is the Director of the
    Air National Guard.
        For fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Air Force is requesting
    $110.1 billion in our baseline budget and $11.5 billion in the
    overseas contingency operations supplemental appropriation to
    support our work. This budget request represents the
    culmination of many hard decisions taken to align our fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission with the new strategic guidance and
    with the cuts required by the Budget Control Act over the next
    10 years.
        Finding the proper balance between force structure
    readiness and modernization is our guiding principle. In short,
    we determined that the Air Force's best course of action is to
    trade size for quality. We will become smaller in order to
    protect a high-quality and ready force, one that will continue
    to modernize and grow more capable in the future.
        The capabilities resident in the Air Force missions set are
    fundamental to the priorities outlined in the new strategic
    guidance. And in assessing how to adjust Air Force programs and
    budgets in the future, we've taken care to protect the
    distinctive capabilities we bring to the table--control of air,
    space, and cyberspace; global intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR); rapid global mobility; and global
    strike--all enabled by effective command and control.
        The Air Force and our joint interagency and coalition
    teammates and partners rely on these capabilities, and though
    we will be smaller, we intend to be a superb force at any size,
    maintaining the agility and flexibility that is inherent in our
    air power capabilities, and ready to engage a full range of
    contingencies and threats.
        This budget protects the Air Force's top priorities. We
    protect the size of the bomber force. We are ramping up our
    remotely piloted aircraft force to a total of 65 combat air
    patrols with the ability to surge to 85. We protect our special
    operations forces' capabilities, largely protect our space
    programs, and protect our cyber capabilities.
        But, as we get smaller, it is not possible to protect
    everything. Our proposed force structure changes include the
    reduction of 286 aircraft over the future year's defense plan
    (FYDP), including 123 fighters, 133 mobility aircraft, and 30
    ISR platforms.
        Many of these changes correspond to adjustments in the
    overall size of the Armed Forces, especially the Army and
    Marine Corps ground forces, which is the case for the proposed
    reduction in A-10s.
        Our smaller force structure has also led us to favor
    divesting smaller niche fleets, such as the C-27J, and
    emphasizing multirole capabilities that will provide
    operational flexibility across the spectrum of conflict
    demonstrated by our C-130s and by our choices in fighter force
    structure, which include a smaller A-10 fleet and plans for the
    F-16 service life extension.
        We also emphasize common configurations, which can be seen
    in adjustments to the C-5 fleet and C-17 fleet and in ongoing
    efforts to seek common configuration within the F-22 and F-15C
    fleets.
        Because force structure changes have a ripple effect on
    manpower needs, our budget proposal calls for a reduction of
    9,900 Air Force military personnel. By component, this amounts
    to reductions of 3,900 in Active Duty, 5,100 in Air National
    Guard, and 900 Air Force Reserve personnel.
        Fighter mobility and other force structure changes have
    been strategy driven, based on change requirements, and
    consistent with that strategy, especially where Air National
    Guard units are affected. We've proposed to re-mission units
    where feasible. We've carefully balanced our Active and Reserve
    component changes to make sure that we can meet the demanding
    operational tempos, including both surge and rotational
    requirements that are part of the current and projected
    strategic environment.
        As our force gets smaller, all of our components get
    smaller together and will become even more closely integrated.
    We remain fully committed to our total force capability and
    have proposed several initiatives to strengthen integration of
    effort, including increasing the number of active Reserve
    component associations from 100 to 115 units.
        Our intention is to protect readiness at any level, because
    if we're going to be smaller, we have to be prepared. To that
    end, we put funds in critical areas such as flying hours and
    weapon systems sustainment. We also support the Air National
    Guard readiness reset, which balances manpower across the
    States from lower-demand units to new high-demand ISR missions
    and increases readiness in 39 units. We're committed to
    ensuring that our military forces do not go hollow, and
    readiness bears close watching as we move forward.
        Modernization, Mr. Chairman, is our most significant
    concern, especially as our fleets age and new technologies
    drive new investment needs. In this year's budget proposal, we
    slow modernization as we protect programs that are critical to
    future capabilities. We also restructure or terminate some
    major programs to protect key priorities.
        Protected modernization priorities include the long-range
    strike bomber, the new KC-46 refueling tanker, and key space
    programs, such as the space-based infrared and extremely high-
    frequency satellites, follow-on global positioning system
    capabilities, and advanced ISR.
        We remain fully committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
    which is the future of the fighter force, but we reduce the
    rate of procurement for a few years, because in our judgment,
    Lockheed Martin is not ready to ramp up to full-rate
    production. Due to recent delays in the F-35 program, we also
    proceed with an F-16 service life extension program.
        Among the programs slated for termination are the Global
    Hawk RQ-4 Block 30 aircraft, because, among other reasons, we
    couldn't justify the cost to improve the Block 30 sensors to
    achieve capability that already exists in the U-2, and the
    Defense Weather Satellite System, a termination initiated by
    the Congress, but one we can accept for now, because that
    program is early to need.
        As noted earlier, we decided to divest the C-27J, but we
    have a good alternative to this aircraft, with the multirole
    capable C-130, which has demonstrated its ability to provide
    the direct support mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. We remain
    committed to providing this support to the Army.
        In other cases, we eliminated programs that were judged to
    be nonessential in the current budget environment, such as the
    light mobility aircraft and the light attack and armed
    reconnaissance aircraft. Through more disciplined use of
    resources, the Air Force continues to ring savings out of
    overhead, squeeze discretionary spending, and find more
    efficient ways of doing business.
        In fiscal year 2012, we committed to $33.3 billion in
    efficiencies across the FYDP. In this year's budget, we
    identified about $3.4 billion in efficiencies and another $3.2
    billion in programmatic adjustments to add on top of that
    original $33.3 billion.
        In keeping with our enduring obligation to take care of our
    people, we will keep faith with airmen and their families.
    Doing right by our servicemembers is key to our ability to
    recruit and to retain a high-quality force. Nevertheless, the
    impact of increasing personnel costs continues to be a serious
    concern. Therefore, we support the military compensation
    program reforms in the President's budget, which include a
    modest pay raise, proposals to control healthcare cost growth,
    and calls for a commission to recommend reforms in retired pay.
    We must continue to seek and develop reforms to ensure the
    long-term sustainability of the benefits our men and women in
    uniform have earned.
        Mr. Chairman, identifying $487 billion in Defense cuts to
    comply with the current requirements of the Budget Control Act
    has been difficult. Our Air Force will get smaller, but we are
    confident we can build and sustain a quality force that is
    ready for the contingencies ahead and will improve in
    capability over time.
        However, further cuts, through sequestration or other
    means, will put at risk our ability to execute the new
    strategy. To get this far, we made tough decisions to align,
    structure, and balance our forces in a way that can meet the
    new strategic guidance. If substantially more reductions are
    imposed on Department of Defense (DOD), we will have to revisit
    the new strategy. We cannot afford the risk of a hollow force.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        General Schwartz and I feel deeply that our leadership team
    has inherited the finest Air Force in the world. It is our
    obligation to keep it that way, so that our Joint and coalition
    partners know they can count on the United States Air Force to
    deliver the capabilities that we need to meet the security
    challenges ahead, and so that our future airmen remain
    confident, as we are today, that they are serving in the
    world's finest Air Force. Mr. Chairman, that is our obligation
    going forward, and we are going to meet that obligation.
        We certainly remain grateful for the continued support and
    service of this subcommittee, and we look forward to discussing
    our proposed budget.
        [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael B. Donley
                                  introduction
        Since the first clash of battle, warriors have relied on breaking
    through the lines to achieve victory. However, once the airplane was
    used over the battlefields of World War I, the battle itself was
    forever revolutionized. In the 65 years since the establishment of the
    United States Air Force as a separate service, its technological,
    strategic, and tactical innovations have been elemental in shaping the
    way the United States engages in war, deters aggression, and maintains
    peace. Because America's airmen characteristically view defense
    challenges differently, our Air Force has pioneered advancements that
    have been essential in ensuring our Nation's security while reducing
    the overall casualty counts inflicted by war. As the Department of
    Defense (DOD) faces fiscal pressures and an evolving strategic
    environment, America will continue to depend on the Air Force to
    contribute innovative strategies and systems to conduct our most
    important military missions.
        During the past decade, the United States has engaged in a
    prolonged war aimed at disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda
    and its network. A major part of this effort involved long-term and
    large-scale presence on the ground. The withdrawal of combat forces
    from Iraq and the drawdown in Afghanistan signal the beginning of a new
    chapter for America in which we will rely more heavily on airpower to
    complement innovative, lower-cost, lighter footprint approaches around
    the world. As the Nation sustains its global presence with a renewed
    emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, in addition to continued focus on
    the Middle East, we must maintain the best military in the world--a
    force capable of deterring conflict, a force capable of projecting
    power, and a force capable of winning wars. We will preserve the
    capability and expertise in irregular warfare that we developed over
    the past decade, and we will invest in fielding appropriate amounts of
    new and existing military capabilities in order to meet the national
    security challenges of today and the future.
        Despite new challenges and fiscal stress, America is and will
    unquestionably remain the global leader. The strategic choices embodied
    in the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget reflect 21st century defense
    priorities and will enable your Air Force to play a critical role in
    sustaining that leadership. As the DOD's recently released strategic
    guidance articulates, the Joint Force of the future must be smaller and
    leaner but agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced. The
    Air Force will leverage the innovative ability and technological acumen
    of its airmen as we conduct the military missions that protect our core
    national interests:
      --defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates and succeeding in current
            conflicts;
      --deterring and defeating aggression, including those seeking to deny
            our power projection;
      --countering weapons of mass destruction;
      --operating effectively in cyberspace and across all domains;
      --maintaining a safe and effective nuclear deterrent; and
      --protecting the homeland.
        Air Force contributions to Total Joint Force effectiveness make us
    indispensable in carrying out these missions and overcoming existing
    and emerging threats in this strategic environment.
                             strategic environment
        After 10 years of sustained large-scale overseas operations, major
    changes in the strategic environment required a reshaping of defense
    strategy and priorities. Over the last several months, the Air Force,
    together with our joint partners, has reassessed our future military
    strategy and posture to determine how the Air Force will best
    contribute to achieving U.S. security objectives, including freedom of
    action in the global commons.
        The major factors and trends of the strategic environment
    identified in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) continue to
    affect the security environment and inform its trajectory. The rise of
    new powers, the growing influence of nonstate actors, the proliferation
    of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the proliferation of conventional
    arms, and the transfer of other destructive enabling technologies are
    all trends that still require focused attention when considering how
    the Air Force will execute America's national security strategy.
        Since the release of the QDR, however, we have witnessed events
    that further inform our strategy. The Arab Awakening in the Middle East
    and North Africa has brought about regime changes in some nations in
    the region and challenged the stability and security of others. The
    global economic crisis has made some nations reluctant to support
    international cooperative military efforts as they have shifted their
    focus towards domestic issues. The economic crisis continues to
    contribute to the economic and political shift toward the Asia-Pacific
    region, although we will continue to place a premium on U.S. and allied
    military presence in--and support for--partner nations in and around
    the Middle East. The demise of Osama bin Laden and other senior al
    Qaeda leaders has led to deterioration in the organization's leadership
    and impaired its strategic coherence, although the threat of extremism
    remains. We are also transitioning out of the post-cold war world where
    our military could easily gain access to the battlefield and operate
    major systems unimpeded. Today, adversaries are developing ways to
    prevent our access to the battlefield and deny our freedom of action
    once there.
        As a result of these factors, DOD undertook a comprehensive
    strategic review and recently released new strategic guidance,
    ``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
    Defense''. The new guidance notes the importance of recalibrating Joint
    Force capabilities and investments to succeed in the following key
    military missions:
      --counterterrorism and irregular warfare;
      --deter and defeat aggression;
      --project power despite anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) challenges;
      --counter weapons of mass destruction;
      --operate effectively in cyberspace and space;
      --maintain a secure and effective nuclear deterrent;
      --defend the homeland and provide support to civil authorities;
      --provide a stabilizing presence;
      --conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations; and
      --conduct humanitarian, disaster relief, and other operations.
        In determining development of the force required to meet these
    missions, the Secretary of Defense has directed that we maintain a
    broad portfolio of capabilities that, in the aggregate, offer
    versatility across this range of missions. Other factors that are
    important to the implementation of the new strategy include
    understanding which investments must be made now and those that can be
    deferred, maintaining a ready and capable force, reducing ``the cost of
    doing business'', examining how the strategy will influence existing
    campaign and contingency plans so that more limited resources are
    better tuned to their requirements, determining the proper Active and
    Reserve component mix, retaining and building on key advances in
    networked warfare on which the Joint Force has become truly
    interdependent, and maintaining the industrial base and investment in
    promising science and technology.
        Airpower--the ability to project military power or influence
    through the control and exploitation of air, space, and cyberspace to
    achieve strategic, operational, or tactical objectives--has been a
    necessary component of successful U.S. military operations for many
    decades, and a reasonable assessment of the strategic environment
    suggests an even greater role for those capabilities. Since the end of
    the cold war, the Air Force's contributions to national security have
    evolved with the times. We have become not only more effective, but
    also increasingly intertwined with the successful operation of the
    Joint Force. We have now reached a point where no other service
    operates independently of the Air Force; we are a necessary catalyst
    for effective U.S. and Coalition military operations. As we realign our
    resources to support the new strategic guidance, the capabilities that
    underpin these contributions on which the Joint Force depends will be
    protected.
               realignment to the new defense strategic guidance
        The Air Force has made the hard choices to closely align with the
    new strategic guidance by trading size for quality. We will be a
    smaller, but superb, force that maintains the agility, flexibility, and
    readiness to engage a full range of contingencies and threats.
    New Concepts
        One way in which the Air Force is posturing itself for the future
    in light of the strategic guidance is through our pursuit of the Air-
    Sea Battle (ASB) concept in partnership with our sister services. The
    rise of near peer capabilities--such as fifth-generation fighters, air
    defense systems, and ballistic missiles--evince emerging A2/AD threats.
    The ASB concept will guide the services as they work together to
    maintain a continued U.S. advantage against the global proliferation of
    advanced military technologies and A2/AD capabilities. ASB will
    leverage military and technological capabilities and is guiding us to
    develop a more permanent and better-institutionalized relationship
    between the Military Departments that will ultimately shape our service
    organizations, inform our operational concepts, and guide our materiel
    acquisitions.
    Enduring Air Force Contributions
        The Air Force will also continue to bring four enduring and
    distinctive contributions to the Nation's military portfolio to support
    the new strategic guidance:
      --air and space control;
      --global intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR);
      --global mobility; and
      --global strike.
        These four core contributions--plus our ability to command and
    control air, space, and cyberspace systems--will sustain our Nation's
    military advantage as the Joint Force becomes smaller and as we face
    emerging A2/AD threats.
                Air and Space Control
        From the World War II Pacific island-hopping campaign to the
    success of liberation forces in Libya, control of the air has been and
    remains an essential precondition for successful land and maritime
    operations. Today, control of the air and space, along with assured
    access to cyberspace, allows U.S. and Coalition forces to take
    advantage of unique capabilities in mobility, strike, and ISR and
    permits surface forces freedom of action without the threat of
    adversarial attack from above. Whether friendly naval forces are
    helping to secure vital lines of communication and transit, marines are
    conducting amphibious operations, special operations forces are
    executing counterterrorism missions, or ground forces are engaged in
    combined-arms maneuvers, these operations all fundamentally depend on
    the Air Force to provide mission-essential control of air and space. In
    the coming decade, our ability to assert control in all domains will be
    increasingly at risk as sophisticated military technology proliferates.
    The new strategic guidance demands that we forge ahead and maintain the
    air and space power advantages that will enable our entire Joint Force
    to deter and defeat aggression, operate effectively in space and
    cyberspace, defend the homeland, and conduct stability operations.
                Global ISR
        Combat experience over the last decade has shown how important ISR
    capabilities are to the counterterrorism and irregular warfare missions
    and has also made it increasingly clear that these capabilities will be
    required in contested environments in future conflicts and as we take
    an active approach to countering extremist threats. Through a mix of
    aircraft and satellite sensors and corresponding architecture for
    exploitation and dissemination, Air Force ISR affords U.S. leaders an
    unparalleled decisionmaking advantage on which commanders rely--from
    supporting national strategic decisionmaking to successful outcomes in
    life-and-death tactical situations. Moreover, airmen provide expert
    processing and exploitation of staggering volumes of raw data and
    timely dissemination of usable intelligence. In the past 10 years, Air
    Force ISR contributions have been ascendant, particularly from our
    space-enabled remotely piloted systems. But power projection in the
    future strategic environment will require extending today's ISR
    capability into contested battle spaces. This demands significant and
    sustained attention to modernization of our ISR capabilities.
                Global Mobility
        The capability to get friendly forces to the fight and to extend
    the range of airborne strike platforms is a unique Air Force
    contribution that not only enhances joint effectiveness, but also
    embodies the Nation's global reach and power. The military's ability to
    deter and defeat aggression, project power, provide a stabilizing
    presence, conduct stability operations, and conduct humanitarian and
    other relief operations depends on the airlift and in-flight aerial
    refueling that the Air Force provides. We ensure that joint and
    coalition assets get to the fight and remain in the fight, posing a
    potent threat to adversaries and a persuasive presence to allies. Our
    airlift fleet transports massive amounts of humanitarian-relief
    supplies and wartime materiel to distant locations around the world in
    impressively short-time periods. Furthermore, in-flight aerial
    refueling is the linchpin to power projection at intercontinental
    distances. Global mobility also provides for persistent pressure and
    over-watch once we arrive, as demonstrated last year in the skies over
    Libya.
                Global Strike
        Finally, the Air Force's ability to conduct global strike--to hold
    any target on the globe at risk--will be of growing importance in the
    coming decade. Our conventional precision strike forces compose a
    significant portion of the Nation's deterrent capability, providing
    national leaders with a range of crisis response and escalation control
    options. Our nuclear deterrent forces provide two-thirds of the
    Nation's nuclear triad, competently forming the foundation of global
    stability and underwriting our national security and that of our
    allies. However, increasingly sophisticated air defenses and long-range
    missile threats require a focused modernization effort exemplified by
    the long-range strike family of systems. A key element of this effort
    is the long-range strike bomber (LRS-B) which will strengthen both
    conventional and nuclear deterrence well into the future.
        Collectively, these capabilities, and the Air Force's ability to
    command and control the air, space, and cyber systems, provide the
    Nation with the global vigilance, global reach, and global power
    necessary to implement the new strategic guidance.
                       adapting to constrained resources
        Although the contributions that the Air Force provides to the Joint
    Force have increased in relevance over time, there has not been a
    corresponding proportional increase in resources. The Air Force has
    entered this era of fiscal austerity with significantly fewer uniformed
    personnel, with older equipment, and with a smaller budget share than
    any military Department in one-half a century. The Air Force has been
    continuously engaged in combat for more than two decades and has taken
    on a range of new missions. Yet over that same time period, our
    aircraft inventory and end strength declined. Since 2001, we have
    reduced our inventory by more than 500 aircraft and have added new
    missions, while end strength has come down by thousands of airmen,
    leaving us next year with the smallest force since our inception in
    1947. Meanwhile, the average age of Air Force aircraft has risen
    dramatically:
      --fighters stand at 22 years;
      --bombers, 35 years; and
      --tankers, 47 years.
        Reduced manpower, full-scale operations, and reduced training
    opportunities have pushed our readiness to the edge. The budget
    increases that have occurred in the last decade were primarily consumed
    by operational expenses, not procurement. There is a compelling need to
    invest in next-generation, high-impact systems so that the Air Force
    can continue to provide the capabilities on which our Nation relies.
    The failure to make the proper investments now will imperil the
    effectiveness of the future force and our ability to execute the new
    strategic guidance for decades to come.
        We are mindful, however, of the current fiscal situation and
    recognize that we must contribute to Governmentwide deficit reduction
    as a national security imperative. Our ability to make proper
    investments to modernize and sustain the capabilities of the Air Force
    is directly tied to the economic health of the United States. In
    addition, as respectful stewards of the American taxpayer's dollars,
    the Air Force is committed to achieving audit readiness and meeting
    Secretary Panetta's accelerated goal to achieve auditability of the
    Statement of Budgetary Resources by 2014. Over the last year, the Air
    Force has made real progress, receiving clean audit opinions on two
    important components of our budget and accounting processes from
    independent public accounting firms. In the coming year, the Air Force
    expects to have independent auditors examine the audit readiness of our
    military equipment inventories, our base-level funds distribution
    process, and our civilian pay process.
        The Air Force fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects aggressive
    prioritization of limited resources, heavily informed by the new
    strategic guidance, with regard to both capability and capacity of our
    forces--that is, both what capabilities we should buy and how much of
    them. The budget brings together strategic guidance with fiscal
    constraint. Its guiding principle was balance. To retain critical core
    Air Force capabilities and the ability to rapidly respond to mission
    demands, the Air Force balanced risk across all mission areas.
        Although we will be smaller and leaner, we will not sacrifice
    readiness. Selected reductions in force structure and modernization
    programs were based on careful assessments reflecting the requirements
    to address potential future conflict scenarios and to emphasize the
    Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions. Force and program development
    choices were also influenced by the need to protect our ability to
    regenerate capabilities to meet future, unforeseen demands. Our budget
    request seeks to leverage strong relationships with allies and
    partners, including the development of new partners. Finally, the
    fiscal year 2013 budget request honors and protects the high-quality
    and battle-tested professionals of the All-Volunteer Force.
    Force Structure
        The fiscal reality and strategic direction mean that the Air Force
    will continue the long-term trend of accepting a smaller force to
    ensure high quality. In planning for a smaller force, our decisions
    favored retention of multirole platforms over those with more narrowly
    focused capabilities--for example, F-16s over A-10s and F-15Cs, and C-
    130s over C-27s. Where feasible, we sought to divest smaller fleets
    with niche capabilities and stressed common configurations for key
    platforms in order to maximize operational flexibility and minimize
    sustainment costs.
                Aircraft
        In meeting the force sizing requirements of the new strategic
    guidance and to remain within the constraints of the Budget Control
    Act, the Air Force made the difficult choice of divesting 227 aircraft
    from our combat and combat support aircraft fleets in the fiscal year
    2013 budget request. Total divestitures rise to more than 280 aircraft
    over the fiscal year 2013-2017 future years defense plan (FYDP) period.
    These divestitures will result in $8.7 billion in savings across the
    Active and Reserve components.
        In order to balance current and future requirements in the Combat
    Air Forces (CAF), we are reducing the total number of combat-coded
    fighter squadrons from 60 to 54 (31 Active squadrons and 23 Reserve
    component squadrons). As part of a broader strategy to reshape the Air
    Force into a smaller, yet capable force, we divested 21 F-16 Block 30
    aircraft in the Reserve component and 102 A-10s (20 Active and 82
    Reserve component) from the total aircraft inventory. In making these
    difficult choices, we considered several factors:
      --the relative operational value of weapon systems to counter capable
            adversaries in denied environments;
      --fleet management principles, such as retiring older aircraft first
            and prioritizing multi-role aircraft; and
      --operational flexibility, forward-basing, and host-nation
            commitments.
        The allocation of reductions between the Active and Reserve
    components took into consideration the Air Force's surge requirements
    as directed by the new strategic guidance, the expected future
    deployment tempo, the need to increase means to accumulate fighter
    pilot experience, and the imperative to ensure that the Reserve
    component remains relevant and engaged in both enduring and evolving
    missions.
        In the Mobility Air Forces (MAF), we sized the fleet to a total of
    275 strategic airlifters--52 C-5Ms and 223 C-17s.
        We will seek legislative approval to retire 27 C-5As across fiscal
    year 2013-2016, going below the fiscal year 2012 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) strategic airlift floor of 301 aircraft. This
    will avert higher sustainment costs for aircraft with substantially
    less reliability than the C-17 or C-5M. For our intra-theater airlift,
    the fleet was sized to meet the airlift requirements of the new
    strategy, including our direct support requirements of ground forces.
    We will retire 65 C-130Hs across fiscal year 2013-2017 and are
    divesting the C-27J fleet. After these retirements, we will maintain a
    fleet of 318 C-130s (134 C-130Js and 184 C-130Hs). Our air refueling
    fleet is being reduced to 453 tankers after retiring 20 KC-135s. The
    development and procurement of the KC-46A is on-track for initial
    delivery in fiscal year 2016 with the strategic basing process
    underway.
        In our ISR aircraft fleet, we plan to divest all 18 RQ-4 Global
    Hawk Block 30 aircraft and retain the U-2S Dragon Lady program. Due to
    the reduction in high altitude ISR combat air patrol (CAP)
    requirements, the need for RQ-4 upgrades to meet current U-2 sensor
    operational performance levels, and the high-operational costs of the
    RQ-4, continued investment into the U-2 is both the fiscally and
    operationally responsible choice. Transferring the MC-12W Liberty from
    the Active component to the Air National Guard (ANG) reflects the
    assessment that the ANG is the appropriate place for long-term,
    scalable support of medium-altitude ISR. The Active component will
    retain association with the ANG units. The MC-12W will also perform the
    mission of the divested RC-26 fleet. Finally, we will retire one E-8C
    Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft that is
    damaged beyond economical repair.
        Air Force leaders recognize that proposals to retire aircraft are
    often contentious and that the Congress has at times written
    legislation blocking or delaying proposed retirements. We are committed
    to faithfully executing the law; however, we urge the congressional
    defense committees and the Congress as a whole to be especially
    cautious about proposals to block or delay aircraft retirements that do
    not provide the additional human and financial resources needed to
    operate and maintain those airframes. Retaining large numbers of under-
    resourced aircraft in the fleet in today's fiscally constrained
    environment will significantly increase the risk of a hollow force.
    After the intense efforts to find efficiencies over the past few years,
    the Air Force has only a limited ability to reallocate resources and
    personnel to uncovered operations without creating major disruption in
    other critical activities.
                End Strength
        In correlation to the reductions in our aircraft force structure,
    we are also adjusting our end strength numbers. Since 2004, our Active,
    Guard, and Reserve end strength has decreased by more than 48,000
    personnel. By the end of fiscal year 2013, end strength will be reduced
    a further 9,900 from 510,900 to 501,000. This will result in a
    reduction in Active Duty military end strength from 332,800 to 328,900,
    Reserve military end strength will decrease by 900 to 70,500, and ANG
    military end strength will decrease by 5,100 to 101,600. Although the
    reductions in aircraft and personnel carry risk, we are committed to
    managing that risk and ensuring successful execution of the new
    strategic guidance.
                Reserve Component
        The Air Force has enjoyed great success in leveraging our Total
    Force Enterprise to present our enduring core capabilities to the Joint
    warfighter. The ANG and Air Force Reserve are integrated into all major
    Air Force mission areas, train to the same high standards as the Active
    component, and are invaluable partners in helping us meet our many and
    varied commitments. This will not change--we will rely on our Air
    Reserve Component (ARC) as both a strategic and operational reserve. A
    strategic reserve can be employed to mobilize significant numbers of
    airmen in the event of a significant national crisis while an
    operational reserve will still be used to augment day-to-day
    operations.
        Maintaining the appropriate mix of forces between the Active and
    Reserve components is critical to sustaining Air Force capabilities for
    forward presence, rapid response, and high-rate rotational demands
    within a smaller overall force. Over the years, we have adjusted the
    mix between Active and Reserve components to ensure we maintained a
    ready and sustainable force and could meet our surge and rotational
    requirements. The Air Force has successfully met the demand of
    increased operations tempo through a combination of volunteerism,
    selective mobilization, and the establishment of Classic, Active, and
    ARC associations to better manage high-activity rates. However, two
    decades of military end strength and force structure reductions in our
    Active component have shifted the ratio of Active to Reserve component
    forces. In 1990, the Reserve component represented 25 percent of total
    force end strength; today that percentage is at 35 percent. Reserve
    component aircraft ownership also increased from approximately 23
    percent to 28 percent over the same period.
        The total Air Force leadership carefully considered the ratio
    between the Active and Reserve components for the proposed force
    structure reductions in the 2013 budget request. The expected
    deployment tempo, and the need to increase pilot seasoning drove the
    allocation of reductions between components. The proper ratio between
    components must be achieved to maintain acceptable operations tempo
    levels within each component and to preserve the ability of a smaller
    Air Force to meet continued overseas presence demands, and the rapid
    deployment and rotational force requirements of the strategic guidance.
        While the Air Force Reserve and ANG are significantly affected by
    the proposed 2013 Air Force budget request, they remain essential
    elements of our total force. Due to the magnitude of the budget
    decline, our programmed reductions are wide-ranging, directly impacting
    more than 60 installations. Thirty-three States will be directly
    impacted, but all 54 States and territories will be affected in some
    way by the proposed aircraft and manpower reductions. Although some
    squadrons will actually grow larger, it is unlikely that there will be
    a 100-percent backfill of personnel or alternative mission for every
    location. Without the total force re-missioning actions we are
    proposing, these reductions would have significantly affected 24 units
    and left eight installations without an Air Force presence.
        In close coordination with our ANG and Air Force Reserve leaders,
    we have developed a detailed plan that will mitigate the impact by
    realigning missions to restore 14 of the 24 units. Nine of the
    remaining ten units have existing missions, or the mission will
    transfer from the ANG to the Air Force Reserve. Our plan also maintains
    an Air Force presence on seven of the eight affected installations.
    This plan will allow us to preserve an appropriate Active to Reserve
    component force mix ratio and minimizes the possibility of uncovered
    missions. The aircraft force structure changes also presented an
    opportunity for the ANG to realign manpower to ensure proper mission
    resourcing while simultaneously bolstering ANG readiness. The fiscal
    year 2013 adjustments in strategy, force structure, and resources
    allowed us to realign manpower within the ANG to properly source its
    growing MC-12W and MQ-1/9 missions.
        After the proposed force reductions and mitigations, Reserve
    component end strength will make up 33 percent of total force military
    personnel, a reduction of 2 percent from the fiscal year 2012 numbers.
    Within the CAF, the Reserve component will have 38 percent of total
    aircraft which is 4 percent lower than fiscal year 2012. For the MAF,
    the Reserve component shares shifts from 51 percent to 46 percent. In
    order to maintain capability, the Air Force intends to grow the number
    of total force Integration associations from 100 to 115. This will
    enable the seasoning of our Active Duty personnel while improving the
    combat capacity of our Reserve component.
    Readiness
        Readiness is comprised of complementary components, such as flying
    hours, weapon system sustainment, and facilities and installations. A
    good readiness posture depends on health in all of these key areas. In
    spite of aircraft divestments and reduction in personnel, we are
    committed to executing the Defense strategy and will ensure America's
    Air Force remains ready to perform its mission every day. High
    operations tempo has had some detrimental effects on our overall
    readiness, particularly in the context of aging weapons systems and
    stress on our personnel.
        Since September 11, 2001, the Air Force has flown more than 455,000
    sorties in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn and more
    than 350,000 sorties in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In 2011,
    our airmen averaged approximately 400 sorties every day, with December
    17, 2011, marking the first day in 20 years that the Air Force did not
    fly an air tasking sortie in Iraq. Maintaining our ability to be ready
    across the full spectrum of operations has been challenging in recent
    years, especially for the CAF and certain limited-supply/high-demand
    units. We will continue to revise our readiness tracking systems to
    provide increasingly accurate assessments and mitigate readiness
    shortfalls. Preserving readiness and avoiding a hollow force was a non-
    negotiable priority for the Air Force and DOD in developing the fiscal
    year 2013 budget.
                Weapons System Sustainment
        During previous budget cycles, the overall Air Force weapons system
    sustainment (WSS) requirement increased each year due to sustainment
    strategy, the complexity of new aircraft, operations tempo, force
    structure changes, and growth in depot work packages for legacy
    aircraft. In fiscal year 2013, although the Air Force is retiring some
    combat, mobility, and ISR force structure, our overall weapon system
    sustainment requirements continue to increase. These cost increases,
    along with a reduction in the Service's overseas contingency operations
    (OCO) request, resulted in a slight decrease in the percentage of
    weapons systems sustainment requirements funded from fiscal year 2012
    to fiscal year 2013.
        Including the OCO request, WSS is funded at 79 percent of
    requirement in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
        We maintained our readiness capability in the portfolio areas most
    directly affecting readiness such as aircraft, engines, and missiles,
    while taking some risk in areas that are less readiness related in the
    short term such as technical orders, sustaining engineering, and
    software. Additionally, the Air Force continues to conduct requirements
    reviews and streamline organizations and processes to reduce
    maintenance and material costs, develop depot efficiencies, and manage
    weapon system requirements growth. The goal of these efforts is to
    sustain fiscal year 2012 weapon system sustainment performance levels
    for fiscal year 2013.
                Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
        The sustainment portion of facilities sustainment, restoration, and
    modernization (FSRM) was funded more than 80 percent of the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense (OSD) facility sustainment model. Due to
    current fiscal realities the revised strategic guidance, the Air Force
    is also taking a deliberate pause in its military construction (MILCON)
    program, resulting in a nearly $900 million reduction from fiscal year
    2012 enacted levels. To manage the risk associated with these actions
    we continue civil engineering transformation to employ an enterprise-
    wide, centralized, asset management approach to installation resourcing
    which maximizes each facility dollar.
                Flying Hour Program
        The emphasis on readiness in the new strategic guidance reinforced
    Air Force focus on the importance of maintaining our flying hour
    program (FHP). The fiscal year 2013 budget removes flying hours where
    associated with the retirement of some of our oldest aircraft and
    divestiture of single-role mission weapon systems. In the remainder of
    the FHP, however, levels are consistent with fiscal year 2012 levels to
    prevent further erosion of readiness. The fiscal year 2013 baseline FHP
    remains optimized as we continue to fly a significant portion of our
    hours in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR),
    but still poses a measured risk to our full-spectrum training and
    readiness levels, especially with our tactical fighters. As operations
    in the CENTCOM AOR decrease, these OCO hours will migrate back to our
    baseline program to ensure peacetime FHP requirements are met. We are
    also committed to a long-term effort to increase our live, virtual, and
    constructive operational training (LVC-OT) capability and capacity by
    funding improvements in our LVC-OT devices (e.g., simulators and
    virtual trainers) and networks.
        Although the Air Force has no single rollup metric to measure FHP
    requirements, we are working toward a set of metrics that clearly
    articulate the training requirements needed to support desired
    readiness levels. Our challenge is that the diversity of our missions
    does not lend itself to yardsticks like ``hours per crewmember per
    month''. The Air Force operates a wide variety of aircraft--including
    multirole aircraft--that require differing training requirements in
    amount and type for each aircrew member. In addition, we have critical
    space and cyber units that involve no aircraft at all. As we develop
    FHP metrics, we will dovetail our efforts with the work being done at
    the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office at the OSD to
    study the relationship between Defense funding and military readiness
    and mature necessary metrics and assessment tools.
        Even though the Air Force will be smaller in capacity, we will
    remain highly capable and lethal, as well as ready, agile, and
    deployable.
    Modernization
        Looking ahead, the Air Force faces two primary strategic
    challenges. In the face of declining budgets, we must still provide the
    essential force structure and capabilities on which the Joint Force
    depends. Historical and projected uses of U.S. military forces and our
    inability to accurately predict the future, make the complete
    divestment of the capability to conduct any 1 of the 12 Air Force Core
    Functions imprudent. Yet, the new strategic guidance also requires
    continuing modernization of our aging force to address the
    proliferation of modern threats. Finding the right balance requires a
    long-range plan that begins with a strategic vision. Implementing
    across the board cuts will not produce the envisioned Joint Force of
    2020.
        Accordingly, we carefully scrutinized all our weapons systems and
    capabilities to determine which require investment today and those that
    can be deferred. We then made the tough choices to maximize our
    military effectiveness in a constrained resource environment. Combat
    and combat support aircraft force structure reductions, coupled with
    reduced development and procurement of preferred munitions and other
    key modernization programs, were essential to achieving the Air Force
    fiscal year 2013 budget targets.
        In fiscal year 2013, we have programmed $35.8 billion for
    modernization, approximately 33 percent of the Air Force total
    obligation authority. We are slowing the pace and scope of
    modernization while protecting programs critical to future warfighter
    needs. Focused investment in high-priority programs such as the F-35
    Joint Strike Fighter, LRS-B, KC-46A refueling tanker, service-life
    extension of the F-16, space-based infrared and advanced extremely
    high-frequency satellites, space situational awareness capabilities,
    and our space launch capability is critical to the Department's overall
    strategy. Access and continued freedom of maneuver within cyberspace is
    an essential requirement for our networked force, therefore the
    development of offensive and defensive cyber capabilities remains a top
    Air Force priority. Additionally, in coordination with the Navy, the
    Air Force will fund modern radars, precision munitions, and other
    priorities to support the ASB concept and ensure worldwide power
    projection despite increasing A2/AD challenges.
        To continue funding these high-priority investments, we made the
    hard choices to terminate or restructure programs with unaffordable
    cost growth or technical challenges such as the RQ-4 Block 30, B-2
    extremely high-frequency radio improvements, and the Family of Advanced
    Beyond Line of Sight Terminals (FAB-7). We eliminated expensive
    programs, such as the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program, the C-27J
    program, and Defense Weather Satellite System, which have more
    affordable alternatives that still accomplish the mission. Likewise, we
    discontinued or deferred programs that are simply beyond our reach in
    the current fiscal environment, such as the common vertical lift
    support platform, light mobility aircraft, and light attack and armed
    reconnaissance aircraft. The fiscal year 2013 budget also accepts
    significant near-term risk in MILCON for current mission facilities,
    limiting ourselves to projects required to support new aircraft bed
    downs and emerging missions.
        Underpinning the Air Force's ability to leverage and field these
    crucial technologies is America's aerospace research and development
    infrastructure--a national asset that must be protected to ensure
    future U.S. advantages in technology and civil aerospace. Therefore,
    the Air Force's budget protects science and technology funding as a
    share of our total resources.
    More Disciplined Use of Defense Dollars
        In June 2010, the Secretary of Defense challenged the Services to
    increase funding for mission activities by identifying efficiencies in
    overhead, support, and other less mission-essential areas in an effort
    to identify $100 billion in DOD savings for reinvestment. Our fiscal
    year 2013 budget continues to depend on successfully managing and
    delivering the $33.3 billion in Air Force efficiencies from fiscal year
    2012 to fiscal year 2016 associated with the fiscal year 2012
    President's budget submission. We are actively managing and reporting
    on these, as well as the Air Force portion of DOD-wide efficiencies. In
    light of the current budget constraints, the Air Force continues to
    seek out opportunities for additional efficiencies.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes additional savings of
    $6.6 billion over the next 5 years from our more disciplined use of DOD
    dollars. This represents $3.4 billion in new efficiency efforts as well
    as $3.2 billion in programmatic adjustments. These reductions continue
    to focus on overhead cost reductions and spending constraints
    consistent with Executive Order 13589, ``Promoting Efficient
    Spending'', and an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum,
    dated November 7, 2011, to reduce contract spending for management
    support services. Areas in which we are seeking major efficiencies and
    spending reductions in this budget submission include information
    technology, service contracts, travel, and inventory.
        We are identifying and eliminating duplicate information technology
    applications across our business and mission system areas. Policies and
    better spending controls will be placed within modernization and legacy
    systems sustainment areas. We have committed to save $100 million in
    fiscal year 2013 and $1.1 billion across the future years defense plan
    (FYDP) in this area. We continue to put downward pressure on service
    support contract spending and are committing to an additional $200
    million reduction in fiscal year 2013 and $1 billion across the FYDP.
    These efforts are consistent with Secretary of Defense-directed
    efficiencies across the DOD and OMB guidance to reduce contract
    spending by 15 percent by the end of fiscal year 2012 from a fiscal
    year 2010 baseline. Executive Order 13589 also directs reductions in
    travel across Departments. The Air Force budget for travel has steadily
    declined from actual spending of $984 million in fiscal year 2010 to a
    budgeted-level of $810 million in fiscal year 2012. Between Air Force
    budget reductions and DOD-directed travel reductions, the fiscal year
    2013 President's budget reflects an additional $116 million travel
    savings in fiscal year 2013 and $583 million across the FYDP. Finally,
    a bottom-up review of base-level inventory is planned, with the intent
    of identifying consumable and repairable items that are excess,
    including Government Purchase Card-procured excess inventory. We
    estimate $45 million savings in fiscal year 2013 and $225 million
    across the FYDP.
    Taking Care of Our People
        Regardless of any strategy realignment or future mission
    commitment, the hallmark of our success as an Air Force has always
    been, and will remain, our people. Our mission effectiveness depends
    first and foremost on the readiness and dedication of our airmen.
    Nearly two decades of sustained combat, humanitarian, and stability
    operations have imposed extraordinary demands on our force. As we look
    to the future of reduced funding and fewer manpower positions, we are
    working hard to continue meeting the needs of a 21st century force. The
    Nation owes a debt of gratitude for the sacrifices made by our airmen
    and their families.
        Despite the difficult budgetary environment, we are committed to
    our Air Force community. Therefore, quality-of-service programs must
    continue as one of our highest priorities. We are sustaining cost-
    effective services and programs to maintain balanced, healthy, and
    resilient airmen and families so that they are equipped to meet the
    demands of high operations tempo and persistent conflict. As our force
    changes, we must adapt our programs and services to ensure we meet the
    needs of today's airmen and their families. Developing our airmen will
    be a key focus as we continue efforts to reduce the ``cost of doing
    business'' and develop lighter-footprint approaches to achieving
    security objectives. We will do this by developing expertise in foreign
    language, regional, and cultural skills while also ensuring our
    educational programs focus on current and anticipated mission
    requirements.
        Even as Air Force end strength continues to be reduced,
    requirements for some career fields--like special operations, ISR, and
    cyber--continue to grow. We will continue to size and shape the force
    through a series of voluntary and involuntary programs designed to
    retain the highest-quality airmen with the right skills and
    capabilities. As we take steps to reduce our end strength, we will
    offer support programs to help separating airmen translate their
    military skills to the civilian workforce and facilitate the transition
    in a way that capitalizes on the tremendous experience in technical
    fields and leadership that they accrue while serving.
        Although retention is at a record high, we must sustain accessions
    for the long term and utilize a series of recruiting and retention
    bonuses to ensure the right balance of skills exist across the spectrum
    of the force. Enlistment bonuses are the most effective, responsive,
    and measurable tool for meeting requirements growth in emerging
    missions, while retention bonuses encourage airmen to remain in, or
    retrain into, career fields with high-operational demands.
        We recognize the unique demands of military service and want to
    ensure that our airmen are compensated in a way that honors that
    service. Accordingly, the President has announced a 1.7-percent
    increase in basic military pay for fiscal year 2013. The costs of
    military pay, allowances, and healthcare have risen significantly in
    the last decade. These costs have nearly doubled DOD-wide since fiscal
    year 2001 while the number of full-time military personnel, including
    activated Reserves, has increased only 8 percent. As budgets decrease,
    we must find ways to achieve savings in this area to prevent overly
    large cuts in forces, readiness, and modernization. As part of a DOD-
    wide effort, we are looking at a gamut of proposals, including
    healthcare initiatives and retirement system changes, to meet deficit
    reduction targets and slow cost growth. Proposed healthcare changes
    will focus on working-age retirees and the retirement commission will
    address potential future changes, with the current force grandfathered
    into the current system. The Defense budget includes a number of
    proposals to control healthcare cost growth in fiscal year 2013 and for
    the longer term. The recommendations included in the budget reflect the
    proper balance and the right priorities.
        We must go forward with balanced set of reductions in the military
    budget that not only implements the strategic guidance but also does
    our part to alleviate the Nation's economic difficulties. Any solutions
    to this problem will be deliberate, will recognize that the All-
    Volunteer Force is the core of our military, and will not break faith
    with the airmen and families who serve our Nation.
        With this as a backdrop, the Air Force has approached its
    investment strategy in a way that seeks to apply our resources to the
    people, programs, and systems that will best contribute to the new DOD
    strategic guidance.
                            air force core functions
        The Air Force core functions provide a framework for balancing
    investments across Air Force capabilities and our enduring
    contributions as we align our resources to the new defense strategic
    guidance. However, none of these core functions should be viewed in
    isolation. There is inherent interdependence among these capabilities
    within the Air Force, the Joint Force, and in some cases, throughout
    the United States Government. The Air Force's budget request of $110.1
    billion reflects the difficult choices that had to be made as a result
    of Air Force fiscal limitations, while still providing an appropriate
    balance of investment across our core functions in a way that best
    supports key DOD military missions. Additional detailed information
    about each core function, including specific investment figures, can be
    found in the Budget Overview Book and in the detailed budget
    justification documents provided to the Congress.
    Air Superiority
        U.S. forces must be able to deter and defeat adversaries in
    multiple conflicts and across all domains. In particular, even when
    U.S. forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region,
    they must also be capable of denying the objectives of--or imposing
    unacceptable costs on--an opportunistic aggressor in a second region.
    Securing the high ground is a critical prerequisite for any military
    operation to ensure freedom of action for the Joint Force and the
    Nation. In making operational plans, American ground forces assume they
    will be able to operate with minimal threat of attack from enemy
    aircraft or missile systems. For nearly six decades, Air Force
    investments, expertise, and sacrifice in achieving air superiority have
    ensured that condition. The last time any American ground forces were
    killed by an enemy air strike was April 15, 1953.
        But while the United States has enjoyed this control of the air for
    the last 60 years, there is no guarantee of air superiority in the
    future. Airspace control remains vitally important in all operating
    environments to ensure the advantages of rapid global mobility, ISR,
    and precision strike are broadly available to the combatant commander.
    Fast-growing, near-peer capabilities are beginning to erode the legacy
    fighter fleet's ability to control the air. Likewise, emerging
    adversaries are developing significant air threats by both leveraging
    inexpensive technology to modify existing airframes with improved
    radars, sensors, jammers and weapons, and pursuing fifth-generation
    aircraft. Simultaneously, current operations are pressing our legacy
    systems into new roles. As a result, the legacy fighter fleet is
    accumulating flying hours both faster and differently than anticipated
    when they were purchased decades ago.
        Given these realities, the Air Force's fiscal year 2013 budget
    request includes $8.3 billion for initiatives to address current and
    future air superiority needs. We continue incremental modernization of
    the F-22 fleet, including Increment 3.2A, a software-only upgrade
    adding new electronic protection (EP) and combat identification
    techniques. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes approximately
    $140.1 million for Increment 3.2B, which includes the integration of
    AIM-120D and AIM-9X capabilities, data link improvements, and faster,
    more accurate target mapping. We are continuing the F-15 active
    electronically scanned array (AESA) radar modernization program,
    funding the F-15 Advanced Display Core Processor (ADCP), and funding
    the development and procurement of an Eagle Passive/Active Warning and
    Survivability System (EPAWSS). We are also investing in fourth-
    generation radar upgrades to ensure their continued viability,
    sustaining the development and procurement of preferred air-to-air
    munitions and select electronic warfare enhancements, and resourcing
    critical readiness enablers, including training capabilities and
    modernized range equipment.
        As part of our Airspace Control Alert mission, the Air Force,
    working closely with U.S. Northern Command, reduced full-time ANG
    requirements at two sites while maintaining overall surveillance and
    intercept coverage.
    Global Precision Attack
        A critical component of the broader mission to deter and defeat
    aggression is the Air Force's ability to hold any target at risk across
    the air, land, and sea domains through global precision attack. Global
    precision attack forces perform traditional strike and customized ISR
    roles to support Joint and coalition ground forces every day. However,
    as A2/AD capabilities proliferate, our fourth-generation fighter and
    legacy bomber capability to penetrate contested airspace is
    increasingly challenged.
        The A2/AD threat environment prescribes the type of assets that can
    employ and survive in-theater. While the Air Force provides the
    majority of these assets, success in this hazardous environment will
    require a combined approach across a broad range of assets and
    employment tools. Even then, these will only provide localized and
    temporary air dominance to achieve desired effects. Simultaneously,
    ongoing contingency operations in a permissive, irregular warfare
    environment at the lower end of the combat spectrum require adapted
    capabilities, including longer aircraft dwell times and increasing use
    of our platforms in unique intelligence gathering roles. Our fiscal
    year 2013 budget request of $15.5 billion applies resources that will
    help the Air Force best meet threats in evolving A2/AD environments.
        To enhance our global strike ability, we are prioritizing
    investment in fifth-generation aircraft while sustaining legacy
    platforms as a bridge to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the centerpiece
    of our future precision attack capability. In addition to complementing
    the F-22's world-class air superiority capabilities, the F-35A 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
    between services and partner nations. The fiscal year 2013 budget
    includes approximately $5 billion for continued development and the
    procurement of 19 F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL)
    aircraft, spares, and support equipment. In fiscal year 2013, we
    deferred 98 CTOLs from the F-35A program.
        As we move toward fifth-generation recapitalization, we are funding
    fourth-generation fighter modernization to ensure a capable global
    attack fleet. Reserve component recapitalization will begin based on F-
    35 production rates, basing decisions, the F-16 Service Life Extension
    Program (SLEP), and Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (CAPES).
    The Air Force will continue to plan and program for approximately 350
    F-16 service life extensions and capability upgrades over the FYDP to
    ensure a viable F-16 combat capability across the total force and to
    mitigate the effects of F-35 procurement rate adjustments on the total
    fighter force capacity during completion of system development and low
    rate initial production.
        In our fiscal year 2013 submission, we accepted risk by retiring
    102 A-10s and 21 F-16s. Although the A-10 remains essential for
    combined arms and stability operations, we chose to retire more A-10s
    because other multirole platforms provide more utility across the range
    of the potential missions. We are retaining enough A-10s to meet the
    direction of the new strategic guidance to maintain readiness and
    capability while avoiding a hollow force.
        We are modernizing conventional bombers to sustain capability while
    investing in the Long-Range Strike Family of Systems. The bomber fleet
    was retained at its current size because we recognized the importance
    of long-range strike in the current and future security environments.
    The Air Force is enhancing long-range strike capabilities by upgrading
    the B-2 fleet with an improved Defensive Management System (DMS) and a
    new survivable communication system, and is increasing conventional
    precision guided weapon capacity within the B-52 fleet. We are
    investing $191.4 million in modernizing the B-1 to prevent obsolescence
    and diminishing manufacturing sources issues and to help sustain the B-
    1 to its approximate 2040 service life. In addition to aircraft
    modernization, we are upgrading our B-1 training and simulator systems
    to match aircraft configuration and ensure continued sustainability.
        Procuring a new penetrating bomber is critical to maintaining our
    long-range strike capability in the face of evolving A2/AD
    environments. The new long-range, penetrating, and nuclear-capable
    bomber (LRS-B), which will be capable of both manned and unmanned
    operations, will be designed and built using proven technologies, and
    will leverage existing systems to provide sufficient capability. It
    will also permit growth to improve the system as technology matures and
    threats evolve. We must ensure that the new bomber is operationally
    capable before the current aging B-52 and B-1 bomber fleets are
    retired. LRS-B is fully funded at $291.7 million in the fiscal year
    2013 budget.
    Global Integrated ISR
        Global integrated ISR includes conducting and synchronizing
    surveillance and reconnaissance across all domains--air, space, and
    cyber. These ISR capabilities produce essential intelligence to achieve
    decision superiority through planning, collecting, processing,
    analyzing, and rapidly disseminating critical information to national-
    and theater-level decisionmakers across the spectrum of worldwide
    military operations. Air Force ISR growth and improvement over the last
    decade has been unprecedented. Because of the dynamic nature of the
    operating environment, the Air Force conducted an extensive review of
    the entire Air Force ISR enterprise in 2011 to inform future planning
    and programming decisions. Even as the United States plans to reduce
    our military presence in CENTCOM AOR, combatant commands will continue
    to use our ISR capabilities to combat global terrorism, provide global
    and localized situational awareness, and support future contingencies.
        Recognizing the need for continued and improved ISR capabilities,
    and based on the 2011 ISR review, the Air Force is investing $7.1
    billion in this core function in fiscal year 2013. We are continuously
    improving the current suite of capabilities and will field the MQ-9
    Reaper to meet delivery of 65 remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) combat
    air patrols (CAPs) by May 2014. We are actively managing our
    procurement rate of MQ-9s to efficiently increase RPA fleet size while
    allowing for necessary aircrew training. We are extending operations
    for the U-2 Dragon Lady manned aircraft, in lieu of investing more
    heavily in the RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk fleet. Despite early
    predictions, the savings anticipated by the use of Global Hawks have
    not come to fruition, and we will not invest in new technology at any
    cost. Divesting the RQ-4 Block 30 fleet and extending the U-2 will save
    the Air Force $815 million in fiscal year 2013 and $2.5 billion across
    the FYDP. Sustaining the U-2 fleet will ensure affordable and sustained
    high-altitude ISR for the combatant commanders and joint warfighters.
        We will maintain investment in the MC-12 Liberty as we transfer it
    to the ANG, but we will establish active unit associations to meet
    combat air patrol and surge requirements. The MC-12 will also perform
    the mission carried out by the RC-26 as we divest 11 of those aircraft
    from the ANG. In the ANG, six RPA units have been or are currently
    being established, and an additional five units will stand-up in fiscal
    year 2013. An ANG ISR group with two squadrons will be established to
    conduct ISR in cyberspace and to conduct digital network intelligence
    and cyber target development.
        We are developing a more balanced and survivable mix of airborne
    platforms to enable continued operations in permissive environments and
    to enable operations in A2/AD environments. We are exploring innovative
    ways to leverage space and cyberspace capabilities as part of the
    overall mix of ISR capabilities and partner with joint, coalition, and
    interagency partners, including the use of Air-Sea Battle as a
    framework to develop required capabilities for the joint fight. We are
    investing $163 million in fiscal year 2013 in our ground processing
    enterprise, the Distributed Common Ground System, and will continue
    migration to a service-oriented architecture to handle the increasing
    quantities of ISR data that is integrated and delivered from emerging
    sensors and platforms operating in all domains. We will also improve
    our ability to move information securely and reliably over information
    pathways. Finally, we are improving analyst capability through improved
    training, automation and visualization tools while we deliberately plan
    for future operations using a refined capability planning and analysis
    framework.
    Cyberspace Superiority
        Access and continued freedom of maneuver within cyberspace is an
    essential requirement for our networked force. Today's modern forces
    require access to reliable communications and information networks to
    operate effectively at a high operations tempo. Air Force and DOD
    networks face a continuous barrage of assaults from individual hackers,
    organized insurgents, State-sponsored actors, and all level of threats
    in between. Our adversaries are also realizing gains from
    electronically linking their combat capabilities. This is creating new
    warfighting challenges that the Joint Force must be prepared to
    address. As we work to ensure our freedom of movement in cyberspace, we
    will also work with service, joint, and interagency partners on
    additional and further-reaching cyberspace initiatives.
        We are using a cyber strategy which not only improves the Air
    Force's ability to operate in cyberspace, but also mitigates constantly
    increasing infrastructure costs. This approach focuses on near-term
    FYDP investments to automate network defense and operations which
    increase both combat capacity and effectiveness. This effort, led by
    24th Air Force, under Air Force Space Command, includes continued
    development of the Single Integrated Network Environment which provides
    a seamless information flow among air, space, and terrestrial network
    environments, and most importantly, mission assurance to the
    warfighter.
        Our fiscal year 2013 budget request for cyberspace superiority is
    $4 billion. With these funds, we are expanding our ability to rapidly
    acquire network defense tools, such as Host Based Security System, a
    flexible, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)-based application to monitor,
    detect, and counter cyber-threats to the Air Force Enterprise. We are
    also investing in advanced technologies to monitor and secure both
    classified and unclassified networks. We have made considerable
    progress in our efforts to meet the emerging challenges and threats in
    cyberspace by fielding a total force of more than 45,000 trained and
    certified professionals equipped to ensure continuity of operations in
    cyberspace. The establishment of an additional ANG network warfare
    squadron (NWS) will enhance the Maryland ANG 175th NWS as they actively
    conduct cyber defense to protect networks and systems. The Air Force
    Reserve will also stand up an Active Association Network Warfare
    Squadron with the 33rd Network Warfare Squadron at Lackland AFB, Texas.
        To keep with the rapid pace of technology, the Air Force is
    developing Joint standardization and acquisition strategies to enable
    quick delivery of cyber capabilities to address constantly evolving and
    more technologically advanced cyber threats and to improve intelligence
    capabilities in cyberspace. The Air Force is spending $27.3 million on
    the Air Force Wideband Enterprise Terminal, leveraging Army procurement
    efforts for significant quantity savings, joint standardization,
    interoperability, and enabling wideband global satellite communication
    (SATCOM) Ka-band utilization, resulting in greater bandwidth for
    deployed warfighters. The Air Force continues efforts toward the Single
    Air Force Network, which increases Air Force network situational
    awareness and improves information sharing and transport capabilities.
    For future budget requests, the Air Force is working with DOD to define
    near- and long-term solutions to deliver warfighting communication
    capabilities, such as Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Terminals
    (FAB-T) and upgrading the Air Force's wideband enterprise terminals to
    provide joint standardization and greater bandwidth.
    Space Superiority
        America's ability to operate effectively across the spectrum of
    conflict also rests heavily on Air Force space capabilities. Airmen
    provide critical space capabilities that enhance the DOD's ability to
    navigate accurately, see clearly, communicate confidently, strike
    precisely, and operate assuredly. General purpose forces, the
    intelligence community, and special operations forces depend on these
    space capabilities to perform their missions every day, on every
    continent, in the air, on the land, and at sea. In addition, space
    operations help ensure access and use of the global commons, enabling a
    multitude of civil and commercial activities such as cellular
    communications, commercial and civil aviation, financial transactions,
    agriculture and infrastructure management, law enforcement, emergency
    response, and many more. Like air superiority, space-based missions can
    easily be taken for granted.
        The Air Force has maintained its record of successful space
    launches, began on-orbit testing of the first advanced extremely high-
    frequency military communications satellite, and launched the first
    Space Based Infrared System geosynchronous satellite. Our ability to
    deliver space capabilities is currently without equal. As we become a
    smaller, leaner force in accordance with the new defense strategic
    guidance, the leveraging and multiplying effects that space provides
    will become increasingly important. Improving space situational
    awareness will be key to protecting the unique advantage space
    provides.
        Rapid technology advancements and the long-lead time for
    integrating and fielding new space technology results in an ongoing
    need to plan, design, and implement space advancements. We must procure
    our space systems at the lowest-cost possible while providing assured
    access to space. Our innovative acquisition strategy for the Efficient
    Space Procurement (ESP) \1\ of complex space systems is designed to
    identify efficiencies and use those resources to provide enduring
    capability and help provide stability to the space industrial base. We
    are again requesting advance appropriations to fully fund the
    satellites being procured under ESP. While we are modernizing and
    sustaining many of our satellite constellations, funding constraints
    have slowed our ability to field some space capabilities as rapidly as
    is prudent. Therefore, as we continue to sustain our current level of
    support to the warfighter, the current fiscal environment demands that
    we explore alternate paths to provide resilient solutions. As we
    incorporate the tenets of the new National Space Policy and National
    Security Space Strategy, we are actively developing architectures that
    take into consideration the advantages of leveraging international
    partnerships and commercial space capabilities. One example being
    tested is a commercially hosted infrared payload (CHIRP) launched from
    Guiana Space Center, Kourou, French Guiana, which begins to explore the
    utility of a dedicated payload for missile warning hosted on a
    commercial communications satellite.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Previously known as Evolutionary Acquisition for Space
    Efficiency (EASE).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With the $9.6 billion in funds for space programs in the fiscal
    year 2013 budget request, the Air Force is recapitalizing many space
    capabilities, fielding new satellite communications systems, replacing
    legacy early missile warning systems, improving space control
    capabilities, and upgrading position, navigation and timing
    capabilities with the launch of Global Positioning System (GPS) IIF
    satellites and the acquisition of GPS III satellites. Consistent with
    the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Department of
    Defense Appropriations Act, the Air Force is canceling the Defense
    Weather Satellite System, saving $518.8 million in fiscal year 2013 and
    $2.38 billion more than the FYDP. The Defense Meteorological Satellite
    Program (DMSP) will continue to fulfill this critical requirement as
    the Air Force determines the most prudent way forward.
    Nuclear Deterrence Operations
        Credible nuclear capabilities are required to deter potential
    adversaries from attacking our vital interests and to assure our allies
    of our commitments. Although the threat of global nuclear war has
    become remote since the end of the cold war, the prospect of nuclear
    terrorism has increased. Proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially
    among regional power aspirants, is on the rise. Advanced air defenses
    increasingly threaten the survivability of current bombers. Area denial
    and ballistic missile threats reduce our basing options and challenge
    the responsiveness and survivability of long-range strike. As a result,
    the United States must shape its deterrent forces to maintain stability
    among existing nuclear powers, to strengthen regional deterrence, and
    to reassure U.S. allies and partners.
        The Air Force is responsible for 2 of the 3 legs of the nuclear
    triad and continuing to strengthen the Air Force nuclear enterprise
    remains a top Air Force priority. Air Force investment in our bombers
    and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems reflects our
    commitment to the nuclear deterrence mission well into the future. Our
    request of $5.1 billion for this core function in fiscal year 2013
    increases sustainment for the Minuteman III ICBM through 2030 with fuze
    component replenishment and replacement programs, as well as new
    transporter erectors. We are also enhancing long-range strike
    capabilities by upgrading the B-2s with an improved Defensive
    Management System (DMS) and a new survivable communication system.
    These investments will ensure the Air Force maintains the capability to
    operate and sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces to deter
    adversaries, hold any target at risk, and respond appropriately if
    deterrence fails. In particular, the responsiveness of the ICBM leg and
    the flexibility of the bomber leg are valued attributes of the nuclear
    force. We are committed to a future force that will have the
    flexibility and resiliency to adapt to changes in the geopolitical
    environment or cope with potential problems in the nuclear stockpile.
        The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty requires the United States
    to reduce warheads and delivery capacity by 2018. Our fiscal year 2013
    budget request includes $20.1 million to fund treaty preparatory
    actions that began in fiscal year 2012 and additional actions necessary
    to accomplish the treaty-required reductions by 2018. While final force
    structure decisions have not yet been made, we are continuing to
    develop detailed plans, working with the Department of Defense and U.S.
    Strategic Command, for executing force reduction decisions which retain
    the attributes of the Triad needed for 21st century deterrence.
    Rapid Global Mobility
        The Air Force provides unparalleled in-flight refueling and cargo
    carrying capacity in support of worldwide operations. Mobility forces
    provide vital deployment and sustainment capability for Joint and
    coalition forces by delivering essential equipment, personnel, and
    materiel for missions ranging from major combat operations to
    humanitarian relief operations. Achieving unprecedented survival rates,
    our highly skilled aeromedical transport teams swiftly evacuate combat
    casualties, ensuring our wounded warriors receive the best possible
    medical care. A unique Air Force contribution, rapid global mobility
    must be maintained on a scale to support DOD force structure and
    national strategic objectives.
        On any given day, the Air Force fleet of C-17s and C-5s deliver
    critical personnel and cargo, provide airdrop of time-critical
    supplies, food, and ammunition, and enable rapid movement of personnel
    and equipment. Air Force air refueling aircraft will continue to play a
    vital, daily role in extending the range and persistence of almost all
    other Joint Force aircraft. The Air Force remains committed to fully
    funding the acquisition of the new KC-46A tanker with $1.8 billion in
    research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) in fiscal year
    2013, while also resourcing critical modernization programs for the KC-
    10 and KC-135 fleets. This will ensure our Nation retains a tanker
    fleet able to provide crucial air refueling capacity for decades to
    come. The retirement of 20 KC-135s is consistent with our analysis of
    warfighting scenarios based on the strategic guidance and will results
    in savings of $22.5 million in fiscal year 2013. As part of our energy
    efficiency initiatives, we plan to begin upgrading 93 KC-135 engines in
    fiscal year 2013 and 100 more each year through the FYDP. We anticipate
    overall savings in fuel and maintenance of $1.5 billion from this $278
    million investment.
        In addition, with our fiscal year 2013 budget request of $15.9
    billion in rapid global mobility funds, the Air Force will continue to
    modernize its inter-theater airlift fleet of C-17s and C-5s. To move
    toward a common fleet configuration, the Air Force is investing $138.2
    million in fiscal year 2013 for the Global Reach Improvement Program
    (GRIP). The GRIP brings the multiple variants of C-17 to a standard
    configuration, designated the C-17A, that will provide efficiencies in
    operations and weapon system sustainment. We also plan to transfer
    eight C-17s from the Active component to the ANG in fiscal year 2013,
    and an additional eight in fiscal year 2015. We are modernizing the
    most capable C-5 airframes while retiring the final 27 of the oldest
    model, the C-5A. On the remaining 52 C-5s, the Air Force is investing
    $1.3 billion in modernization in fiscal year 2013 to improve capability
    and reliability, including $1.23 billion on the Reliability Enhancement
    and Re-engining Program. We currently have seven operational C-5Ms. The
    retirement of the last C-5A by fiscal year 2016 is timed to match the
    completion of the last C-5M upgrade.
        Because the strategic guidance reduced the overall requirement for
    intra-theater airlift, we are retiring C-130H aircraft (39 in fiscal
    year 2013 and a total of 65 more than the FYDP). These older aircraft
    would require costly modification or modernization to remain viable. We
    will maintain the necessary intra-theater airlift capability and
    capacity by completing the recapitalization of older C-130E/H aircraft
    with the C-130J. The remaining legacy C-130H aircraft are being
    modernized to reduce sustainment costs and ensure global airspace
    access.
        Finally, after rigorous mission analysis, we determined the mission
    performed by the C-27J fleet could be performed by the C-130 fleet
    which is fully capable of meeting direct ground support and homeland
    defense requirements.\2\ The fiscal constraints that demand we become a
    smaller Air Force also support the decision to retain aircraft that
    have multiple role capabilities, like the C-130. Therefore, all 21 C-
    27Js in the current fleet will be retired, and we are canceling
    procurement of 17 additional aircraft. Without question, the Air
    Force's commitment to support time-sensitive, mission-critical direct
    airlift support to the Army is unaltered by the divestment of the C-
    27J.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Six of the seven ANG units that are affected by the divestment
    of the C-27J fleet are being backfilled with MC-12W Liberty, ISR/cyber,
    MQ-9, or C-130 units.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Command and Control
        Command and control (C2) of our forces has never been more vital or
    more difficult than in the highly complex 21st century military
    operations that depend on close Joint and coalition coordination. C2 is
    the key operational function that ties all the others together to
    achieve our military objectives, enabling commanders to integrate
    operations in multiple theaters at multiple levels through planning,
    coordinating, tasking, executing, monitoring and assessing air, space,
    and cyberspace operations across the range of military operations. No
    longer in a cold war technological environment, the Air Force is
    transforming its C2 to an Internet protocol-based net-centric war
    fighting capability. To do so, the Air Force must sustain, modify, and
    enhance current C2 systems, and develop deployable, scalable, and
    modular systems that are interoperable with joint, interagency, and
    coalition partners.
        The Air Force is focusing its attention to modernization efforts to
    operate in A2/AD environments with our fourth- and fifth-generation
    weapon systems. In doing so, the Air Force will continue to use a
    balanced approach across the C2 portfolio by investing in sustaining
    legacy platforms while modernizing our C2 aircraft fleet and ground
    operating nodes only as needed to sustain our capability. Our fiscal
    year 2013 budget request of $5.8 billion for C2 includes $200 million
    to support secure and reliable strategic level communications through
    the E-4 National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC). We are also
    spending $22.7 million to begin fielding a cockpit modernization
    development program to sustain the capability of the existing Airborne
    Warning and Control System (AWACS) platform and we will continue to
    modernize and sustain the Theater Air Control System Command and
    Control Centers (CRC). The modernization of the Air Operations Center
    (AOC) will move this weapon system to an enterprise system which can
    accept rapid application upgrades and enable future warfighting
    concepts.
        To reduce unnecessary cost, the Air Force will retire one JSTARS
    aircraft that is beyond economical repair, saving the Air Force $13
    million in fiscal year 2013 and $91 million more than the FYDP. The
    JSTARS re-engining system development and demonstration (SDD) flight
    test program completed in January 2012; however, because the fiscal
    year 2012 NDAA reduced re-engining funding, full completion of the re-
    engining SDD is under review. The JSTARS re-engining program is not
    funded in fiscal year 2013. We also terminated our portion of the Army-
    managed Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) small airborne radio program
    that was over cost and behind schedule and will instead leverage
    industry-developed hardware, while continuing the development of the
    required radio waveforms. The termination of this program and the
    associated nonrecurring engineering will save $294 million in fiscal
    year 2013 and $3.2 billion more than the FYDP.
    Special Operations
        Success in counterterrorism and irregular warfare missions requires
    the ability to conduct operations in hostile, denied, or politically
    sensitive environments, using other than conventional forces. Air Force
    special operations capabilities continue to play a vital role in
    supporting U.S. Special Operations Command and geographic combatant
    commanders. U.S. special operations forces (SOF) depend on a balanced
    force of air, sea, and land capabilities; Air Commandos bring
    specialized expertise for infiltration and exfiltration and the kinetic
    and nonkinetic application of airpower that are essential to joint
    special operations capabilities.
        Our investments in SOF must strike a balance between winning
    today's fight and building the Joint SOF of the future, including the
    ability to act unilaterally when necessary. Despite the challenging
    fiscal environment, with our budget request of $1.2 billion, the Air
    Force was able to sustain nearly all of the SOF aviation improvements
    realized over the past several years. The programmed buy of 50 CV-22
    Ospreys will complete in fiscal year 2014, and the procurement of MC-
    130Js for the recapitalization of 37 MC-130E/Ps will also complete in
    fiscal year 2014. MC-130H/W recapitalization will begin in fiscal year
    2015, a year earlier than scheduled in the fiscal year 2012 President's
    budget, which ensures a continued, more capable SOF mobility fleet. The
    Air Force is modernizing our SOF precision strike capability by
    procuring AC-130Js, on a one-for-one basis, to recapitalize our legacy
    AC-130Hs. We are also ensuring our battlefield airmen continue to
    receive first-class equipment and training by adding funds to
    operations and maintenance accounts.
    Personnel Recovery
        The Air Force remains committed to modernizing crucial combat
    search and rescue (CSAR) capabilities. The additional use of personnel
    recovery (PR) forces for medical and casualty evacuation, humanitarian
    assistance, disaster response, and civil search and rescue operations
    has steadily risen since the early 1990s. This increase in usage has
    taken its toll on the aircraft and significantly affected availability.
    Currently, Air Force PR forces are fully engaged in the CENTCOM and
    Africa Command AORs, accomplishing lifesaving medical and casualty
    evacuation missions. They are also supporting domestic civil land and
    maritime search and rescue, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief,
    and mass casualty evacuation missions. The dynamic geopolitical
    environment suggests that the continued need for PR forces to conduct
    nonpermissive CSAR in contingency operations and permissive
    humanitarian assistance, disaster response, and civil search and rescue
    operations will remain.
        To ensure the Air Force is able to provide this vital core function
    in the future, we are recapitalizing our fixed wing aircraft,
    replenishing our rotary wing aircraft through the Operational Loss
    Replacement (OLR) program, and replacing aging rotary wing aircraft
    through the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program. The $1.4 billion
    fiscal year 2013 budget request for PR includes $152.2 million for the
    HC-130J and $183.8 million for the OLR and CRH programs. The fiscal
    year 2013 RDT&E funding for the CRH was reprogrammed to support the
    acquisition of two test aircraft. The program remains on track to
    produce a replacement for the HH-60G through a full and open
    competition, with initial operational capability planned for fiscal
    year 2018. The Air Force also continues to fund the HH-60G and HC-130
    sustainment programs while continuing to invest in the Guardian Angel
    program that provides first-class equipment and training for the rescue
    force.
    Building Partnerships
        Building the capacity of partner governments and their security
    forces is a key element in our national security strategy. The
    establishment of strong, foundational aviation enterprises in our
    partner nations enables successful, sustainable security within their
    own borders while contributing to regional stability. Successful
    partnerships ensure interoperability, integration and interdependence
    between air forces, allowing for effective combined and coalition
    operational employment. These partnerships also provide partner nations
    with the capability and capacity to resolve their own national security
    challenges, thereby reducing the potential demand for a large U.S.
    response or support.
        The necessity for partnering is evident every day in Afghanistan
    where United States and coalition air forces provide flexible and
    efficient airpower support to International Security Assistance Force
    operations. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, airmen are building the
    capabilities and capacities of the Iraqi and Afghanistan air forces so
    that they can successfully employ airpower in their own right. In
    addition, the success of the Libya operations last year can be partly
    attributed to years of engagement that led to improved interoperability
    and highly capable and equipped partner nations.
        These international engagements require airmen to perform their
    duties effectively and achieve influence in culturally complex
    environments around the globe. Fielding the Joint Strike Fighter and
    other platforms will help further our partnerships with more
    established allies. The U.S. role in the 12-nation Strategic Airlift
    Consortium enables a unique fully operational force of three C-17s to
    meet the airlift requirements of our European allies. The fiscal year
    2013 budget request of approximately $300 million in this core function
    continues to fully resource the Strategic Airlift Consortium effort at
    Papa AB, Hungary. The Air Force also committed to field a new aviation
    detachment in Poland.
        Due to fiscal constraints, the Air Force terminated the Light
    Attack Armed Reconnaissance and the Light Mobility Aircraft programs;
    however, the Air Force believes this requirement can be substantially
    met with innovative application of ANG State Partnership Programs and
    Mobility Support Advisory Squadrons. We are working with partner
    nations to build and sustain ISR capacity and help them effectively
    counter threats within their borders. We are also pursuing
    international agreements to increase partner satellite communication,
    space situational awareness, and global positioning, navigation, and
    timing capabilities.
        The Air Force also recognizes that it cannot build effective
    international partnerships without effective U.S. Government
    interagency partnerships. To that end, we are a strong supporter of
    State-Defense exchanges and other programs that provide interagency
    familiarity and training.
    Agile Combat Support
        Underpinning our capacity to perform the missions in these core
    functions is the ability to create, protect, and sustain air and space
    forces across the full-spectrum of military operations--from the
    training, education, and development of our airmen to excellence in
    acquisition. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $31 billion
    for agile combat support.
        We will continue to support our airmen and their families through
    quality of life and support services such as child care and youth
    programs and initiatives, medical services and rehabilitation for
    wounded warriors, improvements to dining facilities, food delivery,
    fitness centers, and lodging. We are partnering with local communities,
    where feasible, to provide the highest-quality support, and we are
    changing the way that we provide services so that airmen and their
    families are more able to easily access and receive the support they
    need. To ensure we continuously focus on and improve readiness and
    build a more agile and capable force, we have strengthened technical
    and professional development by enhancing technical training,
    professional military education, and language and culture programs.
        The Air Force is committed to sustaining excellence with a smaller
    force. We remain attentive to force management efforts and continue to
    size and shape the force to meet congressionally mandated military end
    strength. A series of voluntary and involuntary force management
    efforts have been successful in reducing Active Duty end strength.
    Force management programs in fiscal year 2012 include voluntary and
    involuntary programs which lessen the need for involuntary actions in
    fiscal year 2013. We are posturing accessions for the long term and
    ensuring the right balance of skills exists to meet operational
    requirements. The Air Force will meet its OSD-directed civilian end
    strength target for fiscal year 2012. The Force Management Program is
    not a quick fix, but a tailored, multiyear effort to manage the force
    along the 30-year continuum of service.
        We are improving acquisition processes, recently completing
    implementation of the Acquisition Improvement Plan (AIP). We have also
    institutionalized the ``Better Buying Power'' (BBP) initiatives
    promulgated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology and Logistics and are expanding those improvements through
    our Acquisition Continuous Process Improvement 2.0 (CPI 2.0) effort.
    The major elements of the CPI 2.0 Initiative--process simplification,
    requirements, realizing the value proposition, and workforce
    improvement--will build upon the BBP initiatives and continue our
    momentum in improving our acquisition workforce skills.
        We are ensuring the Air Force continues to have war-winning
    technology through the careful and proactive management of our science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce and improving
    our means to attract and recruit future innovators for the Air Force.
    Properly funding our science and technology laboratories enables them
    to continue discovering, developing, and demonstrating high-payoff
    innovations to address the changing strategic environment and sustain
    air, space, and cyberspace superiority. Therefore, the Air Force's
    budget protects science and technology funding as a share of our total
    resources.
        Science and technology investments are also a key toward enhancing
    our energy security and meeting our energy goals. The Air Force is
    requesting more than $530 million for aviation, infrastructure, and
    RDT&E energy initiatives in fiscal year 2013 to reduce energy demand,
    improve energy efficiency, diversify supply, and increase mission
    effectiveness. A focus of these initiatives is to improve our energy
    security by diversifying our drop-in and renewable sources of energy
    and increasing our access to reliable and uninterrupted energy
    supplies. We are investing more than $300 million in energy RDT&E,
    which includes $214 million for the fiscal year 2013 Adaptive Engine
    Technology Development (AETD) Initiative. This initiative will build
    upon the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) effort to reduce
    energy consumption and improve efficiency and reliability of future and
    legacy aircraft.
        We are continuing to support an important aspect of our readiness
    posture through weapons system sustainment, the requirements for which
    have grown due to the complexity of new aircraft, operations tempo
    increases, force structure changes, and growth in depot work packages
    for legacy aircraft. We are mitigating overall WSS growth through
    efficiency efforts and requirements reviews. WSS funding through
    overseas contingency operations (OCO) requests remains critical while
    we continue to be engaged in these global operations. For fiscal year
    2013, we are seeking $11.6 billion in WSS (including OCO). We are
    committed to retaining three strong organic depots. In fiscal year
    2012, we are investing approximately $290 million in new technologies
    and infrastructure in all of our depots. Although we may have a short-
    term challenge to meet the title 10, section 2466 Depot 50/50 Rule
    requirements due to force structure changes, we have a robust plan in
    place to perform organic repair for future weapon systems like the KC-
    46A.
        As noted earlier, Air Force continues to emphasize the importance
    of maintaining readiness in support of our FHP. The Air Force's $44.3
    billion fiscal year 2013 operations and maintenance request supports
    1.17 million flying hours for new pilot production, pilot development,
    maintenance of basic flying skills, as well as training of crews to
    support combatant commander priorities.
        Facility sustainment, restoration and modernization, and MILCON are
    essential tools for providing mission capability to our warfighters.
    The $441 million in MILCON funding, a $900 million decrease from fiscal
    year 2012 enacted levels, represents a conscious decision to take a
    deliberate pause in MILCON investment. During this pause, we will
    maintain funding levels for facility sustainment at $1.4 billion and
    restoration and modernization at $718.1 million. We will continue to
    fund the most critical construction priorities of our combatant
    commanders and the Air Force, including projects aligned with weapon
    system deliveries--supporting beddowns for the F-22, F-35, HC-130J/C-
    130H, and MQ-9. In addition, our investment funds some much-needed
    support to our airmen, with $42 million in dormitory recapitalization.
                                   conclusion
        Given the continuing complexity and uncertainty in the strategic
    environment, and a more constrained fiscal environment, DOD and Air
    Force resources are appropriately targeted to promote agile, flexible,
    and cost-effective forces, and to mitigate strategic risks. The fiscal
    year 2013 Air Force budget request reflects the extremely difficult
    choices that had to be made that will allow the Air Force to provide
    the necessary capability, capacity, and versatility required to prevail
    in today's and tomorrow's wars, prevent and deter conflict, and prepare
    to defeat adversaries and succeed across the range of potential
    military operations--all the while preserving and enhancing the All-
    Volunteer Force. Additional reductions would put at risk our capability
    to execute the new strategic guidance.
        We are confident in our airmen and their families. They are the
    best in the world, and we rely on them to meet any challenge, overcome
    any obstacle, and defeat any enemy--as long as they are given adequate
    resources. As they have time and again, our airmen innovators will find
    new and better ways to approach future military challenges across the
    spectrum of domains and against nascent threats. We are committed to
    excellence and we will deliver with your help. We ask that you support
    the Air Force budget request of $110.1 billion for fiscal year 2013.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        General Schwartz.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, CHIEF OF STAFF
        General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Vice Chairman,
    members of the subcommittee, just a brief addendum to the
    Secretary's comments, if you would allow me, on military
    compensation.
        I would appeal to the subcommittee, Sir, to carefully
    consider those initiatives in our budget proposal that begin to
    tackle escalating personnel costs: compensation, healthcare,
    and retirement. Among all the other challenges facing us, the
    reality of fewer members of the Armed Forces costing
    increasingly more to recruit, train, and retain for promising
    careers, I think, is the monumental Defense issue of our time.
        Our inability to address this issue properly will place
    other areas of the budget, including force structure and
    modernization, under yet more pressure, forcing out needed
    military capability, at a time when we already are right sized
    for the likely missions ahead.
        Sir, we look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. If I may, Secretary
    Donley, your budget request proposes to terminate or
    restructure a significant number of programs and force
    structure which were funded in the fiscal year 2012. Now, can
    you provide this subcommittee some assurance that the Air Force
    is not ramping down its activities until we act on the fiscal
    year 2013 Defense bills?
        Mr. Donley. Yes, Sir, I can. Our guiding principle is that
    we will not take any irreversible actions before the Congress
    has had a chance to review and approve, or adjust, the
    proposals made in the President's budget. There is a different
    situation with respect to each program. We have some programs,
    such as the Global Hawk, for example, Block 30 capability, that
    has already been fielded. Some aircraft are in procurement, and
    then there were dollars appropriated for additional procurement
    beyond that.
        So, at appropriate points in contracts, we are taking
    pauses to slow down but are taking no irreversible decisions.
    The one exception to that that I mentioned in my statement is
    the Defense Weather Satellite System, which the Congress
    actually terminated in fiscal year 2012. So, we have taken
    steps to terminate that program.
        Chairman Inouye. In your fiscal year 2013 budget request,
    you're cutting down the size of the Air Force personnel by
    9,900. Now, it will take place in this fiscal year 2013. What
    force-shaping tools are you using to make these reductions?
        Mr. Donley. Sir, we appreciate the support of the Congress
    in the last year to provide additional force-shaping tools for
    the Air Force and for the rest of the uniform services to
    adjust, as required, the size of our forces. We have been very
    aggressive in the last couple of years to get down the size of
    the Air Force. Our Active Duty has been over strength, at one
    point, by up to 5,000 or 6,000 personnel. So, we've taken
    aggressive action in the last 2 years to get down to authorized
    levels.
        We will await the outcome of the congressional
    deliberations, but at this point we are hopeful that we can
    avoid potentially adverse force-shaping methods going into
    fiscal years 2013 and 2014. We're still not sure, but I think
    we're well-positioned, given the actions we've taken in the
    last couple of years.
        Chairman Inouye. General Schwartz, do you have anything to
    add?
        General Schwartz. Sir, I would just reiterate that at the
    moment it appears we will not have to use involuntary measures,
    that the voluntary incentives that are available, including
    those recently approved, will serve the purpose.
        Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary, General Schwartz, I have
    several other questions, but because of the legislative
    schedule, I'd like to submit them for your consideration. May I
    now recognize the Vice Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, my question is a follow-on
    to your first question. It seems that the Air Force may be
    getting ahead of the Congress here on making decisions to shut
    down operations of one kind or another, in anticipation of cuts
    that will be approved in the budget, but which have not yet
    been debated or reviewed carefully so that it will be ready to
    make any announcements.
        Are any of these decisions that you've been making to shut
    down operations, like at Meridian, Mississippi, and other
    places, final decisions, or when do you consider that to become
    a final decision?
        Mr. Donley. Well, certainly, we need congressional action
    on the fiscal year 2013 to confirm a way forward in these force
    structure adjustments. At the same time, we'll be frank with
    the subcommittee that many of our force structure adjustments
    are frontloaded to fiscal year 2013. So, we do need to continue
    the planning that would allow us to implement our proposals,
    should you approve them. So, we will need to go forward with
    planning, but, again, the Congress has the final say on next
    steps.
        Senator Cochran. So, I understand from that that operations
    are not going to be affected in the foreseeable future, or
    during this next fiscal year, necessarily, unless the Congress
    approves it. Is that what I understand you to say now?
        Mr. Donley. That's correct. The operation of the Global
    Hawk Block 30, the operation of the C-27s that have been
    delivered, those, for example, continue.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary
    and General Schwartz, thank you for being here.
        General Schwartz, we met a couple of years ago, and we
    talked about the C-17s, and how to get them to Memphis and
    replace the aging C-5As. You're now on a path to do that,
    according to your proposal. As I understand it, the C-17s will
    be relocated in fiscal year 2013. What's the exact timeline for
    getting the C-17s to Memphis?
        General Schwartz. I would like to get you the exact
    timeline for the record, if I may, but I think that is a
    reflection of a larger effort that's under way to reshape the
    airlift force by retiring, in terms of the big aircraft, the 27
    remaining C-5As and repopulating with C-17s and/or the re-
    engined C-5s across the fleet.
        [The information follows:]

        When the fiscal year 2013 President's budget was being developed,
    the Air Force determined that the Tennessee Air National Guard's 164th
    Airlift Wing at Memphis would convert from C-5As to C-17As, completing
    an action initiated during the fiscal year 2012 President's budget
    request. Memphis receives the first four C-17A aircraft in fiscal year
    2013, with the remaining four aircraft arriving in fiscal year 2014.
    The schedule was planned around the transition between missions,
    accounting for C-5As retirements to make room for C-17As, as well as
    allowing for the retraining of aircrew and maintenance personnel. C-5As
    are planned to complete retirements from Memphis by the end of fiscal
    year 2014.
        Air Mobility Command will work closely with the Air National Guard
    to ensure the most effective plan is implemented, adjusting the arrival
    plan accordingly based on the specific details of the C-5A retirement
    schedule and progress of C-17A training for Memphis personnel.

        Senator Alexander. Well, you have come to a conclusion that
    I certainly support, in recognition of the unusually good
    facilities you have in Memphis, and the same kind of conditions
    that the FedEx super hub, and the world runway, and others
    have. It makes a lot of sense to do that. And I'd be interested
    in any further detail about the timeline for that action.
        Let me ask you a couple of questions, and then I'll stop,
    so other Senators can have their time. I want to ask you about
    the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma,
    Tennessee. You've announced a restructuring of the Air Force
    Materiel Command. You're going to reduce the number of them.
    You're going to save some money doing that, eliminate civilian
    positions, and the Arnold Center, as a part of that
    restructuring, will be renamed. It will be reported to the Air
    Force Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California. All
    of which seems to me, again, to make a lot of sense, in terms
    of the demands that you have to reduce the size of what you're
    doing.
        I wanted to express my support for your decision. Even
    though I know it's a difficult one, it ought to help the
    testing mission, and I believe it makes good sense. So, I know
    that sometimes as you go through these restructurings, you get
    expressions of lack of support. I want to give you one of
    support. And I want to ask you what you can tell me about the
    timeline for implementing the Air Force Materiel Command
    realignment plan. In other words, when do you expect Arnold to
    start reporting to Edwards Air Force Base in California?
        General Schwartz. Sir, that is a fiscal year 2013
    initiative, and so it would happen during the fiscal year, and
    we've got phased approaches. As you know, we're taking 10
    direct reports to the Air Force Materiel Command Commander down
    to 5, and that will be done in a phased basis, and it will also
    include the transitions of supervision, in some cases, from,
    for example, two stars to one star to address the reduction in
    general officer manning that we've been mandated to undertake.
        So, once again, Sir, with your permission, we'll give you
    the exact timeline with respect to the test center
    specifically, but it's a fiscal year 2013 undertaking.
        [The information follows:]

        The timeline for implementing the Air Force Materiel Command
    realignment comprises a transition period from early June 2012 through
    September 30, 2012. During this transition period the command will
    begin to shift to a new framework and refine processes necessary to
    operate in the new construct. This transition period is necessary to
    work through the many required changes in order to successfully meet
    the initial operating capability objectives. Initial operating
    capability includes completion of organizational alignment, new
    processes established, and personnel in place to support the new
    structure. Full implementation execution will commence on October 1,
    2012 (fiscal year 2013) with completion of stand-up activities of the
    new Air Force Materiel Command five center organization. The re-
    designation of the Arnold Engineering Development Center to the Arnold
    Engineering Development Complex is planned to occur coincident with
    leadership change in the July timeframe. Full alignment to the Air
    Force Test Center (re-designated from Air Force Flight Test Center)
    will be complete by October 1, 2012.

        Senator Alexander. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. One
    last question. I was talking with Colonel Brewer, who's the
    base commander at Arnold. Looking way down the road, he
    reminded me that the facilities of the base are 50 years old.
    And I know at a time of less money and restructuring that it's
    tempting not to spend money on long-term planning for
    maintenance and modernizing, but we all know, as I'm sure you
    do, that there has to be a long-term plan to ensure that
    critical testing facilities such as that are at a very high
    level with cutting-edge technologies.
        What plans have you undertaken to make sure that the
    testing facility there remains capable of its mission over the
    long-term.
        General Schwartz. Sir, as you know, there's a number of
    unique facilities at Tullahoma.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        General Schwartz. Including the high-speed test tunnels,
    and so on, and so forth. And among other things, we have
    invested in energy initiatives at Tullahoma in order to reduce
    the costs of operation there and to have a more efficient
    footprint.
        As you are aware, many of these test facilities are very
    energy intensive, and one of those major efforts under way is
    not only to make them modern in terms of their test capacity,
    but importantly, how we manage the energy consumption at that
    installation.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    General.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        Senator Coats.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS

        Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary
    and General, thank you for your testimony.
        As I understand it, the downsizing of certain assets is the
    consequence of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
    decision to basically scale back to be able to engage in one
    full-time combat operation with a sort of a hold on a second
    rather than the two full-effort strategy that we've been under.
    And that has had an effect, I believe, on your decision,
    relative to the A-10s, apparently.
        But setting that strategy aside for another day, I want to
    ask a question about the A-10s. As you know, the 122nd Fighter
    Wing in Fort Wayne, is home to those A-10s. And under the plan,
    that would be switched to an ISR platform in the future.
        I know that the Guard has submitted a counterproposal,
    which meets your goals. They even said, look, we understand
    these cutbacks are necessary, reductions are necessary, and so
    forth, but that counterproposal provided, I think it was based
    on the premise that when those A-10s are not in combat, they
    have to be deployed not overseas, but to some base, whether
    it's Active, or Reserve, or Guard. And in so doing, when
    they're not deployed, there's significant cost savings for
    that, and I think the 122nd has demonstrated that pretty
    effectively; less than one-third of the cost, if it's based on
    an active base.
        My question is: Have you been able to review that proposal?
    Have you come to a conclusion on it? If so, what is that
    conclusion, and what's the justification for it?
        Mr. Donley. So, as you alluded to, Senator, the Council of
    Governors approached the Secretary of Defense and asked if he
    would be open to suggestions for how to adjust the fiscal year
    2013 President's budget. The Secretary indicated he would
    entertain suggestions. The Council of Governors did table a
    proposal almost 2 weeks ago, and that has been under review.
        We've met three times with the empowered adjutant generals
    that the Council of the Governors have directed to work with
    us, General Wyatt, and also the Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau, General McKinley. The Chief and I have met now, as I
    said, three times. This work is ongoing, and we've not yet
    reached a conclusion, but we recognize the need to do so in
    time to meet the appropriate congressional markups that are in
    front of us in the next couple of months.
        Senator Coats. Well, I very much appreciate it when you do
    reach a conclusion that we be informed about that. Obviously,
    it affects what has been, I think, rated over, and over, and
    over a very cost-effective unit, the 122nd at Fort Wayne.
    Again, we're not chaining ourself to the fence here and saying
    you can't touch this for any reason, whatsoever. We understand
    the need to make these reductions, but if there is a means by
    which makes sense, help you meet your goals, and save the
    funds, we certainly would like to have you give that very, very
    serious consideration.
        General, anything you might want to add to that?
        General Schwartz. Sir, we are doing just exactly that, and
    we'll be bringing the conclusions of our work to the attention
    of the more senior people in the department within days.
        Senator Coats. Good. Well, I've always tried to be
    supportive, whether it's base closings or anything else, in
    terms of the most cost-effective efficient military, and would
    be happy to work with you on that. And I thank you very much
    for your response.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Senator Coats.
        Senator Johnson.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, thank
    you, and welcome, for being here today.
        Secretary, the Air National Guard is a cost-effective force
    of experienced airmen. Given our difficult fiscal situation,
    why does the budget request propose disproportionate cuts in
    aircraft and manpower for the Air National Guard?
        Mr. Donley. Sir, the adjustments in our manpower were
    driven by adjustments in the force structure itself, and the
    fighter force structure, and in the mobility force structure.
    Those changes were prompted by the adjustments and strategic
    guidance that we received that asked us to reorient
    geographically toward, certainly, the sustaining missions in
    the Middle East, but also look more carefully at Pacific
    priorities, going forward, and recognizing that the overall
    size of the ground forces are going down.
        So, the force structure adjustments that we proposed were
    connected to those strategic judgments and the direction from
    the department that we could take additional risk in the
    fighter force structure. And as we looked at the fighter force
    structure and the mobility force structure as well, the key
    issues for us were how to develop on a total force basis the
    right balance between Active and Reserve component
    capabilities. Not just to husband reserve capabilities, as a
    strategic reserve back in the United States, but on a total
    force basis, how to integrate the Reserve components and the
    Active forces with the ongoing commitments of the United States
    Air Force 24/7, 365, and also to be able to meet surge and
    sustaining requirements. And this is what brought a closer
    attention to the Active and Reserve balance.
        The size of our Air Force now is so small, as a result of
    the proposals that we're making here, we will be the size of
    the Air Force in 1947, when this Air Force was first created,
    on the Active-Duty side. So, as we go forward together, our
    Reserve and Active components have to be more closely
    integrated, and we can't get either side of this out of balance
    going forward.
        I'd ask the Chief to add to this.
        General Schwartz. The only thing I would add to the
    Secretary's comments is one of the principle considerations was
    what will the activity level be for deployment requirements
    that's both rotational and potential surge contingency
    requirements. And with a smaller force, you have to assure that
    you can spread that activity level properly across the entire
    inventory, and that suggested that we needed to get the balance
    so that the Active Duty would not be more busy than what we
    call a deploy-to-dwell ratio of 1 to 2. In other words, 6
    months deployed, 1 year home, and for the Reserves, not less
    than 1 to 4, ideally 1 to 5. And the reason is, if we overuse
    any of these components, especially when the economy turns up,
    we will end up in a situation where Active Duty will not stay
    with us, and on the Guard and Reserve side, perhaps employers,
    and family members, and so on will see the activity level on
    the Guard side as too active-duty like. And so, this was trying
    to get the mix right, so that we could maintain the anticipated
    activity level without overusing either of the components, Sir.
        Senator Johnson. General Schwartz, we look forward to
    hosting you at Ellsworth Air Force Base in May to celebrate the
    70th anniversary of the base. Ellsworth has a proud history and
    will continue to play an important role for the Air Force.
        Looking to the future, is the Air Force close to issuing
    the record of decision on the Powder River Training Complex?
        General Schwartz. Yes, Sir, we are. We got numerous
    comments from all interested parties on the environmental
    impact statement, some of which were not favorable. So, we took
    a brief pause to digest those comments and make sure that the
    requirements that we had were appropriate and justified. We
    have concluded that work, so the record of decision is
    imminent, and we will publish that in the appropriate fashion,
    Sir.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you.

                           C-130 MOVE FROM FORT WORTH

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Hutchison.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Mr. Secretary and General Schwartz.
        Many of us were stunned about the plan that you have to
    remove eight of the C-130s from the Fort Worth Joint Base, from
    the 136th Airlift Wing, and to move those to Great Falls,
    Montana. That 136th has been crucial for the evacuation of
    victims of hurricanes and storms. In fact, all five Governors
    of States on the gulf coast sent a letter to the President,
    strongly asking that this relocation not occur. They said,
    ``Losing the C-130s takes away a powerful airlift asset for
    saving the lives of Gulf Coast State citizens.''
        Now, these are Governors who have relied heavily on the
    136th Airlift Wing in response to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, in
    2008, Dean in 2007, and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in
    2005. In fact, the 136th has flown 423 sorties in response to
    storms, have safely evacuated more than 3,000 victims, and
    delivered 939 tons of emergency aid. So, there will be no Guard
    C-130s on the entire gulf coast, which we know is one of the
    key places where hurricanes certainly hit, but we also have
    tornado alley in that area.
        In addition to that, General Schwartz, the Air Force has
    requested a $3 million earmark in fiscal year 2013 for
    operations and maintenance to fund a temporary shelter for
    these C-130s in Montana. The Air Force has also requested $20
    million in military construction funding for fiscal year 2014
    for conversion of facilities from F-15 to C-130s. The DOD said
    in the request that the C-130s cannot fit inside the current
    hangar and perform maintenance, thus negatively impacting the
    C-130 mission.
        Until this proposed project is completed, the lack of a
    fuel cell control facility will also cause maintenance delays,
    forcing fuel cell work to be done on the ramp in harsh winter
    conditions. You responded, General Schwartz, to Congresswoman
    Kay Granger in a March 6 hearing that the Air Force has not yet
    completed all the work on this.
        I'm hoping you're going to say today that it is still being
    assessed and possibly for a rethinking of this kind of a
    transfer, when these have been so vital to an area that is,
    really, the area of the country that has the most disasters and
    emergency needs, and this 136th is specifically trained to be
    the immediate response for these Governors that use the Wing.
        So, my question is: Are you reconsidering, and if not, why
    not?
        General Schwartz. The short answer is yes, we are. In fact,
    part of the Council of Governors' proposal was an adjustment to
    our original recommendations. So, as the Secretary indicated,
    it certainly is under consideration.
        I would only offer this context, though. While it is true
    that there are no Air National Guard C-130s in the gulf
    region----
        Senator Hutchison. There are Reserves.
        General Schwartz [continuing]. There are numerous other C-
    130s.
        Senator Hutchison. Yes.
        General Schwartz. Both Active Duty and Reserve. And that
    the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act enables
    the Active Duty now to provide support to civil authority much
    like the interstate compacts that exist, you know, between the
    States for title 32 application of the Air National Guard.
        Nonetheless, the short answer to your question is yes, it
    certainly is under consideration, and for some of the reasons
    you mentioned, and others as well.
        Senator Hutchison. Did you have a comment, Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Donley. I just wanted to reinforce that yes, we are
    looking at this in the context of the Council of Governors'
    proposal, but to reiterate, as we go forward, and the military
    becomes stronger, we need to think about the most efficient use
    of our Armed Forces across components. And we know this has
    been an issue for the Guard. But in the gulf region, we have
    Active, Guard, and Reserve airlift. We have about 100 either C-
    130-like or helicopter-like capabilities that are available.
    And we have done the analysis on support to hurricanes and
    tropical storms on the gulf coast. And the numbers show that
    the Active Duty actually ends up flying in support of the
    States, and the Federal disaster support planes have flown
    fully one-half or more of those kinds of missions. So, we are,
    as a total Air Force, available to support the Governors'
    needs, when there is a natural disaster.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say that I do think
    that the guard is the immediate call, that is, all of the
    training with the Governors is guard, and they have been very
    successful, and immediate. They give the immediate response.
        And second, as the former chairman and ranking member, with
    my colleague, Senator Feinstein, of the Military Construction
    Committee, I know that when you have facilities, and then you
    talk about moving, and constructing all new facilities, really,
    because they're not prepared for it, and then you have the
    operations and maintenance increase, I just would hope you'd
    look at the efficiencies there, where you've got the support at
    the joint base, also a part of the policies of the DOD to have
    joint bases that are more efficient. It's a Navy lead base, but
    Air Force has both fighter wings, as you know, a fighter wing,
    as well as the C-130.
        So, I'm just saying it's hard for me to see an efficiency
    argument here, when if it ain't broke, don't fix it sort of
    attitude. So I'm hoping you will reconsider, for whatever
    reasons that are the right reasons, and keep this very vital
    asset where it's performed so well. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I
    may, gentlemen, I'd like to follow-up on Senator Hutchison's
    question, because it also affects Fresno, California, and the
    144th. It's my understanding that F-16s are being replaced with
    F-15s. Is that transfer on course, General?
        General Schwartz. It is, Ma'am.
        Senator Feinstein. And will the 144th remain?
        General Schwartz. It will, with the new F-15 equipage.
        Senator Feinstein. So, in terms of Fresno, which is a
    community that is very upset about it, it will be a
    substitution, and as far as the community is concerned, there
    will be a continuation.

                       F-16 TO F-15 CONVERSION AT FRESNO

        General Schwartz. The Air Sovereignty Mission, which the
    wing has performed from Fresno, will continue, except with F-
    15s vice F-16s, which, frankly, are a better fit for that
    particular mission.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, that is your department, and if
    you say so, I'm certainly not one to contest that. As long as
    that feature remains in place, that's excellent.
        Secretary Donley, I wanted to ask you, on page 19, in your
    written testimony, and I'm sorry, I missed your oral testimony,
    you make this statement, ``The Air Force must procure our space
    systems at the lowest cost possible, while providing assured
    access to space.'' That's a direct quote. I'm very concerned
    that this is not the case, that with the United Launch Alliance
    (ULA) contract, details of which are apparently not put out,
    that there is no competitive bidding, and that there is a
    company, a California company, that could competitively bid,
    come 2014, and reduce the per-unit cost per ULA booster core
    from $420 million to $60 million, over a contract term;
    therefore, saving literally billions of dollars.
        The rockets are all produced in this country, rather than
    one-half of the rockets being produced outside the country,
    from the joint venture between the two big aerospace companies.
        I have felt this way in the Energy and Water Development
    Subcommittee. I chair that subcommittee, and we've had this
    problem with small nuclear reactors being limited, just the two
    big ones for licensing help. I see the same thing happening
    here. Instead of being able to open the process for
    competition, the big companies are chosen, and it's a long
    contract. And I understand they tell you, well, if we don't
    have the long lead, the price will go up. But then you have a
    company, relatively new, have done a lot of testing, has other
    contracts, would like to participate, and cannot.
        Could you respond to that?

                 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE COMPETITION

        Mr. Donley. Absolutely, Senator. I think we have a good
    site picture here for space launch. We have been concerned
    about the cost of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
    program and ULA's performance. We believe we've been paying
    more than we need to for space launch.
        The flipside is that we've had a string of successful
    launches, and we have repaired some of the previous problems
    and issues we had with assured access to space, and lost
    payloads a few years back. So, this has been a long, very
    focused effort to develop assured access, and to increase the
    reliability and sustain the reliability of space launch.
        Now, we're at a point where we've achieved that with the
    EELV, but we'd like to get a better price for that work. So,
    we've had a should-cost study completed and other studies under
    way for some period of time, to better understand the cost
    basis of the EELV contract, and to renegotiate that contract
    going forward. And we are in the process of doing that. We will
    have an acquisition strategy ready later this spring that
    provides more flexibility for the government, and we think
    better savings for the taxpayer.
        [The information follows:]

        The Air Force plans to release a request for proposal that will
    help properly inform the Government decision on the quantity and length
    of the first phase; and then award a contract based on analysis of the
    most advantageous approach to the Government. The Air Force has not
    determined a final quantity or duration for the contract starting in
    fiscal year 2013. The Air Force believes it is essential to have more
    fidelity in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) pricing
    strategy before making a long-term contractual agreement. In order to
    validate the most advantageous production rate and commitment period,
    and to use maximum leverage in negotiations, the government will
    require the contractor to propose a range of fixed prices for various
    rate and commitment options. The decision on the specific contractual
    commitment will be balanced among price, operational requirements,
    budget realities (including all fiscal law constraints), and potential
    for competition. Requirements above the contract commitment will be met
    through a full-and-open competition among all certified providers.
    While United Launch Alliance is currently the only responsible source
    certified to launch EELV class payloads, research indicates there are
    potential new entrants; however, the earliest timeframe to meet all
    EELV-class launch requirements appears to be fiscal year 2016-2017.
        In order to facilitate the certification of potential New Entrants,
    the Air Force has identified two opportunities that providers may bid
    on--the Deep Space Climate Observatory mission (currently scheduled for
    late fiscal year 2014) and the Space Test Program-2 mission (currently
    scheduled for late fiscal year 2015), which were funded by the Congress
    in fiscal year 2012. These EELV-class missions have a higher risk
    tolerance and will provide an opportunity for potential New Entrants to
    prove their capability for certification.
        When the phase I block buy expires, assuming new entrants are
    certified, we will have a full and open competition for launch services
    for the second Phase.

        Mr. Donley. At the same time we're working on the EELV side
    we've been working with National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA) and the National Reconnaissance Office
    (NRO) to develop a joint process through which new entrants
    into the space launch business gets certified by having
    opportunities to fly DOD payloads or other Government payloads
    of perhaps lower risk or lesser value, in order to prove out
    the reliability of their systems.
        And so, we agreed at the end of last year on new entrant
    certification criteria. We have a process for doing that. In
    fiscal year 2012, we will go out on contract for two payloads
    that are being set aside for the new entrants, and so that work
    will continue through this spring. But, our objective is to get
    the cost of EELV down, and to bring in new competitors into
    space launch that will help to continue to provide more
    competition in this area.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I thank you for that answer. I
    just need time to analyze exactly what it means. Let me just go
    to basics. You know what I'm talking about. Will SpaceX be able
    to compete?
        Mr. Donley. I believe we've addressed the issues raised by
    the new entrants, including SpaceX, in the work that we've done
    over the last year. So, I think there is an open path, and I
    believe SpaceX and the other new entrants understand the
    opportunities available, and what they will need to do to be
    certified for EELV class launches in the future, so we can
    bring competition into this work.
        Senator Feinstein. And when would that competition begin?
    When would the first year be when a new company can compete?
        Mr. Donley. Well, the initial work this year is to identify
    less-risk, lower-value payloads for these new entrants to
    demonstrate their launch capabilities. And that will happen
    this year. Those launches, I believe, are scheduled for 2014
    and 2015. So, this has to play out over a few years.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay.
        Mr. Donley. That work is under way.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you specifically. In 2014 and
    2015, will there be an open competition?
        Mr. Donley. Let me get back to you on the record for that,
    because we do not have a predictable path for exactly when the
    new entrants will be certified. And we have not yet completed
    the acquisition strategy for EELV, going forward. Although,
    it's our intent to build into that acquisition strategy the
    flexibility for the Government to determine at what point
    competition comes in.
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Mr. Donley. So, there's some unknowns here.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I really appreciate that, Mr.
    Secretary. And what I'm told is, and this may be wrong, that
    they're under the impression they cannot compete for the rest
    of the decade. That's tragic, because it could be, I'm not
    saying it would be, but it could be a savings of many billion
    dollars, if they're competitive.
        Mr. Donley. So we'll continue to look.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. I appreciate that. General,
    would you like to make a comment?
        General Schwartz. Just quickly, Ma'am. And the Secretary is
    the real expert here, but two important points. There are two
    payloads that the new entrants will have an opportunity to fly.
    That's the Discover mission and the Space Test Program II
    payload.
        The bottom line here, from my point-of-view, is I don't
    want to put a $1.5 or $2 billion satellite atop a rocket for
    the first flight. I think it's important for us to manage risk.
    We would do the same thing on the air-breathing side. So, this
    needs to be done in a deliberate way, where the new entrants
    demonstrate the reliability of their platform so we can get
    that $2 billion satellite into orbit.
        Senator Feinstein. I think I understand. I'm trying to
    understand. Again, my interest is a competition, where
    everybody can compete, and the Government can hopefully save
    some money. So, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your comments, and
    I trust we can stay in communication, and you'll let me know.
        Mr. Donley. Absolutely.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.

                             EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being with us. Your
    leadership greatly appreciated. And General, I thank you for
    your recent visit to the interior of Alaska. As we discussed
    with community leaders, the proposal to move the F-16 aggressor
    squadron from Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), we know that we've
    kind of seen this movie before, that this was suggested back in
    the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC), a great deal of
    discussion, ultimately, that the decision was made not to move
    that aggressor squadron. Now, the proposal is before us again.
        I know that you have seen the chart there that demonstrates
    Alaska's geographic position in the world. In fact, I think you
    probably had that in your office when you were in Alaska, so I
    don't need to speak to that. But, I still have a very difficult
    time understanding a proposal that would somehow possibly
    decrease our presence in Alaska, when the administration says
    that we're going to focus our attention on the Asia and the
    Pacific.
        And I continue to press for the answer from the Air Force
    as to its intentions with Eielson AFB to continue that
    installation as a fully functioning base that allows the 168th
    Air Refueling Wing to fully conduct its critical refueling
    mission as part of the administration's Asia-Pacific focus. I
    guess I would like to hear that assurance that Eielson AFB will
    continue in that very, very significant role, and would ask a
    series of questions then, in terms of what we might anticipate
    with the site survey, going forward.
        General Schwartz, I have sent a letter asking that with
    this site survey that will be conducted, I understand now in
    April that the team include a general officer and also a
    provision to consult with the Alaska National Guard, since the
    plans there at Eielson AFB will significantly impact this 24-
    hour, 365-day-a-year refueling mission with the Guard.
        So, I'm wondering where we are on that request with the
    site survey coming forward, and again, a reaffirmation of that
    very critical role that Eielson AFB has historically played for
    the Air Force.
        General Schwartz. Yes, Ma'am. Clearly, the intent is to
    support in its entirety the 168th mission and not just the
    168th. But there are other activities at Eielson AFB, the
    Arctic Training School, and so on, and so forth, that will
    continue, and will not be diminished by the relocation of the
    F-16s or the associated reduction of base operating support
    that's tied to that relocation.
        I can't commit today to a flag officer for the survey, but
    clearly, the interaction will include the Guard and all other
    stakeholders that have an interest, obviously, in Eielson AFB.
        And, Ma'am, as you know, not only is Eielson AFB the home
    for the 168th, it is the access point for the range area just
    to the west, and so on. And that will continue to be the case.
    And 23 million gallons of jet aviation fuel stored there is a
    significant asset that clearly is in the back of our mind
    continuously, especially with the new emphasis and the strategy
    on the Asia-Pacific.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, let me ask you about the cost
    savings. And again, I remind all that we've looked at this once
    and determined that the cost savings were simply not going to
    be there.
        The proposal to move the squadron from Eielson AFB down to
    Elmendorf Air Force Base is one that I think is somewhat
    problematic. We've got, currently, at Joint Base Elmendorf-
    Richardson (JBER), about 400 soldiers that are already in
    temporary barracks. So, by relocating significant number of
    airmen and their families down into that area, I want to know
    whether or not we have determined what the cost to house these
    new airmen at JBER would be, how and when we would fund that,
    because as you indicated when you were in Alaska, this proposal
    would move forward next summer.
        What level of analysis has been conducted to date with
    regards to the accommodations at JBER? Not only with the
    housing, but the additional infrastructure that may be
    required.
        General Schwartz. As you know, Ma'am, we did not do a site
    survey, and that's the purpose of the undertaking that will go
    off, I think it starts the 6th of April, specifically. But the
    key thing here is that, as you're well aware, there used to be
    three flying squadrons at Elmendorf AFB, and there are two now.
    And in looking at the tabletop level, at the facilities on
    Elmendorf AFB, the conclusion was that both for maintenance and
    ops, and base support, that it was possible to reabsorb a third
    squadron and to do that efficiently. With regard to military
    family housing and/or dormitory space, that is a specific
    output from the survey team on the ground, and clearly, they
    will give us very precise insights in that regard.

                  JOINT BASE ELMENDORF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

        Senator Murkowski. Would moving the F-16s from Eielson AFB
    to JBER require either an environmental analysis or an
    environmental impact statement (EIS)? And if so, do we have any
    handle on what that cost might be? And then, again, how we deal
    with the funding and the timing again of all of this, if the
    Air Force is to move forward with the proposal as it is on the
    table now.
        General Schwartz. Given that the most current environmental
    impact for Elmendorf AFB was addressed at the three-squadron
    level, the presumption was that it would not require a follow-
    on study. That, again, is another output from the survey team
    to confirm that that is, in fact, the case. And so, again, this
    2-week effort coming up next month is important in lots of
    dimensions.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would certainly concur with
    that. And again, I would repeat my request, that you consider
    sending a general officer as part of that site survey. I think
    we recognize that it's not just looking at the ledger, the
    balance sheet there, from a cost analysis, it is incorporating
    so many of those intangibles that I think is important. The
    strategic asset that we have up north, sometimes that doesn't
    necessarily fit into those neat boxes, as you do a cost benefit
    analysis. And having that level of oversight, I think, would
    allow for greater comfort with the process, and, hopefully, a
    greater transparency with that. So, I would hope that you would
    consider this. We're looking at it, again, with a great deal of
    anxiety for the interior, but we need to know that we can work
    with you on that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that my time is expired,
    and we've got a vote, I understand. So, thank you. And thank
    you, gentlemen.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary and
    General Schwartz, on behalf of the subcommittee, I thank you
    very much for your service to our Nation and for your
    testimony, and we look forward to working with you in the
    coming months.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
            Questions Submitted to Secretary Michael B. Donley and
                           General Norton A. Schwartz
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
        Question. What cost-benefit analysis was done by the Air Force to
    determine the savings achieved by closing or reassigning Air National
    Guard and Air Force Reserve units versus Active-Duty Air Force units? I
    understand that different types of units have different fixed costs, so
    if this question needs to be narrowed down, what is the difference in
    cost, over the course of a 5-year cycle, of different types of F-16
    wings?
        Answer. While cost savings are part of the decisionmaking process,
    the most important factor is the Air Force's ability to provide the
    capabilities required by the new Defense Strategic Guidance,
    ``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
    Defense''. This new strategy directs the services to build a leaner,
    more flexible, and technologically advanced force. As a result, the Air
    Force is rebalancing our Total Force to match the capability and
    capacity requirements of the new guidance. The proposed Reserve
    component force structure reductions were determined using a deliberate
    and collaborative process which leveraged careful analytical review of
    warfighting scenarios consistent with the new strategic guidance. Two
    decades of military end strength and force structure reductions in our
    Active-Duty component have changed the Active and Reserve component
    mix, and achieving the appropriate Active and Reserve component mix is
    critical to sustaining Air Force capabilities for forward presence and
    rapid response, as well as meeting high-rate rotational demands with a
    smaller force. Therefore, the Air Force did not believe a cost-benefit
    analysis between the Active and Reserve components for the different
    types of F-16 wings is warranted.
        However, the component mix had to be determined based on the
    ``availability rate'' of the two components. As I had recently stated
    to the Air Force Reserve Senior Leaders Conference, ``We place an
    enormous value on the experience provided by the Reserve component, but
    we don't want to shift the warfighting burden to a part-time force.
    This isn't what [the Reserve component] signed up for . . . as we plan
    our Total Force mix, we keep the components' contributions and
    commitments in mind and look to size our Active, Guard, and Reserve
    forces so they can meet their respective roles. If our Active component
    is too small to meet its demands, then we put our Guard and Reserve
    forces in the position of breaking other commitments to employers,
    communities, and families. Alternatively, if our Active component is
    too large, then we would not be taking advantage of the benefits that
    our Guard and Reserve forces have to offer.''
        Question. When conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the costs of
    an Active-Duty Air Force wing versus an Air National Guard or Air
    Reserve wing, do you consider costs that may not be reflected in
    personnel or operations and maintenance costs? For instance, are the
    costs of maintaining on-base housing for Active-Duty units included in
    this analysis? Are the costs of maintaining Department of Defense
    schools for children of airmen to attend included? Are the long-term
    costs of retirement and TRICARE-for-life benefits included?
        Answer. When determining the costs of operating a wing, regardless
    of component, the Air Force accounts for costs outside of personnel and
    operations and maintenance. For instance, the costs of facility
    sustainment, restoration, and modernization are included in any
    analysis. Base operations support costs are also considered. These
    costs include communications infrastructure support and maintenance,
    ground fuels and transportation shipping, contract services, and
    utilities. With regard to housing, the Air Force evaluates the cost of
    operating and maintaining on-base units and Basic Allowance for Housing
    for members not using on-base units. Medical and retirement costs are
    part of our personnel costs.
        Question. What is the annual cost to man, operate and maintain of
    each United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) installation? Can you
    compare that to a comparable number of Air Combat Command (ACC) and Air
    National Guard (ANG) installations?
        Answer. The Air Force compared three bases from ACC (Seymour
    Johnson, North Carolina; Shaw, South Carolina; and Moody, Georgia),
    USAFE (Aviano, Italy; Lakenheath, United Kingdom; and Mildenhall,
    United Kingdom) and the ANG (Burlington, Vermont; Jacksonville,
    Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama) and used annual operation and
    maintenance obligations from fiscal year 2011, excluding overseas
    contingency operations funding. Military personnel data has also been
    included for fiscal year 2011. Using this methodology, the below table
    is provided:

                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year    Aircraft
               Command                   Base           2011         PAA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USAFE........................  Lakenheath.....        439.6           70
    ACC..........................  Moody..........        427.0           64
    ACC..........................  Seymour Johnson        414.0           87
    ACC..........................  Shaw...........        371.4           72
    USAFE........................  Aviano.........        366.5           42
    USAFE........................  Mildenhall.....        245.0           15
    ANG..........................  Jacksonville...         89.3           19
    ANG..........................  Birmingham.....         73.8            8
    ANG..........................  Burlington.....         72.6           18
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Air Force cautions this kind of comparison does not include the
    differences in missions, location, population, mix of officers,
    enlisted, and civilians, host-nation support, and other variables that
    make such a comparison misleading as to the value of each installation
    to the fight. Additionally, it is important to note that costs for
    USAFE's geographically separated units and smaller units are
    consolidated into the financial reporting of their owning main
    operating bases.
        The permanent, forward basing of aircraft in Europe represents a
    key element of our Nation's defense strategic guidance. It avoids the
    costs and disruption of units by implementing a constant rotation of
    aircraft and personnel from the continental United States.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                  global hawk
        Question. Last June, the then Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Ashton Carter certified to the
    Congress that the Global Hawk was ``essential to the National
    security''; and ``that there are no alternatives to the program which
    will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military
    requirement at less cost''. And yet in February of this year, the Air
    Force decided to cancel the program and retire the existing aircraft
    despite an investment of $4 billion. Additionally, my staff was
    informed through Mr. Randall Walden, Director for Information Dominance
    Programs (Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
    Acquisition) that you would like to invest another $1.1 billion to
    upgrade U-2 aircraft to keep them flying through 2040.
        Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, how do you explain what has
    changed to cancel this program?
        Answer. Following the Nunn-McCurdy certification in June 2011, a
    reduced requirement where the U-2 is sufficient and a reduced budget
    where the Department could no longer afford to keep investing in RQ-4
    Global Hawk Block 30 drove the divestiture decision resulting in a
    savings of $3.8 billion.
        In September 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint
    Requirements Oversight Council reviewed recent adjustments in military
    strategy and determined that conventional high-altitude intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements could be reduced.
    The Air Force further determined the U-2, which remains viable until at
    least 2040, was sufficient to meet the reduced requirements. Continued
    increased investment in RQ-4 would be required to field a comparable
    capability to U-2 and was determined to be unaffordable.
        Continued, increased investment in RQ-4 was not warranted given a
    significant reduction in the Department's budget and an alternative
    system, the U-2, is still operationally viable at considerably lower
    total cost over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). Although $3.8
    billion was saved with the decision to divest Global Hawk Block 30,
    $1.3 billion (vice $1.1 billion) was needed to continue to operate and
    sustain the U-2 throughout the FYDP. The net savings to the taxpayer is
    $2.5 billion.
        When the U-2 is employed at its normal operational distance, U-2
    operating costs are comparable to RQ-4 costs. The latest actual costs
    per flying hour data shows that both platforms are operating at $32,000
    per hour.
        Question. The Global Hawk is a multi-imagery aircraft that carries
    Electro Optical/Infra-red (EO/IR), and radar system at all times.
    However, the U-2 is a single imagery aircraft that cannot carry both
    EO/IR and radar sensors at the same time. This seems in conflict with
    your statement regarding the Air Force decision to favor retention of
    multirole platforms over those with more narrowly focused capabilities.
        Do you think the specialized U-2 is the answer to meet our
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance requirements for the
    next 3\1/2\ decades?
        If you do, how much additional money is required to upgrade and
    sustain these aircraft? How much confidence do you have that an
    aircraft first introduced in 1955 and previously scheduled for
    retirement in 2015 will be able to outperform the Global Hawk?
        Answer. Although an imagery intelligence (IMINT) and signals
    intelligence (SIGINT) sensor cannot be carried simultaneously on a
    single aircraft, the U-2 system is able to perform both missions and is
    considered multirole. In fact, the U-2 is able to currently outperform
    the Block 30 Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite in image quality at
    range.
        It is true that the U-2 was first introduced in 1955, but the
    ``newest'' U-2s were brought into service in 1989 and $1.7 billion of
    investments have been made to modernize the system. The U-2 fleet in
    its current state has been certified to 75,000 flight hours (2040 and
    beyond at current utilization rates). In addition to the new engines in
    1994-1998, the entire fleet has completed new power distribution
    (wiring), 21st century glass cockpit, and modern avionics processor
    upgrades. The U-2s are currently on a 4,000-hour programmed depot
    maintenance cycle included in the budgeted operating costs.
        The divesture of Global Hawk Block 30 saved $3.8 billion across the
    FYDP. Of that savings, $1.3 billion was put back into the U-2 program
    to enable continuation of operations throughout the FYDP. The net
    savings to the taxpayer is $2.5 billion from the divesture of Global
    Hawk Block 30 and addition of sustainment costs for the U-2.
        Question. Given the Air Force is recommending terminating the
    Global Hawk program what confidence do you have that the Block 40 will
    not be canceled next?
        Answer. There is no plan to cancel the Block 40 program. The fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget request funds the Block 40/MP-RTIP program
    ($161.9 million research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E)
    and $20.9 million Procurement). The Air Force purchased a total of 11
    Block 40 aircraft through fiscal year 2011 with delivery of the last
    two aircraft in fiscal year 2014.
        Question. The Congress appropriated $322 million for three Block 30
    Global Hawks in fiscal year 2012. What are your intentions with this
    funding? When the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense appropriations
    bill was signed into law, did you anticipate you would not need these
    aircraft?
        Answer. Pending congressional direction for fiscal year 2013, the
    Air Force does not plan to spend the fiscal year 2012 funding for three
    additional Block 30 aircraft. The Air Force will continue to work
    closely with the committees to determine the best way forward and will
    take no presumptive actions until given direction. When the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2012 (to include the Department of
    Defense) was signed into law on December 23, 2011, the decision on
    whether the fiscal year 2012 funded aircraft were required was being
    reconsidered at lower management levels, but a final decision had not
    been reached.
        Question. What is your assessment of the performance of the Global
    Hawk in combat operations in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq and
    humanitarian missions in Japan and Haiti?
        Answer. In Libya, the Global Hawk provided EO/IR and synthetic
    aperture radar and was used in an ISR role with dynamic responsiveness
    due to its enhanced duration/dwell time and the ability to fill gaps
    between other ISR collects. Overall, the Global Hawk was successful in
    Operation Odyssey Dawn. Assessment details can be made available at a
    higher security classification.
        In the U.S. Central Command theater, the Global Hawk continues to
    support the combatant command with both theater and tactical ISR. To
    date, RQ-4 has flown more than 50,000 combat hours, in support of U.S.
    Central Command operations.
        In humanitarian/disaster relief missions, the Global Hawk leveraged
    its range and endurance as an ISR first-responder. Following the Haiti
    earthquake, the Global Hawk executed a response mission in 12 hours,
    effectively providing initial situational awareness, highlighting
    earthquake damage, status of critical infrastructure, and food/aid drop
    zones and indicators of mass population migrations. Eight missions were
    flown, satisfying 2,621 targets.
        In Japan, the Global Hawk capitalized on its range and endurance to
    be overhead in 21 hours. Imagery products were provided to the
    Secretary of State within 40 minutes of request. In addition to
    infrastructure damage assessment, supply route analysis, and real-time
    monitoring of evacuation support, the Global Hawk collection focused on
    the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Because it is a remotely piloted
    aircraft, Japan allowed U.S. Pacific Command to use the Global Hawk
    within the 20 kilometer nuclear engagement zone. Infrared imagery taken
    directly over the top of the reactors allowed engineers to frequently
    monitor core temperature levels. In 21 missions and 300 on-station
    hours, the Global Hawk collected more than 3,000 images.
        Question. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, in your testimony
    you state that ``There is a compelling need to invest in next-
    generation, high-impact systems so that the Air Force can continue to
    provide the capabilities on which our Nation relies. The failure to
    make the proper investments now will imperil the effectiveness of the
    future force and our ability to execute the new strategic guidance for
    decades to come''.
        Secretary Donley, can you tell me how many times you forward
    deployed the U-2 in the past 6 years? How much effort was involved?
        Answer. The U-2 has been forward deployed in support of operations
    in Southwest Asia for the past 22 years, and in the Pacific theater for
    more than 40 years. With the exception of a brief deployment in support
    of disaster relief operations in Haiti, there have been no additional
    forward deployments within the past 6 years. The mechanics of
    establishing our forward deployed location in Southwest Asia proved
    routine as it was similar to other forward deployed operations around
    the world prior to our involvement in that theater, though the initial
    scale of operations dwarfed that of any previous U-2 deployment.
        Question. If the U-2 is to be continued in lieu of the Global Hawk
    Block 30, how will the U-2, locked down on the Korean Peninsula,
    contribute to future operations?
        Answer. The U-2 is not locked down on the Korean Peninsula. We are
    developing a plan to move the U-2 to an alternate location which would
    allow the same collection for U.S. Forces Korea and pick up additional
    missions in the area of responsibility.
        The Air Force retains the ability to deploy U-2 detachments to
    crisis areas as it has done since the aircraft's inception.
        Question. Secretary Donley, given the new defense strategy doesn't
    it seem prudent that we work with STRATCOM, and the Joint Functional
    Component Command for ISR (JFCC-ISR) to develop an ISR architecture to
    determine the appropriate ISR force sizing as it pertains to that
    specific mission set (primarily anti-access/area denial) before we
    start making decisions on where to invest our ISR capabilities or
    investing in extending the life of the U-2?
        Answer. The Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel decision to reduce
    the high-altitude ISR Global Hawk-equivalent orbit requirement was
    informed by Joint Staff analysis in the context of the entire ISR
    portfolio and the emerging Defense Strategic Guidance. Internal Air
    Force deliberations included reviews of JFCC-ISR assessments of U-2 and
    Global Hawk employment in anti-access/anti-denial scenarios, and
    ongoing analysis efforts have validated the course of action taken. In
    sum, multiple independent analytical efforts at various levels within
    the Department of Defense have examined the ISR force structure from a
    broad portfolio view in light of emerging strategic guidance and
    ultimately supported the divestiture decision.
                                     mc-12
        Question. Last year, Senator Barbara Boxer and I wrote letters to
    Secretary Leon E. Panetta and the Chair and Ranking Members of the
    Senate and House Armed Services Committee opposing a provision in the
    Senate Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization bill which would have
    transferred the MC-12 Liberty reconnaissance aircraft from the Air
    Force to the Army. This past December, Senator Boxer and I received a
    response from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael
    Vickers that stated that after a thorough review of current and future
    ISR requirements and recent discussions with the Secretaries of the Air
    Force and Army, Secretary Panetta concluded that the Air Force would
    retain the MC-12 Liberty aircraft. However, only 3 months later, in its
    fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Air Force announced it plans to
    move the MC-12 aircraft to the Air National Guard (ANG) and disperse
    them to four different bases.
        What is the justification for moving these aircraft to the ANG?
    When was this decision made? Was it made after the letter from Under
    Secretary Vickers?
        Answer. The President's and Department of Defense's (DOD) 2012
    Strategic Guidance states the military will defend U.S. territory from
    direct attack by state and non-state actors and come to the assistance
    of domestic civil authorities in the event such defense fails or in
    case of natural disasters, in addition to title 10 overseas military
    operations. This guidance provided the framework the Air Force used to
    conduct an extensive review of the manned medium-altitude ISR
    requirements, to include defense support to civil authorities. Due to
    investment costs to upgrade the RC-26 fleet (11 aircraft), originally
    fielded in the ANG for domestic operations and then adapted for use in
    title 10 operations, the ANG and Air Force collectively determined to
    divest the RC-26 fleet and transfer the MC-12W Liberty to the ANG to
    maintain flexibility across the range of manned, medium-altitude ISR
    requirements.
        The decision to transition the MC-12W to the ANG was captured in
    the fiscal year 2013-2017 Alternate Program Objective Memorandum signed
    by Secretary Donley and General Schwartz and released to the Secretary
    of Defense on August 3, 2011. We are not aware of any specific letter
    from Under Secretary Vickers in regard to the MC-12W. However, Deputy
    Secretary of Defense Carter released a letter to the Chairman and
    Ranking Members of the Armed Services and Appropriation Committees on
    November 21, 2011, and references a discussion Under Secretary Vickers
    and Admiral James A. Winnefeld had with Senate Armed Services Committee
    (SASC) staffers. These officials told the SASC staffers that the
    Secretaries of the Air Force and Army believed that the Air Force was
    the right place for the MC-12Ws to reside.
        Question. Given we have already established the aircraft, support
    equipment, and personnel at Beale this past year would you agree that
    it is fiscally more responsible to retain this capability at Beale and
    not incur the additional costs associated with relocating these
    aircraft and equipment to other various bases?
        Answer. Once the MC-12W transitions, the aircraft returning from
    overseas will be reassigned to four ANG units, but the current MC-12W
    training unit will remain at Beale AFB, California. Since the ANG is
    the DOD's primary provider of domestic operations capabilities,
    retaining all of the MC-12W aircraft at Beale would not provide the ANG
    the ability to quickly respond to civil authorities' requests
    throughout the continental United States.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
        Question. What is the definition used by the Air Force for a
    ``retired member'' as it appears in title 10 of the United States Code?
        Answer. To our knowledge, the term ``retired member'' is not per se
    defined in title 10, United States Code or any Air Force instruction.
    The term has specific meaning depending on the context within which it
    is used. Generally speaking, when the Air Force refers to a ``retired
    member,'' it is referring to either a regular commissioned officer or
    enlisted member who is retired for years of service (10 U.S.C. 8911,
    8914) or mandatory age (example: 10 U.S.C. 1251), or to a member in one
    of the categories that make up the Air Force Retired Reserve. Air Force
    Instruction 36-3209 defines members whose transfer to the Retired
    Reserve is automatic as:
      --Reserve officers who are retired for service under 10 U.S.C. 8911,
            20 years or more: Regular or Reserve commissioned officers;
      --Members retired for disability under title 10, chapter 61,
            Retirement or Separation for Disability; and
      --Reserve enlisted members who are retired for service under 10
            U.S.C. 8914, 20 to 30 years: enlisted members.
        Other members who will be transferred to the Retired Reserve upon
    completion of an AF Form 131 (Application for Transfer to the Retired
    Reserve) include:
      --Reserve members who meet eligibility requirements of 10 U.S.C.
            12731 except for attainment of age 60;
      --Reserve members who have completed a total of 20 years of honorable
            service in the Armed Forces;
      --Reserve members who have completed 10 or more years of active
            Federal commissioned service in the Armed Forces;
      --Reserve members on Extended Active Duty (EAD) who have been found
            physically disqualified and placed on the Temporary Disability
            Retirement List (TDRL) or Permanent Disability Retired List
            (PDRL) as a result of a service connected disability; and
      --Reserve members not on EAD who have been found physically
            disqualified are discharged, retained or transferred to the
            Retired Reserve if they apply and meet the requirements
            outlined in 10 U.S.C. 12731.
        Question. How many members of the Air Force Retired Reserve have
    been recalled by the Air Force to Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 688a?
        Answer. Eighty-two Retired Reserve officers were recalled and
    voluntarily returned to Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 688a via the
    Retired Rated Officer Recall Program. Sixty-two of these officers are
    still on active duty serving out their recall contract as of March 29,
    2012. Twenty have completed their contracts and returned to retired
    status.
        Question. Of those recalled to Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 688a,
    how many are currently on the Inactive Status List established by 10
    U.S.C. 12735?
        Answer. There are currently three members who have completed their
    Active-Duty tours under 688a and are now assigned to the Retired
    Reserve awaiting pay at age 60 under 10 U.S.C. 12735. Additionally, two
    other members recalled to active duty are in the process of
    transferring back to the Retired Reserve. Once those two members have
    been processed, it will bring the total to five.
        Question. Does the Air Force have a policy to activate members of
    the Air Force Retired Reserve in a manner that allows the member to be
    eligible for early retirement credit authorized by section 647 of
    Public Law 110-181?
        Answer. The Air Force has a policy to activate members of an Air
    Force Reserve component, with the consent of the member, in a manner
    that allows the member to be eligible for early retirement credit
    authorized by section 647 of Public Law 110-181. The Voluntary Limited
    Period Call to Extended Active Duty activates members of the Reserve
    components for extended active duty under title 10, U.S.C., section
    12301(d) which is qualifying active-duty service authorized by section
    647 of Public Law 110-181.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
        Question. Secretary Donley, several years ago the Air Force created
    the Alternative Fuels Certification Office (AFCO) to certify
    alternative fuels for use in military aircraft. To date, that office
    has tested and certified fuels that convert coal, natural gas, or
    biomass into jet fuel. AFCO followed up that work by testing and
    certifying hydrotreated renewable jet fuel, which is derived from bio-
    oils and fats. These tests confirmed that these alternative fuels had
    performance characteristics virtually identical to JP-8 petroleum fuel
    and these fuels were certified across all your aircraft platforms.
        The third variety of fuels AFCO has begun to investigate is
    alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) fuels. ATJ fuels hold tremendous promise. They can
    promote our national and energy security, be produced in Rural America,
    and they are almost always cleaner than traditional fuels. The Air
    Force should develop its capability to use these fuels to the fullest
    extent possible, and I urge you to continue this work and fully test
    these promising ATJ fuels. What are the Air Force's intentions to
    complete ATJ fuels testing?
        Answer. The Air Force is focused on increasing and diversifying its
    energy supplies to improve our energy security. Part of this includes
    the testing and certification of alternative aviation fuels, such as a
    50/50 blend of traditional JP-8 and ATJ fuel. The Air Force established
    a two-phase approach for ATJ evaluation. During the first phase, which
    is currently underway, the Air Force purchased test quantities of ATJ
    fuel, and conducted feasibility demonstrations and initial evaluations.
    Phase 2 is fleet-wide certification to fly unrestricted operations
    using an ATJ fuel blend. Based on the results of phase 1, as well as
    funding availability, the Air Force will determine whether to move
    forward with phase 2.
        Question. I'm pleased that this year's budget request maintains the
    current B-1 fleet. Having recently completed its 10,000th combat
    mission, there's no question that this is a valuable aircraft and
    essential to the Air Force's mission. Can you discuss the Air Force's
    plans across the future years defense plan (FYDP) and beyond to keep
    the B-1 fleet relevant and strong even in a time of tighter budgets?
        Answer. There are currently five ongoing efforts to address
    obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources (DMS) issues for the
    B-1. The Radar Reliability and Maintainability Improvement Program
    (RMIP) replaces two high-failure rate line replaceable units within the
    B-1 radar subsystem and is expected to yield a 60-percent improvement
    in system reliability. The Inertial Navigation System Replacement
    (INSR) upgrades the B-1's primary navigation system to improve
    maintainability, supportability, and navigation performance. The Gyro
    Stabilization System Replacement (GSSR) replaces high-maintenance,
    high-cost, and high-failure rate components within the B-1's secondary
    navigation system for improved reliability and maintainability. The
    Vertical Situation Display Upgrade (VSDU) is a safety-critical
    modification that addresses DMS issues by replacing obsolete primary
    flight instruments with multifunction displays and adds a second
    display at each pilot station for enhanced situational awareness.
    Central Integrated Test System (CITS) upgrades the current on-board
    fault diagnostic and isolation system through increased memory and
    improved user interface to address maintainability and capacity
    limitations.
        Additionally, one major capability program is ongoing to ensure
    that the B-1 remains relevant into the future. The Fully Integrated
    Data Link (FIDL) provides both Link 16 line-of-sight and Joint Range
    Extension beyond-line-of-sight data link capability to improve combat
    situation awareness and command and control connectivity, replaces rear
    cockpit legacy displays with multi-function displays, and provides the
    Ethernet backbone necessary to integrate FIDL, VSDU, and CITS
    throughout the cockpit. FIDL, VSDU, and CITS are all part of an
    Integrated Battle Station production contract enabling concurrent
    procurement and installation of all three upgrades to reduce
    installation costs, aircraft downtime, and keep fielded aircraft
    configurations to a minimum for aircrew training, maintenance, and
    operational deployment efficiencies.
        In addition to the aforementioned ongoing modernization efforts,
    the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request includes funding for
    two additional efforts that address further aircraft and simulator
    obsolescence concerns. The Self Contained Standby Attitude Indicator
    will replace the current standby attitude indicator, which is
    experiencing a significant spike in maintenance actions and reduced
    mean time between failures, with the new standby instrument providing
    attitude, airspeed, and altitude indications. The Simulator Digital
    Control Loading will replace the current analog control loading system
    responsible for matching simulator stick forces to the aircraft with a
    digital system, improving sustainability and keeping B-1 aircrew
    training devices operational.
        B-1 modernization funding includes $47.4 million for research,
    development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) and $704.4 million for
    procurement across the FYDP. The Air Force estimates an additional
    $256.6 million is required to fully fund the current programs of record
    beyond fiscal year 2017 to completion. It is premature at this time to
    speculate on further B-1 modernization beyond the previously described
    upgrades, all of which continue through the fielding of the 60th
    Integrated Battle Station aircraft in 2020. However, the Air Force will
    consider additional B-1 program investments, beyond those already
    programmed within the FYDP, as part of the complete Air Force
    portfolio, within total obligation authority limits, to ensure that the
    B-1 fleet remains viable to support combatant commander requirements
    into the future.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                        light attack support procurement
        Question. Secretary Donley, please provide the subcommittee with an
    update on the Light Attack Support (LAS) procurement. What specific
    issues have you found? When will a final report be available?
        Answer. The LAS contract was originally awarded on December 22,
    2011, to Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), but was terminated by the Air
    Force on March 2, 2012, as part of the Air Force's corrective action in
    response to the suit filed by Hawker Beechcraft Defense Corporation
    (HBDC) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Air Force Service
    Acquisition Executive was not satisfied with the documentation
    supporting the original LAS source selection, prompting termination of
    the contract with the SNC. Additionally, the Commander of Air Force
    Materiel Command ordered a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) into
    the LAS contract process on February 27, 2012. Part 1 of the CDI is
    complete focusing solely on the execution of the source selection
    processes and procedures in the original LAS contract. However, release
    of the CDI report would compromise the integrity of the ongoing source
    selection process due to the source selection sensitive information
    contained in the report.
        After studying the circumstances prompting the corrective action
    and facts from the subsequent CDI, the Air Force decided to issue an
    amendment to the LAS request for proposal (RFP) to both offerors. Air
    Force officials met with both original offerors, SNC and HBDC,
    individually, to review the amended RFP changes line-by-line on April
    17, 2012. Both were provided the opportunity to submit comments on the
    draft RFP amendment, after which the Air Force released the final
    amended RFP on May 4, 2012. While the decision process will be event-
    driven, the Air Force targets a source selection decision in early
    calendar year 2013. This would allow first aircraft delivery to
    Afghanistan in the third quarter of 2014.
        Question. Secretary Donley, is it Air Force's intention that LAS
    aircraft comply with U.S. weapons, communications, and anthropometric
    standards in order for U.S. Military Personnel and partners to work
    seamlessly?
        Answer. The LAS program is funded by Afghan Security Forces funds
    and provides a light attack capability for Afghanistan. This program is
    specifically for Afghanistan and no plan currently exists to extend the
    platform beyond Afghanistan. There is a requirement within the Afghan
    LAS program for U.S. forces to partner with the Afghan Air Force to
    train and advise them on the system. Although there are advantages to
    U.S. forces being familiar with the LAS platform, this is not an
    absolute requirement. The Air Force will leverage experienced Air Force
    instructor pilots, maintainers and logisticians capable of quickly
    learning the LAS system and then training and advising their Afghan
    counterparts.
        Question. Secretary Donley, can you please describe what
    interaction, if any, has occurred between the U.S. Air Force and the
    U.S. State Department on the LAS procurement? While I understand you
    can only speak on behalf of the Air Force, can you please assure this
    subcommittee that the LAS procurement and the Brazilian FX-2 fighter
    competition are being handled as completely separate matters?
        Answer. The Air Force has maintained the appropriate level of
    coordination with Department of State on this matter. The Air Force
    Foreign Policy Advisor's office has responded to all DOS inquiries and
    provided coordination with the DOS Political-Military Bureau.
    Additionally, following termination of the LAS contract, the Air Force
    Public Affairs (PA) office coordinated with the DOS PA office to assist
    in answering questions from the Government of Brazil.
        As for the Brazilian FX-2 fighter competition, there is no
    connection between the U.S. Government's advocacy for the F/A-18 sale
    and the LAS contract. The programs are not associated in any manner.
                      c-27j versus c-130 operational costs
        Question. General Schwartz, the Air Force plans to terminate the C-
    27 program and put already purchased aircraft in storage or find
    another home for them. As an alternative, the Air Force plans to use C-
    130 cargo aircraft to provide direct support to Army units. It's my
    understanding the C-27 is already operating cargo missions for our
    ground forces in Afghanistan and that these missions reduce stress on
    Chinook helicopters which are much more expensive to operate per hour
    than either a C-27 or C-130. In addition, these C-27 missions may
    reduce the need for ground convoys which are not only dangerous but
    costly. Considering the flying hour cost of operating a C-130 can be
    more than double the cost of a C-27, what is the total cost of the Air
    Force's proposal and what assurances can you give us that the
    Department has conducted the proper business case analysis that takes
    these costs and risks into account?
        Answer. The Air Force's decision to terminate the C-27J program and
    divest the current fleet of 21 aircraft is based on a number of
    factors--not simply the cost to operate one platform versus another.
    The predominant consideration in our analysis was the reduction in
    overall intra-theater airlift demand and resulting force structure
    requirements attendant to the Department's January 2012 revised
    strategic planning guidance. While our analysis did include a life-
    cycle cost comparison between the C-27J and various C-130 variants, the
    operating costs of these platforms were not dominant elements in our
    decision calculus. We elected to divest the C-27J fleet in favor of
    keeping more operationally capable C-130 aircraft that can support the
    full realm of intra-theater airlift requirements, including Army time
    sensitive/mission critical direct support, rather than keeping a
    relatively small fleet of ``niche'' C-27J aircraft that are suited for
    the Army direct support role, and not the full spectrum of conflict.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
        Question. The greatest threat facing the Arnold Engineering
    Development Center is that the facilities at the base are 50 years old
    and they are reaching the breaking point.
        Although facilities are funded through Military Construction, which
    is not this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the fiscal year 2013 budget
    request for Air Force military construction is only $388 million, down
    from more than $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2012. The Air Force must
    develop a long-term plan to ensure critical testing facilities, like
    Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee, can continue to
    operate. The fiscal year 2013 budget request is inadequate to meet
    infrastructure needs at many facilities, including Arnold.
        Secretary Donley, what specific plan does the Air Force have to
    ensure that Arnold can continue to provide the Air Force with testing
    facilities capable of developing new cutting-edge technologies to
    support future missions without adequate funding?
        Answer. Each year, the Air Force prioritizes their most urgent
    military construction requirements for inclusion in the Air Force's
    military construction portion of the President's Budget. With budget
    constraints, we can only fund the most urgent projects; however, the
    Air Force is committed to sustaining, maintaining, and modernizing our
    physical plants to include facilities at Arnold Engineering Development
    Center. The Air Force did include two military construction projects
    for $26.8 million at Arnold Engineering Development Center in the
    Future Years Defense Program with the fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget submission. Although the Air Force did reduce our military
    construction budget request for fiscal year 2013, our goal is to return
    to historical military construction program funding levels in fiscal
    year 2014 to support the National Military Strategy.

                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Title                                 Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Power distribution modernization...........................         13.2
    ADAL test cell delivery bay................................         13.6
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................         26.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The two projects noted in the table above are in the fiscal year
    2013 President's budget FYDP.
        In addition, we have provided fiscal year 2012 funds for the
    following projects:
      --AEDC Propulsion Wind Tunnel #1 Transformer--$2.1 million;
      --AEDC (National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex) 40X Crane
            Refurbishment--$875,000;
      --AEDC Cooling Tower--$400,000; and
      --AEDC Critical Steam System Supplies--$466,000.
        Question. The USAF has stated publicly that given the downsizing of
    its fleet, it will be required more than ever to utilize technology to
    maintain fleet readiness. Fuel leaks on aircraft are known to severely
    impact the mission capability of aircraft operations. When an aircraft
    does go out of service for fuel leaks, the downtime is an unknown,
    until it is finally successfully repaired (days, weeks, sometimes
    months). The USAF has investigated, evaluated, and approved
    technologies and systems that will reduce the cost and downtime of
    aircraft fuel leak repairs.
        Given these thorough evaluations, does the Air Force have a plan
    for implementing such systems across the Air Force maintenance
    enterprise? And, if not, can you please describe what impediments you
    face for leveraging such a cost saving approach?
        Answer. Our program offices address sustainment challenges in many
    ways. A significant effort required for supporting each weapon system
    is the life-cycle management plan (LCMP). The LCMP fulfills the Federal
    Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense FAR Supplement, and Air Force FAR
    Supplement requirements of the acquisition plan and Department of
    Defense Instruction 5000.02 requirements for the acquisition strategy.
    The plans address long-range capability and sustainment efforts.
    Sustainment efforts often consider pacing ``not mission capable''
    maintenance and ``not mission capable'' supply issues. Recently
    recurring fuel leaks in KC-135 aircraft drove root cause analysis that
    identified the existing aircraft fuel bladders had outlived the repair
    processes. New bladders were ordered and the fuel leaks were reduced.
        Weapon systems are reviewed at recurring intervals during which
    operators, depot managers, and program managers identify and analyze
    system indicators affecting aircraft availability. High maintenance and
    supply drivers are identified and plans are developed to correct or
    prevent recurrence. Often new technology solutions provide the best and
    fastest resolution. Our prime vendors identify numerous new product and
    tooling solutions, but our repair centers, program offices, and flying
    units often discover new technology through vendor demonstration. Of
    course, we follow strict acquisition governance, contracting law, and
    technical validation to ensure the safety of our systems. This is
    especially critical for technology that may apply to multiple weapons
    systems.
        Additionally, the Air Force Research Laboratory is involved with
    new technology identification and validation. Successful programs and
    products are shared across our major commands to improve repair
    capabilities.
        Question. C-17s provide the most advanced strategic airlift
    capability, and it makes sense to locate these aircraft in Memphis
    which has the best cargo facilities and aviation infrastructure in the
    world.
        General Schwartz, the Air Force announced plans to relocate C-17s
    to Memphis. Since Memphis already has all of the facilities in place to
    support the C-17 mission, what is the exact timeline for getting C-17s
    to Memphis?
        Answer. During the development of the fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget submission, the Air Force determined the Tennessee Air National
    Guard's 164th Airlift Wing at Memphis would convert from C-5As to C-
    17As, completing an action initiated in fiscal year 2012. Under the
    current plan, Memphis would receive the first four C-17A aircraft in
    fiscal year 2013, with the remaining four aircraft arriving in fiscal
    year 2014. The schedule was planned around the transition between
    missions, accounting for C-5A retirements to make room for the C-17As,
    as well as allow for retraining of aircrew and maintenance personnel.
    Memphis C-5A retirement is planned to complete by the end of fiscal
    year 2014.
        Air Mobility Command will work closely with the Air National Guard
    to ensure the most effective plan is implemented, adjusting the arrival
    plan accordingly based on the specific details of the C-5A retirement
    schedule and progress of C-17A training for Memphis personnel.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
        Question. General Schwartz, you have repeatedly told me that the
    relocation of the 18th Aggressor Squadron to Joint Base Elmendorf-
    Richardson (JBER) should not be interpreted as the first step in a
    process that will lead to closure of the base. Would you state for the
    record:
      --whether this remains the case; and
      --what the Air Force's intentions are for the future of Eielson Air
            Force Base (AFB)?
        Answer. Relocating the 18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER is not a
    precursor to closing Eielson AFB. Eielson remains a valuable strategic
    asset for both homeland defense as well as for power projection into
    the Pacific theater. As such, it will remain the 168th Air Refueling
    Wing's Air National Guard (ANG) home in Alaska and the Red Flag-Alaska
    exercises will remain at Eielson AFB, Alaska. If the Congress
    authorizes the requested base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in
    2013 and 2015, the Air Force's proposed force structure changes do not
    pre-suppose what will happen to a particular installation during the
    BRAC analysis. The Department of Defense (DOD) will consider all
    installations equally with military value as the primary consideration.
        Question. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, would you state
    for the record how you expect that Eielson AFB will contribute to Air
    Force operational objectives and U.S. national security in the coming
    years, with particular emphasis on how the continued operation of
    Eielson AFB supports the United States presence in the Asia/Pacific
    region?
        Answer. Eielson AFB will continue to support key national and Air
    Force priorities in the years ahead, to include Operation Noble Eagle,
    North American Aerospace Defense Command contingency plans, support to
    U.S. Pacific Command, and exercise support in the Joint Pacific Alaska
    Range Complex. The new strategic guidance puts increased emphasis on
    the Pacific Command area of responsibility, including our training and
    exercise efforts.
        Question. It is counterintuitive to believe that the Air Force will
    achieve cost savings or efficiencies by maintaining Eielson AFB in a
    warm status given the relatively high cost of maintaining a warm base
    in a cold place, as was demonstrated to the 2005 BRAC Commission.
    Intuitively it would seem to make more sense to spread the fixed costs
    of operating Eielson AFB among a higher level of year-round activities.
    Is there a flaw in this logic? Has the Air Force considered the
    alternative of achieving efficiencies by relocating activities
    presently conducted in the lower 48 or abroad to Eielson AFB?
        Answer. During the development of the fiscal year 2013 Air Force
    budget request, we were required to make a number of difficult
    decisions to adjust to both our new strategic priorities and to fiscal
    realities. The transfer of the 18th Aggressor Squadron from Eielson AFB
    to JBER in fiscal year 2013 garners manpower and efficiency savings by
    consolidating operations/maintenance supervision overhead and base
    support functions.
        To assign new units to an installation in the future, we will
    utilize the Air Force Strategic Basing process, which uses criteria-
    based analysis, and the application of military judgment, linking
    mission, and combatant commander requirements to installation
    attributes to identify locations that are best suited to support any
    given mission. The results of this analysis will be used to inform the
    basing decisions made by the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air
    Force. Eielson AFB will be considered in future basing actions as
    defined by the respective basing criteria.
        Question. The Air Force has a plan to relocate the 18th Aggressor
    Squadron in 2013 and reduce the scale of year-round operations at
    Eielson AFB in subsequent years while maintaining year-round operations
    of the 168th Refueling Squadron and other tenants, including the Joint
    Mobility Center. Would you estimate with specificity how much money the
    Air Force intends to save if this plan is implemented and how these
    savings will be achieved, e.g., how much would be saved by reduction of
    personnel, reduction of utility costs, closure and/or demolition of
    base facilities, deferred maintenance, et cetera?

      WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS IN FISCAL YEARS 2013, 2014, 2015,
                                 2016, AND 2017?
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year:
        2013...................................................          3.5
        2014...................................................          6.9
        2015...................................................         34.3
        2016...................................................         61.8
        2017...................................................         63
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The chart above was provided to Senator Mark Begich and shared with
    his colleagues on the Alaska congressional delegation and depicts the
    savings that the Air Force expects to realize through implementation of
    its plan for Eielson AFB. It does not, however, explain specifically
    how these numbers will be achieved or what data sources the Air Force
    relied upon in making this prediction.
        Answer. The transfer of the 18th Aggressor Squadron from Eielson
    AFB to JBER in fiscal year 2013 garners manpower and efficiency savings
    by consolidating operations/maintenance supervision overhead and base
    support functions. Estimated cost savings are $3.5 million for fiscal
    year 2013 and $169.5 million across the future years defense program.
    The estimates are based primarily on eliminating manpower
    authorizations the U.S. Pacific Air Forces Command analysis determined
    were no longer needed at Eielson AFB once the 18th Aggressor Squadron
    relocates. However, sufficient capability will remain in-place at
    Eielson AFB to support the 168th Air Refueling Wing, exercises, and our
    Joint partners at Fort Wainwright. Headquarters U.S. Pacific Air Forces
    Command's Eielson/Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Site Activation Task
    Force will determine other savings from the proposed relocation. The
    Air Staff is currently validating the results from the Site Activation
    Task Force Report dated May 31, 2012.
        Question. As you know the 2005 BRAC Commission evaluated a scenario
    under which all aircraft other than the KC-135 tankers assigned to the
    168th Refueling Squadron would be removed from Eielson AFB and
    questioned the Air Force's conclusion that significant cost savings and
    efficiencies will be achieved from attempting to maintain a warm base
    in a cold place. Have you satisfied yourself that the 2005 BRAC
    Commission's economic analysis was wrong? Have you taken steps to
    independently ensure that the Air Force staff assumptions are valid and
    have not been biased by a desire to refight and win a battle that was
    lost before the 2005 BRAC Commission?
        Answer. The Air Force stands by its original BRAC recommendation to
    move the Aggressors, but agrees with the Commission's recommendation to
    ensure access to adequate range space. Our current proposal recognizes
    the value of retaining an Aggressor training capability in Alaska to
    support F-22 Raptor training, Red Flag-Alaska, and to leverage the
    Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex. In addition, the F-16 Aggressor
    move to JBER will co-locate them with the F-22 Raptors, one of the
    Aggressors' training partners and capitalizes on the benefit of 3rd
    Wing facilities that once supported F-15 Eagles.
        Overall, BRAC 2005 fell short of the Air Force's goal to reduce
    overhead and operational costs by reducing excess installation
    capacity. Today, 7 years later and 500 aircraft fewer, the Air Force
    continues to maintain large amounts of excess infrastructure. These are
    dollars we need in other areas.
        We are aware there are other savings opportunities and we will rely
    on the Site Activation Task Force to determine those additional
    savings. We have taken steps to ensure independent review of our
    assumptions underlying the Air Force's proposed force structure changes
    by having the Office of Secretary of Defense's Directorate of Cost
    Assessment and Program Evaluation review and vet our plan.
        Question. Please describe in detail the process by which the
    recommendations pertaining to Eielson AFB were formulated, including
    timeframes and participants, and the key recommendation and decision
    documents through which these recommendations were performed and
    approved. In answering this question, please describe in detail how the
    ``tabletop'' exercise was carried out. Did the tabletop participants
    rely to any extent on the data that the Air Force utilized to justify
    its decision to place Eielson AFB on the 2005 BRAC list? What other
    data was considered and how recently was it compiled?
        Answer. The Air Force has taken a deliberate approach to
    streamlining operations at Eielson AFB. From approximately September
    2010 to February 2011, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces studied the
    feasibility of the proposal to move the 18th Aggressors Squadron to
    JBER, Alaska.
        In early 2012, Headquarters Air Force conducted an analysis of
    potential courses of action to determine if a reduction in personnel at
    Eielson AFB was a feasible method of achieving efficiencies in a
    resource-constrained environment while preserving valuable missions.
    Although the majority of facilities will remain open and functional to
    provide rapid operational capability to operational plans and tenant
    units, the analysis demonstrated the Air Force can reduce manpower
    substantially while maintaining support to tenant units and future
    exercises.
        Once the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air
    Force approved the relocation of the 18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER as
    part of the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request, Pacific Air
    Forces formed survey teams that are aggressively moving forward to
    finalize all manpower and facility needs to maintain support to the
    168th Air Refueling Wing and other operational requirements.
        The Air Force believes it fully complied with the BRAC statutes
    (title 10, section 2687) for realigning the 18th Aggressor Squadron to
    JBER. Actions occurring at Eielson AFB, are force structure changes and
    do not portend base closure.
        Question. Would the Air Force have any objection to opening its
    files pertaining to the future of Eielson AFB so that the Alaska
    congressional delegation and experts engaged by the State of Alaska and
    the Fairbanks North Star Borough could fully understand and analyze the
    Air Force's analysis and assumptions? If the Air Force is prohibited by
    law from doing so, please state which laws so provide. If the Air Force
    believes that it is imprudent to do so in order to protect its
    deliberative processes or other considerations please explain why
    transparency considerations should not override these concerns.
        Answer. The Air Force is not precluded by law from sharing its
    analysis or assumptions associated with force structure changes at
    Eielson AFB. We shared our plans, including our analysis and
    assumptions, for Eielson AFB in our April 25, 2012, briefing to the
    Alaska delegation. We would like to reiterate that our action does not
    close Eielson AFB and the Air Force remains committed to supporting the
    base with DOD's strategic shift to the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). We
    intend to maintain Eielson AFB for its strategic importance as an
    enroute/staging base for PACOM requirements.
        As mission demands evolve and resource constraints emerge, the Air
    Force will continue to stay engaged with our congressional partners to
    provide the most effective and efficient air, space, and cyberspace
    power for the Nation. We look forward to working with you during this
    challenging fiscal environment.
        Question. I remain unclear about whether the Air Force has any
    justification to relocate the 18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER separate
    and apart from its long-term plans to reduce the level of year-round
    operations at Eielson AFB.
        What is the justification for relocating the 18th Aggressor
    Squadron in fiscal year 2013, as opposed to fiscal year 2014 or fiscal
    year 2015?
        Answer. As we looked out at the entire Air Force, it was clear that
    we needed to take an enterprise-wide approach to cut back on overhead
    expenses. Eielson AFB hosts the only wing that has a single operational
    squadron in the active-duty Air Force. Maintaining an entire wing
    overhead structure over a single active-duty squadron was an
    inefficient use of very tight resources. In addition, having the 18th
    Aggressor Squadron collocate with its primary customer, the 3rd Wing's
    F-22s stationed at JBER, is the most efficient operational laydown.
        With this background, the Air Force plans to move the 18th
    Aggressor Squadron, relocating its aircraft and 542 military personnel
    to JBER in fiscal year 2013. This will save the personnel costs
    associated with the 81 Military positions in wing overhead and improve
    its operational interactions with its customers. The fiscal year 2013
    President's budget request also adds 43 Base Operations Support (BOS)
    military positions required to support the aggressors at JBER. With the
    lone active-duty flying operation removed, the Air Force plans to right
    size active-duty personnel for the enduring missions at Eielson AFB,
    significantly reducing manpower costs over the future years defense
    plan (FYDP). In order to ensure sufficient timing for planning, the Air
    Force plans to hold off right-sizing the manpower footprint until
    fiscal year 2015. We project manpower savings alone, starting in fiscal
    year 2013, building to approximately $62 million per year beyond fiscal
    year 2016 for a total savings of $169.5 million over the FYDP. We
    expect further savings to be detailed as we refine the BOS portion of
    the plan.
        To finalize the exact detailed planning associated with moving the
    18th Aggressor Squadron, the Air Force is currently conducting a
    focused Site Activation Task Force (SATAF). This SATAF will
    specifically detail actions needed to move the Aggressors in fiscal
    year 2013. They will complete all necessary detailed planning and
    capture any incidental costs associated with bedding down the
    Aggressors at JBER. They will also determine the JBER unit assignment
    and timeline for the additional BOS personnel associated with moving
    the Aggressors to JBER. Although detailed direct and indirect costs and
    savings with relocating the 18th Aggressors to JBER across the FYDP are
    not available at this time, we believe that the personnel costs savings
    of the entire program will exceed other costs. If we project that
    savings will not be realized, or result in affordability, feasibility
    and executability issues, the Air Force is committed to re-evaluate the
    proposal. Assessing the local economic impact of the movement of the
    18th Aggressor Squadron is outside the purview of the SATAF. The SATAF
    plans for public release of report for moving the 18th Aggressor
    Squadron on or about May 31, 2012.
        The Air Force plan to remove active-duty BOS personnel at Eielson
    AFB in fiscal year 2015 does not affect the BOS for the ANG facilities
    or the remaining active-duty activities at Eielson AFB. In spring 2014,
    the Air Force will conduct an additional SATAF to get the precise
    detail associated with the reduction of Eielson BOS personnel. The Air
    Force will ensure adequate BOS manning for both exercise and ANG's
    168th Air Refueling Wing requirements. The Air Force has planned
    sufficient Air Traffic Control Tower manning at Eielson AFB to provide
    flexible support throughout the week to meet operational mission
    requirements. Base maintenance and support will be accomplished through
    a combination of contract (local hire) and in-house military workforce.
    The 354th Logistic Readiness Squadron will continue to operate and
    maintain the Joint Mobility Center. Eielson AFB will also maintain an
    increment of War Reserve Material to support PACOM's operational plans.
    This SATAF will help determine how best to beddown the remaining
    personnel on Eielson in the most efficient manner, utilizing common use
    infrastructure, dormitories, and Red Flag facilities.
        Question. The Air Force has provided a powerpoint presentation
    detailing the role of the ``site survey'' or ``Site Activation Task
    Force'' team. The powerpoint would lead me to conclude that the role of
    the SATAF team is to determine how to carry out the relocation of the
    18th Aggressor Squadron and other decisions that have already been made
    about Eielson AFB rather than determine whether the assumptions made
    about Eielson AFB in the tabletop exercise are valid. I was led to
    believe in Air Force briefings that the Site Survey team would generate
    information that might address the question of ``whether'' given the
    limitations of the tabletop exercise not just the question of ``how.''
    Which is the case? Is it within the realm of possibility that the Air
    Force will reconsider its plans for Eielson AFB following submission
    the Site Survey team's report? Does the Air Force intend to brief the
    Alaska congressional delegation on the outcome of the Site Survey and
    provide copies of the team's report for review? If not, why not? Who
    has or will the site survey team consult with in Alaska and within
    other services and DOD? Please detail specifically how the Air Force
    has coordinated with NORTHCOM in recommending these moves, given
    Eielson's role in homeland defense and homeland security.
        Answer. The SATAF is focusing on finalizing the movement of the
    18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER. The SATAF team will out brief the
    Pacific Air Forces' Commander who can provide an out brief to other
    parties, as required.
        Combatant commanders (COCOM) are afforded the opportunity to review
    the Services' Program Objective Memorandums (POM) after the Services
    submit their POM positions to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    The 18th Aggressor Squadron's aircraft are training-coded and
    doctrinally, it is the responsibility of the Air Force to align its
    forces in the best possible manner to ensure adequately trained forces
    to fulfill COCOM requirements. During the Fall Program Budget Review,
    U.S. Northern Command reviewed the Air Force's POM position and did not
    express any concerns with the Air Force's Eielson AFB position for
    these training-coded aircraft.
        The proposal to retain the 168th Air Refueling Wing at Eielson AFB
    and maintain the base and runway operating capability while moving the
    training-coded F-16s to JBER is directly tied to the strategic
    importance of this base and this location. The robust training
    capability for Red Flag-Alaska exercises will remain at Eielson AFB and
    is a testament to the quality and capacity for world-class training and
    readiness emphasis which is of particular importance to the Pacific
    theater. While the training-coded Aggressor F-16s are slated to
    relocate to JBER, they will still participate in, and support, these
    large force, Joint and combined exercises the same way the combat-coded
    units at Elmendorf AFB have done for years. The current training and
    readiness focus of effort will remain under the current proposal.
        Question. It has been suggested for some time that the 168th Air
    Refueling Wing would be able to meet a greater percentage of mission
    requirements if additional tankers were assigned and an active
    association were created. Is the Air Force considering this proposal
    and what are the prospects for its approval?
        Answer. Pacific Air Force and the ANG have conducted several
    meetings on the stand-up of a classic association at Eielson AFB. The
    results determined that there was insufficient tanker aircraft and
    manpower to stand-up an association, but more importantly, the commands
    determined that there was sufficient resources in-place to meet
    combatant commander operational and training requirements. However,
    associations are a valuable Total Force tool the Air Force uses to meet
    national security needs. Proposals for new Total Force Integration
    (TFI) associations can be submitted by the National Guard Bureau and
    all the Air Force Major Commands. Once submitted, each proposal
    undergoes a set of reviews before being presented for decision. Each
    proposal is reviewed for legal sufficiency, strength of business case
    and resourcing/funding availability before being presented for final
    Air Force decision. Additionally, this TFI review process is integrated
    with the Air Force Strategic Basing process to ensure all location-
    related aspects are consistent with that process. Throughout both the
    TFI and Strategic Basing processes, there is full Active component and
    Reserve component engagement.
        Question. Given JBER's role in the Pacific I was surprised to learn
    that its C-130 lift capacity would be reduced. What is the
    justification for reducing the C-130 lift at JBER and how does this
    relate to the strategic emphasis on Asia and the Pacific? Was this
    reduction coordinated with Alaska's Adjutant General?
        Answer. Defense Strategic Guidance reduced the overall requirement
    for intra-theater airlift. Using scenarios consistent with the revised
    Defense Strategic Guidance, Air Force analysis determined that excess
    capacity exists in the Air Force intra-theater airlift fleet. The Air
    Force's C-130 retirements allow taxpayers to avoid an additional $533
    million in aircraft sustainment bills while still being able to meet
    Pacific Theater requirements.
        The Air Force retains a fleet of 318 C-130 aircraft (134 C-130J,
    184 C-130H) to meet the new strategy within fiscal constraints, and the
    service is maintaining an 8 Primary Aircraft Assigned (PAA) unit at
    JBER to meet worldwide requirements including Asia and the Pacific. The
    Air Force decision to reduce Elmendorf by 4 PAA standardizes the unit's
    aircraft numbers with most other ANG C-130 locations across the
    country, which affords a higher level of uniformity/predictability in
    training, manpower needs, and mission execution.
        The National Guard Bureau represents ANG/State/adjutant general
    interests during Air Force budget deliberations, and they participated
    throughout the development of the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
    request. Although ANG aircraft are being divested, the Alaska ANG is
    not losing any manpower due to this reduction in C-130 aircraft.
        Question. How will the Air Force ensure Eielson AFB remains a fully
    functioning base that allows the 168th Air Refueling Wing to fully
    conduct its 24-hour-per-day, 7-day-per-week, 365-day-per-year, no-fail
    refueling mission in support of the administration's Asia-Pacific
    focus?
        Answer. Headquarters Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) addressed the 168th
    Air Refueling Wing continuous operations requirement by developing a
    manpower baseline for base support that included the 168th Air
    Refueling Wing operations, Red Flag support, Distant Frontier and
    Northern Edge exercises, and potential diverts off the range into
    Eielson AFB. This manpower baseline provides Eielson AFB the
    flexibility to meet requirements beyond 8 a.m.-5 p.m. local as needed.
    PACAF's preliminary plan is for Eielson AFB base support units,
    including base operations and air traffic control, to be a detachment
    of JBER which relies on them for support as needed.
        Question. The movement of the Aggressor Squadron would include the
    relocation of a significant number of airmen and their families, but
    about 400 soldiers at JBER are already in temporary barracks. You have
    indicated the Air Force's plan for housing new airmen at JBER, its
    cost, and when it would be funded is not yet known. You've similarly
    indicated that whether JBER has the infrastructure necessary to house
    and maintain the F-16s and support functions, its cost and when it
    would be funded is not yet known. Please provide me with this
    information as soon as it is available.
        Answer. Because of the Air Force's Force Structure realignment,
    U.S. Pacific Air Forces Command conducted a SATAF at Eielson AFB from
    April 11th to April 13th and at JBER from April 16th to April 18th.
    This SATAF will determine the requirements, such as dormitories and F-
    16 support functions, to adequately bed down the relocated Aggressor
    Squadron. Once the housing and infrastructure requirements are refined
    as a part of the SATAF process, and the costs determined, we will
    forward that information to you, along with a timeline.
        Question. You have said the assumption is that neither an
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) nor an Environmental Assessment
    (EA) will be needed to move the F-16s to JBER. Since the move would
    involve more planes at a base that already flies multiple types of
    aircraft in a crowded more personnel being stationed at JBER, please
    provide me with the Air Force's final opinion on this matter as soon as
    it is available, as well as an estimate on how much any EA or EIS would
    cost and the timeline for such a review.
        Answer. The most recent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    document prepared for JBER does not cover adding an additional fighter
    squadron from Eielson AFB. A new NEPA analysis will be required to
    support Air Force proposal to add an additional fighter squadron to
    Eielson AFB and any related alternatives culminating in final decision.
        Headquarters PACAF is working to define the scope of work,
    schedule, and rough cost estimate for an environmental analysis. PACAF
    will also conduct a SATAF survey in April 2012. No aircraft movements
    will take place until the SATAF findings are properly documented, all
    NEPA requirements are completed, and the Congress completes action on
    the fiscal year 2013 President's budget. The Air Force goal is to
    complete environmental assessments within 6 months of study initiation
    and environmental impact statements within 12 months of initiation.
        Question. Hundreds of military personnel from around the globe
    visit Alaska every summer for training. Those troops are housed at
    Eielson AFB, JBER, university campuses, and even in Kodiak. Where would
    they be housed if Eielson AFB became an 8-5 base? What will foreign
    militaries that train in Alaska do if the Aggressor Squadron is moved
    and Eielson AFB becomes an 8-5 base? Please also detail the Air Force's
    plans to support Clear Air Force Station if Eielson AFB becomes an 8/5,
    Monday through Friday base.
        Answer. The Air Force addressed continuous operation at Eielson AFB
    by developing a manpower baseline for base support that includes 168th
    Air Refueling Wing operations, Red Flag support, and Distant Frontier
    and Northern Edge exercises. This manpower baseline provides Eielson
    AFB the flexibility to meet requirements necessary to support the full
    range of assigned missions. The housing of participants for various
    exercises continues as in the past utilizing Eielson AFB, JBER and
    surrounding areas to accommodate the participants. The Aggressor
    squadron is moving from Eielson AFB to JBER to gain efficiencies and
    cost savings, but the Aggressors will still support exercises at Joint
    Pacific Alaska Range Complex.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
        Question. Secretary Donley, as you know, the Common Vertical Lift
    Support Platform (CVLSP) program was terminated in the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget. This platform was to be the replacement for
    the Air Force UH-1N ``Hueys'' that suffer from shortfalls in lift
    capability, speed survivability, maintainability, night/adverse weather
    capability, and avionics/human factors. The Air Force has stated
    repeatedly that an urgent operational need has existed since 1996 and
    that, as late as last year, was considering invoking the Economy Act of
    1932 to justify a sole source buy to replace the Hueys. Please explain
    to me the rationale and justification for terminating the CVLSP.
    Further, please explain what it's going to cost the taxpayer to
    continue to fly and maintain 40-year-old helicopters that no longer
    satisfy the current operational requirements for this mission.
        Without the acquisition resources available to satisfy this
    ``urgent and compelling'' need, has the Air Force considered any more
    affordable alternatives such as leasing aircraft to accomplish this
    mission?
        Answer. The Air Force is taking an acquisition pause to explore
    more cost effective strategies to meet the nuclear security and
    continuity of government missions. We are considering all alternatives
    to address these mission requirements, and no decisions have been made
    at this time.
        Question. Does the Air Force still believe that it needs the same
    size and similarly equipped aircraft to do such dissimilar missions as
    nuclear weapon convoy escort and intercontinental ballistic missiles
    (ICBM) emergency security response in adverse weather conditions and
    the much more benign mission of passenger transport in the National
    Capital Region provided by the 1st Helicopter Squadron at Andrews Air
    Force Base, Maryland?
        Answer. Yes. The Air Force still believes one common helicopter to
    support the nuclear security and National Capital Region missions is
    the best option. Though the missions are different, the resultant
    payload, survivability, situational requirements, and capabilities
    required to accomplish those missions are very similar and allow us to
    use a common platform. In addition, a common helicopter between the two
    missions results in long-term savings and flexibility from an
    operational and sustainment perspective.
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense (DOD) budget
    included $52.8 million in funding for CVLSP, and no money in fiscal
    year 2013. We now understand CVLSP will not go forward, and the USAF
    has instead decided to take used United States Marine Corps (USMC) UH-
    1N's destined for the boneyard and use the CVLSP funding to recondition
    these aircraft which are just as unable to meet the requirements as the
    current United States Air Force (USAF) UN-1N's. Isn't that strategy
    throwing good money after bad, and wouldn't it be a better use of the
    $52.8 million CVLSP funding to introduce an aircraft that CAN meet the
    requirements of the mission, even if it is in limited quantities for
    now?
        Answer. The Air Force and DOD have not finalized any plans for
    using the $52.8 million of fiscal year 2012 CVLSP aircraft procurement
    funding. There are no plans to use any of the fiscal year 2012 CVLSP
    funding to recondition the Marine Corps UH-1Ns. Regardless of what the
    Air Force and DOD decide, the Congress would have to approve the
    reprogramming of funds.
        The Air Force still has a requirement to address mission capability
    gaps and replace the UH-1N fleet. We are looking at more cost-effective
    strategies to meet the nuclear security and continuity of government
    missions. In the near term, taking ownership of up to 22 Marine Corps
    UH-1Ns aircraft is a low-cost option to mitigate some mission
    capability gaps, and provide attrition reserve aircraft and spares for
    our current UH-1N fleet. Air Force Global Strike Command and Air Force
    Materiel Command are developing a UH-1N roadmap to determine the best
    options for the use of these aircraft. Any expenses required to ready
    the aircraft for Air Force use will be addressed in future budgets.
        Question. General Schwartz, the Air Force announced plans to cut 86
    active-duty airmen from the McEntire Joint National Guard Base in South
    Carolina. At the same time, the Air Force is creating two associations
    by adding 164 active-duty airmen each to two Air Force Reserve F-16
    wings, one in Texas and the other in Florida. My understanding,
    however, is that these Reserve units are less tasked than McEntire
    (e.g., neither maintain an air alert commitment). Further, the McEntire
    active association has proven highly efficient, cost effective, and is
    about to deploy 18 F-16s to Afghanistan. Why would the Air Force weaken
    the McEntire active association but at the same time spend additional
    active-duty resources for less capability at reserve air wings? Does
    this move make fiscal sense at a time when the Air Force's budget, like
    that of the other services, is shrinking?
        Answer. Active duty manpower movements at McIntire Air National
    Guard Base, as well as at Air Force Reserve Command locations in
    Florida and Texas, were part of a larger reallocation of Active Duty F-
    16 operation and maintenance manpower across the Total Force. This
    reallocation was initiated at the request of the Air National Guard
    (ANG) resulting in the addition of four new F-16 Guard locations with
    an increase of 37 assigned active-duty billets. Because resources are
    reallocated within existing active-duty end strength, no additional
    cost is incurred. In addition, this action also enables the Air Force
    to convert backup aircraft inventory aircraft at six ANG locations into
    primary aircraft inventory, with the net result being an increase of 18
    primary aircraft inventory at ANG locations. Finally, the reallocation
    of F-16 active associations increases the number of locations at which
    inexperienced Active Duty F-16 pilots and maintainers can be seasoned
    while working with more experienced ANG counterparts. From a Total
    Force perspective, this reallocation of Active Duty F-16 manpower
    improves overall capabilities at no additional cost.
        Question. On March 5, 2012, Defense News reported that the Air
    Force plans to reduce the number of F-35 bases from 40 to the low 30s.
    Since 1991, the ANG has proven its efficiency in utilizing F-16s and F-
    15s for Air Expeditionary Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ANG
    currently fulfills 100 percent of the CONUS Air Sovereignty Alert
    mission at substantially lesser costs than the Active component. I
    believe the same would hold true were the ANG equipped with F-35s. The
    Air Force's projected cuts to the ANG in fiscal year 2013 concern me,
    and I remain equally as concerned that the planned reductions in F-35
    bases will disproportionately impact the ANG. What assurances can you
    give me that the reduction in F-35 bases will not disproportionately
    impact ANG units?
        Answer. The Air Force uses an iterative, continually informed
    process for fielding weapon systems intended to optimize mission sets
    and requirements of the total force to meet combatant commander
    requirements. The Air Force is committed to fielding the F-35A
    Lightning II aircraft in the Reserve component, as evidenced by the
    designation of Burlington Air Guard Station, Vermont as the preferred
    alternative for the first operational unit in the Reserve component,
    and fully supports further Reserve component fielding in the future.
    The combination of a collaborative and fully operational total force
    enterprise process, an open and transparent strategic basing process,
    and effective linkages with the planning, programming, budgeting, and
    execution process will provide avenues to balance the Active component
    and Reserve component while prioritizing combatant commander
    requirements. The Air Force is dedicated to using these processes, with
    full Reserve component participation, to refine concepts of concurrent
    and proportional, or balanced, fielding and to ensure fielding of the
    F-35A in the most effective and efficient manner.
        Question. What criteria do you plan to use to determine which bases
    will lose F-35s?
        Answer. There are currently no plans to remove F-35s from any
    existing beddown locations. The Air Force will use its strategic basing
    process to identify which bases receive the F-35A aircraft. Currently,
    the Air Force has only identified the preferred and reasonable
    alternatives for the Formal Training Unit, one Active component
    operational unit, and one Reserve component operational unit. Criteria
    used to determine which bases will receive F-35A aircraft included
    mission, capacity, environmental, and cost categories. Mission included
    weather and airspace components; capacity included facilities, runway,
    and ramp components; environmental considered air quality and
    encroachment; and cost included the area construction cost factor.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
        Question. General Schwartz, I am concerned about the Air Force's
    failure to fulfill its obligation to acquire the F117 Engine technical
    data, and the impact this will have as the Air Force pursues Supply
    Chain Management services.
        What is the Air Force justification for not acquiring the technical
    data rights to the F117 engine, particularly when it is paying an
    approximately 50-percent premium to the commercial variant, which
    includes tech data? Does the Air Force have a plan to acquire such data
    rights?
        Answer. Yes, the Air Force is currently working on acquiring
    technical data rights to the F117 engine. Under the procurement or
    sustainment contracts, the Air Force has never purchased data rights
    for the F117 engine because:
      --under the C-17 contract, Boeing acquired the engines from Pratt &
            Whitney (P&W) as a commercial item; and
      --under the Air Force contract to acquire engines, the Air Force used
            a commercial contract.
        P&W paid for the development of these engines. Also, the C-17
    sustainment program included Contractor Logistics Support for life;
    therefore, there was no need to acquire data rights. Since then, the
    Air Force has decided to break out the engine technical overhaul,
    supply chain management and systems engineering from the C-17 support.
    As a result, the Air Force is currently working two separate contract
    actions to acquire licensed use of P&W's technical manual, and to
    acquire the data rights for the System Engineering and Supply Chain
    Management processes for the F117 engine. In December 2011, P&W agreed
    to a General Terms Agreement release of their technical manual for
    basic F117 repairs, and the Air Force will further pursue Government
    Purpose Rights for historical supply chain management and systems
    engineering to enhance future competition.
        Question. General Schwartz, options exist to lower aircraft
    sustainment costs. For example, the commercial industry has embraced
    FAA-approved Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA) parts and Designated
    Engineering Representative (DER) repairs, but the military has been
    slow to follow.
        Why doesn't the Air Force embrace such commercial best practices?
    Is the Air Force considering using these practices as it contracts for
    Supply Chain Management services for the C-17s F117 engines?
        Answer. The Air Force has embraced commercial best practices. The
    Air Force has recently increased the ability of commercial and
    competitive practices to reduce future F117 engine costs for supply
    chain management (SCM) services. Through discussions with P&W (the
    original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the F117), in December 2011
    the Air Force secured access to the OEM repair manuals via license
    agreement. This repair manual license agreement can be used for SCM
    competition and for non OEM parts approval.
        The OEM does not have to approve repaired parts; any approved
    repair facility with access to the OEM's repair manuals can overhaul
    and repair F117 engines without subsequent approval through the OEM.
    This will continue to increase competition and decrease the reliance on
    OEM parts which can be used on the F117. This aligns with the
    commercial industry repair practices.
        The Air Force has released a draft performance work statement for a
    new competitive contract that takes advantage of commercial repairs and
    non OEM parts approvals. The Air Force's goal is to leverage Federal
    Aviation Administration's (FAA) PMA and DER approval results as much
    possible. This may accelerate the approval of non-OEM parts. However,
    FAA PMA approval is not sufficient for the F117 due to the F117's
    unique military mission. The FAA approves parts and repairs for only
    commercial application; therefore, the military must retain
    configuration control of the F117 engine.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. The Defense Subcommittee will reconvene on
    Wednesday, March 21, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., to hear from the
    United States Army.
        The subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Wednesday, March 14, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, March 21.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Murray, Cochran, Shelby,
    Hutchison, Murkowski, Graham, and Coats.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. McHUGH, SECRETARY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. This morning, the subcommittee convenes to
    review the Department of the Army's fiscal year 2013 budget
    request. And so we welcome the Honorable John M. McHugh,
    Secretary of the Army. We also welcome for the first time
    before this subcommittee, General Raymond T. Odierno, the Army
    Chief of Staff. Thank you for being with us today.
        The Department of the Army's fiscal year 2013 base budget
    request is $135 billion, the same level as last year's enacted
    base budget. The Army is also requesting $50 billion for
    overseas contingency operations (OCO) for fiscal year 2013,
    which is a decrease of $18 billion from last year's enacted
    amount.
        Due to the country's fiscal restraints, the Army's response
    to budget reductions was based on the determination of the
    right balance between three areas: personnel, modernization,
    and readiness.
        Over the next 5 years, the Army is planning to reduce the
    size of the Active Army by 490,000 soldiers and will remove at
    least eight brigade combat teams (BCTs) from its existing
    structure. The subcommittee hopes to learn more from you on
    these reductions and your plans to achieve them without
    sacrificing the lessons we have learned after a decade of war.
    As far as modernization is concerned, the fiscal year 2013
    request prioritizes the Army network and infantry-fighting
    vehicle that can accommodate the entire infantry squad and the
    joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV).
        Finally, the Army must ensure its forces are maintained,
    trained, and equipped at the highest levels of readiness in
    order to meet its operational demands and to fulfill its
    obligation in the Middle East and the Pacific in order to meet
    the new defense strategy.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The subcommittee sincerely appreciates your service to our
    Nation and the dedication of the 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. And so I look forward to working with you
    to make certain that the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill
    reflects the current and future needs of the U.S. Army.
        [The statement follows:]
                prepared statement of chairman daniel k. inouye
        Today, the subcommittee convenes to review the fiscal year 2013
    Department of Defense budget request. We welcome the Honorable John
    McHugh, Secretary of the Army. And beside him we welcome for the first
    time before the subcommittee, General Raymond T. Odierno, the Army
    Chief of Staff. Gentlemen, thank you for being here with us today.
        The Department of the Army's fiscal year 2013 base budget request
    is $135 billion, the same level as last year's enacted base budget. The
    Army is also requesting $50 billion for overseas contingency operations
    for fiscal year 2013, which is a decrease of $18 billion from last
    year's enacted amount.
         Due to the country's fiscal restraints, the Army's response to
    budget reductions was based on determining the right balance between
    three areas: personnel, modernization, and readiness.
        Over the next 5 years, the Army is planning to reduce the size of
    the Active Army to 490,000 soldiers and will remove at least eight
    brigade combat teams from its existing structure. I hope to learn more
    from you on these reductions and your plans to achieve them without
    sacrificing the lessons learned after a decade of war.
        As far as modernization, the fiscal year 2013 request prioritizes
    the Army Network, an infantry fighting vehicle that can accommodate an
    entire infantry squad and the joint light tactical vehicle.
        Finally, the Army must ensure its forces are maintained, trained,
    and equipped at the highest levels of readiness in order to meet its
    operational demands and to fulfill its obligations in the Middle East
    and the Pacific to meet the new defense strategy.
        We sincerely appreciate your service to our Nation and the
    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. I look forward to
    working with you to ensure that the fiscal year 2013 appropriations
    bill reflects the current and future needs of the United States Army.

        Chairman Inouye. As you gentlemen are aware, there is a
    vote scheduled for 10:40 this morning. So, the Vice Chairman
    and I will alternate voting to continue the hearing as planned.
    And may I assure you that your full statement will be made part
    of the record. And now I call upon the Vice Chairman.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    scheduling this hearing and inviting witnesses to appear and
    discuss the budget request for the next fiscal year for the
    United States Army, our soldiers, and others who are working to
    help protect the security interests of our great country. It's
    a dangerous mission these days. Men and women are deployed
    around the world to help protect our security interests and
    help maintain the access to the freedoms and liberties we enjoy
    as Americans.
        The testimony comes at an important time. We face a lot of
    challenges, and we appreciate your cooperation with our
    subcommittee in identifying the priorities to be sure we get it
    right and that we serve the best interests of our country and
    peace in the world.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman.
    May I call upon Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thanks for having me.
        Chairman Inouye. Well, it is now my pleasure to call upon
    the Secretary, Mr. McHugh.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH

        Mr. McHugh. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Vice Chairman,
    Senator Cochran, and Senator Graham, I don't know as I can
    equal Senator Graham's brevity. But, given the time
    constraints, I will try to be somewhat brief.
        Mr. Chairman, let me first of all join you in expressing my
    gratitude, and frankly, as the Secretary, relief to have this
    great leader on my left, the 38th Chief of Staff of the Army,
    Ray Odierno. And I want to thank this subcommittee and this
    Senate for acting swiftly to nominate him. As you know,
    gentlemen, this is a great leader who in a relatively short
    time has really made his mark as the current Chief, and also
    former leader. And I feel very honored and blessed to have him
    as my partner in these very challenging times.
        I also want to take a brief opportunity to thank this
    subcommittee for the great support that all of you have
    provided our 1.1 million soldiers, our 270,000 civilians, and
    our families. Collectively, as you know, they make up this
    great Army, and they, too, deeply appreciate all that you do
    for them.
        Today, more than ever, I would argue today's demanding
    fiscal environment requires that we maintain an even stronger
    partnership with you and this great Congress, this great house,
    to ensure that we have the sufficient resources to defeat our
    enemies, support our allies, and protect our homeland
    responsively, decisively, and yes, affordably.
        Our budget supports these goals, we believe, by laying the
    foundation for a gradual reduction of our military and civilian
    end-strength, while at the same time supporting, as you noted,
    Mr. Chairman, the vital modernization, training, soldier, and
    family programs that are so necessary to sustain this Army and
    ensure that while smaller, it remains the strongest and most
    capable land force in the world.
        As we implement what I think can be fairly described as a
    bold new security strategy, I want to be very clear. The Army's
    combat experience, adaptability, and strategic reach will be
    more vital to our Nation than ever before. Over the last year,
    I think that's been demonstrated. The Army has continued to be
    the decisive hand of American foreign policy and the helping
    hand of Americans facing the devastation of natural disasters.
        With soldiers deployed on 6 of the 7 continents, and in
    more than 150 nations around the world, your Army has become
    the face of American concern and the fist of American military
    might.
        In the Pacific, we continued our long-term presence in the
    region with some 75,000 military and civilian personnel
    participating in more than 160 exercises, engagements, and
    operations in support of our allies in that vital region.
        In Korea, our soldiers provided a strong deterrent to North
    Korean aggression. In Japan and the Philippines, we maintained
    our decades-old security relationships, training, and
    supporting with those great allies. In Europe, our soldiers
    fulfilled vital training stability and peacekeeping roles in
    Bosnia and Kosovo. While in Africa, your Army supported
    counterterrorism operations throughout the Horn and beyond.
        But foreign threats and operations were not all this Army
    faced. In 2011, this Nation experienced some of the worse
    natural disasters in our history. From responding to wildfires
    and floods to hurricanes and tornadoes, our soldiers and
    civilians from all components were there to help, protect,
    rescue, or rebuild. To put it very simply, our soldiers,
    civilians, and their families have once again proven why the
    United States Army is the most capable, versatile, and
    successful land force on Earth. And it is this ability to adapt
    to a myriad of unpredictable threats, both at home and abroad,
    that we will maintain as we move forward in this new security
    and fiscal environment.
        This year's budget, we believe, portrays an army fully
    embracing change by making the hard decisions now to lay the
    right foundations for the future.
        First, we are implementing a sweeping new defense strategy,
    which emphasizes even greater engagement in the Asia-Pacific
    region in the development of smaller, more agile land forces.
    Under this new framework, which was developed collaboratively
    with top military and civilian officials in our department, the
    Army clearly remains the decisive arm of U.S. combat power.
        Second, we are implementing this new paradigm under the
    significant cuts directed by the Budget Control Act of 2011. In
    so doing, we made some very tough decisions, but we are always
    guided by the following key principles. First, we'll fully
    support the current fight by providing operational commanders
    in Afghanistan and other theaters with the best trained and
    ready land forces in the world. That is and it will remain our
    top priority.
        Third, we will not sacrifice readiness for force structure.
    We must responsibly reduce our end-strength in a manner that
    fully supports the new strategy but also provides sufficient
    time to properly balance our training, equipment,
    infrastructure, and soldier and family support programs with
    our mission requirements.
        Fourth, we will be able to build force structure and
    capabilities to handle unforeseen changes to global security.
    The Army must be able to hedge risk through an efficient and
    effective force generation process and access to a strong
    operationalized Reserve component.
        Fifth, we will maintain and enhance the Army's extensive
    commitments in the Pacific.
        And last, we will not let the Budget Control Act be taken
    on the backs of our soldiers or their families. Although, we
    have, and we will continue to examine and, where appropriate,
    realign our programs, we will fully fund and support those
    systems that work, with special emphasis on wounded warrior,
    suicide prevention, behavioral health, and sexual assault
    programs.
        Based on these principles, our budget minimizes end-
    strength reductions in the near years to support the current
    fight, emphasizes continued investments in vital modernization
    programs, such as the network, the ground combat vehicle (GCV),
    and the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), and delays or
    implements programs which, in our judgment, no longer meet
    urgent needs in support of our new strategy or transforming
    force, and we deferred certain military construction programs.
        The Army, at its core, is not programs and systems. It's
    people. And each time I have the honor of appearing before you,
    I come not only as the Secretary but humbly as the
    representatives of our soldiers, civilians, and their families.
    As this subcommittee knows so well, these brave men and women
    who have endured so much over the past decade depend upon a
    variety of programs, policies, and facilities to cope with the
    stress, the injuries, and family separations caused by war.
        Sadly, our suicide and substance abuse rates remain
    unacceptably high, and we are aggressively pursuing multiple
    avenues to provide our personnel with the best medical and
    behavioral support that is available. We must never forget that
    our success in both Iraq and Afghanistan has come at a heavy
    price for our Army family. Providing the means and resources
    for whatever challenges they now face is, in my opinion, the
    very least, the very most, and what we must do.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        As a final note regarding our Army family, I would again be
    remiss if I didn't thank you so much for the great support this
    subcommittee, and ultimately, the Committee as a whole has
    provided to those soldiers and families. They appreciate it. We
    all are so grateful for your leadership, and we look forward to
    working with you in the future.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of the Honorable John M. McHugh and
                           General Raymond T. Odierno
                             the strategic context
        Our Nation has weathered difficult circumstances since the attacks
    on 9/11, yet we have met every challenge. The mission in Iraq has ended
    responsibly, continued progress in Afghanistan is enabling a transition
    to Afghan security responsibility, and targeted counterterrorism
    efforts have significantly weakened al Qaeda and degraded its
    leadership. In all these endeavors, the Army has played a leading role.
        As President Barack Obama stated in introducing his new national
    defense priorities, the country is at a turning point after a decade of
    war and considerable increases in defense spending. Even as large-scale
    military campaigns recede, the Nation will still face a growing array
    of security challenges. These new priorities focus on the continuing
    threat of violent extremism, the proliferation of lethal weapons and
    materials, the destabilizing behavior of Iran and North Korea, the rise
    of new powers across Asia, and an era of uncertainty in the Middle
    East.
        On top of that, our Nation confronts a serious deficit and debt
    problem (in itself a national security risk) that will squeeze future
    Army budgets. However, declining defense budgets do not nullify our
    obligation to provide enough capacity and maintain a highly ready force
    that is sufficiently modernized to provide a leaner, adaptive,
    flexible, and integrated force that offers the President a significant
    number of options along the spectrum of conflict.
        Today, the U.S. Army is the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-
    led combat-tested force in the world. Today's soldiers have achieved a
    level of professionalism, combat experience, and civil and military
    expertise that is an invaluable national asset. Our warriors have
    accomplished every assigned task they have been given. But all we have
    accomplished in building this magnificent force can be squandered if we
    are not careful. We are an Army in transition, and we look to the
    Congress to assist us in the difficult work to build the Army of 2020.
             america's army--the nation's force of decisive action
        Every day, America's Army is making a positive difference in the
    world during one of the most challenging times in our history. Although
    stressed and stretched, the United States Army remains the most agile,
    adaptable, and capable force in the world. Ours is an army that
    reflects America's diversity and represents the time-honored values
    that built our Nation:
      --hard work;
      --duty;
      --selflessness;
      --determination;
      --honor; and
      --compassion.
        Today, less than one-half of 1 percent of Americans serve in the
    Army. As members of one of our Nation's oldest and most enduring
    institutions, these volunteers play an indispensable role in guarding
    U.S. national interests at home and abroad. Young men and women who
    want to make a difference in this world want to be part of our Army,
    which is why even after a decade of conflict, we continue to fill our
    ranks with the best the Nation has to offer. They have earned the
    gratitude, trust, and admiration of an appreciative people for their
    extraordinary accomplishments.
                          2011--the army in transition
        Over the past year, the Army has concluded its mission in Iraq and
    commenced the drawdown of surge forces in Afghanistan while
    transferring responsibility to Afghan forces. We are beginning
    reductions in end-strength to face budgetary realities. We are also
    undertaking efforts to rebalance force structure and make investment
    decisions that will shape the Army of 2020--all during a time of war.
    These transformational efforts are both significant and unprecedented.
    As the President's new national defense priorities are implemented, the
    Army will continue its transition to a smaller yet capable force fully
    prepared to conduct the full range of operations worldwide.
    Operation Enduring Freedom
        A decade into the war in Afghanistan, the Army continues to play a
    leading role in defending our national security interests in this vital
    theater. At the start of the war, following the attacks on 9/11,
    elements of Army Special Operations Forces led efforts on the ground to
    bring al Qaeda members to justice and remove the Taliban from power,
    thereby denying a safe haven to terrorists. With more than 70,000
    soldiers in Afghanistan at peak strength in 2011, the Army's brigade
    combat teams conducted operations ranging from stability to
    counterinsurgency.
        Today, more than 63,000 Army soldiers in both general purpose and
    special operations units continue to conduct a wide range of missions
    across Afghanistan country to help Afghan citizens lay the foundation
    for lasting security. Simultaneously, the Army provided essential
    logistics capabilities to sustain the land-locked Afghan theater. In
    fact, only America's Army could provide the necessary theater
    logistics, transportation, medical, and communications infrastructure
    capable of supporting joint and combined forces for an operation of
    this size and complexity.
        Since the beginning of combat operations in Afghanistan, soldiers
    have earned 5,437 valor awards, including 241 Silver Stars and 8
    Distinguished Service Crosses. Four soldiers have been awarded the
    Medal of Honor for their heroic actions:
      --SFC Jared C. Monti;
      --SSG Salvatore A. Giunta;
      --SSG Robert J. Miller; and
      --SSG Leroy A. Petry.
        They exemplify the courage, commitment, and sacrifice of all the
    men and women who have served in this conflict.
    Operation New Dawn
        In December 2011, the Army concluded more than 8 years of combat
    and stability operations in Iraq. Initially, powerful and agile forces
    liberated Iraq and then adapted to the new demand of suppressing the
    postinvasion insurgencies. Indeed, when the Nation needed a sustained
    effort to achieve its strategic objectives, the Army answered the call,
    adjusting its deployment tours from 12 to 15 months to enable a
    decisive surge in forces. Army units trained and equipped Iraq security
    forces, and when the mission changed, the Army executed the extremely
    difficult tasks of redeploying people and retrograding equipment to
    ensure future readiness.
        More than 1 million soldiers and Department of the Army civilians
    served courageously in Iraq. They were essential to freeing more than
    25 million Iraqi people from the tyranny of a brutal dictator, putting
    Iraq's future in the hands of its people, and removing a national
    security threat to the United States.
        Success came at a great cost in blood and treasure. But even during
    the most dire times, our soldiers never wavered. Their heroic actions
    earned 8,238 awards for valor, including 408 Silver Stars and 16
    Distinguished Service Crosses. Two Medals of Honor were awarded
    posthumously to SFC Paul R. Smith and PFC Ross A. McGinnis.
    Other Global Commitments
        In addition to the Army's unprecedented contributions in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, we have continued to conduct operations across
    the globe to prevent conflict, shape the environment, and win
    decisively. Nearly 20,000 soldiers remain stationed on the Korean
    peninsula, providing a credible deterrent and investing in our
    partnership with the Republic of Korea army. Simultaneously, Army
    special operations soldiers in the Pacific region continue to provide
    advice and support to the Philippine Armed Forces, enhancing our robust
    alliance. Both are examples of strategic investments in a region that
    is home to 7 of the world's 10 largest armies. (In fact, in most
    countries around the world, the army is the dominant defense force.)
    And United States soldiers continue to serve in places such as the
    Sinai, Guantanamo Bay, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Horn of Africa,
    developing and maintaining relationships on 6 of the world's 7
    continents.
    Defense Support of Civil Authorities
        Over the past year, the Army has continued to provide instrumental
    support to civil authorities. The Army's Reserve component proved to be
    one of our great strengths for these missions, giving the force depth
    and flexibility. The National Guard provides a distinctive capability
    for the Nation. When floods, wildfires, and tornados struck from the
    Midwest to the South over the span of a few days in the spring of 2011,
    more than 900 National Guard soldiers supplied a coordinated response
    to address citizens' needs across the affected region. Similarly, when
    Hurricane Irene knocked out power and flooded towns across the
    Northeast in the summer of 2011, nearly 10,000 National Guard soldiers
    and airmen across 13 States delivered critical services to sustain the
    region through the crisis.
        In addition to ongoing counterdrug operations, approximately 1,200
    National Guard soldiers and airmen supported the Department of Homeland
    Security in four States along the Southwest border by providing entry
    identification and analysis to disrupt criminal networks and
    activities.
    Army Special Operations Forces
        To conduct unified land operations, the U.S. Army fields a suite of
    special operations capabilities that range from the world's finest
    precision strike and special warfare forces to the world's most lethal
    combined arms maneuver formations. The Army draws from across its broad
    set of capabilities to provide the joint commander the blend of Army
    assets required to ensure mission accomplishment. True in Afghanistan
    today, Army Special Operations Forces are also providing assistance in
    the Philippines, Yemen, the Arabian gulf, Lebanon, Colombia, the
    African Trans-Sahel, and across the Caribbean and Central America. As
    Army regular forces become available, they will increasingly integrate
    with Army Special Operations Forces to promote trust and
    interoperability with allies and build partner nation capacity where
    mutual interests are at risk from internal or external enemies.
                               fiscal environment
    Challenges of Reduced Budget
        Today's global fiscal environment is driving defense budgets down
    for our partners and allies, as well as our Nation. Historically,
    defense spending has been cyclic with significant reductions following
    the end of major conflicts. The Army understands it cannot be immune to
    these fiscal realities and must be part of the solution. Our focus
    areas for the fiscal year 2013 budget demonstrate our concerted effort
    to establish clear priorities that give the Nation a ready and capable
    Army while being good stewards of all our resources.
    Challenges of Continuing Resolutions
        Timely and predictable funding enables the Army to plan, resource,
    and manage the programs that produce a trained and ready force. The
    Army very much appreciates that the Congress approved the fiscal year
    2012 budget earlier than had been the case in recent years when we were
    forced to operate for long stretches under continuing resolutions.
    Long-term continuing resolutions force the Army to slow its spending,
    freeze production rates, and delay the start of new programs. Such
    delays pose a risk to the Army's operational readiness and investment
    strategy. We stand ready to help the Congress once again pass defense
    bills in a timely manner.
                              security environment
        A series of powerful global trends continue to shape the current
    and future strategic environment:
      --increased demand for dwindling resources;
      --persistent regional conflict;
      --empowered non-state actors;
      --the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and
      --failed states.
        We anticipate a myriad of hybrid threats that incorporate regular
    and irregular warfare, terrorism, and criminality. We also face cyber-
    threats to an increasingly critical and vulnerable information
    technology infrastructure and the destabilizing effect of global
    economic downturns. Together, these trends create a complex and
    unpredictable environment in all of the Army's operational domains:
      --land;
      --sea;
      --air;
      --space; and
      --cyberspace.
                        implications for america's army
    Role of the Army: Prevent, Shape, Win
        In the uncertain environment our country faces, the Army remains
    central to our Nation's defense as part of the joint force. No major
    conflict has been won without boots on the ground. Listed below are the
    three essential roles the Army must play.
        First, our Army must prevent conflict just as we did during the
    cold war. Prevention is most effective when adversaries are convinced
    that conflict with your force would be imprudent. The Army's ability to
    win any fight across the full range of operations as part of a joint
    force must never be open to challenge. It must be clear that we will
    fight and win, which requires a force with sufficient capacity,
    readiness, and modernization. That means quality soldiers; agile,
    adaptive leaders; versatile units; realistic training; and modern
    equipment. Prevention is achieved through credible readiness, sometimes
    requiring decisive action. Our Army must continue to be a credible
    force around the globe to prevent miscalculations by those who would
    test us.
        Second, our Army must help shape the international environment to
    enable our combatant commanders to assure our friends and contain our
    enemies. We do that by engaging with our partners, fostering mutual
    understanding through military-to-military contacts, and helping them
    build the capacity to defend themselves. These actions are an
    investment in the future that the Nation cannot afford to forego. We
    must cultivate positive relationships before they are needed and be a
    reliable, consistent, and respectful partner to others.
        Finally, the Army must be ready to win decisively and dominantly.
    Nothing else approaches what is achieved by winning, and the
    consequences of losing at war are usually catastrophic. With so much at
    stake, the American people will expect what they have always expected
    of us--decisive victory. The Army must never enter into a terrible
    endeavor such as war unprepared. Although we may still win, it will be
    more expensive, cost more lives, and require more time.
        In addition to being trained, sized, and equipped to win decisively
    in the more traditional operational domains, the Army also will require
    robust capability in cyberspace. As the past decade of conflict has
    demonstrated, the information environment has changed the way we fight.
    Military and cyberspace operations have converged, and protecting
    information in cyberspace is more essential than ever to how our Army
    fights. The advantage will go to those able to maintain the freedom to
    operate and able to gain, protect, and exploit information in the
    contested cyberspace domain. The Army must be dominant in both the land
    and cyberspace domains.
    Smaller But Reversible
        As our new national defense priorities drive us to a smaller Army,
    we must avoid the historical pattern of drawing down too fast or risk
    losing leadership and capabilities, making it much harder to expand
    again when needed. It is critical that the Army be able to rapidly
    expand to meet large unexpected contingencies, and four components are
    key to that ability. First, the Army must maintain a strong cadre of
    noncommissioned and mid-grade officers to form the core of new
    formations when needed. Second, we will make significant investments in
    Army Special Operations Forces to increase their capabilities and
    provide the President with more options. Third, it will require ready
    and accessible Army National Guard (ARNG) and Army Reserve forces. The
    Army's Reserve component has proven essential in contingency operations
    around the world. From Kosovo, the Sinai and Horn of Africa to
    Afghanistan and Iraq, homeland defense along America's Southwest
    border, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief at home and abroad,
    the ARNG and Army Reserve have evolved into indispensable parts of our
    operational force and we will continue to rely on them to provide depth
    and versatility to meet the complex demands of the future. The fourth
    critical component of the Army's ability to expand is the Nation's
    industrial base. We rely on the industrial base to perform research and
    development and to design, produce, and maintain our weapons systems,
    components, and parts. It must be capable of rapidly expanding to meet
    a large demand. Reversibility is the sine qua non to ensuring that the
    Army can rapidly grow when our Nation calls.
                             the army's focus areas
    Support to Operations in Afghanistan
        Our immediate focus remains on providing the best-trained and most-
    ready land forces in the world to win the current fight while
    maintaining responsiveness for unforeseen contingencies. The support of
    the American people is paramount to our success. We must fulfill our
    responsibilities to them without draining their goodwill and treasure.
        Despite continued challenges and tough conditions, our forces are
    making measureable progress against an adaptive enemy. Army security
    force assistance teams continue to train both Afghan National Army
    Forces (now almost 180,000 strong) and Afghan national police forces
    (made up of nearly 144,000 men and women in uniform). The increased
    capability of Afghan security forces is allowing security of the region
    to be turned back over to the Government of Afghanistan district by
    district. During the coming year we must continue to provide trained
    and ready forces equipped to support operations. We remain focused on
    doing everything we can to ensure that we meet our national objectives
    and provide what our brave men and women in the field need to succeed.
        In Afghanistan, the commitment and performance of our soldiers and
    civilians continues to be nothing short of extraordinary. Not only have
    they taken the fight to our enemies, but they have proven equally
    effective as emissaries. Our investment in leader development prepared
    them to operate in this demanding environment.
        In the coming year we will continue to increase the Afghan lead of
    security responsibilities, target key insurgent leaders, retain and
    expand secure areas, and help Afghan National Security Forces earn the
    support of the people through improved security capacity and
    capability. Because of its geography, distance, infrastructure, and
    harsh environment, the difficulty and complexity of the drawdown in
    Afghanistan will exceed that in Iraq. The United States Army is the
    only organization in the world with the capability to plan and execute
    a logistical operation this complex and difficult.
        The Army places great emphasis on properly maintaining its
    equipment to restore readiness to the force and ensure it is prepared
    to meet combatant commander requirements. The Army reset program
    reverses the effects of combat stress and restores equipment to a high
    level of combat capability to conduct future operations. Reset is a
    lengthy process, and even after the drawdown from Afghanistan is
    complete, the Army will require funding for 2 to 3 years to reset our
    equipment from the harsh demands of war.
                            responsible stewardship
    Institutional Army Transformation
        The drive to reform the Institutional Army is about doing things
    better, smarter, and faster while taking advantage of available
    technology, knowledge, and experience. Our Institutional Army--the part
    of the Army that trains, educates, and supports Army forces worldwide--
    will become more flexible by improving our ability to quickly adapt to
    changing environments, missions, and priorities. The Institutional Army
    is also working to rapidly address the demands placed on the
    organization by the current and future operational environments. It
    performed magnificently to produce trained and ready forces, even while
    seeking to adapt institutional business processes.
        Further, the Army is working to provide ``readiness at best value''
    to help us live within the constraints imposed by the national and
    global economic situation. In short, the need to reform the Army's
    institutional management processes and develop an integrated management
    system has never been more urgent. To enhance organizational adaptive
    capacity while shepherding our resources, the Army initiated a number
    of efforts, such as the Army financial improvement plan, which will
    enable the Army to achieve full auditability by fiscal year 2017.
    Acquisition Reform
        As a result of uncertain funding, insufficient contract oversight
    and an ineffective requirement determination process, the Army has
    initiated a significant reform of the way we develop and acquire our
    products and weapons. As part of this initiative, we have taken steps
    toward improvement through a series of capability portfolio reviews.
    These platforms serve to revalidate, modify, or terminate programs
    based on the Army's need and the affordability of the program. We have
    also started to fix an inefficient procurement system that too often
    wastes precious resources and fails to provide needed systems in a
    timely manner. For example, the Army commissioned a comprehensive
    review of our acquisition system that, based on the findings and
    recommendations, produced a blueprint for acquisition reform. These
    changes fall into four broad areas:
      --realignment of acquisition requirements combined with a sharper
            focus on the needed competencies of acquisition professionals;
      --expansion of stakeholder (acquisition professional and soldier end-
            user) participation in developing requirements, planning, and
            acquisition solicitation;
      --reappraisal and streamlining of acquisition strategies and the
            attendant risk in such streamlining; and
      --improvement in the selection, development, and accountability of
            the people involved in the acquisition process.
        We are implementing these recommendations as part of our broader
    effort to reform the Institutional Army.
    Army Energy Security
        Supplying energy to our Army around the world is increasingly
    challenging, expensive, and dangerous. The Army must consider energy in
    all activities to reduce demand, increase efficiency, obtain
    alternative sources, and create a culture of energy accountability.
    Energy security is an imperative that can be described in two
    categories--operational and garrison.
        Operational energy is the energy and associated systems,
    information and processes required to train, move, and sustain forces,
    and systems for military operations. The Army is developing new
    doctrine, policies, plans, and technologies that will improve the
    management and use of operational energy to better support soldiers'
    needs. Less energy-efficient systems in an operational environment
    require more fuel, increasing the number of fuel convoys and thus
    risking more lives and limiting our flexibility.
        Garrison energy is the energy required to power Army bases and
    conduct soldier training. Dependence on fossil fuels and a vulnerable
    electric power grid jeopardize the security of Army operating bases and
    mission capabilities. The impact of increasing energy prices is a
    decrease in the quantity and quality of training the Army can conduct.
        Initiatives such as cool roofs, solar power, stormwater management,
    and water efficiency are positive steps toward addressing the
    challenges of energy security in the operational and garrison
    environments. Innovative and adaptive leaders, seeking ways to increase
    energy efficiency and implement renewable and alternate sources of
    energy, are key to saving lives and increasing the Army's flexibility
    by reducing costs.
                                 a leaner army
        The Army is committed to providing combatant commanders with the
    capabilities, capacity, and diversity needed to be successful across a
    wide range of operations. With a leaner Army, we have to prioritize and
    also remain capable of meeting a wide range of security requirements.
    We will reduce in a manner that preserves our readiness and avoids any
    hollowing of the force. To satisfy this enduring requirement, we have
    three rheostats that must be continuously assessed and adjusted:
      --end strength/force structure;
      --readiness; and
      --modernization.
        We will balance these three foundational imperatives throughout the
    next several years to provide combatant commanders trained and ready
    forces in support of Joint Force 2020.
    Force Structure and Force Design
        The Army will maintain a versatile mix of tailorable and networked
    organizations, operating on a rotational cycle, to continue providing a
    sustained flow of trained and ready forces for the full range of
    military operations. This will give combatant commanders a hedge
    against unexpected contingencies and enable a sustainable tempo for our
    All-Volunteer Force. Over the next 5 years, the Army will decrease its
    end-strength from a peak authorized strength of about 570,000 to
    490,000 Active Army, 358,000 to 353,500 ARNG, and 206,000 to 205,000
    Army Reserve soldiers as directed. Reducing our end-strength over a
    deliberate ramp through the end of fiscal year 2017 allows the Army to
    take care of soldiers, families, and civilians; to continue meeting our
    commitments in Afghanistan; and to facilitate reversibility in an
    uncertain strategic environment.
        An unpredictable and dynamic global security environment requires
    the Army, as a force in transition, to adjust and reduce its size while
    remaining flexible, capable, and ready to meet the Nation's
    requirements and maintaining an ability to reverse course to readily
    expand if necessary. In accordance with the new defense priorities, the
    Army of 2020 must have a versatile mix of capabilities, formations, and
    equipment that is lethal, agile, adaptable, and responsive. As the Army
    transitions from the current force to a leaner force, it will do so
    while remaining engaged in the current conflicts. The Army will
    prioritize force structure and committed assets in the Pacific region
    and the Middle East, and will shape the future force to support the
    Army's requirements as part of the joint force to fulfill the Nation's
    strategic and operational commitments. The Army will optimize force
    structure to maintain reversibility, and achieve maximum operational
    strategic flexibility. Today we plan on reducing at least eight Active
    component brigade combat teams (BCT); however, we continue to assess
    the design and mix of these modular formations based upon the lessons
    from the last 10 years of combat. This analysis may lead to a decision
    to reorganize BCTs into more capable and robust formations, requiring
    further BCT reductions in order to increase overall versatility and
    agility for tomorrow's security challenges.
        As the Army's Active component reduces in size, the composition of
    combat support and combat service support enablers in the Active and
    Reserve components will be adjusted to give the Army the ability to
    conduct sustained operations and to mitigate risk. The Army will
    continue to rely on the Reserve components to provide key enablers and
    operational depth. An operational Reserve comprised of a discrete set
    of capabilities with an enhanced level of readiness will be essential.
    This force will consist of three elements:
      --select combat formations prepared to respond to crisis;
      --combat support and combat service support enablers employed early
            in support of operational plans; and
      --forces aligned to support steady-state combatant commander
            requirements.
        Ensured access to the Reserve component is essential to providing
    the operational depth and flexibility combatant commanders require.
    During the transition, we must manage our people carefully to neither
    compromise readiness nor break faith with those who have served the
    Nation so well.
    Readiness
        Army unit readiness is measured by the level of its manning,
    training, and equipping. The current Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN)
    model has served us well in meeting the requirements for Iraq and
    Afghanistan; however, we will adapt it to ensure we meet future
    combatant commander requirements in the uncertain, complex strategic
    environment. We envision a progressive readiness model for most Active
    and Reserve component early deploying units which will align forces for
    combatant commanders. Because of their unique capabilities, our low-
    density, high-demand units do not lend themselves to a rotational pool
    like ARFORGEN. These units must be sustained in a constant readiness
    model.
    The Strength of Our Army is Our Soldiers
        Soldiers and families form the foundation of unit readiness. People
    are the Army, and our enduring priority is to preserve the high-
    quality, All-Volunteer Force--the essential element of our strength.
    The Army has gained the trust of the American public more than at any
    other time in recent history while developing a force that is very
    different from what it was a few short years ago. Our Army must
    maintain the public's trust while our Nation fulfills its
    responsibilities toward soldiers and their families. The United States
    Army is unique from other professions because our core attributes are
    derived from American values, the Constitution, and law. Today's Army
    is building on a successful foundation with the trust, respect, and
    support of the American people. This foundation, and our enduring
    commitment to strengthening our Army profession, will improve our force
    as it adapts to meet the Nation's evolving needs.
        The Army is the Nation's pre-eminent leadership experience. The
    All-Volunteer Force is our greatest strategic asset, providing depth,
    versatility, and unmatched experience to the joint force. We must
    continue to train, develop, and retain adaptive leaders and maintain
    this combat-seasoned, All-Volunteer Force of professionals. We will
    continue to adjust in order to prepare our leaders for more dynamic and
    complex future environments. Our leader development model is an
    adaptive, continuous, and progressive process grounded in Army values.
    We grow soldiers and Army civilians into competent and confident
    leaders capable of decisive action. We must give our leaders broadening
    opportunities to better prepare them for the myriad challenges they
    will encounter. In addition, we must reinvigorate unit training,
    training management skills, and leader development to build versatile
    units. By providing our leaders with the professional challenges they
    expect, we will retain them and nurture their adaptive spirit.
        Our challenge in the coming years is not just about attracting and
    selecting the best available candidates to be Army professionals. We
    must also engage and develop our quality, combat-experienced leaders so
    that we keep them, and they, in turn, train the next generation of Army
    professionals. During the last decade of war, we have given our young
    leaders unprecedented flexibility and authority to operate effectively
    on the battlefield. We will prepare for tomorrow by building on that
    investment and ensuring that opportunities for creativity, leadership,
    and advancement exist throughout the Army.
        We must draw down wisely to avoid stifling the health of the force
    or breaking faith with our soldiers, civilians, and families. Excessive
    cuts would create high risk in our ability to sustain readiness. We
    must avoid our historical pattern of drawing down too much or too fast
    and risk losing the leadership, technical skills, and combat experience
    that cannot be easily reclaimed. We must identify and safeguard key
    programs in education, leader development, healthcare, quality of life,
    and retirement--programs critical to retaining our soldiers.
    The Strength of Our Soldiers is Our Families
        In order to ensure a relevant and ready All-Volunteer Force, the
    Army will continue to invest heavily in our soldier and family
    programs. The Army Family Covenant expresses the Army's commitment to
    care for soldiers and their families by providing a strong, supportive
    environment that enhances their strength and resilience and helps them
    to thrive. The Covenant focuses on programs, services, and initiatives
    essential to preserving an All-Volunteer Force and institutionalizes
    the Army's commitment to provide soldiers and their families a quality-
    of-life commensurate with their service to the Nation. Through the
    Covenant, the Army is improving the delivery of soldier and family
    programs and services, sustaining accessibility to quality healthcare,
    and promoting education and employment opportunities for family
    members. We are sustaining high-quality housing; ensuring excellence in
    school support, youth services, and child care; and maintaining quality
    recreation services for soldiers and family members as they serve on
    the Nation's behalf around the world. We will not walk away from our
    commitment to our families; however, a different fiscal reality
    requires us to review our investments and eliminate redundant and poor-
    performing programs while sustaining those that are high-performing and
    most beneficial to our families.
    Honoring Service
        We must fulfill our moral obligation to the health, welfare, and
    care of our soldiers, civilians, and families. The effects of more than
    10 years of war and inadequate dwell-time at home has resulted in a
    cumulative stress on soldiers, families, and communities that has
    significant implications for the Army and our Nation. We have
    implemented an unprecedented number of personnel-focused programs,
    including comprehensive soldier fitness; wounded warrior program; and
    health promotion, risk reduction, and suicide prevention, to ensure the
    continued care, support, and services that sustain the high quality of
    our force.
        Sexual harassment and sexual assault are inconsistent with the
    Army's values and our profession. It is imperative that we foster a
    climate where such misconduct is not tolerated and the dignity of our
    soldiers, civilians, and family members is respected and protected.
    Army leaders are focused on the urgency of this issue and the level of
    commitment required to affect cultural change and combat this crime. We
    are aggressively implementing and expanding the Army's comprehensive
    Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program. The
    SHARP program is aimed at command prevention efforts at all levels,
    educating all members of our Army family, training our first responder
    professionals, and supporting victims while reducing the stigma of
    reporting. One incident of this type of unwarranted and abusive
    behavior is one too many. The Army is committed to ensuring leadership
    at all levels is engaged in preventing sexual assault and harassment
    and appropriately holding offenders accountable.
        The Army continues to invest heavily in better understanding
    traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress, the invisible
    signature wounds of our recent wars. We have developed and implemented
    new prevention and treatment protocols, and we are in the third year of
    our 5-year partnership with the National Institute of Mental Health to
    identify the factors that help protect a soldier's mental health and
    those that put it at risk.
        We have also started to reduce the length of deployments to 9
    months for many of our units at the division level and below, which we
    believe will alleviate significant pressure on our soldiers and their
    families. We are doubling our efforts to ensure that each of our more
    than 18,000 soldiers currently enrolled in the Integrated Disability
    Evaluation System (IDES) is carefully examined to determine whether he
    or she should return to civilian life or continue military service. A
    recent initiative between the Department of Defense (DOD) and
    Department of Veterans Affairs, the IDES integrates formerly separate
    programs resulting in a streamlined, more efficient process for
    servicemembers, which will reduce the backlog of soldiers awaiting
    benefits.
        As we draw down the Army, we must honor our veterans with the very
    best support, care, and services they deserve as they make the
    transition from military service to civilian life. We are committed to
    our soldiers and their families, who are the strength of the Army. At
    the same time, the Army is focused on wisely managing our resources in
    the healthcare arena. The Army supports DOD proposals to further reduce
    the rate of growth in healthcare costs--proposals that are aligned with
    our priorities. TRICARE is a superb health benefit, one of the best in
    the country and appropriately so. Just as in all areas of the Defense
    budget, we need to make decisions that preserve a strong benefit yet
    reflect the fiscal realities of the times. The proposals take care to
    exempt populations who have made the greatest sacrifices--those who are
    medically retired and those families who have lost their loved one
    while serving on Active Duty. The changes proposed are also adjusted to
    reflect lower adjustments for those retirees with lower retirement pay.
    And, most importantly, the Department continues to provide resources
    that improve the overall health system for our soldiers and their
    families.
        The Army is using the health promotion and risk reduction fiscal
    year 2011 Campaign Plan to holistically promote health and reduce risk.
    The Campaign Plan incorporates findings and recommendations from DOD
    and Army reports regarding health promotion, risk reduction, and
    suicide prevention. Health promotion and risk reduction activities are
    essential to sustain the force under the current operational tempo and
    reset our Army.
    Modernization
        The Army has global responsibilities requiring large technological
    advantages to prevail decisively in combat. Just as pilots and sailors
    seek supremacy in the air and on the seas, soldiers must dominate their
    enemies on land. Modernizing, especially as end-strength is reduced, is
    the key to ensuring that our dominance continues.
        The Army is setting priorities and making prudent choices to
    provide the best possible force for the Nation within the resources
    available. We are developing and fielding a versatile and affordable
    mix of equipment to enable us to succeed in the full range of missions
    and maintain a decisive advantage over our enemies. To meet the
    challenges of an evolving strategic and fiscal environment, our
    strategy is based on three tenets:
      --integrated capability portfolios;
      --incremental modernization; and
      --leveraging the ARFORGEN cycle;
        --integrated capability portfolios (align stakeholders to identify
                capability gaps and eliminate unnecessary redundancies);
        --incremental modernization (enables us to deliver new and improved
                capabilities by leveraging mature technologies, shortening
                development times, planning growth potential, and acquiring
                in quantities that give us the greatest advantage while
                hedging against uncertainty); and
        --ARFORGEN (processes synchronize the distribution of equipment to
                units providing increased readiness over time and
                delivering a steady and predictable supply of trained and
                ready modular forces. The Army has consolidated its
                materiel management process under a single command and
                designated U.S. Army Materiel Command as the Army's Lead
                Materiel Integrator. Additionally, we consolidated all of
                our materiel data into a single authoritative repository
                called the Logistics Information Warehouse).
        These emerging systems and processes represent a powerful new
    approach for implementing the Army's equipping priorities, policies,
    and programs to the meet new security demands of the 21st century. The
    equipment requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget strikes
    a balance between current and future needs, provides the basis for an
    affordable equipping strategy over time, and takes into account Army
    requirements and priorities. In developing this request, the Army made
    difficult decisions to shift funds previously programmed for future
    capabilities to current needs. The decisions came at the expense of
    promising and needed technologies with capabilities that did not fit
    within resource limitations. The Army's top four modernization
    priorities are the Network, ground combat vehicle (GCV), joint light
    tactical vehicle (JLTV), and soldier systems.
    Network
        Also known as LandWarNet, the network remains the Army's top
    investment priority. With expectations of tighter budgets and a still
    very active threat environment, the Army will have to produce a force
    that is smaller yet more capable. The Network is the core of that
    smaller, capable Army.
        The Army is conducting a series of semiannual field exercises known
    as the Network Integration Evaluation to evaluate, integrate, and
    mature the Army's tactical network. The exercises will assess network
    and non-network capabilities to determine implications across doctrine,
    organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel,
    and facilities. The process aligns several key Army network programs
    and advances the fusion of radio waveforms to form an integrated
    network baseline to which industry can build.
        The foundation of the modernized network is a joint, secure, and
    common architecture that will provide information from the cloud to
    enable leaders, units, and the Institutional Army to function more
    effectively. The Army will extend this critical capability to its
    installations around the world. This capability will increase force
    effectiveness, facilitate transition for units, and individuals from
    one phase of the ARFORGEN cycle to another and greatly improve network
    security.
        The major programs that form the backbone of the tactical network
    are:
      --the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, which provides a real-
            time common operating picture down to the company level by
            extending satellite and line-of-sight communications, including
            telephone, data, and video;
      --the Joint Tactical Radio System, an advanced software-defined
            family of radios that will carry data and voice for dismounted
            troops and airborne and maritime platforms;
      --the Distributed Common Ground System-Army, which provides
            intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data, as well as
            access to the entire Defense Intelligence Information
            Enterprise, to commanders from the company to Army service
            component command level;
      --the Joint Battle Command Platform, which provides situational
            awareness data enhancing mission command to Army and Marine
            Corps tactical operations centers and combat vehicles; and
      --Nett Warrior, which gives dismounted leaders integrated situational
            awareness and information sharing, helping them to avoid
            fratricide and increase combat effectiveness.
        The Army network must be dynamic to give soldiers, civilians, and
    partners information and services when and where needed. Investment
    must be steady and wisely applied, while maintaining a strong
    partnership with industry.
    Ground Combat Vehicle
        The infantry fighting vehicle is reaching the limit of its capacity
    to receive technology upgrades proven critical for soldiers in combat
    operations. GCV is the Army's replacement program for the infantry
    fighting vehicle and the centerpiece of the Army's overall combat
    vehicle investment strategy. It will be designed to deliver a full
    nine-man squad with improved survivability, mobility, and network
    integration, considered crucial to our ability to conduct fire and
    maneuver in close quarters fighting in complex terrain. The vehicle
    will also provide the growth potential necessary to accommodate
    advances in protection, networking and space, weight, power, and
    cooling technologies while reducing sustainment demands. No current
    vehicle can sufficiently meet all these requirements.
        GCV acquisition strategy implements affordability measures designed
    to ensure the long-term success of the program as the Army faces
    constrained resources in the future. To develop this acquisition
    strategy, the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense conducted
    a comprehensive review to make sure the program is both achievable and
    affordable within a 7-year timeframe. The model adopted for the GCV
    program incentivizes industry to use the best of mature technologies
    that are both affordable and support the 7-year timeframe. The Army has
    also paid close attention to risk reduction within the program by
    requiring industry to identify potential cost schedule and performance
    tradeoffs; provide cost targets throughout the GCV's lifecycle; and
    maximize competition to support innovation, cost containment, and
    schedule requirements.
    Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
        As a Joint Service program between the Army and Marine Corps, the
    JLTV will replace approximately one-third of the Army's oldest
    unarmored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV). The JLTV
    incorporates the strengths of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected
    (MRAP) vehicles that the HMMWV family of vehicles does not provide. The
    HMMWV was not designed to be used as an armored combat vehicle, but it
    was often employed as one during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In
    contrast, the JLTV will be designed for this role from the outset. It
    will be capable of operating across the range of military operations
    and physical environments providing improved mobility and protection
    for soldiers. The JLTV balances protection, payload, performance, and
    improved fuel efficiency in one affordable and sustainable vehicle. It
    will also be fully integrated into the Network to enhance the
    effectiveness of ground forces.
    Soldier Systems
        The squad is the foundation of the decisive force; it is the
    cornerstone of all units. To ensure the success of combat operations in
    the future, the Army will invest in systems that consider the squad as
    a team rather than a collection of individuals. This approach will
    guarantee that the squad will not be in a fair fight but will have
    overmatch. The Army will continue to invest in soldier systems that
    enable the lethality, protection, situational awareness, and mobility
    of the individual soldier in his or her squad. These systems include
    small arms, night vision, soldier sensors, body armor, and individual
    clothing and equipment.
                             summary and conclusion
        The Army has been, and will continue to be, a critical part of the
    joint force because land power remains the politically decisive form of
    warfare and is essential to America's national security strategy. No
    major conflict has ever been won without ``boots on the ground.'' By
    being tasked to seize, occupy, and defend land areas, as well as to
    defeat enemy land forces, the Army is unique because it must not only
    deploy and defeat an adversary but must be prepared to remain in the
    region until the Nation's long-term strategic objectives are secured.
    Indeed, the insertion of ground troops is the most tangible and durable
    measure of America's commitment to defend our interests, protect our
    friends, and defeat our enemies.
        With global trends pointing to further instability, our Army
    remains a key guardian of our national security. In the wake of the
    cold war, it was said that we had reached the ``end of history,'' and
    that liberal democracy had won the ideological competition. However,
    events since then make it clear that potential adversaries with
    competing ideologies still exist and are extremely dangerous.
        As a result, we find ourselves in an increasingly uncertain world,
    with threats ranging from terrorist and cyberattacks to regional
    instability to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. For
    our Army that means we will likely have to deal with near peer
    competitors in niche areas and hybrid threats that mix regular,
    irregular, and criminal activity--all while still facing the
    possibility of a conventional force-on-force conflict.
        The danger extends from the homeland to the theater where combat
    operations might occur. Conflict is the norm; a stable peace the
    exception. In such a world, our adversaries will adapt to gain
    advantage, especially in the land domain. And it is on land that our
    challenges will be the most complex because of dynamic human
    relationships and terrain variables.
        While the Army's new end-strength numbers allow it to support
    current defense priorities, it is imperative that the Army draw down
    end-strength levels in a smart and responsible manner. We believe that
    our new end-strength provides us with the flexibility to retain the
    hard-won expertise it has gained over the last decade. To be sure, the
    Army has faced similar challenges before. After every major conflict
    since the Revolutionary War, the Army has faced pressure to decrease
    its end-strength. As recently as 2001 (pre-9/11), many believed a
    strategic shift was needed and that the future of modern warfare would
    be about missile defense, satellites, and high-tech weaponry because no
    adversary would dare challenge America's conventional forces. But
    whenever we have rushed to radically diminish the position of the Army,
    the result has always been the same: an excessive decline in
    effectiveness at a cost of blood and treasure.
        Decreases after World War I directly contributed to failures at
    Kasserine Pass. Decreases after World War II led to Task Force Smith's
    failure in Korea. More recently, the end of the cold war demonstrated
    our Nation's need for agile, adaptable, and decisive ground forces to
    conduct a wide range of operations. These numerous missions include
    Operation Provide Comfort in Iraq, Joint Task Force Andrew in Florida,
    Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti,
    Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Operation Joint
    Guardian in Kosovo. What they have in common is that they were
    unforeseen, thus emphasizing our need to avoid the historical pattern
    of drawing down too fast.
        America's leaders face difficult choices as they chart the way
    ahead for our Nation. Familiar external threats persist and complex new
    challenges will emerge. Concurrently, fiscal limitations create
    internal challenges for our leaders. America's Army is prepared to
    fulfill its role in keeping the Nation secure. The Army will prevent
    conflict by remaining a credible force with sufficient capacity to
    dissuade adversaries from challenging American interests. The Army will
    shape the environment, building positive relationships and capabilities
    that enable nations to effectively protect and govern their citizenry.
    Finally, when called, the Army will fight for the Nation and win
    decisively. We understand these responsibilities and resolve not to
    reduce the size of the Army in a manner that does not permit us to
    reverse the process should demand for forces increase dramatically.
        As we look ahead, the Army is focusing on three areas. Our first
    priority remains supporting operations in Afghanistan. We will guard
    against becoming distracted by the future at the risk of our men and
    women who remain in harm's way.
        Second, we will be the very best stewards we can because America's
    resources are too precious to waste. Transforming the Institutional
    Army, reforming our acquisition process and ensuring energy security
    are essential for us to protect the resources provided by the Congress
    and the American people.
        Third, we will fight to incorporate principles and processes that
    preserve readiness and capability while reducing the size of the Army.
    We are adjusting our formations to build the right number of units with
    the right capability to meet the needs of the Joint Force. The past 10
    years have taught us that an operational reserve force is essential to
    accomplish our missions and expand rapidly when required. We will
    invest deliberately and wisely in our soldiers, civilians, and families
    to make sure they are prepared and supported. We will treat those who
    have served in our ranks with respect and honor. Our wounded soldiers
    will receive the very best care the Nation can provide, and our
    soldiers who return to civilian life will be well-prepared to do so.
        Future threats will demand enhanced capabilities for our soldiers,
    so we will modernize our equipment. The Army has identified four
    programs to highlight. The Network gives sight, sound, and awareness to
    our soldiers, civilians, and leaders to defeat our adversaries. The GCV
    and JLTV will incorporate hard-won lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan to
    provide the mobility and protection our soldiers require. Investments
    in soldier systems improve our soldiers' ability to move, fight, and
    survive on the battlefield.
        The Army has chosen its focus areas carefully and deliberately
    because they will enable us to provide what Nation needs. We owe it to
    America and to the American soldier, the Nation's servant and warrior--
    the strength of the Nation.
                                     ______

         2012 Reserve Component Addendum to the Army Posture Statement
        Sections 517 and 519 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
    1994 (NDAA) require the information in this addendum. 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
    of 1992 and 1993. Section 519 requires a detailed presentation
    concerning the Army National Guard (ARNG), including information
    relating to implementation of the ARNG Combat Readiness Reform Act
    (ANGCRRA) of 1992 (title XI of Public Law 102-484, referred to in this
    addendum as ANGCRRA). Section 704 of the NDAA amended section 519
    reporting. Included is the U.S. Army Reserve information using section
    519 reporting criteria. The data included in the report is information
    that was available September 30, 2011.
    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 2010                                         Fiscal year 2011
                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Active component in                     Army average     Active component in                     Army average
                                               Reserve  component    Percentage \1\  percentage \2\     Reserve  component    Percentage \1\  percentage \2\
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Major.................................  57 of 67...............           85.1            92.1   73 of 86...............           84.9            93.3
    Lieutenant Colonel....................  10 of 12...............           83.3            88.7   6 of 11................           54.5            86.8
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 2010                                         Fiscal year 2011
                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Active component in                     Army average     Active component in                     Army average
                                               Reserve  component    Percentage \1\  percentage \2\     Reserve  component    Percentage \1\  percentage \2\
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Major.................................  6 of 123...............            4.9             5.7   3 of 57................            5.3             8.7
    Lieutenant Colonel....................  0 of 7.................  ..............           10.7   0 of 10................  ..............            3.5
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 519(b)
        1. The number and percentage of officers with at least 2 years of
    Active Duty before becoming a member of the ARNG or the U.S. Army
    Reserve Selected Reserve units.
          Army National Guard Officers.--21,425 or 49.2 percent of which
            1,429 were fiscal year 2011 accessions.
          Army Reserve Officers.--9,888 or 33 percent of which 389 were
            fiscal year 2011 accessions.
        2. The number and percentage of enlisted personnel with at least 2
    years of Active Duty before becoming a member of the ARNG or the U.S.
    Army Reserve Selected Reserve units.
          Army National Guard Enlisted.--95,375 or 30 percent of which
            7,243 were fiscal year 2011 accessions.
          Army Reserve Enlisted.--35,796 or 21 percent of which 3,524 were
            fiscal year 2011 accessions.
        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:
        a. 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 2011, there was one Service Academy graduate
            released from Active Duty before completing their obligation to
            serve in the Army Reserve.
        b. 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 2011, under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA the
            Secretary of the Army granted no waivers to the Army National
            Guard.
          In fiscal year 2011, under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA the
            Secretary of the Army granted one waiver to the Army Reserve.
            The waiver provided the soldier an opportunity to play a
            professional sport and complete service obligation.
        4. The number of officers who were commissioned as distinguished
    Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) graduates and were released
    from active duty before the completion of their Active-Duty service
    obligation and, of those officers:
        a. 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 2011, there were no distinguished ROTC graduates
            serving the remaining period of their Active-Duty service
            obligation as a member of the Selected Reserve.
        b. 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 2011, the Secretary of the Army granted no
            waivers.
        5. The number of officers who are graduates of the ROTC program and
    who are performing their minimum period of obligated service in
    accordance with section 1112(b) of ANGCRRA by a combination of 2 years
    of Active Duty and 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 2011, there were no graduates released early from
            an Active-Duty obligation.
        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
            affiliated with ARNG vacancy promotion due to operational
            mission requirements and deployment tempo. Active component
            officers no longer concur or nonconcur 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 2011, the ARNG recommended 4,286 officers for a
            position-vacancy promotion and promoted 2,318.
          In fiscal year 2011, the Army Reserve recommended 85 officers for
            a position-vacancy promotion and promoted 85.
        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 noncommissioned
    officers and the reason for each such waiver.
          In fiscal year 2011, the ARNG had a total of 44 soldiers that
            received a military education waiver. The waivers were granted
            based on noncompletion of the Warrior Leader Course (WLC) due
            to assignment to a Warrior Transition Unit (WTU) (``medical
            hold'' or ``medical hold-over'' units); and noncompletion of
            the Advanced Leader Course (ALC) or Senior Leader Course (SLC)
            due to deployment or training schedule constraints.
          In fiscal year 2011, the Army Reserve had a total of 257 soldiers
            who received a military education waiver. Of these, 89 were
            sergeants (SGTs) in need of a waiver for WLC as a result of
            being deployed or assigned to WTUs (medical hold or medical
            hold-over units) because of a medical condition incurred in
            direct support of Contingency Operations while otherwise
            eligible for promotion, if recommended. Furthermore, 155
            waivers for ALC and 13 waivers for SLC were granted to soldiers
            otherwise eligible for consideration but lacking the
            prerequisite level of Noncommissioned Officer Education System
            (NCOES) schooling as a direct result of operational deployment
            conflicts or inability of the Army to schedule the course.
          The Secretary of the Army has delegated the authority for the
            waivers referred to in section 114(a) of ANGCRRA to the
            Director, ARNG and to the Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command
            (USARC). The National Guard Bureau (NGB), and the USARC
            maintain details for each waiver.
        8. The number and distribution by grade, shown for each State, of
    personnel in the initial entry training and nondeployability personnel
    accounting category established under section 1115 of ANGCRRA for
    members of the ARNG who have not completed the minimum training
    required for deployment or who are otherwise not available for
    deployment. (Included is a narrative summary of information pertaining
    to the Army Reserve.)
          In fiscal year 2011, the ARNG had 49,454 soldiers considered
            nondeployable for reasons outlined in Army Regulation (AR) 220-
            1, Unit Status Reporting (e.g., initial entry training; medical
            issues; medical nonavailability; pending administrative or
            legal discharge; separation; officer transition;
            nonparticipation or restrictions on the use or possession of
            weapons and ammunition under the Lautenberg amendment). NGB
            maintains the detailed information.
          In fiscal year 2011, the Army Reserve had 34,180 soldiers
            considered nondeployable for reasons outlined in AR 220-1, Unit
            Status Reporting (e.g., initial entry training; medical issues;
            medical nonavailability; pending administrative or legal
            discharge; separation; officer transition; nonparticipation or
            restrictions on the use or possession of weapons and ammunition
            under the Lautenberg amendment). USARC maintains the detailed
            information.
        9. The number of members of the ARNG, 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.)
          A total of 445 ARNG soldiers, with at least 24-months time in
            ARNG, were losses in fiscal year 2011 due to lack of minimum
            required military education. The breakdown is 265 enlisted and
            180 officers.
          The number of Army Reserve soldiers discharged during fiscal year
            2011 for not completing the minimum training required for
            deployment within 24 months after entering the Army Reserve is
            24 officers and 5 enlisted soldiers. Under AR 135-175,
            Separation of Officers, separation actions are necessary for
            officers who have not completed a basic branch course within 36
            months after commissioning. Under AR 135-178, Separation of
            Enlisted Personnel, separation actions are necessary for
            soldiers who have not completed the required initial-entry
            training within the first 24 months.
        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 2011, there were no waivers granted Secretary of
            the Army to the ARNG under section 1115(c)(2) of ANGCRRA of the
            requirement in section 1115(c)(1) of ANGCRRA described in
            paragraph (9).
          In fiscal year 2011, there were 210 waivers granted by the Chief,
            Army Reserve. The Army Reserve was delegated the authority to
            grant waivers for personnel who did not complete the minimum
            training required for deployment within 24 months after
            entering the Army Reserve. The reasons for waivers were
            categorized as Hardship, Medical, or Administrative (i.e.
            failed height/weight standards, failed to obtain driver
            license, accepted ROTC scholarship, temporary disqualified, and
            failed to complete high school).
        11. The number of ARNG members, shown for each State, (and the
    number of Army Reserve 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:
        --the number and percentage who did not meet minimum physical
    profile standards for deployment; and
        --the number and percentage who were transferred pursuant to
    section 1116 of ANGCRRA to the personnel accounting category described
    in paragraph (8).
        a. The number and percentage who did not meet minimum physical
    profile standards required for deployment:
          In fiscal year 2011, 256,696 ARNG soldiers underwent a Periodic
            Health Assessment (PHA). There were 14,305 (3.9 percent of the
            soldiers who underwent PHA) personnel identified for review due
            to a profile-limiting condition or failure to meet retention
            standards.
          In fiscal year 2011, 124,785 Army Reserve soldiers underwent a
            PHA. There were 14,948 (12 percent of the soldiers who
            underwent PHA) personnel identified for review due to a profile
            limiting condition or failure to meet retention standards.
        b. The number and percentage that transferred pursuant to section
    1116 of ANGCRRA to the personnel accounting category described in
    paragraph (8).
          In fiscal year 2011, the ARNG transferred all 14,305 soldiers to
            a medically nondeployable status who were identified for a
            review due to a profile limiting condition or failure to meet
            retention standards.
          In fiscal year 2011, the Army Reserve transferred 15,826 soldiers
            to a medically nondeployable status who were identified for a
            review due to a profile limiting condition or failure to meet
            retention standards.
          On August 23, 2010, Department of the Army implemented medical
            readiness categories (MRC) per AR 40-501 which replaced fully
            medically ready (FMR) as the metric for measuring individual
            medical readiness (IMR) in the Army. This new way of measuring
            medical readiness by classifying soldiers into MRC reduced the
            number of soldiers considered medically not ready in the ARNG
            in fiscal year 2011. Soldiers previously listed as not ``fully
            medically ready'' because they didn't have current
            immunizations, medical warning tags, DNA, and a current HIV
            test on file are now considered ``medically ready'' and
            identified as MRC 2 (which is correctable within 72 hours). The
            data is generated from MEDPROS, the medical readiness database
            of record for the Army.
        12. The number of members and the percentage total membership of
    the ARNG shown for each State who underwent a medical screening during
    the previous fiscal year as provided in section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), division 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 ARNG shown for each State who underwent a dental
    screening during the previous fiscal year as provided in section 1117
    of ANGCRRA.
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), division 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 ARNG shown for each State, older than the age of 40
    who underwent a full physical examination during the previous fiscal
    year for purposes of section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), division A, title VII, section
            704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
        15. The number of units of the ARNG 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.
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), division A, title VII, section
            704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed section 1118 of ANGCRRA.
        16. The estimated postmobilization training time for each ARNG
    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 ARNG combat units (and Army Reserve units) in a
    postmobilization period for purposes of section 1119 of ANGCRRA.
          The January 19, 2007 Secretary of Defense Memorandum,
            ``Utilization of the Total Force,'' limited Reserve component
            unit mobilizations to 400-day periods, including 30-days
            postmobilization leave, and 5 days out-processing. The most
            significant impact of this policy change to the ARNG is the
            inclusion of postmobilization training time during the 400-day
            mobilization period.
          Timely alert for mobilizations--at least 1 year prior--is crucial
            to the ARNG's mission success. Under the ARFORGEN model, many
            training tasks previously conducted during the postmobilization
            phase now occur in local training areas before mobilization.
            First Army (1A), in the continental United States (CONUS),
            manages and directs postmobilization training for Reserve
            component conventional forces. 1A, in theater, conducts the
            theater-specified training required and confirms the readiness
            of mobilized units waiting to deploy.
          ARNG training and Army Reserve training complies with the
            ARFORGEN model of progressive training over multiyear cycles
            and reflects the Army Training Strategy. Units move through the
            ARFORGEN cycle in three force pools (reset, train/ready, and
            available). Training progresses through these force pools with
            the initial focus on individual and leader training, migrating
            to low-level unit and battle staff, and finally culminating in
            multi-echelon, combined-arms exercises in the ready year.
          All ARNG units are ``Combat Units.'' Forces Command Pre-
            Deployment Training, in support of combatant commands'
            guidance, identifies four categories of deploying units:
            --Category (CAT) 1 includes units that would rarely, if ever,
                travel off a Contingency Operating Base/Forward Operating
                Base (COB/FOB);
            --CAT 2 includes units that will, or potentially will, travel
                off a COB/FOB for short durations;
            --CAT 3 includes units that travel and conduct the majority of
                their missions off a COB/FOB; and
            --CAT 4 consists of maneuver units with an area of operations
                (such as brigade combat teams).
          The premobilization tasks increase by category, up to CAT 4. A
            unit's postmobilization training time depends on the number of
            the premobilization tasks completed during premobilization.
            Army goals for postmobilization training for Reserve component
            headquarters and combat support/combat service support units
            range from 15 to 45 days, depending on the type and category of
            the unit (Note: This time does not include administrative and
            travel days). Any premobilization tasks not completed during
            the premobilization phase must be completed at a mobilization
            station. ARNG typically sends units to a mobilization station
            with a premobilization task completion rate of 90-95 percent.
            Smaller ARNG units typically arrive at mobilization station
            100-percent complete.
          Postmobilization training conducted by First Army (1A) typically
            consists of:
            --theater orientation;
            --rules of engagement and escalation-of-force training;
            --counterinsurgency operations;
            --counter-improvised-explosive-device training;
            --convoy live-fire exercises; and
            --completion of any theater-specified training not completed
                during the premobilization period.
          Postmobilization training days for a CAT 4 unit range from 50-65
            days training at mobilization station. This training supports a
            Combat Training Center culminating training event during
            postmobilization that a CAT 4 unit is required to perform in
            order to be validated and deployed (National Training Center or
            Joint Readiness Training Center; 30-day training exercises).
          Below is an outline depicting postmobilization training day goals
            for various units.

               FIRST ARMY-APPROVED POSTMOBILIZATION TRAINING PLANS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Postmobilization training days
                                      --------------------------------------
                                         Current        Goal        Delta
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     I/H/S Brigade Combat Team.......           63           45          +18
    Combat Aviation Brigade..........           33           60          -27
    Military Police (Internment/                27           40          -13
     resettlement)...................
    Engineer Battalion (Route                   37           40           -3
     clearance)......................
    Military Police Company..........           30           40          -10
    Quartermaster Company............           23           15           +8
    Engineer Company (Construction)..           29           40          -11
    Transportation Company (Heavy               37           40           -3
     equipment transportation).......
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          The Army Reserve (AR) Command in conjunction with 1A, Forces
            Command (FORSCOM) and Headquarters Department of the Army
            (HQDA) are in the process of transitioning the business rules
            for pre- and postmobilization training for Army Reserve
            formations deploying in support of overseas contingency
            operations (OCO). This is motivated in order to meet the intent
            behind FRAGO 4 to HQDA EXORD 150-08 (RC Deployment
            Expeditionary Force (DEF) Pre and Postmobilization Training
            Strategy), the January 19, 2007 SECDEF Memorandum,
            ``Utilization of the Total Force'' and the August 4, 2011
            Secretary of the Army Memorandum, ``Army Deployment Period
            Policy.''
          Both the current and projected models are listed below, but both
            exclude all individual skills training, to include PME, MOSQ
            and functional training. The bulk of individual skills training
            will remain a premobilization requirement and would consist of
            24 days of Inactive Duty Training, 15-29 days of Annual
            Training for Collective Training, and, under the current model,
            21 additional days of Active Duty Training individual training
            (Army Warrior Tasks (AWTs), Theater Specific Required Training
            (TSRT)). Under the projected model, the 21 additional days
            would be eliminated. Some formations, under the current model,
            used up to 74 days premobilization to obtain a T2 rating prior
            to mobilization and up to 60 days postmobilization to achieve a
            T1 rating. Below is an average of current pre- and
            postmobilization training models which will expire September
            30, 2012. To reduce the demand on soldiers in a premobilization
            status, 1A will assume the training responsibility for many of
            the AWTs and TSRT on October 1, 2012. AR units will mobilize at
            no less than a T3 rating. The shift in training strategy is for
            DEF units only and will increase current postmobilization days
            by a projected 10 days.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Average
                 Category \1\                      Average              postmobilization          Average  total
                                               premobilization              training             postmobilization
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current model:
        1................................                  65 days                  17 days                  30 days
        2................................                  60 days                  22 days                  34 days
        3................................                  56 days                  33 days                  46 days
    Projected model:
        1................................                    39-45                  27 days              40 days \2\
        2................................                    39-45                  32 days              44 days \2\
        3................................                    39-45                  43 days              56 days \2\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ No CAT 4 formations in the AR.
    \2\ Some formations may require up to 70 days post-MOB to achieve T1 and satisfy COCOM requirements.

        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 ARNG (and the Army
    Reserve).
          During fiscal year 2011, 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, 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 (BCTs) the ARNG is
            continuing to field and train using the Conduct of Fire
            Trainer-Situation Awareness (COFT-SA) and the Mobile-Conduct of
            Fire Trainer Situation Awareness (M-COFT-SA). Due to the
            geographical dispersion of units, ARNG has developed the M-
            COFT-SA trainer as a mobile solution to fulfill training gaps.
            ARNG continued fielding Tabletop Full-Fidelity Trainers and is
            fielding the Bradley Advanced Training System (BATS) for the
            M2A2 units. When fully fielded, these devices, in addition to
            the Conduct of Fire Trainer Advanced Gunnery Trainer System
            (CAGTS) will be the primary simulation trainers to meet the
            virtual gunnery requirements of M1A1 and M2A2/A3 crews.
          In order to train all ARNG units on the tactics, techniques, and
            procedures (TTPs) of convoy operations and meet unstabilized
            gunnery requirements, ARNG has fielded the Virtual Convoy
            Operations Trainer (VCOT). The VCOT, through the use of
            software databases, provides commanders with a unique and
            critical mission rehearsal tool. In addition, ARNG has added an
            Individual Gunnery Trainer (IGT) to train individual and crew
            drills for .50 caliber and MK19 unstabilized gunnery tasks
            listed in the HBCT gunnery manual. Currently, all 54 States and
            territories have received the VCOT capability. The IGT is an
            initiative that is currently being fielded; to date 140 IGT
            systems have been fielded to ARNG units.
          ARNG is currently fielding the Operation Driver Simulator that
            trains transportation tasks in a family of vehicles, at both
            the unit and institutional levels.
          ARNG has just completed the Army Training Support Command
            directed upgrades to the Call For Fire Trainer II (CFFT II).
            The CFFT II trains Artillery Soldiers and observers of indirect
            fires on critical skills prior to live fire requirements.
          To meet basic and advanced rifle marksmanship requirements, ARNG
            is continuing to field the Engagement Skills Trainer (EST
            2000). This system is the Army's approved marksmanship training
            device. ARNG is also continuing the use of its previously
            procured Fire Arms Training System (FATS) until EST 2000
            fielding is completed. EST 2000 and FATS also provides static
            unit collective gunnery and tactical training, and shoot/don't
            shoot training. The Army is currently rewriting the strategy
            for the EST 2000 to include ARNG initiative of the mobile EST
            to accommodate the geographical troop dispersion of ARNG. These
            systems also support units conducting vital homeland defense
            missions.
          ARNG supplements its marksmanship-training strategy with the
            Laser Marksmanship Training System (LMTS). The use of LMTS
            helps to develop and maintain basic marksmanship skills,
            diagnose and correct problems, and assess basic and advanced
            skills. ARNG has more than 900 systems fielded down to the
            company level. LMTS is a laser-based training device that
            replicates the firing of the soldier's weapon without live
            ammunition.
          The Improvised Explosive Device Effects Simulator (IEDES)
            supports the training requirements for the detection, reaction,
            classification, prevention, and reporting of Improvised
            Explosive Devices. The IEDES kits consist of pyrotechnic and/or
            nonpyrotechnic training devices to achieve scalable signature
            effects. ARNG is currently fielded 258 total IEDES kits, of
            which, 194 are nonpyrotechnic kits (A-kits) and 64 are
            pyrotechnic kits (B-kits). This distribution includes 53 ARNG
            training sites across 39 States and territories. They have
            received fielding, New Equipment Training (NET) and life-cycle
            sustainment as of third-quarter fiscal year 2012. ARNG-TRS is
            continuing the effort to identify and fill requirements based
            on the recently completed (first quarter, 2012) TADSS Mission
            Essential Requirements (MER) review. The latest IEDES
            innovation is the fielding of the IEDES Transit Cases to
            support less than company size training scenarios.
          ARNG continues to develop its battle command training capability
            through the Mission Command Training Support Program (MCTSP).
            This program provides live, virtual, constructive, and gaming
            (LVC&G) training support at unit home stations via mobile
            training teams. Units can also train at Mission Training
            Complexes (MTC). The MCTSP consists of three MTCs at Camp
            Dodge, Iowa; Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania; and Fort
            Leavenworth, Kansas, and a regional Distributed Mission Support
            Team (DMST). The Army Campaign Plan 2011 requires the ARNG to
            train 172 units (Brigade equivalents and above). The MCTSP
            synchronizes ARNG mission command training capabilities to help
            units plan, prepare, and execute battle staff training. The
            objective is to develop proficient battle command staffs and
            trained operators during premobilization training.
          In order to provide the critical culminating training event for
            the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) ARFORGEN cycle, the ARNG
            has implemented the Exportable Combat Training Capability
            (XCTC) Program. The ARNG XCTC program provides Battalion Battle
            Staff training to the level organized, coupled with a theater
            immersed, mission-focused training event to certify company
            level proficiency prior to entering the ARFORGEN Available
            Force Pool defined as Certified Company Proficiency with
            demonstrated Battalion Battle Staff proficiency, competent
            leaders, and trained soldiers prepared for success on the
            battlefield.
          The Army Reserve continues to develop its ability to integrate
            live, virtual, constructive and gaming training aids, devices,
            simulations, and simulators (TADSS) programs with the Army
            Reserve Training Strategy in order to meet established aim
            points in our ARFORGEN training model. TADSS play an essential
            role in our collective training exercises on our installations
            which help support our transition from a strategic to an
            operational Army Reserve and meet our ARFORGEN aim point of
            providing units at T2 readiness in the available year. Just as
            critical, TADSS also support our individual soldier training at
            home station, local training areas, and institutions. By
            synchronizing the use of TADSS with ARFORGEN, the Army Reserve
            continues to improve unit training proficiency and ensures we
            meet our requirement to provide the combatant commanders with
            trained units and proficient battle staffs.
          The Warrior and Combat Support Training Exercises are the Army
            Reserve's major collective training exercises conducted on Army
            Reserve installations. These exercises integrate live and
            constructive environments to train senior battle staffs while
            lower echelon units conduct company and platoon lanes. The Army
            Reserve has made sizable investments in improving the facility
            infrastructure at Fort Hunter Liggett and Fort McCoy to support
            the use of TADSS in these and future exercises. The 75th
            Mission Command Training Division is utilizing the Entity-level
            Resolution Federation to provide a high-resolution (e.g.,
            individual soldier-level fidelity aggregated to unit
            resolutions) joint constructive battle staff training
            simulation.
          The Army Reserve also utilizes TADSS to assist individual
            soldiers in maintaining their technical and tactical
            proficiency. These TADSS assist soldiers in training on
            individual pieces of equipment and in sharpening their
            battlefield skills.
          Low-density simulators continue to be employed 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. Other simulators include locomotive
            simulators used by Army Reserve railroad units and a barge
            derrick simulator for transportation terminal units.
          Use of the Laser Marksmanship Training System (LMTS) and
            Engagement Skills Trainer 2000 (EST 2000) remain essential
            elements of the Army Reserve marksmanship training strategy.
            During fiscal year 2011, the Army Reserve fielded more than 529
            LMTS to 396 Army Reserve facilities to support home station
            basic marksmanship training for individual and crew served
            weapons. The system allows the soldier to use their assigned
            weapon, as well as crew served weapons, in a simulation/
            training mode. In fiscal year 2011, the Army Reserve also
            fielded the EST 2000 to 21 Army Reserve facilities. The EST
            2000 provides initial and sustainment marksmanship training,
            static unit collective gunnery and tactical training, and
            shoot/don't shoot training.
        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:
        a. Explanations of the information:
          Readiness tables are classified and can be provided upon request.
            The Department of the Army, G-3, maintains this information.
            The States do not capture this data. The information is
            maintained in the Defense Readiness Reporting System--Army.
        b. Based on the information shown in the tables, the Secretary's
    overall assessment of the deployability of units of 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 and can be
            provided upon request. The Department of the Army, G-3,
            maintains this information. The information is maintained in
            the Defense Readiness Reporting System--Army.
        19. Summary tables, shown for each State (and Army Reserve), of the
    results of inspections of units of ARNG (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:
        a. The number of such inspections;
        b. Identification of the entity conducting each inspection;
        c. The number of units inspected; and
        d. 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 2011, Inspectors General and other
            commissioned officers of the regular Army conducted 1,219
            inspections of the ARNG. Regular Army officers assigned to the
            respective States and territories as Inspectors General
            executed the bulk of these inspections (959). Of the remaining
            126 inspections, the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM),
            Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), and other external
            inspection agencies conducted 104. 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 these
            inspections may be requested for release through the Inspector
            General of the Army.
          The Army Reserve Office of the Inspector General conducted two
            assessments within the last 12 months. The first was entitled
            Property Accountability within the Army Reserve (Directed by
            the Chief, Army Reserve (CAR)) on January 25, 2011 and final
            report approved on August 11, 2011). The second assessment
            entitled Special Assessment of Personnel Transition within the
            Army Reserve was directed by the CAR on August 11, 2011 and is
            ongoing (expected final report approval in March 2012). The
            Army Reserve Office of the Inspector General conducted both
            assessments. The Army Reserve Inspection General assessed 30
            units for Property Accountability. As of December 13, 2011, 33
            units have been assessed as part of the Personnel Transitions
            Assessment. The overall goal of both assessments was not to
            evaluate the unit's deployability status. However, out of the
            total 66 units assessed nothing was found that would cause a
            unit to be listed as nondeployable. Results of these
            inspections may be requested for release through the Inspector
            General of the Army.
        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:
      --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
      --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.
          While the methods employed by the Army to manage the Active
            component (AC) support to Reserve component (RC) readiness have
            changed during the last 10 years of persistent conflict, we
            have met the intent of the Congress as outlined in title XI of
            the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993, as amended.
            Every RC unit that deployed during fiscal year 2011 was
            properly manned, equipped, trained, and certified to meet
            combatant commander (CCDR) requirements prior to employment
            overseas and CONUS by supporting processes associated with the
            ARFORGEN process.
          The Army began its transformation from large, fixed organizations
            (divisions and corps) to a modular, brigade-centric
            organization in 2004. At the same time, and while engaged in
            persistent conflict, it began transforming the way it executes
            the training and readiness of modular units--both AC and RC--to
            meet CCDR requirements. As such, modular force transformation
            and the implementation of the ARFORGEN process precludes a
            response in the format directed by title 10, U.S.C. 10542.
          The formal training relationships previously established by the
            AC/RC Association Program outlined in U.S. Army Forces Command
            (FORSCOM) Regulation 350-4, ``Active Component/Reserve
            Component Partnerships,'' were modified as the requirements of
            ongoing OCO kept AC units in frequent deployments and RC units
            in frequent mobilization. The deployment tempo problem was
            solved within the Army's Training Support XXI program by using
            designated, fully functional, AC-led multicomponent
            organizations to provide the necessary contact with mobilizing
            RC units. Since FORSCOM Regulation 350-4 no longer reflected
            the way the AC partnered with RC units, FORSCOM discontinued
            its use on July 21, 2010. The legislated roles and
            responsibilities formerly given to the commanders of associated
            AC units listed in appendices B and C of that regulation are
            now executed by the commanders of 1A (FORSCOM's executive agent
            for Active Army support for the training, readiness, and
            mobilization of conventional RC units in the continental United
            States); the 196th Infantry Brigade (U.S. Army Pacific's
            executive agent for the training and readiness of conventional
            RC units located in the Pacific Command's area of
            responsibility); and the U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) for the
            training and readiness of conventional RC units located in the
            European Command's area of responsibility.
          In 2011, the Army published Army Regulation (AR) 525-29,
            ARFORGEN, which institutes the structured progression of unit
            readiness over time to produce trained, ready, and cohesive
            units prepared for operational deployment in support of CCDR
            and other Army requirements. This regulation was a
            collaborative effort between FORSCOM, U.S. Army Training and
            Doctrine Command, the ARNG, and the U.S. Army Reserve Command
            to meet the progressive readiness demands of an Army engaged in
            persistent conflict. Within ARFORGEN, all rotational Active
            Army, ARNG, and Army Reserve units cycle through three ARFORGEN
            force pools--Reset, Train/Ready, and Available--and are
            designated either for deployment to a validated CCDR
            operational requirement as a Deployment Expeditionary Force
            (DEF) or for the execution of a contingency mission,
            operational plan, or other validated Army requirement as a
            Contingency Expeditionary Force (CEF).
          For the RC, this pertains to all modular division headquarters,
            brigade combat teams, multifunctional and functional support
            brigades (headquarters only), as well as modular units at the
            battalion to detachment level that comprise the critical
            enablers for operational missions. Assessments of the manpower,
            equipment, and training resource requirements of these RC units
            and validation of their compatibility with AC forces (as
            required by sections 1131(b)(3) and 1131(b)(4) of the ARNGCRRA
            of 1992) are executed and maintained by 1A, the 196th Infantry
            Brigade, and USAREUR as the RC unit progresses through the
            ARFORGEN process into the deployment window.
          Fiscal year 2011 also found the Army at an inflection point in
            which strategic conditions have signaled a future change in
            demand across the range of military operations (DEF to CEF). RC
            will figure prominently in the Army's response to these
            changes. ARFORGEN is the process that will produce trained and
            ready RC units that are organized, manned, trained, and
            equipped, as integral members of the total force, compatible
            with their AC counterparts, to provide predictable, recurring
            and sustainable capabilities for the Nation's security
            requirements. The Army does not foresee a return to the legacy
            construct of associated units.
        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 by State for the ARNG (and for the U.S. Army Reserve); by
    rank of officers, warrant officers, and enlisted members assigned; and
    by unit or other organizational entity of assignment.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Title XI (fiscal year 2011) authorizations             Title XI (fiscal year 2011) assigned
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Warrant                                             Warrant
                                                        Officers     Enlisted     officers      Total       Officers     Enlisted     officers      Total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Army Reserve...............................           97          110            8          215           12           18  ...........           30
    TRADOC..........................................           50            3  ...........           53           36            3  ...........           39
    FORSCOM.........................................        1,033        2,165          101        3,299          696        1,925          102        2,723
    USARPAC.........................................           30           49            1           80           30           41            9           80
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................        1,210        2,327          110        3,647          774        1,987          111        2,872
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          As of September 30, 2011, the Army had 2,872 Active component
            soldiers assigned to title XI positions. In fiscal year 2006,
            the Army began reducing authorizations in accordance with the
            National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Laws 108-
            767, section 515). Army G-1 and U.S. Army Human Resources
            Command carefully manages the authorizations and fill of title
            XI positions. The data is not managed or captured by state--the
            previous table above provides the best representation of how
            title XI positions are dispersed and utilized.

        Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for
    your very generous remarks. May I now call upon General
    Odierno?
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL RAYMOND T. ODIERNO, CHIEF OF STAFF
        General Odierno. Thank you, Chairman, Vice Chairman
    Cochran, and the rest of the members of the subcommittee. Thank
    you very much for allowing me to be here.
        I want to start out by also thanking you for your steadfast
    support of our soldiers and their families, especially during
    these last 10 years, as we've been involved in a significant
    amount of combat operation. Without your support, we would not
    be able to do the things we're doing, and we would not be able
    to take care of our soldiers and families. So, thank you so
    much for your support.
        I also appreciate the vote of confidence from Secretary
    McHugh. I believe in the Army we have a great civilian-military
    team, led by Secretary McHugh. His experience and wisdom has
    helped me as I've come onboard as the Chief of Staff of the
    Army, and I know together we will walk forward to work many of
    these issues that face the Army in the future. And I am
    confident that in the end, the Army will remain the best land
    force in the world, and I look forward to continue to work with
    him as we move forward.
        It's an honor to sit here today representing our 1.1
    million soldiers, our nearly 300,000 Army civilians, as well as
    the 1.4 million family members. I'm extremely proud of their
    commitment, their professionalism, and resiliency of our
    soldiers and their sacrifice and accomplishments.
        Today, we remain in more than 150 countries around the
    world. We are truly a globally engaged army, with 95,000
    soldiers deployed, and another 96,000 soldiers forward station,
    conducting a broad range of missions around the world.

                              ARMY GLOBAL STRATEGY

        But our Army's primary mission is steadfast and resolute to
    fight and win our Nation's wars. And as the Army continues to
    transition, we will ensure the President's 2012 defense
    strategic priorities are implemented, by first meeting our
    current commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere by ensuring a
    highly trained, properly equipped, and well-manned force. Now
    that operations in Iraq are complete, and we continue surge
    recovery in Afghanistan, we will help shape the regional
    environs in support of the combatant commanders, as well as the
    strategic environment.
        In the Asia-Pacific, which is home of 7 of the 10 largest
    land armies in the world, we are provided an array of tools
    through rotational forces, multilateral exercises, and other
    innovative engagements with our allies and new partners. We
    currently have some 66,000 soldiers and almost 10,000 civilians
    in this region today.
        During a time of great uncertainty in the Middle East, we
    remain committed and prepared to ensuring security and
    stability across the spectrum of conflict through our
    rotational presence and all available means necessary. And in
    Europe, as we inactivate two brigade combat teams (BCTs), one
    in 2013 and one in 2014, we will compensate through a series of
    engagement tools to build and sustain relationships with our
    European and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies
    and partners. I believe this will serve as a model how I see us
    doing things in the future, a combination of forward station
    and rotational forces, using a tailorable approach by
    regionally aligned forces and prepositioned stocks.

                                ARMY FOCUS AREAS

        As we move forward, we will build on the competency and
    experience that has been gained during the past 10 years by our
    National Guard and Army Reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    through the resourcing of a progressive readiness model in the
    future.
        As we look forward, and the Secretary already touched on
    this a bit, there will be several focus areas that will help
    guide us for the way ahead. Foremost, we'll remain committed to
    our 67,000 war fighters currently in Afghanistan. They continue
    to provide trained, equipped, and ready soldiers to win the
    current fight.
        Next, as the Army becomes leaner, we must continue to build
    on the key characteristics of the future force: Adaptability,
    innovation, flexibility, agility, versatility, and lethality.
    We have to prioritize our efforts as we integrate and
    synchronize our activities as part of the larger joint
    interagency and multinational effort of the future.
        By the end of fiscal year 2017, we will decrease our end-
    strength from 570,000 to 490,000 in the Active Army, from
    358,000 to 353,500 in the National Guard, and from 206,000 to
    205,000 in the Army Reserves. It is imperative for us to
    sustain a gradual ramp during these next 5 years that allow us
    to take care of our soldiers, continue to provide forces for
    Afghanistan, and facilitate reversibility over the next couple
    years, if necessary.
        End-strength above 490,000 is funded strictly through
    overseas contingency operations (OCO) during the next 5 years,
    and must be sustained to help mitigate risk as we continue
    current operations in Afghanistan and simultaneously reset our
    Army for the future.
        We will also reduce our end-strength by a minimum of eight
    BCTs. We are also conducting additional assessments to look at
    reorganizing our brigades to make most efficient use out of our
    combat structure. And we will come back to the subcommittee
    after we can finish our research and our analysis, both the
    Secretary and I will come back and have further conversations
    on this.
        Finally, we will be responsible government stewards through
    energy-cost savings and institutional and acquisition reform.
    We are now taking a fundamentally different approach to how we
    do business with our acquisition reform. I credit Secretary
    McHugh for his diligent efforts with this. We have really made
    some tremendous progress here, in my view.
        For a new affordable and incremental equipping strategy, we
    are making better business deals and better contracts,
    emphasizing competition, and saving even more money as
    government stewards. Our expansion of multiyear contracts,
    firm-fixed-price contracts, and cost-plus-incentive-fee
    contracts have proven substantive cost savings already.
        By more closely linking the development of requirements
    with the acquisition cycle, we are building the flexibility to
    integrate new technologies incrementally. Additionally, we are
    looking to develop more efficient testing and evaluating
    strategies by eliminating redundancies. We will continue our
    equipment reset program to restore unit equipment to a level of
    capability that is commensurate with their future missions.
    There have been more than 1.8 million pieces of equipment reset
    to date, which equates to approximately 31 brigade equivalents
    annually.

                                 MODERNIZATION

        Much of what the Army needs to do and much of what we hope
    to be able to do will be reliant upon sustained OCO funding for
    our withdrawal in Afghanistan and for 2 to 3 years afterwards.
    As we continue to transform our modernization practices through
    a holistic bottom-up approach, we have several priorities.
        First is the Network. It is critical to our ability to
    manage information and command our forces at all levels both
    home and abroad, in a multinational and joint context. We made
    significant progress on this critical program through the
    series of network integration evaluation exercises that field
    tested equipment, which are integrated in a system, using our
    soldiers as the testers.
        Second, the ground combat vehicle (GCV), a replacement for
    our infantry fighting vehicle that can accommodate an infantry
    squad, balance mobility and survivability, and provide
    unmatched lethality on the battlefield against current and
    future threats. We've paid close attention to risk reduction in
    this development program by maximizing competition to stimulate
    innovation, support cost containment, and schedule
    requirements, ensuring industry identifies potential pricing
    schedule versus performance tradeoffs, and requiring industry
    to provide cost targets throughout the GCV's lifecycle.
        Our third modernization priority is the more mobile
    survivable network-integrated joint light tactical vehicle
    (JLTV). With both myself and General Amos, we agree it's
    necessary, given the last 10 years of fighting and what future
    operations may entail. We carefully revised our acquisition
    strategy, reduced the schedule for the next developmental phase
    from 48 to 33 months, while reducing the projected cost of the
    program by $400 million.
        Next is lightening the soldier's load, with a focus on the
    squad. There must be continued efforts to give our squads
    superiority on the battlefield, with advanced soldier systems,
    and weapons communications, and protection. There has been
    tremendous progress in the advancement to help lighten the load
    of our individual soldiers. So now we must turn to look at how
    the squad can carry the load smarter. We will continue to look
    at decreasing the weight of our body armor, while increasing
    protection, but we can make more progress by studying how to
    better distribute the load across the squad.
        The budget request for aviation modernization will continue
    to ensure our lift-and-close combat capabilities remain
    effective. These aircraft provide critical support to our joint
    ground forces, special operations community, and our
    international partners.
        Finally, I'd like to point out that in order to achieve
    these priorities within our modernization strategy we'll need
    the help of this subcommittee to ensure timely appropriations
    to reduce production and scheduling delays. The Secretary and I
    will continue to assess and make adjustments to our strategy,
    while addressing any potential risk incurred, as we adjust our
    future force posture.
        I'd like to leave you with one last thought. Sequestration
    is not in the best interest of our national security. The
    Army's share of the cut could be almost $134 billion through
    2017. The impact to the Army could cause up to 100,000
    additional cuts to our end-strength, on top of the 86,000 we
    currently plan to reduce. This would result in severe
    reductions in the National Guard, our Army Reserves, in
    addition to continued reductions in the Active component. It
    will significantly decrease what the Army can do for the joint
    force. In my estimation, sequestration will require us to
    fundamentally relook how we provide national security for our
    Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you again
    for the opportunity to speak here today. This subcommittee
    enables our All-Volunteer Army to be the most decisive land
    force in the world, and we could not do without the support
    that you give us. It's an honor to serve this great Nation and
    stand beside the dedicated professionals of our Army. The
    strength of our Nation is our Army. The strength of our Army is
    our soldiers. And the strength of our soldiers is our families,
    and that's what makes this Army strong.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions,
    Senator.
        Chairman Inouye. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
    Before we proceed, I'd like to announce that there's a vote
    pending at this moment.
        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go vote. I
    know Senator Cochran's coming back, and then you'll go vote. I
    do want to have a chance to ask questions, so I'm going to come
    back, but I am going to leave now, so that we can vote and get
    back. We'll be doing a little round-robin here.
        Chairman Inouye. I can assure you that.
        Last January, the Secretary of Defense announced the budget
    plan and said that the Active Army will be reduced by 72,000 in
    the next 5 years. Many of us have privately expressed concerns,
    primarily on the risks that may be involved.
        Can you share with us your thoughts on this matter?

                     END-STRENGTH REDUCTION RISK MITIGATION

        General Odierno. I think one way to mitigate the risk is
    that fact we're going to do this over a 5-year period, and I
    think that helps us to mitigate some of the risks that we have.
    My concerns are, first, we want to be able to take care of our
    soldiers and families. Doing it over a 5-year period helps us
    to reduce the risk to our soldiers and their families, first
    off, because we will be able to do a majority of the reductions
    through national attrition, although, there will be some
    requirements above that.
        Second, it will help us, if we do this over a 5-year
    period, to ensure that we have the forces necessary to continue
    to rotate in Afghanistan, as we continue that commitment.
        And third, if we have to, if we get it wrong, and we have
    to reverse, we can do that easily during the next 2 to 4 years,
    as we execute this strategy.
        The assumptions in the strategy are that we will no longer
    be engaged in large-scale, long-term operations that would be
    over a 5- to 10-year period. That's the risk to this reduction.
    We increased the size of the Army in the 2000s in order to meet
    the requirements of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and because of
    the high operational tempo (OPTEMPO) it was putting on our
    soldiers and our families. Now that we are reducing the size of
    the Army, as long as we are not involved in large-scale
    contingencies over a long period of time, I think we can
    mitigate that risk.
        I do believe we have the capability to conduct two
    simultaneous operations at 490,000, as long as they are not
    over a long duration time period, and that's where the risk
    comes in, Senator.
        Mr. McHugh. Mr. Chairman, may I add a few on that?
        Chairman Inouye. Please do.
        Mr. McHugh. As the Chief noted, the primary consideration
    was that we had sufficient end-strength to meet the new
    security strategy and its expected requirements. And as you
    heard him say, I think we all agree we do.
        But the other thing really goes back to your opening
    comment. You know, the Army is people. And currently, we spend
    about 48 cents of every $1 on our people. And so when we're
    mandated to find, as we went through the Budget Control Act for
    the department, $487 billion over 10 years, we have to find
    reductions in our personnel costs. There's just no other way to
    do it.
        And what we wanted to ensure is that we didn't have
    artificially high end-strength, that our budget was resourcing
    modernization and proper equipping, and the other things that
    are so important, family, medical programs, so that we didn't
    take that path to becoming hollow that we've had so much
    discussion about over the years, and other postconflict
    periods.
        So, we think we're balanced in a way that resist the
    temptation to pump up end-strength at a very high cost of not
    giving the soldiers what they need to complete their mission.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Gentlemen, I will have to leave to vote,
    but in the meantime, I'll call upon the Vice Chairman to
    continue the hearing. I'll be back.
        Senator Cochran [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let
    me ask you a question about the C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft
    program. There's indication in our briefing paper here that the
    Air Force is suggesting that even though the C-27 was developed
    to provide a unique capability to support Army needs, that that
    could have been managed by the use of C-130 aircraft. I don't
    know whether this is a consensus, or what your reaction to it
    is, but is there a difference of opinion between the Army and
    the Air Force on the C-27 and C-130? We don't need to overdo
    things and buy things we don't need in this time of fiscal
    constraint and pressure on the budget. So, I was just curious
    to know what your reaction to that would be.

                               INTRA-THEATER LIFT

        General Odierno. Thank you, Senator. The Army has a stated
    requirement for intra-theater lift, which we need in places
    like Iraq, Afghanistan, and we've discussed this over time. The
    Army has a C-23 Sherpa program, which, frankly, is getting old
    and, frankly, will no longer be capable of doing the mission we
    need it to in the future. So, we've defined this requirement.
        The Air Force has come back and said we can meet all of
    your intra-theater lift requirements with the C-130. So, we
    have worked with them to develop concepts that will put C-130s
    in direct support of Army units in order to meet these
    requirements.
        So, I would just answer your question by saying we've
    identified the requirement for intra-theater lift. C-27 was one
    solution. The Air Force has come back and said we can solve
    this problem using the C-130. So, we are working with them to
    come up with the procedures in order for us to solve this
    problem using the C-130.
        Senator Cochran. One issue that always is of interest to me
    as we begin this annual review of the budget request for the
    different services is how well we're doing with recruiting and
    retention of the quality of person and candidate for service in
    the U.S. Army. Do we need to consider going back to compulsory
    military service or is the all-volunteer concept alive and well
    and working to suit our national defense needs?

                               ALL-VOLUNTEER ARMY

        Mr. McHugh. Very important question, Senator. I think the
    easy answer to your last point is that the last 10 years pretty
    well proved that the Volunteer Army, in our case, Voluntary
    Military, for this Nation, can meet just about any challenge
    over any duration of time you may put them up against. Having
    said that, we're always concerned about what tomorrow may look
    like, and we track our recruiting, our retention numbers, and
    track the caliber of our recruits as well.
        On the retention side, our problem is, frankly, too many
    people want to stay, and we're going to have to manage that as
    we draw down our end-strength in ways that ensure that we keep
    the very best of the best. And that will be a challenge,
    because we will have to request, as the Chief alluded to, some
    soldiers who meet our minimum standards and requirements, and
    who, in many cases, I'm sure, will have served honorably, but
    ask them to take on new challenges in their lives.
        Our recruiting numbers are better than the nearly 20 years
    I've been in this town. Our numbers of waivers are at historic
    lows. We don't provide major felony waivers any more, contrary
    to the times in the not-so-distant past, when they were not
    normal, but they weren't unheard of. Our high school graduation
    rates are more than 90 percent, higher than the average that is
    maintained here amongst the civilian population. And as they
    have proven time and time again, even our youngest soldiers are
    up to the greatest challenges.
        So, we're always concerned about what a brightening economy
    will mean on our ability to compete with the private sector,
    but to this point, I think things are going very, very well.
        Chief.
        General Odierno. If I could add, Senator, to include our
    ability to recruit officers as well. The numbers at West Point
    are way up. Applicants are way up. The competition is way up.
    The competition at Officer Candidate School (OCS) is at its
    highest level I've ever seen it. Our Reserve Officers Training
    Corps (ROTC) programs are, although we are doing some
    consolidation, are doing very well. So, right now we are in
    good shape. But it's something that we have to constantly
    manage. And as we all know, some of this could be based on some
    of the economic issues and unemployment rates. We have to watch
    this very carefully. There is a lot of interest in serving. So,
    we feel we are doing very, very well in those areas.
        In terms of retention, there will be some people who want
    to stay who probably will not be allowed to stay, as the
    Secretary just talked about, during the next 3 or 4 years. But
    we want to set up programs that allow the best to stay. We want
    to keep the best talent that we have, and we're trying to
    decentralize that decisionmaking process down to the commanders
    in the field, so they can make the decisions on who are the
    best, most qualified to continue to stay and lead our Army into
    the future as we face many of these complex challenges that
    you've outlined.
        Senator Cochran. That is very welcome news and good to
    hear, and also, a reason to compliment the leadership of our
    United States Army and other forces who are providing the
    example and serving in capacities of a very important
    responsibility for our country. I'm sure the soldiers are
    looking up to those they are serving with, or they wouldn't be
    interested in re-enlisting or staying in for a career, as many
    of them are now voluntarily doing. I think it's a tribute to
    our leadership of our military. So, I congratulate you on those
    successes that we've had.
        It was a pleasure for me to serve on the Board of Visitors
    at West Point for a time, and as a matter of fact, I think it
    was one of the best collateral duties I've ever had in the
    Congress, serving on both the Board of Visitors at West Point
    and the board out in Colorado for the Air Force, and the Naval
    Academy board. I really got a great opportunity to meet and get
    to know those who were in charge of our training academies, and
    who were the professors and instructors getting the job done,
    training, and educating the officers of tomorrow, and the
    leaders of tomorrow, the next Secretary of the Army and the
    Joint Chief chairman, and so we appreciate the success we've
    had. And we know that it doesn't just happen by itself, but
    there are a lot of dedicated men and women throughout the Army
    who are helping make this a very important success story.

         UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT BOARD OF VISITORS

        General Odierno. Senator, I would just add that last night
    the Cadet Andrew Rodriguez, from West Point, was awarded the
    Sullivan Award, which is given each year to the top leadership
    student athlete in the country for all sports. It's only the
    sixth time that a football player has received it. And 3 out of
    those 6 were from West Point that have received that award over
    time. And I think he's representative of the type of
    individuals that we now have, that are interested in serving
    our country. And we're very proud of these young men and women
    who continue to want to serve. And I think that's just another
    indication of the quality of individuals that we continue to
    get in the Army and West Point.
        Mr. McHugh. I would note, Senator Cochran, that I had the
    honor of serving on that--I guess I still do, but as a Member
    of Congress for 15 years. And you're right. It's a special
    opportunity, and one of those things that few Members of
    Congress get to experience, and it was a great opportunity for
    me.
        I would also note, just for the record, that the gentleman
    on my left is also a West Point grad, and given the football
    team, and Army, Navy, I wish he were back there wearing a
    helmet, but we'll talk about that later.
        Senator Cochran. Do you need time for rebuttal, General?
        General Odierno. I want to be on the record, we're going to
    beat Navy this year.
        Senator Cochran. We're joined again by other members of the
    subcommittee, and I'll yield to the distinguished Senator from
    South Carolina.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. When you said that, John, I
    thought that you were talking about his left, and that would
    have been me.
        I would have been the first guy to get in West Point with
    800 SAT on both parts. The Army's got enough problems without
    having to go down there. Not bad. That's right.
        So to both of you, thanks for being leaders in a time when
    we need leaders. Ten years into this thing, I know people are
    war weary and we're trying to balance a $15 trillion budget
    that's out of whack, and everything's on the table. So, to my
    friends out there who want to argue about what we should do
    with the entitlements, that we should reform them just like
    we're trying to reform the Pentagon, bottom line is, the
    sequestration is just a really bad idea. Both of you already
    said that. Do you agree with that?

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. McHugh. It certainly would have an incredibly
    devastating effect upon our national military.
        Senator Graham. It would really be silly and stupid, right?
        Mr. McHugh. I agree.
        Senator Graham. Yes. Go ahead, John. You can say that.
        Mr. McHugh. I agree with you always, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Good. Thank you.
        So, we'll find somehow to avoid it. We're not going to put
    that burden on you.
        But the sum total of what we're doing, $470-billion-
    something during the next 10 years is no small lift, is it,
    General?
        General Odierno. It is not.
        Senator Graham. Okay. We're going to put 87,000 people out
    of work, I guess. So, just please understand what the military
    is having to do on the Army side. Eighty-seven thousand people
    are going to be put out of work over the next 5 or 6 years, who
    have dedicated themselves to defending the Nation, who are well
    trained, and, you know, make up the 1 percent who serve. So,
    when I hear other agencies and other parts of the Federal
    Government saying that's too much, that's too far, the Defense
    Department is more than paying its fair share, in my view, and
    I'll have to look long and hard if I think 87,000 makes sense.
        Where do you see the potential for future land engagements,
    General, that could have 100,000 troops required? Are there any
    scenarios in mind?
        General Odierno. Well, obviously, we have agreements with
    South Korea, in reference with potential problems with North
    Korea. You know, we have issues across the Middle East, a
    significant amount of instability.
        Senator Graham. The Horn of Africa really went bad. You may
    have to enter these troops. Maybe not 100,000.
        General Odierno. Maybe not 100,000.
        Senator Graham. Let's talk about a scenario where you had
    to commit major land forces after we cut the $487 billion. What
    percentage of a, say, 100,000-person force, in the future, 5, 6
    years from now, would have to come from the Reserves?
        General Odierno. It would depend on the specific situation.
        Senator Graham. Let's say it's an Iraq situation.
        General Odierno. Well, in the beginning phases of a war,
    about 80 percent would be out of the Active, and about 20
    percent out of the Reserves. But as that went on over time, the
    amount of use of the Reserves would increase. So, in the second
    or third year, you would see more Reserve component.
        Senator Graham. So, the truth of the matter is that we
    need, as a nation, to understand that if we go down by 87,000,
    if there are any major land engagements sustained over a period
    of time, the Guard and Reserves are going to be asked to do
    more, not less.
        General Odierno. That is correct.
        Senator Graham. That's just the math, right?
        General Odierno. That is correct, Sir.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Mr. Secretary, stress on the force.
    One, to the soldier who is going to be charged with the murder
    of 16 Afghan civilians, you're highly confident in our military
    justice system.

                              STRESS ON THE FORCE

        Mr. McHugh. I have no doubt about our ability to handle it.
        Senator Graham. And that soldier will be provided whatever
    resources his defense team needs, within reason, to defend him,
    right?
        Mr. McHugh. That is our requirement, and that is our, we
    feel, duty.
        Senator Graham. Now, people talk about stress on the force.
    Do you agree with me that most people in Afghanistan, of any
    senior rank, have had multiple deployments?
        Mr. McHugh. We have in the military at large more than
    50,000 folks in uniform who have had at least four deployments.
        Senator Graham. And this is a severe aberration and does
    not reflect who our men and women are, in terms of their
    behavior under stress. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. McHugh. The fact that this is receiving,
    understandably, so much attention, I think, underscores that
    very fact. Yes, Sir.
        Senator Graham. General, do you agree with that?
        General Odierno. I do agree, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So now let's talk about where we go,
    in terms of the Congress's role in helping you craft this
    budget. Do you have enough flexibility to make adjustments?
    Let's talk about mental health for our troops, those coming
    back from the theater. If we execute this budget reduction and
    you have 10 years of fighting, and you may have some latent
    stress problems show up down the road, do we have the adequate
    infrastructure in this budget reduction environment to take
    care of issues that may arise down the road from the last 10
    years of fighting?
        Mr. McHugh. From what we can see, there is always, of
    course, as you know, Senator, it's what you don't expect that
    you have to be most troubled by. We have both the facilities,
    the flexibility, and funding to provide for them. The biggest
    challenge on behavioral health we've had are bringing into the
    Army Force structure the behavior health specialists. We've
    been chasing the requirement for a number of years now.
        Senator Graham. I don't want to take too much time, but
    recruiting trained mental health specialists who are subject to
    being deployed is a very big challenge. So, I hope we'll look,
    going within the force and cross-training people. That's one
    way to get more folks. But, if you wanted to serve your country
    as a civilian or a military person, if you're in the mental
    health arena, there's a real demand for your services.
        And the last comment I'd like to make is about stress on
    the force. We've been deployed a lot. It's been a very tough
    time for families. What kind of stress on the force can we
    anticipate from a major reduction in personnel, limited assets?
    And I would just end with this proposition. I think the world
    is getting more dangerous by the day, and the potential
    conflicts that we face are growing, not lessening.
        General, Mr. Secretary, can you describe to me what we can
    expect from a force that's going to be reduced by 87,000? The
    mission possibilities are growing, not lessening. What kind of
    stress does that have on the Force?
        General Odierno. First off, it is, as we have learned, the
    issue becomes the stress of multiple deployments. So, as you
    reduce the force, if we get into a sustained land combat, it
    will, once again, increase the stress on the force. And that's
    a bit of a risk, as we go down, as you mentioned, 87,000. So,
    we have to mitigate that. We've tried to mitigate that by going
    down the 87,000 over a 5-year period, which slows it down,
    which enables us to take care of those soldiers and families as
    we ask them to leave the service, in some cases. And we'll
    hopefully be able to do most of it by attrition, but it won't
    be all by attrition. There will be some people who are, in
    fact, asked to leave over time. So, we're trying to figure out
    the best ways to mitigate that.
        Mr. McHugh. As you know, Senator, rotations, deployments
    are probably the leading cause and the leading stressor. We're
    operating under the assumption, the fact we're out of Iraq and
    a planned phase-down through 2014 in Afghanistan. If that
    should change, obviously, we're going to have to do some re-
    evaluation. And then one of the advantages of going through
    this exercise of assigning budget numbers every year is that
    we're provided the opportunity to second guess ourselves, if
    it's required.
        The Chairman has noted that this is really the first
    budget, not just the only budget, of what we view as a 5-year,
    and ultimately a march to 2020, to a time when we're hopefully
    fully modernized as a force.
        Senator Graham. Thank you for your service.
        Senator Inouye [presiding]. Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you. First, I want to say to
    General Odierno how much I appreciate everything that you've
    done. Talk about deployments to the tough spots. You've been
    there. I appreciate meeting with you in Iraq twice, and seeing
    what you could do there. And I think that experience has
    certainly given you the base and the background to handle so
    many of these issues and problems. I just can't tell you how
    much I appreciate all that you've done and your service.
        Secretary McHugh, I'm glad to see you. And in about a half
    hour, I'm going to go to the West Point Board of Visitors'
    meeting, and I know I'll see you there, where we serve
    together. And I'm so happy to still be on the board and able to
    help your alma mater, General Odierno.
        I'd like to ask both of you, really, but it's on the issue
    of drawing down the troops, and especially from Europe. And I
    know that you are planning to do some rotational deployments in
    Europe to save money. We're going to bring back the two
    brigades. And I just wonder if you are also looking at further
    reductions in Europe. Obviously, we have to have a presence
    there, when we have our hospitals there, but we know the
    training is limited. We know both the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have said
    it's more cost effective to maintain forces in America rather
    than overseas.
        I'm, of course, interested, from the military construction
    standpoint and the operations on overseas bases, and have
    always felt like we were doing more than our fair share in
    NATO. I want to ask you where you are, either of you, or both,
    on conserving our dollars by having more troops based in
    America, making sure that we're not over building with our NATO
    military construction beyond what is our requirement. But
    sometimes we're getting into regional centers, where European
    countries want equality, and that's not our responsibility.
        So, can you walk me through that, and maybe something we
    haven't seen in the future that would help me understand that
    we are being efficient with our military construction and
    operations overseas, and favoring our U.S. bases, where we have
    the training capabilities and certainly the more efficient
    operations?

                                FORCE STRUCTURE

        General Odierno. I think, Senator, first is that I think as
    we look to the future, our strategy is going to be that we are
    going to rely more and more on rotational forces. We think
    that's important.
        Now, it does not mean we will completely reduce our
    overseas presence. It's got to be the right balance and mix, so
    we're going to constantly review what that right balance and
    mix is between rotational forces and forward station forces. We
    will continue to do that.
        We have been consistently coming down in Europe over the
    last 3 years. We're going to go down to 90 bases, 50 of those
    which are really Army sole bases. The other 40 are joint.
    There's some Army, Air Force, and some other places. From more
    than 300 bases that were there just 3 or 4 years ago. So, we
    are slowly coming down.
        The Secretary and I have a team over in Europe right now
    looking at the structure, the infrastructure, to continue to
    conduct assessments, as we inactivate the two brigades, as we
    bring down Fifth Corps headquarters, as they come out of
    Afghanistan, what is the exact infrastructure that would be
    needed. Are there refinements to that that we will have to
    make? And we will constantly assess this, as we move forward
    with our final posture.
        And I think so far, actually, we've gotten great
    cooperation from our partners on this. They realize this. They
    understand what we're trying to do, and the fact that we'll
    rotate forces to continue to train with some of our NATO
    forces, I think, is actually good for us and for them, because
    it will allow more units to have the experience of working with
    our NATO partners over time.
        So, I think we will continue to assess this. I think you'll
    see us reassess it again next year and the year after, and
    constantly look at this, as we try to get right our posture, as
    compared to what's in the United States and what's in Europe.
        Senator Hutchison. Let me ask you, on the V Corps
    headquarters, I believe you said that it's not going to return
    to Europe after the deployment in Afghanistan. Is that going to
    be eliminated, or will it be moved to an installation in the
    United States?
        General Odierno. The plan is to eliminate it, Senator.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Thank you very much, both of
    you. I so appreciate working with you, and if there are any
    things that we need to be doing at West Point, please let me
    know. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
    General, you've been welcomed, but probably not by all of us
    yet. Thank you very much for your service.
        General, title 10, section 2464 of the U.S. Code requires
    the Defense Department to provide all the depots with a
    baseline core workload, the minimum amount of man-hours
    necessary to sustain a given depot's unique technical skills.
        For the Anniston Army Depot, that core workload
    requirement, I understand, is 3.2 million man-hours. Anniston
    was fortunate enough to exceed its core for nearly 9 years, but
    subsequent to the drawdown in Iraq hundreds of temporary
    workers have been let go. It's my understanding earlier this
    year the Army only projected 2.4 million man-hours of work for
    Anniston in 2013, a level far below its legally mandated core
    workload. Such an unprecedented drop-off could require Anniston
    to let go some of its permanent technical workforce, which we
    try to keep together, precisely those essential workers the
    core requirement was meant, as I understand it, to protect.
        What is the Army doing to make sure that this does not
    happen, and where are we there? Could you speak to that?

                                     DEPOTS

        General Odierno. I can, Sir.
        Senator Shelby. And how important is it?
        General Odierno. Thank you. Well, first, our depots are
    incredibly important for maintaining our capabilities. And what
    we've done is we've established core competencies in each one
    of our depots, in order to sustain that. So, for example, for
    Anniston, it's combat vehicle, assault bridging, artillery,
    small caliber weapons. And that will remain the core function
    of Anniston, as we go forward.
        In terms of reductions, what we're seeing is, as we
    continue to reduce the amount of reset and recap that we're
    doing, based on our work in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're
    starting to see the workload drop. But we've established these
    core capabilities in each one of our depots. We will continue
    to do that.
        Now, I will say, and the Secretary can add to this, is that
    we're going to continue to look at each one of our depots as we
    move forward to make sure that we sustain enough capability to
    grow, if necessary, but also to gain efficiencies. But Anniston
    has been such a key piece of everything we've done and will
    continue to remain one of our depots that have some core
    competencies that we need.
        Senator Shelby. Anniston and the other depots, without
    speaking of Anniston, they're very important for the readiness
    of the Army, is that correct?
        General Odierno. They are. They are very important.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. McHugh. Senator, you have struck upon something that
    concerns us greatly, and not just because it says it in law,
    though, obviously, we're mindful of our title 10 and statutory
    requirements, but also, as you just noted, these depots are
    absolutely critical to the Army's ability to go out and do
    whatever missions they're assigned.
        As the Chief noted, our primary response to that are the
    establishment of centers of excellence, of which Anniston, of
    course, is one. We're working now with the Department of
    Defense to go through sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier (S2T2)
    analysis of our depots, of our core industrial base. And as we
    come down out of war, sustaining those minimum requirements
    that you cited, particularly for the high-end workers, is going
    to be a challenge, but we're looking at every possible avenue,
    including foreign military sales, in the case of some Bradleys
    for Anniston, and others, to try to yes, meet that statutory
    requirement, but more importantly, keep those facilities
    viable.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        General, moving over to the area of the Army Ballistic
    Missile Defense, in May 2011, the Army and the Missile Defense
    Agency (MDA) signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a
    proposed transfer of Army ballistic missile defense assets
    (BMDA). This subcommittee felt that the proposal was not backed
    by sufficient analysis and the report of the fiscal year 2012
    defense appropriations bill contained language opposing any
    such transfer.
        Does the fiscal year 2013 budget move any Army programs or
    personnel to MDA or request funds to enact such transfers in
    the future, or where are we?

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        General Odierno. I'll have to go take a look at that,
    Senator, and get back with you, and I don't know if the
    Secretary knows, but I believe that we are clearly still
    looking at that, at transferring some of the capabilities to
    MDA.
        Mr. McHugh. What I would note is we still believe the
    transfer makes sense, from the Army perspective. It is intended
    to simply provide through MDA, or provide the Army through MDA,
    greater buying power. Other service missile programs are
    similarly administered through that organization. And beyond
    the ground, the air-breathing threats would continue to be
    under our operational command. So, it's about a 65-percent, I
    believe, transfer, but most of it is in procurement and
    technological development.
        Senator Shelby. Will you furnish this to the subcommittee,
    since we were concerned about analysis of this memorandum of
    understanding?
        Mr. McHugh. I haven't read the fiscal year 2012 bill
    recently, but my understanding is we owe you an analysis and a
    report, and I can't imagine we wouldn't supply that.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary McHugh, in the area of Army aviation
    modernization, prior to its release, the fiscal year 2013
    budget, I understand, was described as delaying Army aviation
    modernization by 3 to 5 years. Could you provide us with some
    more detail, if you have any yet, of which programs are being
    delayed, and why, and would the delays impact primarily
    procurement, or research and development (R&D), or both?

                             AVIATION MODERNIZATION

        Mr. McHugh. I'd have to defer to the Chief on some of the
    specifics of that question. It's absolutely true. We had to
    slip some of the, particularly the procurement programs to the
    right. We feel it's an acceptable level of risk, given the
    status of most of our rotary wing fleet, as long as we have the
    sufficient reset money coming out of Afghanistan, as the Chief
    noted, for 2 to 3 years. But I think he can provide you some of
    the platform details.
        Senator Shelby. General.
        General Odierno. I can, Senator. What we've done is, we've
    delayed, we've not eliminated. But let me give you, for
    example, for the Apache, for example, we've gone down to the
    minimum requirements, which is 48 per year. It delays the
    program 3 to 5 years, to 2030.
        For example, out of this Program Objective Memorandum
    (POM), we've delayed the procurement of 23 new-build Apaches
    and 42 remanufactured Apaches. It will still be built, but it's
    been moved out of the POM.
        For the CH-47, we've reduced some performance upgrades,
    like the rotors. We've made that adjustment on the CH-47. We
    continue to do full-rate production under the current multiyear
    that ends this year. We're looking for another multiyear, from
    2013 to 2017, to complete the National Guard Reserve component
    modernization.
        In the UH-60, we're delaying modernization of all
    components by about 2 to 3 years. What I mean by components is
    Active, Reserve, and National Guard. And we'll delay
    procurement of 72 UH-60 Mikes to outside of the POM. But we
    will continue to modernize and update the UH-60s, as we move
    forward. So, as I've just said to you, it's more of a delay.
        Now, we have funded the upgrade of the Kiowa, but that's
    based on a decision, as we do the analysis of alternatives, as
    we look at the new potential armed aerial scout helicopter.
    That decision will be made later this year. And then based on
    that, we'll decide whether we go with the armed aerial scout,
    or do we continue to invest in improvements in the Kiowa
    Warrior. That will be determined sometime later. But we have
    funded the improvement program in this POM for the Kiowa
    Warrior at the tune of about $740 million. And we will continue
    to use Kiowas at least through fiscal year 2025.
        Senator Shelby. Quickly, the advanced hypersonic weapon,
    which we had a very successful test last year, this capacity,
    as I understand it, for a conventional prompt global strike has
    been sought for years by the military. Can you talk a little
    about that, and where we are in there? What will it mean for
    our combat commanders?

                           ADVANCED HYPERSONIC WEAPON

        General Odierno. Well, I don't think that's our program,
    but I would tell you that on the ground, the ability for us,
    it's about precision. And whenever we can increase our ability
    to provide precision munitions and capabilities, that makes a
    significant difference on the ground for us. And I think that's
    what we gain by this capability.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary McHugh, as you and I have discussed, Joint Base
    Lewis-McChord (JBLM), in my home State of Washington, is facing
    some very real questions on the way they have diagnosed post-
    traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the invisible wounds of
    war. Today, unfortunately, we are seeing more information on
    the extent of those problems. This is actually a copy of
    today's ``Seattle Times'' and in it is an article that is based
    on the most recent review of the forensic psychiatry department
    at JBLM, which, as you know, is under investigation for taking
    the cost of mental healthcare into account in their decisions.
    And what this article shows is that since that unit was stood
    up in 2007, more than 40 percent of those servicemembers who
    walked in the door with the PTSD diagnosis had their diagnosis
    changed to something else, or overturned altogether.
        What it says is that more than 4 in 10 of our
    servicemembers, many who are already being treated for PTSD,
    and were due the benefits and care that came with that
    diagnosis, had it taken away by that unit, and then they were
    sent back into the force or into their community.
        Now, in light of all the tragedies that we have seen stem
    from the untreated invisible wounds of war today, I'm sure that
    you would agree that this is very concerning. And not only is
    it damaging for our soldiers, but it also really furthers the
    stigma for others, whether they're deciding to seek help or not
    today.
        So, in light of all the issues, you and I have had a chance
    to talk to this generally, but I wanted to ask you specifically
    today why was this highly controversial unit set up originally
    at JBLM, and who's decision was it to do that?
        Mr. McHugh. Do you mean the forensic department?
        Senator Murray. Correct.

                        BEHAVIORAL HEALTH RE-EVALUATION

        Mr. McHugh. Well, for every base where you demobilize
    soldiers, it is practice to have that capacity. The concern, as
    you noted, Senator, is that, at least statistically, and the
    numbers are changing every moment, they've changed since that
    newspaper went to print.
        Senator Murray. Do you have the most recent numbers?
        Mr. McHugh. I don't have them exactly.
        Senator Murray. But it is more than 40 percent?
        Mr. McHugh. The number of cases for re-evaluation is
    somewhat more than 300 now.
        Senator Murray. But it is more than 40 percent?
        Mr. McHugh. I haven't done the exact math, but I think
    that's a pretty accurate figure. So, the question for us is,
    why in this one unit were those kinds of re-evaluations and
    change in diagnosis achieved? It's not totally unheard of that
    a psychiatric or a mental health condition will change. So, I
    don't want to say all of those diagnoses and changes were
    inappropriate, but clearly, when you have those kinds of data,
    we want to make sure that everything is appropriate. And as you
    and I have discussed, to the Army Surgeon General's credit,
    General Patty Horoho, she has immediately stepped forward, has
    asked, and has had that particular unit step down, and has
    conducted a wholesale re-examination that has begun with 14
    soldiers, and will methodically go through all of them to make
    sure that the changes were not, in fact, inappropriate.
        Senator Murray. Do you know who made the original decision
    to step up that unit?
        Mr. McHugh. To actually form it?
        Senator Murray. Yes.
        Mr. McHugh. I couldn't tell you the officer's name.
        Senator Murray. And can you tell me, is this an isolated
    incident, or are there other Army medical centers that are
    changing the PTSD diagnosis at this rate?
        Mr. McHugh. That's what we have to be sure of. The Surgeon
    General has asked the Inspector General of the Army to go and
    examine all of similar facilities and locations. To this point,
    we don't see any evidence of this being systemic, but as,
    again, you and I have discussed, we want to make sure that
    where this was inappropriate, it was an isolated case, and if
    it were not, to make sure we address it as holistically as
    we're trying to address it at that.
        Senator Murray. Have you examined similar statistics for
    all the other installations?
        Mr. McHugh. All re-evaluations are being looked at and
    evaluated.
        Senator Murray. Okay. So that is being done. Can you
    provide us with that information?
        Mr. McHugh. We'll certainly keep you up-to-date on that.
    Yes.
        Senator Murray. All right. Well, as you know, the review by
    that forensic psychiatry at Madigan was a change from the
    standard disability evaluation process used across the
    military. The integrity of the disability evaluation system
    depends on each and every servicemember being subject to the
    same process. Across the Army, what will be done to improve the
    oversight of the disability evaluation system to make sure that
    the same process is being applied system-wide?
        Mr. McHugh. Well, as I said, the Inspector General, along
    with the Surgeon General, are re-examining the application of
    all diagnostic procedures. You noted correctly, we have a very
    standardized system. It's a system that is utilized similarly
    in the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) evaluations,
    similarly in civilian evaluations, and we are restating to all
    of our providers that that is a diagnostic protocol that they
    will follow, and equally important, that fiscal considerations
    are not in any way a part of the evaluation. It's simply
    unacceptable.
        Senator Murray. And you're making that clear system-wide?
        Mr. McHugh. We're doing everything we can to make that
    clear system-wide. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Murray. Okay.
        General Odierno. Senator, if I could just add to that one
    point. For us it's about, we should be patient advocates. And
    that's the mindset we're going to work on changing, to make
    sure everybody understands that. We are patient advocates. We
    are trying to get the best for what is right for our soldiers.
        Senator Murray. General, I really appreciate that. And I
    have to say, I've been here for 10 years, since the beginning
    of this war, at many, many hearings, hearing that from the top,
    and I agree that that is what everyone is saying, but it's
    really disconcerting, after 10 years, to find now that that has
    not been the case. So, that's, you know, why I think it's
    really important that we really focus on this, not just at
    Madigan, and what happened there, but system-wide, to make
    clear that this is, you know, it isn't the cost of PTSD, or any
    mental health evaluation that is of concern to the Army or to
    the military at all, it is making sure that those men and women
    get the care that they receive. So, you know, it is very
    troubling to be here 10 years, after many, many hearings, and
    many, many questions, to find out this has been occurring.
        And really, one of the most troubling aspects of these
    recent events at Madigan is that servicemembers were diagnosed
    with PTSD and other mental health disorders during their
    military service. They received treatment for those conditions,
    but then when they entered the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)
    process, they had that diagnosis changed. So, that is very
    troubling to every one of us that has been watching this for a
    very long time.
        And I did want to ask you what changes you are seeking,
    Army-wide, to make sure that behavioral healthcare diagnosis
    are more consistent between those who are providing care and
    those conducting the disability evaluations.
        Mr. McHugh. Well, as I said, Senator, the basic answer to
    that is the processes and the protocols of diagnosis are the
    same. You're always going to have individual practitioners who
    take a somewhat different view as to what they're observing in
    a particular patient, but that is what training is about,
    trying to eliminate to the greatest extent possible, those
    vagaries, but in terms of the standards of evaluation, whether
    it's an MEB or whether it is a postdeployment mental health
    evaluation, those diagnostic touch points are all the same and
    standardized. The Surgeon General and certainly the Inspector
    General, as he does his analysis across this system, are making
    that very, very clear, and we'll continue to press that as
    well.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Well, as I said, this is an extremely
    disconcerting situation. I want to know if it's system-wide,
    because these men and women, the stigma of mental healthcare is
    something that's very real. The challenges of PTSD and mental
    healthcare are real. And no one, no one should be denying any
    servicemember care purely because of a question of cost. That
    is something that the taxpayers of this country bear the burden
    of providing. We will provide it. But we want to make sure that
    the Army is not dismissing this in any way, shape, or form.
        So, we will continue to follow this and continue to stay in
    touch with you, as these different questions are answered, but
    I want to make sure that we are really looking not just at
    Madigan, obviously, that's clearly where the focus is right
    now, but system-wide, to make sure that we are evaluating all
    of these on the same system, and that there is no discretionary
    concern about cost or anything else, that we get these men and
    women the care that they have earned and they deserve, and this
    country expects them to have.
        Mr. McHugh. As I've said, Senator, we appreciate truly your
    leadership on that, and we are in full agreement of your
    perspective. Fiscal considerations should be nonexistent, and
    we're going to do everything we can to make sure they are.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Coats.
        Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if this
    question has already been asked. I'm Ranking Member on another
    appropriations subcommittee this morning, and so I had to
    divide my time here. But this is a question I asked the Air
    Force when they were here, and the Navy and Marines, when they
    were here. And that is the nearly half of $1 trillion reduction
    in spending on national security assets that you are working
    through now, which results in a considerable drawdown of Army
    personnel, and perhaps, procurement and other central areas, is
    tough enough, but the prospect of an additional nearly $1
    trillion under the Budget Control Act sequester, which has not
    yet been addressed for any kind of change, I just want, for a
    record, to get your assessment of what the impact of that would
    be.
        And I go back a little ways. I remember shortly after
    Desert Storm I, being with then Defense Secretary Cheney,
    saying, you know, if you go back through history, at the end of
    a major deployment or conflict, we've always drawn down too
    far, and going back up always puts us in a very difficult
    situation. And I couldn't help but write down the quote that
    General John F. Amos, Marine Corps Commandant, said. He said,
    ``History has shown that it's impossible to predict where,
    when, and how our military forces will need to be called
    upon.''
        And so, I'd just like, for the record, to get your take on
    this particular budget-driven drawdown. And we all want
    efficiencies and effectiveness in saving funds, given our debt
    situation but also the potential impact of this sequester, if
    it's not adjusted.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Senator. If I could, I'll start, and
    then turn it over to the Chief.
        With respect to this budget, these were tough decisions and
    tough numbers to make. We had to, I think, come down in a place
    that puts us on the edge, but, nevertheless, on balance, I
    think all of us feel, across both the combatant commands, as
    well as the Service Chiefs and Service Secretaries, that this
    is a reasonable fiscal plan, and most importantly, it does
    reflect the requirements under the new national military
    strategy.
        We're very concerned about any changes to that, because it
    is a delicate balance that the chair and I had a brief
    discussion about how our end-strength numbers are very finely
    tuned against our other budget lines, to make sure that we have
    the readiness and modernization, training, family programs that
    are necessary not to keep us on the path to going hollow, as
    you mentioned, that happened in other postconflict periods.
        As to sequestration, I think the Chief and I both agree it
    would be devastating. For the Army, I'll let the Chief talk
    about the actual numbers to our current end-strengths, but it
    will cost us another $134 billion, roughly. I can't count for
    you the number of acquisition programs that would be placed in
    a Nunn-McCurdy breach, simply because while the fiscal impact
    is hard enough, we have no opportunity under the budget law to
    manage it. It is simply an across-the-board cut against all
    appropriation lines, requiring us to buy one-half of a mine-
    resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle, if you will, or
    requiring us to ban all kinds of acquisition programs that I
    think would be chaotic, not just for the military but would be
    chaotic for our industrial partners, who obviously have
    stockholders and have employees, and would have to lay off, I
    don't venture an exact figure, but I suspect thousands, if not
    tens of thousands of employees. So, unlimited negative impact,
    should that happen.
        Senator Coats. Chief, do you want to add to that?
        General Odierno. Senator, if I could, I'll just say I want
    to make sure that people understand that this first $487
    billion cut is not an easy cut. And, in fact, I talk about the
    razor's edge, and the razor's edge is the fact that we have to
    balance end-strength with our modernization program and our
    readiness. It's a very, very careful balance. And my guess is
    we'll have to continue to refine and adjust this as we move
    forward.
        If we get another additional $500 billion cut, as the
    Secretary said, it, frankly, will change how the joint force
    looks. And so we're going to have to re-evaluate and take a
    look at what do we want our joint force to do. How do we want
    to accomplish our national security objectives?
        Specifically to the Army, it translates into approximately
    100,000 additional end-strength cut, a combination of Active,
    National Guard, and Reserves, but more importantly is it would
    require us to cut more steeply in 2013 and 2014, which in my
    mind puts at risk the force responding in Afghanistan, and to
    the current commitments we have, and puts at risk how many of
    our leaders that we would have to lose that have the experience
    and capabilities that we will need in the future.
        So, it's not only the size of the cut, it's the fact that
    they would require it to happen more quickly. They would
    require it to happen without any thought. It's an even cut
    across all management decision packages (MDEPs) within our
    budget. So, the risk is extremely high, in my estimation,
    extremely high. It would be devastating to us.
        Senator Coats. Thank you. Second question I have,
    assuming--do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?
        Just help me get a little bit of understanding on where
    we're going with the vehicle fleet in the future. I know that
    the decision has been made to recapitalize high-mobility
    multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) to a significant extent,
    and I think there's money in the budget for that, but the
    decision between the modernized expanded capacity vehicle
    (MECV) and the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), can you
    just give me your thinking behind where you are now, and some
    of the thinking behind that. And I raise that partly because,
    and correct me if I'm wrong, the JLTV is a much lighter, more
    mobile vehicle than the MECV. Am I correct in that?

                            LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLES

        General Odierno. The JLTV is really there to replace the
    HMMWV.
        Senator Coats. Yes.
        General Odierno. It's a HMMWV replacement.
        Senator Coats. But the MECV is being terminated, or at
    least in the budget, terminated.
        General Odierno. Right. Right.
        Senator Coats. Now, get to the rationale behind that.
        General Odierno. Well, I would say that we're looking at a
    combination of our whole wheel fleet, as you just kind of
    brought up. And what we've got, the JLTV, we will purchase
    about one-third of the amount of HMMWVs we have now. We're
    still going to depend a little bit on HMMWVs. Through our recap
    and reset program, we will continue to do that.
        We had to look at what we thought we needed across the
    force, as we move forward. You know, we've purchased a
    significant amount of MRAPs. We're trying to integrate what's
    the number of MRAPs we want to keep in the force, how many new
    JLTVs we need. And the reason the JLTVs is so important for us,
    it gives better protection than the HMMWVs, it's lighter, and
    it's network integrated. So in my mind, it's a significant
    upgrade to the HMMWV.
        So, I think it's a combination of all those things, a
    mixture of, you know, the MECV, the MRAPs, the HMMWVs, the
    JLTV, and we're trying to get the right mix. And with the
    budget constraints that we have, we believe the right mix was a
    combination of JLTV, HMMWVs and then using some of our MRAP
    capability to feel the need in that category of our truck
    fleet.
        We're also doing an analysis of our truck fleet, and we're
    probably going to reduce the number of trucks we have in the
    total fleet, as we reduce the force structure, and as we relook
    how we developed our requirements for the truck fleet. And
    we're taking a look at that as well, as we move forward. And
    we'll continue to refine and assess this, and provide you
    updates as we move forward with this during the next couple
    years.
        Senator Coats. My concern dates back to, again, early in
    the 1990s, when we thought the light tactical vehicle was the
    cat's meow, I mean, to get around in urban situations and so
    forth. This is before improvised explosive devices (IEDs) came,
    such a challenge for us, and so then there was a lot of
    clamoring that went on, and so forth. And you know all the
    history of that, and so forth. So, I guess my concern is, is
    that we end up back in a situation where we're under armored.
        General Odierno. Sure.
        Senator Coats. And our troops are more vulnerable. And
    that's really the heart of my question.
        General Odierno. Senator, it's a great question. And the
    challenge that we have, whether it be in our light vehicles, or
    even in our infantry fighting, any vehicles we develop now,
    it's this dynamic of mobility versus survivability. And what
    we're trying to do is, what I'd like to have is a system that
    enables us to adjust survivability, based on the environment,
    so we have a choice on how mobile we can be and how survival we
    can be.
        An example I always use is the Stryker vehicle. Our Stryker
    vehicle was built to provide us more mobility. What's happened
    is we've had to put so much weight back on the Stryker we've
    lost the mobility that we first wanted on the Stryker. And so,
    it's okay in an operation like Afghanistan or Iraq, because of
    the counter-insurgence, you know, we use it, but in other
    environments, we're going to have problems with it now, because
    it's so heavy, and its ability to get off-road is a problem.
        So, what we're looking for is the right balance, and that's
    what we're trying to get with the JLTV, that's what we're
    trying to get with the ground combat vehicle (GCV), is that
    right balance of mobility and survivability. And we're working
    very closely with all of our partners to try to achieve this.
        Senator Coats. And then just one last question. Do we have
    any problems with the industrial base, in terms of all this
    remixing of priorities?
        General Odierno. We watch it very carefully, and we have to
    make sure that we're able to sustain the industrial base, as we
    move forward. Certainly, we're very cognizant of that as we
    move forward.
        Senator Coats. That's a component of the decision in
    process.
        General Odierno. It is. It is.
        Mr. McHugh. As we discussed earlier, it's a big concern
    across all of our industrial base, both organic, but as well as
    our private industry partners. And we're working with the
    Department of Defense to try to ensure that we can do
    everything we can, whether it's for military sales, public-
    private partnerships, in assessing and locating our personal
    buys, our individual service buys in a way that sustains that
    minimum rate to the greatest extent possible.
        Senator Coats. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen,
    thank you for your testimony, for your leadership. I listened
    with great interest to the exchange that you had with Senator
    Murray. As important as it is, when we talk about our military
    equipment and the infrastructure needs, I think we recognize
    that it always come back to the individual, to the human being,
    and we need to make sure that we are focusing equal attention
    on the need to reset that individual, reset the mind, the body,
    and ensure that there is no cost that is spared in doing so.
    So, I appreciate a great deal the attention that is being
    focused, not only, again, on the situation that Senator Murray
    has indicated at Madigan there, in Washington but, really,
    system-wide in better understanding that.
        General, I missed your visit when you came to Alaska in
    January. We appreciate that we don't get a lot of visitors
    coming to Alaska in January, and that was noted and greatly
    appreciated, particularly since you were coming from Hawaii.
    So, you got to really experience the contrast there. But I
    think it was important.
        We recognize that we're at some pretty historic levels, in
    terms of the U.S. Army Alaska forces, and the contribution that
    they are currently making in Afghanistan now. Well over 10
    percent of the Army forces deployed in Afghanistan are coming
    from U.S. Army Alaska, and I think that that is significant.
    So, I appreciate that you have gone there yourself, and would
    be curious in your impression, in terms of the quality of what
    we're doing in Alaska, in terms of the training.
        My more specific question, though, and what I would like
    you to address is, on that trip, you mentioned, in Hawaii, that
    the number of soldiers that are assigned to the Pacific would
    generally be about the same as it is today. Can you comment on
    the role of U.S. forces that are based in Alaska to achieve
    these military objectives in the Pacific? Is it fair to
    conclude that the number of soldiers that are assigned to U.S.
    Army Alaska will generally be the same as it is today?

                              U.S. ARMY IN ALASKA

        General Odierno. I think as we look at the plans, I think,
    as you know, U.S. Army Alaska is, in fact, part of the Pacific
    Command.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        General Odierno. And we're looking at, for the most part,
    it will be very close to what it is today. Now, we'll continue
    to look at that, but our plan is not to do much changes to the
    forces that are in the Pacific. So, I would say, in general
    terms, it will be pretty close to what it is today.
        Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that. I know that the folks
    in Alaska recognize, again, not only the strategic advantage
    that is gained there, but some of the training opportunities
    that we have. I'm assuming that your impression was favorable
    of what we are providing, in terms of the quality of troops
    we're seeing coming out of the North.
        General Odierno. Yes. First, the training facilities are
    incredible. What they're able to do and how they're able to
    prepare, no matter what mission they go on, it gives them a
    great advantage. And I would just also point out is that the
    families are taken care of very well up in Alaska. They love
    living there. It's a great base for us, because of its location
    and its ability to respond to the Pacific and other areas as
    well, if needed. So, it's a key component of our Army of the
    future.
        Mr. McHugh. May I just----
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. It's okay.
        Mr. McHugh. Somewhat of a prejudiced view on my part, I
    guess, but my 17 years in the House, I represented the Fort
    Drum region, which is close to the Canadian border, and I was
    very fond of saying, and it applies to Alaska as well, not
    everywhere we fight has palm trees. I mean it's nice to be able
    to train to sometimes less conducive climates than other places
    might provide. And that's important to weather acclimate our
    soldiers.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. I recall flying over parts of
    Afghanistan and looking down at this very remote area, very
    mountainous, very tough country, and thinking, ``It looks just
    like home.'' So, it is a great place to train.
        I wanted to ask, also, a couple questions about the
    retirement of the C-23s, the Sherpas, here. Last fall, the
    subcommittee was briefed on the plan to divest the C-23s by
    fiscal year 2015. And in the briefing materials, it indicated
    that there would be a possibility that the Army would
    reconsider that divestment decision, if the Air Force makes the
    determination to retire the C-27.
        Well, now that the Air Force has proposed that retirement,
    I am hopeful and would certainly encourage the Army to revisit
    its decision to retire the C-23. Can you tell me whether or not
    the Army does intend to relook at that?

                               INTRA-THEATER LIFT

        General Odierno. I would just say we have not made any
    permanent decision. However, I would say we have some issues
    because the C-23, as you're aware, is an old aircraft.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        General Odierno. It's very expensive to sustain. It doesn't
    really quite meet the requirements that we have. I said
    earlier, we've identified a requirement that we need intra-
    theater with, which is kind of the role the C-23 plays. And
    that requirement has not changed.
        Now, as we began to develop the C-27, the program was
    turned over to the Air Force. The Air Force has told us that
    they can provide C-130s to accomplish that mission. So, we are
    in agreement. We are working with them now to use the C-130,
    which would be direct support to Army units that would allow us
    to do that intra-theater lift. So, that's the solution we're
    headed--that's the road we're headed down right now, as that
    will be our solution.
        We'll continue to assess the C-23 program, as we move
    forward. But, frankly, especially with the current budget
    constraints, it's going to be very difficult for us, in my
    opinion, to sustain the C-23 program. But I'll turn it over to
    the Secretary.
        Mr. McHugh. Just the budgetary fiscal realities are simply
    to modernize these aircraft, which we would have to do, given
    their age. But modernization and longer-term sustain, that is
    between $800,000 and $1 million per aircraft. So, it really is
    a tough budgetary decision that we're going to make, what we'll
    have to make. But, as the Chief said, particularly as our
    intra-theater lift situation has evolved with the Air Force,
    you know, we're always willing to re-evaluate and change a
    decision where necessary. But that program has some real
    dollars attached to it.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, let me ask a follow-on. This is
    coming from a number of the Adjutant Generals, who think that
    extending the life of the C-23s is a bargain, at about $90
    million. They've asked me to inquire whether or not the
    National Guard's cargo lift needs can be filled at a lower-
    price point, given that the C-27s will not be available to the
    Guard.
        General Odierno. Well, I think this is something that has
    to be decided at the Department of Defense level, as we look at
    this, and whether we believe the C-130s can fill that Guard
    need as well.
        Senator Murkowski. But that is being factored in.
        General Odierno. It needs to be. It absolutely has to be
    factored into this, as we look at this, because if we divest of
    the C-235, there is need in the Guard.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        General Odierno. There's no doubt about it. We recognize
    that, and I think that as we divest the C-23, that has to be
    picked up, and I think part of our discussion is that the C-
    130s will have to help us do that, as a lift capability that
    would be needed for us to support National Guard missions,
    simply for the Adjustment Generals.
        Mr. McHugh. And I believe, according to the 2012 National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that should we divest the
    23s, we have to at least offer to the States' executives the
    opportunity to take those aircraft. So, that's part of the
    consideration as well.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Gentlemen, thank you. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. I had a few questions
    that I wanted to ask before I left. Every member of this
    subcommittee has been concerned about the increase in suicide
    rates, in alcohol abuse rates, and divorce rates. In fact, the
    civilian suicide rate, if I recall, is 18 per 100,000. The Army
    is 24 per 100,000. I note that you have instituted an education
    program for suicide prevention. I know that it's too early to
    tell, but what do you think will be the future now?

                                    SUICIDE

        Mr. McHugh. Of the many things that trouble us all, Mr.
    Chairman, the areas you just spoke about, and particularly
    suicide, are amongst the most troubling. I sign a letter of
    condolence to every survivor, and I usually do that on the
    weekends, and I'm just struck by how many letters are
    associated with a soldier taking his or her life. It's
    breathtakingly sad.
        And as you noted as well, we tried to take a multilevel
    approach. Our capstone program is the ask, care, and assist
    program, the Ask, Care, Escort (ACE) program, to try to bring
    suicide awareness to virtually every member of the United
    States Army, to tell them what they should be looking for in a
    troubled buddy, but also that it's their military
    responsibility to care about that, and to act and intervene,
    and assist that person to go get the help that's necessary.
        We have funded this to what we believe is the necessary
    requirement, but that's not enough. We're trading what we call
    gatekeepers in the Applied Science Intervention Skills Training
    (ASIST) program, the suicide ASIST program, so that they can
    have a higher level of expertise, people like chaplains, and
    others in positions of responsibility, where they come in
    contact with a lot of soldiers who are specially trained to
    recognize when a soldier is having challenges, and there,
    again, to provide them a path by which they can get some help.
        None of that will work, and it really goes back to Senator
    Murray's, I think, very appropriate comments about if a soldier
    is afraid to reach out, if they feel that their professional
    military career will be hurt, we're trying to do everything we
    can to destigmatize that, to ensure that a soldier in need will
    not feel inhibited in reaching out for behavioral healthcare.
        We've made some progress over the last 5 years, I believe,
    the data point is. We've had 100,000 more soldiers self-refer
    for behavioral health problems. But that's simply enough.
        Last, we, in the Army, have engaged with the National
    Institute of Mental Health in a 5-year longitudinal study that
    has made virtually every member of the United States Army part
    of a causal look at suicide, to try to understand where there
    may exist signs and commonalities, whether it's deployment,
    whether it's young soldiers, whatever it may be, so that we can
    be proactive, get out in front of it, not just writing letters
    of condolences but to recognize when a soldier is likely to
    have problems, and to step in. But, as the statistics show, I
    believe it was 134 suicides last year, the numbers continue to
    frustrate us.
        Chairman Inouye. General, do you have anything to add?
        General Odierno. Senator, if I could, I would just say, you
    know, I get notified of whenever a suicide happens, and
    unfortunately, it's alarming how many times I'm notified about
    a suicide. That's been one of the things that's been eye
    opening for me as I have become the Chief of Staff of the Army
    during the last 6 months.
        Suicides have leveled off, but that's not success, because
    it's still, as you mentioned, at the highest levels we've had
    in a very long time. So, what we're doing, it's a combination
    program, as you know, and I think we've talked about it before,
    you know, where it's health promotion. It's about trying to
    decrease risky behavior. And it's also about improving suicide
    prevention capability. So, it's a combination of all three of
    those, as we work through this program.
        It's about resiliency. It's about trying to understand
    resiliency. It's about having programs not only for our
    soldiers, but our family members as well, as they face some of
    these challenges. We are trying address this bigger than
    suicides.
        I don't like to use ``we were so busy'' as an excuse, and I
    will never use that as an excuse. We have to get our leaders
    back involved with more individual soldier activities, and
    counseling, and understanding what they're doing. We have to
    decrease the movement of our soldiers between commands. We have
    to reduce the amount of changes they have in their leadership
    within their units, because I think this all causes them not to
    sometimes report when they're having problems.
        When they've built a long-term relationship with a
    noncommissioned officer and he leaves, and/or commander, and so
    we're looking at all of those areas, as we can fix that, to
    provide more stability and predictability that I think will add
    to us helping to identify and solve some of these issues that
    we continue to have. It's going to be something that's going to
    continue to take time.
        I absolutely believe that our leaders are dedicated to
    doing this. We are dedicated to providing them the tools. The
    funding for this program is funded at the requested level. We
    have not taken any reduction in the funding of any of our
    programs that has to do with behavioral health, that has to do
    with suicide prevention, because it's an important program to
    us. And we will continue to emphasize this, and we will
    continue to work with outside agencies who can help us to
    identify the risky behaviors, and the indicators that we see of
    potential individuals who are risky to suicidal ideation or,
    you know, the commitment of suicide, and we'll continue to work
    that very hard, Senator.
        Chairman Inouye. I have one final question, and I'd like to
    submit the rest.
        This past January, the Secretary of Defense unveiled the
    new national security strategy for the Asia-Pacific area, and
    it was rather obvious that the Navy and Air Force did well.
    Forces were increased as well as equipment and resources. But,
    in the case of the Army, with the exception of Korea, it seemed
    to have come down. I find this rather strange. Do you have any
    thoughts on this?

                         ARMY ROLE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

        General Odierno. I would say, Senator, as we went through
    this process, first, we were involved in the process. I was
    involved in the process from the beginning. I was able to
    express my opinions. I was able to talk about the risk to the
    Army, and what we thought we needed for the Army of the future.
        But it came down to really one issue, and that is, do we
    believe we need the size of the Army that will cause us to
    continue to rotate large amount of forces for long periods of
    time to support long-term operations, whether it be a
    counterinsurgency operation, whether it be a stability
    operation. And the determination was that we can take some risk
    in the fact that we will not have to conduct long-term
    stability operations, and that we can mitigate that risk
    through reversibility and the use of our Reserve component, if
    it does occur, which would buy us time to rebuild the army.
        And I think as we were faced with the budget reductions, I
    think we agreed that a 490,000-man Active component Army that
    is equipped properly, that has the money to sustain its
    readiness, although has risk to it, will enable us to
    accomplish the missions of the new strategy, and that we will
    be able to support the strategy in the Asia-Pacific but also to
    continue to provide support in the Middle East as well.
        So, although there's some risk, as we've talked about
    already, we believe that this is not a competition between the
    Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, it's about having the right
    joint force to accomplish the mission. And I believe that we
    now have the right joint force to move forward.
        My concerns are that in the future, if we continue to look
    at reducing the Army more, then we have some real issues, and
    that's when my concern will grow significantly, Senator.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Chairman Inouye. My one concern is the question marks. We
    are reducing our forces, but yet there's a big question mark
    over Iran and a big question mark over Syria. There's also a
    question mark over Egypt. Are the risks too great? I don't
    know.
        I'd like to thank you, Mr. Secretary and General, for your
    service to our Nation. And this subcommittee looks forward to
    working with you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted to Secretary John M. McHugh
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                  movement tracking system/blue force tracking
        Question. The Army has two mobile tracking systems: Movement
    Tracking System (MTS) and Blue Force Tracking (BFT-1) which utilizes
    satellite communications to track transportation and armored vehicles.
    More than 120,000 BFT and MTS systems have been fielded to date, of
    which approximately 11,000 unique users are active in Afghanistan over
    any given month. These systems generate nearly the entire common
    operating picture of mobile ground force situational awareness in
    Afghanistan and are often the only means of communication for soldiers
    whose missions take them out of range of terrestrial means of
    communication. What is the status of developing the follow on BFT-2 and
    BFT-3 X band?
        Answer. The development of the BFT-2 satellite transceiver is
    complete. The final production acceptance testing for ground systems
    has been completed and the Army is currently receiving deliveries.
    Aviation testing is approximately 75 percent complete. The Army is
    fielding the BFT-2 network to units in Korea and will begin fielding to
    the United States Army Forces Command units in May. The United States
    Government owns and operates the network equipment, and the software is
    in place to support required test events and fielding operations. There
    are currently no development efforts funded for a BFT-3 capability.
        Question. Is the BFT-2 development over budget and behind schedule?
    What are the projected costs associated with continuing to develop BFT-
    2?
        Answer. The BFT-2 development was completed in 2010. The current
    BFT-2 production contract is a Firm Fixed Price contract and production
    remains within the planned budget. There are no additional costs
    associated with the development of the BFT-2 capability.
        Question. What are the potential cost savings if the Army bypassed
    BFT-2 development and focused on BFT-3 X band?
        Answer. The BFT-2 development is complete; therefore, there would
    be no cost savings associated with bypassing the BFT-2 development.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
                  high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles
        Question. Documentation for a May 2011 reprogramming action states
    that ``the Army has procured sufficient High-Mobility Multipurpose
    Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) to meet the Army's Acquisition Objective
    (AAO).'' While this reprogramming rescinded $182,000,000 from this
    account, according to the document there is still a balance of
    $422,356,000. How much of the funding in the Army HMMWV procurement
    account is currently unobligated?
        Answer. The amount of unobligated funds in HMMWV fiscal year 2010
    new production procurement account is $19.548 million. These funds have
    been committed and will be obligated by June 2012.
        Question. Funding has been appropriated in prior years for both
    survivability and mobility enhancements for the existing HMMWV fleet
    and for the Army's HMMWV Competitive Recapitalization Program. What are
    the current unobligated balances in these two accounts?
        Answer. The Fiscal Year 2012 Project/PE was authorized $70 million.
    The Army has not obligated any of these funds due to an uncertain
    future for the modernized expanded capacity vehicle (MECV) effort.
    Decisions by Army leadership within the last month have determined that
    $20 million will be used for the survivability improvements as
    requested and appropriated. We will then be asking that the Congress
    allow us to use the remainder for automotive improvements to our
    existing fleet and higher-priority requirements. This funding is
    projected to be obligated in 4th quarter 2012 and 1st quarter 2013.
        Question. The President's budget for fiscal year 2013 recommends
    terminating the Army's HMMWV Competitive Recapitalization Program. How
    does the Army propose to spend the unobligated balance in this account?
        Answer. The Army will no longer pursue the HMMWV Competitive
    Recapitalization Program (also known as the MECV). The Army is
    currently looking at the options available for the execution of the
    funds.
                       tactical wheeled vehicle strategy
        Question. The Army 2010 Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy outlines
    a plan to ``replace all M939-series trucks with FMTV FoVs no later than
    FY22.'' The strategy states that, ``Divesting these vehicles will
    ensure dramatically lower sustainment costs for the Army as many are
    well past their EUL.''
        Will the cuts in family of medium tactical vehicle (FMTV)
    purchasing in fiscal year 2013 and proposed termination of FMTV
    procurement after fiscal year 2014 delay the divestiture of the M939-
    series trucks?
        Answer. The Army is currently reviewing all of its fleet
    requirements. In the aggregate, the Army's current plans for FMTV
    procurements through fiscal year 2014 and fleet reductions should
    divest the M939-series by fiscal year 2016, with the possible exception
    of some specialty variants, provided there are no additional cuts in
    funding.
        Question. Compared to the original plan outlined in the Army 2010
    Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy, how much higher will the Army's
    maintenance costs be over the 10-year budget window due to increased
    use of the M939-series trucks?
        Answer. The Army does not anticipate an increase in use of the
    M900-series vehicles over the 10-year budget window and, as a result,
    these vehicles will not incur higher maintenance costs. The Army is
    currently revising its medium tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition
    objective and expects to meet the reduced acquisition objective at the
    end of the current family of medium tactical vehicles production
    contract in fiscal year 2014. This will enable the Army to divest the
    remaining M900-series medium tactical vehicles without an increase in
    their use.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                           electronic medical records
        Question. I want to thank you yesterday for sitting down and
    discussing the issues of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)/Department
    of Defense (DOD) collaboration.
        As you said one of the major issues is the inability for the two
    agencies to share electronic medical records.
        To this end, you said you were going to start a pilot that may get
    off the ground in 3 years to try and make progress.
        Mr. Secretary, the Congress has been pushing you to move forward
    for years on this effort, we passed legislation that you voted for as a
    House member many years ago, and yet after 10 years of war you are
    still talking about a pilot program and an inability to get this effort
    off the ground.
        What can you tell this subcommittee, and millions of soldiers who
    need this effort taken seriously, and me about how you will make shared
    medical records a reality so we are not sitting here 3 years from now
    and hear from you about some pilot program you are intending to create
    in the future?
        Answer. Since 2006, DOD/VA shares data through the Bidirectional
    Health Information Exchange through which DOD and VA clinicians access
    each other's health data via a secure real-time interface. The
    Bidirectional Health Information Exchange shares data between DOD/VA
    only, whereas another initiative, the Virtual Lifetime Electronic
    Record (VLER) shares information with private partners through the
    Nationwide Health Information Exchange. The VLER is currently a pilot
    program with DOD participating at four sites including, San Diego,
    California; Tidewater areas of Virginia; Spokane, Washington; and Puget
    Sound, Washington. Through the VLER, providers have the ability to
    query the Nationwide Health Information Exchange to view information
    other healthcare organizations made available on their patient. A
    decision regarding the deployability of the VLER across the enterprise
    should be made in the summer of 2012.
        The Interagency Program Office (IPO) has been re-chartered as the
    single point of accountability for the integrated Electronic Health
    Record (iEHR). All three services are involved at various levels of the
    governance process to ensure the project stays on schedule and within
    budget. The IPO reports to the Health Executive Council with
    representation from Health Affairs and the VA. DOD and VA are committed
    to the iEHR effort. The iEHR will enable DOD and VA to align resources
    and investments with business needs and programs. The iEHR will
    leverage open source solution development to foster innovation and
    expedite delivery of a viable and effective solution.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
           post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury
        Question. Are there any further legislative steps that the Congress
    could take to improve the screening and delivery of care to military
    personnel with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic
    brain injury (TBI)?
        Answer. Continued congressional support of the Army's TBI and PTSD
    clinical and research efforts will ensure improved screening and
    delivery of care.
          replacement of ireland army community hospital at fort knox
        Question. In response to a question for the record, I submitted in
    2011, the Army stated that ``The Army intends to replace Ireland Army
    Community Hospital (IACH). The current Defense Health Program Future
    Year Defense Program includes a phased funded replacement project for
    IACH beginning in fiscal year 2013.'' However, the President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget did not include a funding request for the replacement
    of IACH at Fort Knox. When does the Army intend to build a replacement
    and when will the Army plan on requesting funding for the project?
        Answer. The Fort Knox Hospital Replacement Project is 35 percent
    designed. This project is being programmed in two phases: Phase 1
    Inpatient at a cost of $308.5 million and Phase 2 Outpatient at a cost
    of $257.5 million. The U.S. Army MEDCOM is reviewing the project
    documentation and updating the Healthcare Requirements Analysis in
    preparation for resubmission to the fiscal year 2014 budget estimate
    submission for phase 1. The Department of Defense position on the Fort
    Knox Hospital Replacement is to revalidate the project scope in light
    of ongoing military health systemwide inpatient analysis by Office of
    the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD (HA)). The
    Army Medical Department must scope this facility based on efficient and
    effective healthcare operations, but must also incorporate current and
    future installation and military treatment facilities missions.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson
              inactivation of the 172nd heavy brigade combat team
        Question. Secretary McHugh, while I am encouraged to see that the
    Army is eliminating two permanently based brigade combat teams from
    Germany, I do have a question as to the timing for this proposed move.
    As you are aware, the Army will inactivate the 170th Heavy Brigade
    Combat Team (BCT) in fiscal year 2013 but is waiting until fiscal year
    2014 to inactivate the 172nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team. Why is the Army
    waiting until fiscal year 2014 to cut the second brigade and how much
    will it cost the United States taxpayers to sustain this brigade in
    Germany an additional year?
        Answer. The 172nd Brigade deployed in support of Operation Enduring
    Freedom and was not available to inactivate in fiscal year 2013. When
    the unit returns from combat, it will conduct 6 months of soldier and
    family re-integration and begin incremental battalion level draw-downs
    and ultimately leave the force in early fiscal year 2014. Therefore,
    savings cannot be significantly accelerated and no additional resources
    can be saved.
              multiyear contract for the ch-47 chinook helicopter
        Question. Secretary McHugh, as part of this year's budget, you have
    submitted a request for approval to enter into a second multiyear
    contract for the CH-47 Chinook helicopter. This multiyear contract
    would last for 5 years and produce 155 aircraft, 12 of which would be
    for the Texas National Guard. You've already had experience with a 5-
    year multiyear contract for Chinooks; the first one expires this year.
    Given this experience, what have you seen as the biggest benefits for
    both the Army and the taxpayer that led you to request authority for a
    second multiyear contract?
        Answer. The biggest benefit to the taxpayer is the savings; $449
    million on the base contract for 181 CH-47F aircraft. The current
    Chinook multiyear contract is a firm fixed-price contract for fiscal
    year 2008-2012. The contract has executed on cost and delivered on
    schedule. In addition to the base contract savings, the program office
    procured 34 option aircraft for an additional $86 million in savings.
    The second requested multiyear contract is projected to yield 10-
    percent savings or $373 million.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                       medium expanded capability vehicle
        Question. Last year, this subcommittee added $20 million to fund
    the design competition for the medium expanded capability vehicle
    (MECV). The President's budget for this year, however, seeks to cancel
    this program, even though the air assault requirements for 5,700
    survivable trucks capable of being transported by a Chinook helicopter
    remain unchanged. I am uncomfortable with the decision to cancel the
    MECV design competition because it will increase the risk to our air
    assault soldiers. The tactical wheeled vehicle budget was reduced by 57
    percent compared to last year's budget request, and the decision to
    cancel the MECV appears to be the result of insufficient procurement
    funding in the near-term budget window to move forward with both the
    MECV and joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) programs. Was the decision
    to cancel the MECV program based solely on the fiscal constraints the
    Army faced?
        Answer. The decision not to begin the MECV was due to Defense-wide
    funding constraints; not just fiscal constraints faced by the Army. The
    Army and Marine Corps' made the decision to proceed with JLTV to fill
    the capability gaps for light tactical vehicles. MECV was deemed a
    lower-priority program.
        Question. The funding necessary to conduct the MECV design
    competition has already been authorized and appropriated for this
    purpose in last year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and
    Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. Proceeding with the
    MECV design competition would provide you with the necessary
    performance and life-cycle cost data to make an informed decision
    regarding the most survivable and cost-effective way to fulfill the
    capability gap to lift a survivable tactical wheeled vehicle for our
    air assault and airborne units at high, hot conditions. Does the air
    assault requirement for a survivable tactical wheeled vehicle that can
    be lifted by a CH-47 Chinook in high-altitude and/or high-temperature
    conditions still exist?
        Answer. Yes, the requirement for the air assault mission to lift a
    survivable light tactical vehicle with the CH-47 Chinook in high/hot
    conditions (4,000 feet/95 F) still exists. The original requirement
    was addressed in the high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
    Operational Requirements Document in September 2004.
                suicide--hiring of behavioral health specialists
        Question. Many of us on this panel have a great deal of respect for
    the former Vice Chief of Staff, General Pete Chiarelli, who authored
    the Army's Gold Book in response to concerns about suicides and the
    health of the force. Before he retired, he came over to the Hill to
    discuss the Army's efforts to reduce the incidence of suicide in the
    force and the ongoing efforts to treat the underlying problems that
    lead far too many of our Nations' best men and women to contemplate or
    perform suicide. General Chiarelli identified access to behavioral
    healthcare as one way to reduce the rate of suicide. There have been
    several efforts by the Congress to expand access to providers,
    including a provision in last year's NDAA to utilize telehealth
    initiatives, and I want to applaud the Army for submitting a
    legislative proposal this year to expand the number and types of
    providers that may conduct evaluations during preseparation screening.
    I fully intend on supporting this proposal, but the problem will not be
    solved by this measure alone.
        Secretary McHugh, are there any other requests you would make to
    allow for rapid hiring of additional behavioral health specialists,
    even if on a temporary basis, to address both the rate of suicides and
    alleviate pressure on your existing behavioral health force?
        Answer. The permanent extension of 10 U.S.C. 1599c, which provides
    for expedited hiring authority for certain healthcare professionals,
    including behavioral health specialists, would provide the long-term
    critical ability to hire behavior healthcare providers more rapidly.
                       medical and disability evaluations
        Question. During the past year the length of time that wounded
    warriors and recently discharged veterans have been waiting for
    disability evaluations has continued to suffer. For Active-Duty members
    the average evaluation completion time increased by 88 days from March
    2010 to January 2012. It takes more than a year right now.
        In addition, medical evaluation boards still take twice as long as
    the 35-day target. Several senior officers, including the former Vice
    Chief, have identified the Integrated Disability Evaluation System and
    the dual adjudication process as impediments to rapid evaluations and
    outcomes for our veterans.
        What administrative actions are being taken or what legislative
    proposals could be implemented to improve the time it takes to conduct
    the medical and disability evaluations for our wounded soldiers?
        Answer. The Army is aggressively working to improve performance of
    the Disability Evaluation System (DES). We are currently implementing a
    number of initiatives designed to improve the performance, including:
      --adding more than 1,100 in staffing;
      --publishing guidance to standardize the process across the Army;
      --improving our training; and
      --establishing procedures that will enhance the sharing of
            information with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
        The Army is looking at several different options to improve the
    DES--one of which would be a process in which DOD determines a disabled
    servicemember's fitness for duty, and if found unfit, provide a
    lifetime annuity based on the member's rank and years of service. VA
    would then establish compensation for service-connected injuries,
    disease, or wounds. We believe this type of system would achieve an
    average disability process outcome in less than 90 days:
      --improved readiness;
      --reduced complexity;
      --decreased impact on limited medical resources; and
      --be less adversarial.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
                        overseas contingency operations
        Question. Regarding the funding provided by this subcommittee for
    Overseas Contingency Operations, does the Army have the flexibility it
    needs to transfer funds between accounts to ensure funding is used
    wisely and does not expire?
        Answer. Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) overseas contingency
    operations (OCO) funding for operational requirements was previously
    distributed in subactivity group (SAG) 135. To comply with House Report
    112-331, the Conference Report that accompanied Public Law 112-74,
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, specifically pages 759-761, Army
    distributed OCO funding into SAGs previously used exclusively for base
    resources (114, 115, 116, 121, 122, and 131). Issuing OCO funding in
    base SAGs, some with reprogramming restrictions (for example, SAG 131),
    limits Army's execution in those SAGs to requirements consistent with
    the SAG description. To realign resources across SAGs to meet emerging
    requirements requires a reprogramming action. These reprogramming
    actions are time consuming and are sometimes limited to relatively low
    thresholds (for example no more than $15 million may be moved out of
    SAG 131 without congressional prior approval). Army executed resources
    responsibly and with greater flexibility when there were fewer OCO
    SAGs. The drawdown of deployed forces may also further complicate
    administering Army OCO accounts as evolving priorities and requirements
    may shift faster than fiscal rules accommodate.
        Question. Since its inception, has any funding provided for the
    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) expired?
        Answer. Yes, we have had ASFF funds expire. Since fiscal year 2005,
    we have had an obligation rate greater than 99.5 percent per year
    resulting in a cumulative total of $46 million unobligated over 6
    years, of $27.9 billion available.
        Question. What mechanisms does the Army utilize to ensure funding
    is not allowed to expire at the end of each fiscal year?
        Answer. The Army has several mechanisms in place to ensure funding
    is not allowed to expire each fiscal year. Senior leaders review Army
    obligations on a weekly basis. Our operations and maintenance
    appropriation spend plan is reviewed monthly to ensure we are in
    accordance with the mandate of no more than 20 percent of the
    appropriation shall be obligated during the last 2 months of the fiscal
    year; thus putting the Army on a glide path for 100-percent execution
    of its appropriation. In addition, each year the Army conducts Mid Year
    Review (MYR)--a senior leader comprehensive look at command execution
    through end-of-month March. Resources are realigned to optimize their
    use for Army requirements. The MYR is also provided to the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense and any resources excess to Army needs would
    be used for Department of Defense requirements.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to General Raymond T. Odierno
                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
              post-deployment/mobilization respite absence program
        Question. Due to Government errors at demobilization sites, many
    soldiers did not receive the full amount of administrative leave that
    they were allowed under the Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite
    Absence Program (PDMRA). How many soldiers have been credited with
    extra days of PDMRA administrative leave by the Army Board for
    Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to correct this mistake?
        Answer. The ABCMR granted 466 soldiers authority to use PDMRA days
    they had earned but were not afforded the opportunity to use. Their
    records were corrected to show that they are authorized to use these
    days of PDMRA upon the next qualifying deployment/mobilization.
    Authority to use these PDMRA days will expire upon the soldier's
    transfer from an authorized Reserve component status.
        Question. For those soldiers credited with extra days of PDMRA
    administrative leave by the ABCMR, what is the average number of
    additional days each soldier has received through the ABCMR process?
        Answer. The average PDMRA days granted by ABCMR was 26 days.
        Question. Of the soldiers who have been credited with extra days of
    PDMRA leave by the ABCMR, how many have already used the leave, are
    currently on a deployment which will make them eligible to use the
    leave, or are scheduled for such a deployment in the future?
        Answer. The Army is unable to provide specific numbers to this
    question since the Reserve components, Army National Guard (ARNG) and
    the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve (OCAR), were never required to
    track PDMRA to this level of detail. However, ABCMR reviewed
    applications from 604 soldiers who sought monetary reimbursement or
    credit for PDMRA days which were earned but not used. Future deployment
    numbers are unknown as this is a function of demand. Current Reserve
    component soldiers on mobilization orders are approximately 46,650.
        Question. Some soldiers who have been credited with extra days of
    PDMRA leave by the ABCMR will never be eligible to use this leave since
    they will not deploy again. How do you propose that the Government's
    mistakes be remedied in the cases of these soldiers?
        Answer. The Army no longer has authority under section 604 of
    Public Law 111-84 (the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization
    Act) to provide monetary compensation to soldiers or former soldiers
    for PDMRA leave. As such, we have no remedy for former soldiers. For
    current soldiers, the only available remedy to address the extra PDMRA
    leave they may have been credited with is for those soldiers to
    participate in subsequent deployments.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
           preparing soldiers for the transition out of the military
        Question. General Odierno, I recently attended a number of
    veterans' roundtables back in my home State of Washington. Time and
    time again, I hear similar stories of struggle. Veterans do not put
    their military service on their resumes because they feel that
    employers will find them less desirable. Also, employers are often
    unable to understand all of the skills veterans bring to a workplace.
        I am concerned as the Army begins to downsize by 80,000 soldiers
    over the next 5 years, how these soldiers will transition in a
    difficult economy and how that will impact the Army's bottom line with
    the increasing tab for unemployment compensation.
        The Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP) provides critical
    services for our soldiers transitioning to a postmilitary career. I am
    concerned that with the reduction in temporary end-strength that the
    Army will not have enough counselors on hand to assist--especially as
    ACAP changes and requires more intensive preparation beginning 15 to 18
    months prior to separation.
        Have you adequately budgeted to reflect an increase in ACAP
    counselors to address this surge in separations?
        Answer. The Army is currently conducting a detailed analysis of the
    additional counselors and staff that will be required to address the
    additional throughput of soldiers. Resources are being identified to
    reallocate to our transition program to ensure all transition
    requirements by all soldiers are met.
        ACAP delivers a world-class transition program for America's Army
    that ensures all eligible transitioners have the knowledge, skills, and
    self-confidence necessary to be competitive and successful in the
    global workforce. ACAP helps transitioning soldiers make informed
    career decisions through benefits counseling and employment assistance.
    ACAP is responsible for delivering both transition assistance and
    employment assistance services.
        Some examples of programs available through ACAP are:
      --Transition Assistance Program (TAP) Employment Workshops;
      --Employment Assistance to include resume writing and ``Dress for
            Success'';
      --Health Benefits Transition Brief;
      --Survivor Benefits Plan Brief; and
      --Veterans Affairs Disability Brief.
        The Army is also utilizing the Hero 2 Hired (H2H) as its interim
    employment application/tool (www.H2H.jobs) to provide one primary
    location where soldiers of all components, veterans, and family members
    can connect with private industry employment opportunities. This
    application is Web-based and able to translate military occupational
    skills (MOS), provide career path exploration, upload resumes, allow
    customized job searches, enable employers to also search for veterans,
    and provide performance metrics. H2H will eventually be included on
    eBenefits, the single portal for transition benefits selected by the
    Department of Defense (DOD)/Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force (www.eBenefits.va.gov).
        Question. I understand ACAP does a lot to prepare soldiers for the
    transition out of the military through career and transition
    counseling. But the military spends hundreds of millions of dollars on
    unemployment insurance for those who were unable to find civilian
    employment. As you know, my Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire
    Heroes legislation makes a range of improvements designed to help get
    servicemembers and veterans into good civilian jobs. Part of that
    legislation dealt with helping servicemembers transition skills that
    have a direct correlation to civilian licensure or certification. What
    are you doing so far to implement this legislation?
        Answer. Army Continuing Education System (ACES) has a program
    currently in place to support in-service and transitioning soldiers in
    obtaining certifications and licensure. The Credentialing Opportunities
    On-Line (COOL) program (www.cool.army.mil) provides soldiers with
    information on civilian licensures and certifications relevant to their
    Army Military Occupational Specialties (MOS). The COOL program provides
    each solider an MOS crosswalk to civilian skills. Also, Certification
    and Licensure for each MOS is listed in COOL along with the estimated
    availability of a first-term solider to obtain a credential and the
    resources (GI bill, Army e-Learning, ACE credit) to obtain each
    certification.
        The Army Transition Implementation Plan outlines how the Army will
    operatively incorporate the transition requirements mandated by the VOW
    to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, and the Presidential Veterans Employment
    Initiative Task Force (VEI TF) recommendations. The Army Transition
    Implementation Plan was developed at the Army Transition Plan Working
    Group comprised of representatives from the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of
    Staff, G1, U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM), U.S. Army
    Human Resources Command (HRC), U.S. Army Reserves (USAR), and the Army
    National Guard (ARNG). The working group focused on integrating the
    requirements established by the VOW Act and VEI TF, in coordination
    with the Veterans Administration (VA), Department of Labor (DOL), and
    Small Business Administration (SBA). The working group will evolve the
    transition landscape from that of an end of service program, to one
    that provides a blended transition-training and services delivery
    model, integrating transition education as part of a soldier's military
    life-cycle. As transition is introduced into the military lifecycle,
    soldiers, leaders, and transition service providers, will maintain
    transition awareness that best prepares soldiers for life after the
    Army.
        The Army Transition Implementation Plan was approved in April 2012.
    Concurrently, Army transition service providers and interagency
    partners, are in development of revised transition curricula, for
    piloting in July 2012. The Army will pilot the VOW Act and VEI TF
    requirements at select Active component installations and Reserve
    Component locations. The Army has identified an official employment
    portal, https://H2H.JOBS, ``Hero to Hired,'' where soldiers can search
    for jobs and employers can post job openings.
        Army-wide implementation for VOW Act and VEI TF requirements will
    take place no later than November 21, 2012. The Army Transition
    Implementation plan accomplishes:
          Veterans Opportunity to Work Act Requirements.--Pre-separation
            Counseling, VA Benefits Briefing, DOL Employment Workshop--
            implementation for all Army components no later than November
            21, 2012.
          Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force Requirements for a Core
            Curriculum.--Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) Crosswalk,
            VA Applications, Financial Planning, Individual Transition Plan
            (ITP) Preparation--implementation no later than November 21,
            2012.
          Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force Requirements for a
            ``Goals, Plans, Success'' Curriculum.--Goals, Plans, Success
            (GPS) provides the opportunity for soldiers to attend
            additional training sessions on continuing higher education,
            pursuing technical education/certification, or venturing
            towards entrepreneurship. GPS curriculum is divided into an
            Education Track, Technical Training Track, and Entrepreneurship
            Track, with implementation in October 2013.
          Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force Requirements for an End
            of Career, Transition CAPSTONE Event, To Mitigate Any Risks for
            Possible Negative Transition Outcomes After Separation and
            Connect Jobs to Soldiers (H2H.JOBS).--CAPSTONE will identify
            soldiers confidence and preparedness for transition, with the
            ability to ``re-train'' as appropriate. CAPSTONE implementation
            will be October 2013.
          Military Life Cycle for Transition.--Military Life Cycle for
            Transition will parallel transition readiness with military
            career progression, as transition education will be integrated
            in a soldiers military education throughout their career.
            Military Life Cycle (MLC) will be implemented October 2014.
          Pre-Apprenticeship.--We have begun initial staff analysis and
            planning to develop and implement a pre-apprenticeship program
            authorized by subsection 225 of your HHA. This training program
            is intended for transitioning Active-Duty soldiers, offered
            through an industry partner and seeks to capitalize on an
            opportunity to address local labor needs with soldiers by
            reducing training cost to employers. It allows transitioning
            servicemembers, who have been vetted through appropriate
            channels, and meet prerequisites, to participate in a
            preapprenticeship program that provides credit toward a program
            registered under the National Apprenticeship Act. Wounded
            Warriors--Education and Employment Initiative (E2I) is an
            existing DOD program focused on warrior care; the goal of E2I
            is to ensure consistent offerings to all recovering service
            members by synchronizing, integrating and expanding the
            education and employment opportunities for them and their
            families. E2I will ensure the service member is engaged early
            in their recovery process to identify skills and develop a
            career plan that leverages those skills. Through the execution
            of their career plan, servicemembers will ultimately be matched
            with education and career opportunities that increase their
            career readiness and better prepare them for a successful
            transition from their service.
          Apprenticeship.--Training and Doctrine Command has mapped Army
            MOS's to assist in developing an Army program similar to the
            United States Military Apprenticeship Program (USMAP), managed
            by Naval Education and Training Command. A formal military
            training program that provides Active-Duty Coast Guard, Marine
            Corps, and Navy service members the opportunity to improve
            their job skills and to complete their civilian apprenticeship
            requirements while they are on active duty. Our goal is to
            implement this program in concert with Military Life Cycle
            implementation timelines.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                   mq-8b fire scout unmanned aerial vehicles
        Question. General Odierno, I've been informed that the Army's 37th
    Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) in Afghanistan is being supported
    by an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force
    led land-based deployment of MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned aerial vehicles.
    I understand the MQ-8B is providing the 37th IBCT with full-motion
    video for route clearance and tactical ISR in an austere operating
    environment near Kunduz. Would you please provide the subcommittee
    information on who's operating the MQ-8B's in Afghanistan and more
    details on the types of missions and performance of the MQ-8B in
    Afghanistan?
        Answer. In May 2011, the U.S. Navy deployed three MQ-8B Aircraft to
    Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). These aircraft are operated by
    Northup Grumman which is contracted to provide 300 hours of Electro
    Optical/Infrared Full Motion Video per month. While the aircraft are
    owned by the Navy, the deployment of this contractor flown system was
    funded by the ISR Task Force.
                         armed aerial scout helicopter
        Question. General Odierno, the Congress approved fiscal year 2012
    funding for the Army to conduct a flight demonstration of Armed Scout
    helicopter capabilities. When do you expect to conduct this
    demonstration; what do you expect to glean from it; and do you plan to
    use the results of this demonstration to inform the Department's fiscal
    year 2014 budgeting process and the way ahead for this needed
    capability?
        Answer. The Army has requested authority to release a Request for
    Information (RFI) and conduct the voluntary flight demonstration. Once
    authorized to release the RFI, the Army expects to receive responses
    within approximately 60 days. The demonstrations will begin
    approximately 120 days after RFI release.
        The purpose of the RFI and voluntary flight demonstration is to
    assess the current state of technology within industry. Results will be
    captured according to each individual respondent's level of
    participation. Our path forward with the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) will
    enable us to make an informed capabilities decision and, subsequently,
    a materiel solution option recommendation, to the Defense Acquisition
    Executive based on the current state of technology in the market place.
    The AAS RFI, industry discussions, and the voluntary flight
    demonstration will inform a future materiel solution option
    recommendation that represents a medium-risk program with achievable
    and affordable requirements within the current and future fiscal
    environment.
        The results of the RFI and voluntary flight demonstration is
    intended to inform the Department's fiscal year 2014 budgeting process
    and the way ahead for this needed capability.
                             tactical fuel systems
        Question. General Odierno, I am aware the Army Combined Arms
    Support Command identified an operational gap for its tactical fuel
    system. I have been informed that there is a need for collapsible fuel
    tank storage systems to support a much longer use life than what is
    being used by the Army. The subcommittee is aware of field reports
    which indicate premature degradation and outright failure within the
    first year of use for current systems. Have you evaluated the 10-year
    service-life capabilities of Nitrile rubber collapsible storage tanks
    currently used by the United States Marine Corps? What is the life-
    cycle cost differential between the Army systems and the Nitrile rubber
    systems being used by the Marines?
        Answer. The Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and
    Engineering Center (TARDEC) has not performed a 10-year service-life
    capabilities analysis for the Nitrile collapsible tank; however, they
    did perform a limited performance comparison between the Nitrile tank
    and the polyurethane tanks.
        TARDEC purchased Nitrile and polyurethane tanks that conformed to
    the TRI- Services specifications for fuel tanks. The TRI-Services group
    is a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) led entity that, among other
    responsibilities, sets the specifications for fuel tanks.
        TARDEC provided the following information from their comparison
    between the Nitrile and polyurethane tanks:
      --Nitrile tanks were 11 percent more expensive to produce on a unit
            cost basis. This difference can be attributed to:
        --Nitrile is a more expensive raw material than polyurethane.
        --The fabrication of a nitrile fuel tank is more labor intensive.
      --Maintenance and repair costs are equivalent.
      --Costs of technical manuals and logistics data are equivalent.
      --Fielding and training costs are equivalent.
      --Disposal costs are equivalent.
        The TARDEC comparison did not address the difference in service
    life between the two collapsible bags; however, Defense Logistics
    Agency-Energy will conduct separate research and development tests on
    both Nitrile and polyurethane-coated tanks. The projected completion of
    those tests is estimated to be October 2013 and April 2014,
    respectively.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
                    elimination of army brigade combat teams
        Question. In your testimony, you mentioned the Army's plans to
    eliminate at least eight brigade combat teams (BCTs). What are the
    criteria that the Army will use in deciding which BCTs will stay and
    which will go?
        Answer. The Army will consider a broad array of criteria for
    inactivation of the eight BCTs to make strategically sound, resource
    informed decisions. Criteria will be based on strategic considerations,
    operational effectiveness, geographic distribution, cost and the
    ability to meet statutory requirements.
          Strategic Considerations.--Aligns Army Force Structure to the new
            Defense Strategy and forthcoming Defense Planning Guidance with
            a priority on the Pacific region.
          Operational Considerations.--Seeks to maximize training
            facilities, deployment infrastructure, and facilities to
            support the well-being of soldiers and their families. Aligns
            appropriate oversight/leadership by senior Army headquarters
            for better command and control.
          Geographic Distribution.--Seeks to distribute units in the United
            States to preserve a broad base of support and linkage to the
            American people.
          Cost.--Considers the impacts of military personnel, equipment,
            military construction, and transportation costs.
          Statutory Requirements.--Complies with the provisions of the
            National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as appropriate,
            including an environmental and socio-economic analysis.
        Question. Will the Congress be consulted ahead of time on the
    proposed BCT decisions? If not, why not?
        Answer. The Army is considering a number of potential options, but
    no final decisions have been made as to which U.S.-based BCTs will be
    drawn down. An announcement on specific force structure actions is
    expected sometime before, or in conjunction with, submission of the
    fiscal year 2014 President's budget in early February 2013. The Army
    will develop a plan that will provide detailed information regarding
    the draw down and address notification of affected Army installations
    and appropriate Congressional Committees as required by section 2864 of
    the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act prior to the
    decision going into effect.
                                     ______

              Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson
                             suicide vest detection
        Question. General Odierno, Department of Defense (DOD) and the
    services have spent approximately $50 million developing and deploying
    technology that automatically identifies people potentially wearing
    suicide vests at stand-off ranges. However, this technology is still
    not currently available to many bases in Afghanistan as well as in the
    United States. What is the Army doing today in Afghanistan to screen
    personnel at stand-off ranges that are seeking access to our bases
    where this technology is not available?
        Answer. The Army and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
    Organization (JIEDDO) have resourced more than $500 million for Entry
    Control Point (ECP) solutions alone. The Army has employed several
    solutions in Afghanistan to screen personnel at stand-off distances
    including:
      --Counter Bomber 3 (CB-3);
      --Standoff Suicide Bomber Detection System (SSBDS);
      --Subtle madness;
      --Light guard;
      --Rapid scan;
      --Backscatter vans;
      --walkthrough metal detectors;
      --Biometrics, random anti-terrorism measures (RAM); and
      --the capabilities associated with ECP solutions to counter and
            mitigate Person-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (PBIED).
        These systems allow the Army in Theatre to provide a layered,
    stand-off defense at most locations.
        In addition to PBIED systems, Army units deploy a layered defense
    at all locations in Afghanistan by continuously screening personnel and
    scanning surrounding areas of each Forward Operating Base (FOB).
    Soldiers occupy guard towers and entry control points with night
    vision, thermal, and long-range optics, and man entry control points.
    Each FOB has a Base Defensive Operations Center that controls the Base
    Expeditionary Targeting and Surveillance Systems-Combined (BETSS-C)
    camera system, Raid and Cerberus Towers, and video feeds from
    aerostats. Beyond the FOB, units routinely conduct mounted patrols
    around the FOBs, Tactical Checkpoints (TCPs), and regional Tactics,
    Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) to provide additional surveillance
    outside the reach of the guard towers.
        United States Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) determines the
    distribution of PBIED equipment to operating bases in theater. USFOR-A
    determines the needs of installations based upon analysis of the local
    threat and logistics capabilities of the operating bases. Currently
    there are no requirements for additional PBIED systems.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                        high-demand soldiers dwell time
        Question. Army leaders have repeatedly said that we owe our Active-
    Duty soldiers a minimum of 2 years home for every 1 year deployed.
    While we are meeting that goal for some soldiers, I'm less confident
    that this budget does the same for soldiers serving in the combat arms
    and low-density, high-demand units such as aviation and special forces.
    These are the very category of soldiers that need the required dwell
    time the most. They are also the forces that are most likely to deploy
    even if we are not in large-scale engagements like Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        General Odierno, in light of the proposed force reductions, did the
    Army ensure that this budget provides an average dwell time for combat
    arms and high-demand soldiers that equals 2 years home for every year
    deployed?
        Answer. The Army will accomplish force reductions in a responsible
    and controlled manner, and the proposed force structure will allow the
    Army to meet our Boots-on-the-Ground (BOG):Dwell goal. As always, the
    Army's intent has been to improve dwell time for soldiers and families
    where possible, and the goal is to achieve a 1:2 for Active units and
    1:4 for Reserve units by 2015. However, end-strength reductions beyond
    490,000 will challenge the Army's ability to meet timelines for current
    identified requirements and to maintain necessary dwell for units and
    soldiers.
        In the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, with the help of the
    temporary end-strength increase and the decrease in demand for deployed
    forces, the Active component of the Army achieved its individual
    BOG:Dwell goal with a median ratio of 1:2.01. However, several grades
    and specialties are still below the 1:2 goals but have been improving.
    Among these are enlisted soldiers in grades sergeant and below, and
    aviation soldiers in general. Army Special Operations Forces are
    programmed to grow 3,677 military manpower authorizations from fiscal
    years 2013 to 2017. Growth includes adding an MH-47G helicopter company
    in fiscal year 2014 (176 personnel), two extended range/multipurpose
    Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) companies in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal
    year 2015 (330 personnel), and an increase in combat support and combat
    service support in each Special Forces Group in fiscal year 2013 and
    fiscal year 2014 (1,445 personnel). Additionally, 334 Military
    Intelligence (MI) billets will be added in fiscal year 2014 to the
    Active Special Forces Groups and the Ranger Regiment to increase MI
    capability. The Army remains committed to activate a Combat Aviation
    Brigade (CAB) at Fort Carson in fiscal year 2013 as planned.
                    common remotely operated weapons station
        Question. One of the weapon systems in the Army's arsenal that has
    been most demanded by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is the Common
    Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS). I am proud that many
    components of this system are manufactured and assembled in my home
    State of Maine. I was please to see that funding for the CROWS has
    moved from the overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget to the base
    budget.
        However, it is unclear to me how the Army arrived at the long-term
    acquisition objective for the quantity of CROWS to be procured. From my
    review of the budgetary documents and solicitations, it appears the
    Army intends to procure a total of between 14,000 and 18,000 CROWS to
    outfit a fleet of combat and tactical vehicles that consists of several
    hundred thousand vehicles.
        General Odierno, how did the Army arrive at the requirement and
    total acquisition objective for the CROWS system?
        Answer. The Army has produced the CROWS for the last 6 years to
    respond to Operational Need Statements from the commanders in the field
    and to provide CROWS to various Program Managers to mount on their
    vehicles such as up-armored high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles
    (HMMWV), mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles, Route
    Clearance Vehicles, and Abrams Tanks. As Training and Doctrine Command
    (TRADOC) has developed their fielding plan for the various branches,
    the Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP) submitted and approved through the
    Organization Requirements Document Approval Brief (ORDAB) on May 9,
    2011, was for a total of 11,269. This quantity reflects 1,556 for Heavy
    Brigade Combat Teams, 1,119 for Special Operations Forces, 4,090 for
    Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, 576 for Explosive Ordnance Disposal, 9
    for Ordnance Center and Schools, 2,143 for Sustainment Center of
    Excellence, and 1,776 for Maneuver Center of Excellence. This number
    may change slightly as TRADOC continues to update and analyze their
    requirements.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. We stand in recess, and will reconvene on
    Wednesday, March 28, at 10 a.m., to learn about Defense Health
    Programs.
        Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Odierno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    March 28.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Medical Health Programs

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES B. GREEN,
                SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
                FORCE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. I'd like to welcome all of you, as we
    review the Department of Defense (DOD) medical programs this
    morning. There will be two panels. First, we'll hear from the
    Service Surgeons General, and then from the Chiefs of the Nurse
    Corps. Although she has appeared before the subcommittee in her
    previous assignment as Chief of the Army Nurse Corps, I'd like
    to welcome back Lieutenant General Patricia Horoho for her
    first testimony before this subcommittee as a Surgeon General
    of the Army, and commend her for becoming the first female as
    well as first Nurse Corps officer to serve in this capacity.
        And I'd like to also welcome Vice Admiral Matthew Nathan
    and Lieutenant General Charles Green. General Green, I
    understand you're retiring later this year, and I thank you for
    your many years of service to the Air Force, and I look forward
    to working with all of you to ensure that the medical programs
    and personnel under your command are in good shape.
        Every year, the subcommittee holds this hearing to discuss
    the critically important issues related to the care and well-
    being of our servicemembers and their families, as healthcare
    is one of the most basic benefits we can provide to the men and
    women of our Nation. The advancements military medicine has
    made over the last several decades have not only dramatically
    improved medical care on the battlefield, but it also enhanced
    the healthcare delivery and scientific advancements throughout
    the medical field. The results benefit millions of Americans
    who likely are unaware that these improvements were developed
    by the military.
        There is still much more to be done. Despite the great
    progress the military medical community has achieved, more and
    more of our troops are suffering from medical conditions that
    are much harder to identify and treat, such as traumatic brain
    injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress, and depression. We must
    continue our efforts to heal these unseen wounds of the
    military that have been at war for more than 10 years.
        In addition, DOD has recommended changes to Military Health
    System (MHS) governance and proposed TRICARE fee increases. And
    I hope to address some of these issues today, and I look
    forward to your testimony and note that your full statements
    will be made part of the record.
        And now I'd like to call upon our Vice Chairman, Senator
    Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join you in
    welcoming our panel of witnesses today. We appreciate the
    leadership you are providing in the various services--the Air
    Force, Army, and Navy. Our men and women in uniform deserve
    opportunities for high-quality medical care, and I think your
    leadership is proving that we do have the best in the world for
    our military men and women, and we appreciate that service, and
    that leadership, and your success. We want to find out if there
    are things that can be done through the Congress's efforts to
    help shore up weak spots or identify things that need to be
    changed, funding levels that may not be appropriate, because of
    changing circumstances. And that's what this hearing is
    designed to do. Thank you for helping us do our job, and we
    hope we help you do your job better.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Mikulski.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    We, in Maryland, feel so proud of military medicine, because we
    are the home to the new Naval Bethesda Walter Reed. That's a
    new facility. It's the old-fashioned values of taking care of
    those who fought for us. And we're very proud of that. We're
    very proud of the fact that Uniformed Services University of
    the Health Sciences (USUHS) is in Maryland, and also the
    fantastic TRICARE network, where our men and women on Active
    Duty, Reserves have access to the great academic medical
    institutions of Maryland and Hopkins, particularly if they need
    specialized care.
        So, if you have a little child with pediatric neurological
    problems, you have access to Dr. Ben Carson. If you have a
    neonatal child, you have access to Maryland and to Hopkins. If
    you have, like one of the men I met at Walter Reed, who had
    dystonia, a very rare and unusual disease, again, access to
    Maryland there through this.
        So, we're very proud of you, and we look forward to working
    with you, hearing from you, and how we can not only respond to
    the acute care needs, but really go to the new innovative ways
    of delivery of healthcare that manage chronic illness, prevent
    chronic illness, and deal with the stresses of battle, whether
    you're endured it in the battlefield or at home, supporting the
    warrior at the front. And today's a big day for healthcare,
    Senator Harkins having a hearing on National Institutes of
    Health (NIH), so after I finish my questions, I'm going to be
    dashing over there, your neighbor across the street.
        If I could, Mr. Chairman, one point of personal Maryland
    privilege. One of the worst traffic jams in American history is
    at the convergence of Walter Reed Naval Bethesda. It's across
    the street from NIH. On the corner is the Institute of
    Medicine. It is the largest convergence of intellectual
    brainpower to serve the healthcare needs, and they're all at
    the same traffic light, at the same time. And if you want to
    see geniuses throwing Petri dishes at people, just come to
    that.
        So, we want to thank you for your help in cracking that
    transportation bottleneck. Am I right? Yes.
        Chairman Inouye. That's right.
        Senator Mikulski. That's got the biggest applause going
    yet.

            SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES B. GREEN

        Chairman Inouye. General Green, if I may begin with you,
    Sir. Would you care to make a statement before we proceed?
        General Green. Yes, Sir. Thank you. Good morning.
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
    today. The Air Force Medical Service cannot achieve our goals
    of readiness, better health, better care, and best value
    without your support. We thank you for this.
        To meet these goals, the Air Force Medical Service is
    transforming deployable capability, building patient-centered
    care, and investing in education training and research to
    sustain worldwide and world-class healthcare. This year, we
    established 10 new expeditionary medical support health
    response teams. These 10-bed deployable hospitals enable us to
    provide emergency care within 30 minutes of arriving on scene,
    and do surgery within 5 hours. And this will happen in any
    contingency. Light and lean, it's transportable in a single C-
    17, with full-base operating support requiring only one
    additional aircraft.
        The health response team was successfully used in Trinidad
    for a humanitarian mission last May, and is our new standard
    package for rapid battlefield care and humanitarian assistance.
        Critical care air transport teams and air evacuation
    continue to be a dominant factor in our unprecedented high-
    survival rates. To close the gap in en route critical care
    continuum, we applied the Critical Care Air Transportation Team
    (CCATT) concept to tactical patient movement and delivered the
    same level of care during inter-theater transport on rotary
    platforms this year.
        The tactical critical care evacuation team was fielded in
    2011. We've trained five teams. Two teams are currently
    deployed to Afghanistan. Each team has an emergency physician
    and two nurse anesthetists, and we're now able to move critical
    patients between level two and level three facilities much more
    safely.
        At home, we enrolled 941,705 beneficiaries in the team-
    based patient-centered care at all of our Air Force medical
    facilities worldwide. This care model is reducing emergency
    room visits, improving health indicators, and it has achieved
    an unprecedented continuity of care for our military
    beneficiaries. The Air Force remains vigilant in safeguarding
    the well-being and mental health of our people. Postappointment
    health reassessment completion rates are consistently above 80
    percent for our Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve personnel.
        The new deployment transition center at Ramstein Air Base,
    Germany, provides effective reintegration programs for
    deploying troops. More than 3,000 have been through to date,
    and a study of these airmen who attended showed significantly
    fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress and lower levels of
    both alcohol use and conflict with family or coworkers upon
    return home.
        By this summer, behavioral health providers will be
    embedded in every primary care clinic in the Air Force. We
    reach Guard and Reserve members through tele-mental health and
    embedded psychological health directors, and are furthering
    increasing mental health provider manning over the next 5
    years.
        New training to support air evacuation and expeditionary
    medical capability is now in place. Our training curriculums
    are continuously updated to capture lessons from 10 years of
    war. Our partnerships with civilian trauma institutions prove
    so successful in maintaining wartime skills that we've expanded
    training sites to establish new programs with the University of
    Nevada--Las Vegas, and Tampa General Hospital. We also shifted
    our initial nursing training for new Air Force nurses to three
    civilian medical centers. The nurse transition program is now
    at the University of Cincinnati, Scottsdale, and Tampa Medical
    Centers, has broadened our resuscitative skills, and the
    experience that they receive early in their careers.
        Air Force graduate medical education programs continue to
    be the bedrock for recruiting top physicians. Our graduate
    programs are affiliated with Uniform Services University and
    civilian universities. These partnerships build credibility in
    the United States and in the international medical communities.
        One of our most significant partners is the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA), and we are very proud of our 6 joint
    ventures, 59 sharing agreements, and 63 joint incentive fund
    projects, which are improving services to all of our
    beneficiaries. We've also made significant progress to the
    integrated electronic health record to be shared by DOD and the
    VA.
        In the coming year, we will work shoulder-to-shoulder with
    our Army, Navy, and DOD counterparts to be ready to provide
    even better health, better care, and best value to America's
    heroes. Together, we'll implement the right governance of our
    MHS, we'll find efficiencies, and provide even higher quality
    care with the resources we are given.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I thank this subcommittee for your tremendous support to
    military medics. Our success both at home and on the
    battlefield would not be possible without your persistence and
    generous support.
        On a personal note, I thank you for your tolerance and for
    having me here, now the third time, to talk to you about Air
    Force medicine. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General (Dr.) Charles B. Green
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. The
    men and women of the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) have answered our
    Nation's call and maintained a standard of excellence second to none
    for more than a decade of sustained combat operations. We provide
    servicemembers, retirees, and families the best care America has to
    offer. We take tremendous pride in providing ``Trusted Care Anywhere''
    for the Nation.
        We support the President's budget request and the proposed changes
    to the military health benefit. I am confident that the recommendations
    included in the budget reflect the proper balance and the right
    priorities necessary to sustain the benefit over the long term.
    National healthcare costs continue to rise at rates above general
    inflation, and the Department of Defense (DOD) is not insulated from
    this growth as we purchase more than 60 percent of our care from
    private sector. DOD beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs with the
    proposed changes remain far below the cost-sharing percentage they
    experienced in 1995. We understand we cannot ask our beneficiaries to
    share more of the cost for healthcare without seeking significant
    internal efficiencies. We are increasing efficiency by reducing
    administrative costs, improving access, recapturing care, and
    introducing cutting-edge technology to better connect our providers and
    patients.
        Ready, better health, better care, and best value are the
    components of the quadruple aim for the Military Health Services. To
    meet these goals, the AFMS set priorities to transform deployable
    capability, build patient-centered care, and invest in education,
    training, and research to sustain world-class healthcare. We have made
    significant inroads in each of these areas over the past year.
                        transform deployable capability
        In times of war there are always significant advances in the field
    of medicine. Today we are applying these lessons to shape future
    readiness and care. We have found new ways to manage blood loss and
    improve blood replacement. Significant improvements in the blood
    program improved transfusion capability and changed the way we use
    fluids to resuscitate patients. Air Force trauma surgeons in deployed
    hospitals better control hemorrhage and treat vascular injury by
    designing and using new arterial shunts that have been adopted by
    civilian trauma surgeons. These innovations contribute to a very low-
    case fatality rate and allow earlier transport of casualties.
        Through innovative training and quick thinking, Air Force, Army,
    and Navy medics continue to perform miracles in field hospitals. Last
    spring in Balad, Iraq, our Critical Care Air Transport Teams (CCATT)
    saved the life of a soldier who had suffered blunt force trauma to his
    chest, causing his heart to stop. After an unknown period without a
    pulse, there was significant risk of brain injury. Using coolers of
    ice, the team undertook a rare therapeutic hypothermia procedure to
    lower body temperature, decreasing tissue swelling, and damage to the
    brain. The soldier was transported to Landstuhl Medical Center in
    Germany where his temperature was slowly raised, bringing him back to
    consciousness. Within 4 days of injury, the soldier arrived at Brooke
    Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, and walked out of the hospital
    with thankful family members. Incredible ingenuity, dedication, and
    teamwork continue to save lives every day.
        We have an impressive legacy of building highly capable deployable
    hospitals over the past decade. This year we have established 10 new
    Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS) Health Response Teams (HRT).
    These newly tested and proven 10-bed packages enable us to arrive in a
    chaotic situation, provide emergency care within 30 minutes, and
    perform surgery within 5 hours of arrival. The entire package is
    transportable in a single C-17, and full-base operating support for the
    hospital requires only one additional C-17. The HRT was used
    successfully in a Trinidad humanitarian mission in April and will be
    our standard package to provide rapid battlefield medicine and
    humanitarian assistance. This year we will establish intensive training
    with the HRT and will expand its capability with additional modular
    sets to respond to specialized missions such as obstetrics, pediatrics,
    or geriatrics required for humanitarian response.
        We are also pursuing initiatives to improve air evacuation
    capability. New advances in ventilators allow us to move patients
    sooner and over longer distances with less oxygen. We pursued new
    capabilities for heart-lung bypass support by reducing the size of
    extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) equipment. ECMO has been in
    use for many years transporting neonatal patients, and we now have
    critical care teams using this advanced technology for adult patient
    transportation. We moved the first patient on full heart-lung bypass
    out of Afghanistan in 2011. We are working to miniaturize and
    standardize ECMO equipment so it can be operated by less specialized
    teams. David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base (AFB),
    California, recently became the first DOD recipient of the smallest
    ECMO device. Known as CARDIOHELP, the device is light enough to be
    carried by one person and compact enough for transport in a helicopter
    or ambulance. Researchers will utilize CARDIOHELP to evaluate the
    effects of tactical, high-altitude, and long-haul flights on patients
    who require the most advanced life support. We continue to advance the
    science of patient transport moving the sickest of the sick, as we
    decrease the amount of time from point-of-injury to definitive care in
    the United States.
        The insertion and integration of CCATTs into the air evacuation
    (AE) system continues to be a dominant factor in our unprecedented
    high-survival rates. These teams speed up the patient movement process,
    bring advanced care closer to the point-of-injury, free up hospital
    beds for new causalities, allow us to use smaller hospitals in-theater,
    and move patients to definitive care sooner. We have improved CCATT
    equipment with more wireless capability aboard aircraft to simplify
    connection of medical equipment to critical care patients. We are
    continuously finding better technologies for more accurate patient
    assessment in flight and working to standardize equipment and supplies
    used by coalition teams.
        We developed and fielded the Tactical Critical Care Evacuation Team
    (TCCET) in 2011. This team was built to deliver the same level of care
    during intra-theater transport on non-AE platforms as that provided by
    our CCATT teams. Our first deployed team safely transported 130
    critical patients on rotary aircraft. The team is composed of an
    emergency physician and two nurse anesthetists that separate and fly
    individually with a pararescue airman to move the sickest patients. We
    are now able to move critical patients between Level II and Level III
    facilities in theater even more expeditiously, using either rotary or
    fixed wing aircraft.
        The Theater Medical Information Program Air Force (TMIP-AF)
    continues to make tremendous progress supporting the war-fighting
    community both on the ground and in the air. We leveraged existing
    information management and technology services to integrate with Line
    of the Air Force communication groups at all deployed Air Force ground-
    based units. This decreased end user devices, numbers of personnel at
    risk, and contractor-support requirements in theater. This integration
    allowed us to remotely support deployed units from State-side locations
    for the first time and with improved timeliness. Today, AFMS units are
    documenting all theater-based patient care electronically, including
    health records within the AE system, and securely moving information
    throughout the DOD healthcare system.
                          build patient-centered care
        At home, we continue to advance patient-centered medical home
    (PCMH) to improve delivery of peacetime healthcare. The foundation of
    patient-centered care is trust, and we have enrolled 920,000
    beneficiaries into team-based, patient-centered care. Continuity of
    care has more than doubled with patients now seeing their assigned
    physician 80 percent of the time and allowing patients to become more
    active participants in their healthcare. PCMH will be in place at all
    Air Force medical treatment facilities (MTFs) by June of this year. The
    implementation of PCMH is decreasing emergency room visits and
    improving health indicators.
        We have also implemented pediatric PCMH, focused on improving well
    child care, immunizations, reducing childhood obesity, and better
    serving special needs patients. A recent American Academy of Pediatrics
    study analyzed the impact of medical home on children. Their report
    concluded, ``Medical home is associated with improved healthcare
    utilization patterns, better parental assessment of child health, and
    increased adherence with health-promoting behavior.'' We anticipate
    completing Air Force pediatric PCMH implementation this summer through
    simple realignment of existing resources.
        Our PCMH teams are being certified by the National Committee for
    Quality Assurance (NCQA). NCQA recognition of PCMH is considered the
    current gold standard in the medical community, with recognition levels
    ranging from 1-3, 3 being the highest. To date, all MTFs who completed
    evaluation were officially recognized by NCQA as a PCMH, with 10 sites
    recognized as a level 3. This level of excellence far exceeds that seen
    in the Nation overall. An additional 15 Air Force sites will
    participate in the NCQA survey in 2012.
        We are enabling our family healthcare teams to care for more
    complex patients through Project Extension for Community Healthcare
    Outcomes (ECHO). This program started at the University of New Mexico
    to centralize designated specialists for consultation by local primary
    care providers. ECHO allows us to keep patients in the direct care
    system by having primary care providers ``reach back'' to designated
    specialists for consultation. For example, rather than send a diabetic
    patient downtown on a referral to a TRICARE network endocrinologist,
    the primary care team can refer the case to our diabetes expert at the
    59th Medical Wing, Lackland AFB, Texas, without the patient ever
    departing the clinic. ECHO now includes multiple specialties, and has
    been so successful, the concept has been adopted by the Mayo Clinic,
    Johns Hopkins, Harvard, DOD, and the Veterans Administration (VA).
        Our personalized medicine project, patient-centered precision care
    (PC2), which builds on technological and evidence-based genomic
    association, received final Institutional Review Board approval. We
    enrolled the first 80 patients this year with a goal of enrolling 2,000
    patients in this research. PC2 will allow us to deliver state-of-the-
    art, evidence-based, personalized healthcare incorporating all
    available patient information. A significant aspect of PC2 is genomic
    medicine research, the advancement of genome-informed personalized
    medicine. With a patient's permission, we analyze DNA to identify
    health risks and then ensure follow up with the healthcare team. De-
    identified databases will allow us to advance research efforts.
    Research groups can determine associations or a specific area where
    they think there may be merit in terms of how we can change clinical
    practice. This research will likely change the way we view disease and
    lead to much earlier integration of new treatment options.
        MiCare is currently deployed to our family practice training
    programs and will be available at 26 facilities before the end of 2012.
    This secure messaging technology allows our patients to communicate
    securely with their providers via email. It also allows our patients to
    access their personal health record. Access to a personal health record
    will provide the ability to view lab test results at home, renew
    medications, and seek advice about nonurgent symptoms. Healthcare teams
    will be able to reach patients via MiCare to provide appointment
    reminders, follow up on a condition without requiring the patient to
    come to the MTF, provide medical test and referral results, and forward
    notifications on various issues of interest to the patient. We
    anticipate full implementation by the end of 2013.
        We are also testing incorporation of smart-phones into our clinics
    to link case managers directly to patients. Linking wireless and
    medical devices into smart phones allows the patient to transmit
    weight, blood pressure, or glucometer readings that are in high-risk
    parameters directly to their health team for advice and consultation.
    Patients with diabetes or congestive heart failure can see significant
    reductions in hospitalizations when interventions with the healthcare
    team are easily accessible on a regular basis. This improves quality of
    life for the diabetic or cardiology patient, reduces healthcare costs,
    and increases access for other patients. We have a pilot effort
    underway with George Washington University Hospital to use this tool in
    diabetes management.
        Safeguarding the well-being and mental health of our people while
    improving resilience is a critical Air Force priority. We remain
    vigilant with our mental health assessments and consistently have
    postdeployment health reassessment (PDHRA) completion rates at 80
    percent or higher for Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve personnel. In
    January 2011, we implemented section 708 of the 2010 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) for Active-Duty airmen, and in April 2011, for
    the Reserve component. The two-phased approach requires members to
    complete an automated questionnaire, followed by a person-to-person
    dialogue with a trained privileged provider. Whenever possible, these
    are combined with other health assessments to maximize access and
    minimize inconvenience for deployers. Each deployer is screened for
    post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) four times per deployment
    including a person-to-person meeting with a provider.
        Although Air Force PTSD rates are rising, the current rate remains
    low at 0.8 percent across the Air Force. Our highest risk group is
    explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) at about 7 percent, with medical
    personnel, security forces, and transportation at less risk, but higher
    than the Air Force baseline. Our mental health providers, including
    those in internships and residencies, are trained in evidence-based
    PTSD treatments to include prolonged exposure, cognitive processing
    therapy, and cognitive behavioral couples therapy for PTSD. Virtual
    Iraq/Afghanistan uses computer-based virtual reality to supplement
    prolonged exposure therapy at 10 Air Force sites. Diagnosis is still
    done through an interview, supported by screening tools such as the
    PTSD checklist (PCL) and other psychological testing as clinically
    indicated.
        We are working closely with Air Force leadership to inculcate
    healthy behaviors. Comprehensive airmen fitness focuses on building
    strength across physical, mental, and social domains. Airman resiliency
    training (ART) provides a standardized approach to pre-exposure
    preparation training for redeploying airmen, including tiered training
    that recognizes different risk groups. Traumatic stress response teams
    at each base foster resiliency through preparatory education and
    psychological first-aid for those exposed to potentially traumatic
    events.
        The Deployment Transition Center (DTC) at Ramstein Air Base,
    Germany, soon to be 2 years old, provides an effective reintegration
    program for our redeploying troops. More than 3,000 deployers have now
    processed through the DTC. A study of the first 800 airmen to go
    through the DTC, compared with 13,000 airmen matched to demographics,
    mission set, and level of combat exposure, demonstrated clear benefit
    from the DTC. Analyzing their PDHRA, airmen who attended the DTC showed
    positive results--significantly fewer symptoms of post-traumatic
    stress, lower levels of alcohol use, and lower levels of conflict with
    family/coworkers. This study provided solid evidence that the DTC helps
    airmen with reintegration back to their home environment. We are now
    partnering with the RAND Corporation in two other studies, looking at
    the overall Air Force resilience program and studying the effectiveness
    of the current ART program.
        While we experienced a drop in the Active-Duty suicide rate in
    2011, we remain concerned. Guard and Reserve suicide levels have
    remained steady and low. The major risk factors continue to be
    relationship, financial, and legal problems, and no deployment or
    history of deployment associations have been found. We strive to find
    new and better ways to improve suicide prevention efforts across the
    total force. By summer of this year, we will embed behavioral health
    providers in primary care clinics at every MTF. The Behavioral Health
    Optimization program (BHOP) reduces stigma by providing limited
    behavioral health interventions outside the context of the mental
    health clinic, offering a first stop for those who may need counseling
    or treatment. The Air Reserve Components instituted on-line training
    tools and products that support Ask, Care, Escort (ACE), our peer-to-
    peer suicide prevention training. The Air Force Reserve Command also
    added a new requirement for four deployment resilience assessments
    beginning last April.
        We are increasing our mental health provider manning over the next
    5 years with more psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers,
    psychiatric nurse practitioners, and technicians. We increased Health
    Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) scholarships for psychologists,
    as well as psychiatry residency training billets and the psychology
    Active-Duty Ph.D. program and internship billets. To enhance social
    worker skills, we placed social workers in four internship programs and
    dedicated HPSP scholarships and Health Professions Loan Repayment
    Program slots for fully qualified accessions. Accession bonuses for
    fully qualified social workers were approved for fiscal year 2012 for
    3- and 4-year obligations. These actions will help us to meet mental
    health manning requirements for both joint deployment requirements and
    at home station in compliance with section 714 in the 2010 National
    Defense Authorization Act. Air Force tele-mental health is now in place
    at 40 sites across the Air Force, and is planned for a total of 84
    sites.
        Like our sister Services, the Air Force continues to be concerned
    about, and focused on, the consequences of traumatic brain injury
    (TBI). We fully implemented TBI testing across the Air Force, and
    collected more than 90,000 Automated Neurological Assessment Metric
    (ANAM) assessments in the data repository. The Air Force accounts for
    10-15 percent of total TBI in the military with approximately 4 percent
    of deployment-associated TBI. Most Air Force cases, more than 80
    percent, are mild in severity. Of all our completed postdeployment
    health assessments and reassessments, less than 1 percent screened
    positive for TBI with persistent symptoms.
        Despite our relatively lower incidence, the Air Force continues to
    work with DOD partners to better understand and mitigate the effects of
    TBI. In collaboration with Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center,
    Air Force, and Army radiologists at the San Antonio Military Medical
    Center are working jointly to study promising neuroimaging techniques
    including volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the Federal
    Drug Administration-approved software NeuroQuant, functional MRI,
    spectroscopy, and diffusion tensor imaging to identify structural
    changes that may result from TBI. Ongoing studies will find more
    definitive answers to this complex diagnostic and treatment problem.
        As co-chairman of the Recovering Warrior Task Force, I have come to
    understand all Services Wounded Warrior Programs. I have been on site
    visits with our committee as we seek to discern best practices to help
    our wounded, ill, and injured members recover. The joint efforts of DOD
    and the Department of Veterans Affairs to streamline the integrated
    delivery evaluation system (IDES) are paying dividends. In the Air
    Force, we are augmenting pre-Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) screening
    personnel to streamline IDES processing. Our electronic profile system
    gives us full visibility of those in the process and close coordination
    with the VA is reducing the time to complete the IDES processing.
                  invest in education, training, and research
        Providing ``Trusted Care Anywhere'' requires our people to have the
    best education and training available to succeed in our mission. We
    strive to find new and better ways to ensure our Airmen not only
    survive but thrive.
        This is the goal of the Medical Education and Training Campus
    (METC), and it truly is a joint success story. METC has already
    matriculated 10,000 graduates from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and
    now has numerous international students enrolled. The majority of the
    services' education and training programs have transferred to METC, and
    the remainder will transfer during the course of this year. The
    Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE) awarded METC the ICE
    Presidential Commendation for the pharmacy technician program and
    praised it as being the best program in the United States.
        Air Force graduate medical education (GME) programs continue to be
    the bedrock for recruiting top-notch medics. Since the 1970s, many of
    our GME programs have been affiliated with renowned civilian
    universities. These partnerships are critical to broad-based training
    and build credibility in the U.S. and international medical
    communities. GME residencies in Air Force medical centers develop
    graduates who are trained in humanitarian assistance, disaster
    management, and deployment medicine. National recognition for top
    quality Air Force GME programs improves our ability to recruit and
    retain the best. First-time pass rates on specialty board exams
    exceeded national rates in 26 of 31 specialty areas, and stand at 92
    percent overall for the past 4 years.
        Over the next few years, we will transform training to support new
    assets in air evacuation and expeditionary medical support. Flight
    nurse and technician training and AE contingency operations training
    curriculums have been entirely rewritten to capture lessons from 10
    years of war. The Centers for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness
    Skills (C-STARS) in Baltimore, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, have been
    extraordinarily successful in maintaining wartime skills. We have
    expanded training sites to establish sustainment of traumas skills--
    Sustainment of Trauma and Resuscitation Skills Programs (STARS-P)--to
    University of California Davis, Scottsdale, University of Nevada-Las
    Vegas, and Tampa General Hospitals. This will include greater use of
    simulation at C-STARS, STARS-P, and other Air Force medical sites. We
    have many testimonials from deployed graduates who credit their
    competence and confidence in theater to C-STARS and STARS-P training.
    We will continue efforts to expand this training so we will have full-
    up trauma teams and CCATT that are always ready to go to war.
        One of our most significant partners in GME and resource-sharing is
    the Department of Veterans Affairs. We are proud of our 6 joint
    ventures, 59 sharing agreements, and 63 Joint Incentive Fund (JIF)
    projects, all win-wins for the military member, veteran, and American
    taxpayer. All four Air Force JIF proposals submitted for fiscal year
    2012 were selected. These include a new CT Scan at Tyndall AFB,
    Florida, that will also benefit the Gulf Coast VA Health Care System
    (HCS); establishment of an orthopedic surgery service for Mountain Home
    AFB, Idaho, and the Boise VAMC; funding for an additional cardiologist
    at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and the Alaska VA HCS--critical to
    reducing the number of patients leaving our system of care; and an
    ophthalmology clinic at Charleston with the Naval Health Clinic
    Charleston and the Charleston VA Medical Center. The JIF program is
    extremely helpful in supporting efficiencies that make sense in the
    Federal Government, while improving access to care for our
    beneficiaries.
        Collaboration with the VA in the Hearing Center of Excellence (HCE)
    continues as we pursue our goals of outreach, prevention, enhanced
    care, information management, and research to preserve and restore
    hearing. Compounding hearing loss related to noise, the effect of
    improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that military personnel experience
    in Iraq and Afghanistan expands the threat and damage to the
    audiovestibular system. Traumatic brain injury may damage the hearing
    senses and the ability to process sound efficiently and effectively.
    Dizziness is common, and almost one-half of servicemembers with TBI
    complain of vertigo following blast exposure.
        We are coordinating and integrating efforts with the other
    congressionally mandated centers of excellence to ensure the clinical
    care and rehabilitation of the Nation's wounded, ill, and injured have
    the highest priority. Partnering with the Defense and Veterans Eye
    Injury Registry has resulted in the Joint Theater Trauma Registry
    adding ocular and auditory injury modules to look at the effect and
    relation eye and ear injury has on TBI and psychological health
    rehabilitation. And the Vision Center of Excellence under Navy lead and
    HCE have contributed to the planning, patient management, and clinical
    guidelines with the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, the Center
    for the Intrepid, and within the Institute of Surgical Research.
        We have expanded our research with the opening of the new School of
    Aerospace Medicine at Wright Patterson and our collaborative efforts
    with the Army in the San Antonio Military Medical Center. The 59th
    Medical Wing at Lackland AFB, Texas, is using laser treatment to
    improve range of motion and aesthetics in patients with burn scars. In
    the 10 subjects enrolled to date in the research, the laser treatments
    have resulted in an immediate reduction in scar bulk, smoothing of
    irregularities, and the production of scar collagen. The scars have
    also shown improved pliability, softness, and pigmentation. This is
    encouraging for our wounded warriors and servicemembers who have
    received thermal or chemical burns.
        Another promising laser initiative is the Tricorder Program, a
    collaboration effort with the University of Illinois, Chicago, designed
    to detect/characterize laser exposure in ``real time,'' assisting in
    the development of force health protection measures, such as laser eye
    protection. Air Force and Navy testers evaluated the prototype laser
    sensors in simulated air and ground field environments. An upcoming
    exercise with the FBI Operational Technology Division will assess the
    laser sensor for forensic capability in a domestic aircraft
    illumination scenario.
        Another collaborative effort, with the Department of Homeland
    Security, is the development of an environmental/medical sensor
    integration platform that provides real-time data collection and
    decision support capability for medical operators and commanders,
    integrating environmental and medical sensor data from the field into a
    hand-held platform. The sensor integration platform was demonstrated
    successfully several times, including its deployment for environmental
    monitoring capability with the Hawaii National Guard, where the
    platform quadrupled Hawaii's radiation monitoring capability after the
    tsunami in Japan. It is now the backbone of Hawaii's State civil
    defense system real-time environmental monitoring capability.
        The U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM), Wright-
    Patterson AFB, Ohio, developed the cone contrast test (CCT) for
    detection of color vision deficiency. The CCT was selected as a winner
    of the 2012 Award for Excellence in Technology Transfer, presented
    annually by the Federal Laboratory Consortium to recognize laboratory
    employees who accomplished outstanding work in the process of
    transferring a technology developed by a Federal laboratory to the
    commercial marketplace. The technology was developed by vision
    scientists in USAFSAM's Aerospace Medicine Department and uses computer
    technology to replace the colored dot Ishihara Plates developed in the
    early 1900s. The CCT indicates vision deficiency type and severity, and
    can distinguish hereditary color vision loss from that caused by
    disease, trauma, medications, and environmental conditions--ensuring
    pilot safety while facilitating the detection and monitoring of
    disease.
                                 the way ahead
        I look back 10 years to 9/11 and marvel at how far we have come in
    a decade. While sustaining the best battlefield survival rate in the
    history of war, we have simultaneously completed complex base
    realignment and closure projects, and enhanced our peacetime care
    worldwide. We changed wartime medicine by moving the sickest of the
    sick home to the United States within 3 days, while shifting 1 million
    enrolled patients into team based, patient-centered care that improved
    continuity of care 100 percent. One thing has not changed . . . the
    talent, courage, and dedication of Air Force medics still inspires me
    every day. As I retire later this year, I know that I leave our Air
    Force family in exceptional hands. Air Force medics will always deliver
    ``Trusted Care, Anywhere'' for this great Nation.
        The AFMS will work shoulder-to-shoulder with our Army, Navy, and
    DOD counterparts to be ready, and provide better health, better care,
    and best value to America's heroes. Together we will implement the
    right governance of our Military Health System. We will find
    efficiencies and provide even higher quality care with the resources we
    are given. I thank this subcommittee for your tremendous support to
    military medics. Our success, both at home and on the battlefield,
    would not be possible without your persistent and generous support.
    Thank you.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Sir.
        Admiral Nathan.
    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MATTHEW L. NATHAN, SURGEON
                GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
        Admiral Nathan. Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Vice
    Chairman Cochran, and Senator Mikulski, distinguished members
    of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
    this update on Navy Medicine, including some of our strategic
    priorities, accomplishments, and opportunities.
        I report to you that Navy Medicine remains strong, capable,
    and mission-ready to deliver world-class care anywhere,
    anytime, as is our motto. We're meeting our operational wartime
    commitments, including humanitarian assistance and disaster
    response, and concurrently delivering outstanding patient- and
    family-centered care to our beneficiaries.
        Force health protection is what we do, and is at the very
    foundation of our continuum of care in support of the
    warfighter, and optimizes our ability to promote, protect, and
    restore their health. One of my top priorities since becoming
    the Navy Surgeon General in November has been to ensure that
    Navy Medicine is strategically aligned with the imperatives and
    priorities of the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
    Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps--all of my
    bosses.
        Each day, we are fully focused on executing the operational
    missions and core capabilities of the Navy and Marine Corps,
    and we do this by maintaining warfighter health readiness,
    delivering the continuum of care from the battlefield, to the
    bedside, from the bedside, to the unit, to the family, or to
    transition.
        Earlier this month, Secretary Mabus launched the 21st
    Century Sailor and Marine program, a new initiative focused on
    maximizing each sailor's and marine's personal readiness. This
    program includes comprehensive efforts in areas that are key,
    such as reducing suicides, and suicide attempts, curbing
    alcohol abuse, and reinforcing zero tolerance on the use of
    designer drugs or the newly arising synthetic chemical
    compounds. It also recognizes the vital role of safety and
    physical fitness in sustaining force readiness. Navy Medicine
    is synchronized with these priorities and stands ready to move
    forward at this pivotal time in our service's history. We
    appreciate the subcommittee's strong support of our resource
    requirements.
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2013 adequately
    funds Navy Medicine to meet its medical mission for the Navy
    and the Marine Corps. We recognize the significant investments
    made in supporting military medicine, and providing a strong,
    equitable, and affordable healthcare benefit for our
    beneficiaries. Moving forward, we must operate more jointly, we
    must position our direct care system to recapture private
    sector care, and deliver best value to our patients.
        A few specific areas of our attention. Combat casualty
    care, Navy Medicine, along with our Army and Air Force
    colleagues, are delivering outstanding combat casualty care.
    There is occasionally discussion about what constitutes world-
    class care, and I can assure you that the remarkable skills and
    capabilities in a place like the Role 3 facility, at the
    multinational medical unit in Kandahar, Afghanistan, is
    delivering truly world-class trauma care.
        Traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress, and
    post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Caring for our sailors
    and marines suffering with TBI and PTSD remains a top priority.
    We must continue active and expansive partnerships with other
    services, our Centers of Excellence, the VA, and leading
    academic medical and research centers to make the best care
    available to our warriors afflicted with TBI. I have been
    encouraged by our progress, but I'm not yet satisfied.
        Warrior recovery: Our wounded, ill, and injured
    servicemembers need to heal in mind, body, as well as spirit,
    and they deserve a seamless and comprehensive approach to their
    recovery. We must continue to connect our heroes to a proved
    emerging and advanced diagnostic and therapeutic options, but
    within our medical treatment facilities and outside of military
    medicine, through the collaborations with major medical centers
    of reconstructive and regenerative medicine. This commitment
    can never waiver.
        And finally, Medical Home Port: We've completed our initial
    deployment of Medical Home Port, which is basically patient-
    centered medical homes, as utilized in some of the larger
    organizations in the civilian sector, and the preliminary
    reports from the first sites of Navy Medicine show better
    health, better value, and less cost utilization of those
    enrolled.
        Our innovative research and outstanding medical education
    are truly force multipliers. Our critical overseas laboratories
    provide not only world-class research but invaluable engagement
    with host and surrounding nations to strengthen the theater
    security cooperation in longstanding research facilities that
    reside in places like Egypt, South America, Southeast Asia.
        We continue to welcome and leverage our joint relationships
    with the Army, the Air Force, the VA, as well as other Federal
    and civilian partners in these important areas. I believe this
    interoperability helps us create system-wide synergies and
    allows us to invest wisely in education and training, research,
    and information technology.
        None of these things would be possible without our
    professional and dedicated workforce. More than 60,000 men and
    women, Active Duty, Reserve personnel, civilians and
    contractors, all working the world to provide outstanding
    healthcare and support services to our beneficiaries.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, let me briefly address the MHS governance. The
    Deputy Secretary of Defense has submitted his report to the
    Congress, required by section 716 of fiscal year 2012 National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It addresses the Department's
    plans, subject to review, and concurrence by the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), to move forward with governance
    changes. Throughout my remarks this morning, and in my
    statement for the record, I have referred to our commitment to
    jointness in theater, in our classrooms, in our training, in
    our laboratories, and in our common pursuit of solutions like
    challenges like TBI. We all recognize the need for
    interoperability and cost-effective joint solutions, in terms
    of overall governance. We must, however, proceed in a
    deliberate and measured manner to ensure that our readiness to
    support our services missions and core war fighting
    capabilities will be maintained, and our excellence in
    healthcare delivery will be sustained.
        On behalf of the men and women in Navy Medicine, I want to
    thank this subcommittee for your tremendous support, your
    confidence, and your leadership, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Matthew L. Nathan
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee: I am pleased to be with you today to provide an
    update on Navy Medicine, including some of our collective strategic
    priorities, accomplishments, and opportunities. I want to thank the
    subcommittee members for the tremendous confidence and support of Navy
    Medicine.
        I can report to you that Navy Medicine remains strong, capable, and
    mission-ready to deliver world-class care, anytime, anywhere. We are
    operating forward and globally engaged, no matter what the environment
    and regardless of the challenge. The men and women of Navy Medicine
    remain flexible, agile, and resilient in order to effectively meet
    their operational and wartime commitments, including humanitarian
    assistance; and concurrently, delivering outstanding patient and
    family-centered care to our beneficiaries. It is a challenge, but one
    that we are privileged to undertake.
        One of my top priorities since becoming the Navy Surgeon General in
    November 2011 is to ensure that Navy Medicine is strategically aligned
    with the imperatives and priorities of the Secretary of the Navy, Chief
    of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps. We are fully
    engaged in executing the operational missions and core capabilities of
    the Navy and Marine Corps--and we do this by maintaining warfighter
    health readiness, delivering the continuum of care from the battlefield
    to the bedside and protecting the health of all those entrusted to our
    care. Our focus remains in alignment with our Navy and Marine Corps
    leadership as we support the defense strategic guidance, ``Sustaining
    U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century'' issued by the
    President and Secretary of Defense earlier this year. The Chief of
    Naval Operations in his ``Sailing Directions'' has articulated the
    Navy's core responsibilities and Navy Medicine stands ready as we move
    forward at this pivotal time in our history.
        Navy Medicine appreciates the subcommittee's strong support of our
    resource requirements. The President's budget for fiscal year 2013
    adequately funds Navy Medicine to meet its medical mission for the Navy
    and Marine Corps. We recognize the significant investments made in
    supporting military medicine and remain committed to providing
    outstanding care to all our beneficiaries. Moving forward, we must
    innovate, position our direct care system to recapture private sector
    care, and deliver best value to our patients. Driving these changes is
    critical and necessary but not sufficient. The Secretary of Defense has
    articulated that the current upward trajectory of healthcare spending
    within the Department is not sustainable. Accordingly, the President's
    budget includes important healthcare proposals designed to address this
    situation, including adjustments in TRICARE fees. The Department of
    Navy supports these proposals and believes they are important for
    ensuring a sustainable and equitable benefit for all our beneficiaries.
    We deliver one of the most comprehensive health benefits available and
    these changes will help us better manage costs, provide quality,
    accessible care, and keep faith with our beneficiaries. As the Navy
    Surgeon General, I appreciate the tremendous commitment of our senior
    leaders in this critical area and share the imperative of controlling
    costs and maintaining an affordable and sustainable benefit.
        Value--a key analytic in our decisionmaking--must inherently
    address cost and quality as we implement efficiencies and streamline
    operations. All of us in the Military Health System (MHS) recognize the
    challenges ahead are significant, including rising healthcare costs,
    increased number of beneficiaries, and maintaining long-term care
    responsibilities for our medically retired warriors.
        Additionally, we are very focused on improving internal controls
    and financial procedures in response to congressional priorities to
    obtain a clean financial audit. We have mandated the use of standard
    operating procedures at all our activities for those business processes
    which impact financial transactions. I have also emphasized the
    responsibility of every commanding officer in setting and maintaining
    appropriate internal controls. We are regularly evaluating our progress
    through financial transactions and process reviews which help us
    identify if any changes need to be made. We are making progress and our
    leadership is fully engaged and leaning forward to ensure the best
    possible stewardship of our resources.
        Alignment is also critical as we focus on more joint solutions
    within the MHS and in conjunction with the Army and Air Force. We see
    tremendous progress in joint medical operations, from battlefield
    medicine to education and training to research and development. As we
    continue to synchronize our collective efforts through deliberative
    planning and rigorous analyses, I believe we will have more
    opportunities to create synergies, reduce redundancies, and enhance
    value across the MHS.
        Our continuing joint efforts in the integration of the Quadruple
    Aim initiative is helping to develop better outcomes and implement
    balanced incentives across the MHS. The Quadruple Aim applies the
    framework from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and
    customizes it for the unique demands of military medicine. It targets
    the MHS and services' efforts on integral outcomes in the areas of
    readiness, population health and quality, patient experience, and cost.
    Our planning process within Navy Medicine is complementary to these
    efforts and targets goals that measure our progress and drive change
    through constructive self-assessment. I have challenged Navy Medicine
    leaders at headquarters, operational and regional commands, and
    treatment facilities to maintain strategic focus on these key metrics.
                     our mission is force health protection
        Force Health Protection is at the epicenter of everything we do. It
    is an expression of our Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment
    and the imperative for our worldwide engagement in support of
    expeditionary medical operations and combat casualty care. It is at the
    very foundation of our continuum of care in support of the warfighter
    and optimizes our ability to promote, protect, and restore their
    health. It is both an honor and obligation.
        Our Force Health Protection mission is clearly evident in our
    continued combat casualty care mission in Operation Enduring Freedom
    (OEF). Navy Medicine personnel are providing direct medical support to
    the operating forces throughout the area of responsibility (AOR). We
    continue to see remarkable advances in all aspects of life-saving
    trauma care. These changes have been dramatic over the last decade and
    enabled us to save lives at an unprecedented rate. We are continuously
    implementing lessons learned and best clinical practices, ensuring our
    providers have the most effective equipment available, and focusing on
    providing realistic and meaningful training. Mission readiness means
    providing better, faster combat casualty care to our warfighters.
        The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Role 3 Multinational
    Medical Unit (MMU), operating at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan is a
    world-class combat trauma hospital that serves a unique population of
    United States and coalition forces, as well as Afghan National Army,
    National Police, and civilians wounded in Afghanistan. Led by Navy
    Medicine, the Role 3 MMU is an impressive 70,000 square foot state-of-
    the-art facility that is the primary trauma receiving and referral
    center for all combat casualties in Southern Afghanistan. It has 12
    trauma bays, 4 operating rooms, 12 intensive care beds, and 35
    intermediate care beds. The approximately 250 staff of Active component
    (AC) and Reserve component (RC) personnel includes 30 physicians with
    multiple surgical specialties as well as anesthesia, emergency
    medicine, and internal medicine. RC personnel currently make up 27
    percent of overall manning and provide us unique and invaluable skill
    sets. With trauma admissions averaging 175 patients per month, the unit
    achieved unprecedented survival rates in 2011. In addition, MMU has two
    forward surgical teams deployed in the region to provide frontline
    surgical trauma care demonstrating agility to meet changing operational
    requirements.
        Training is critical for our personnel deploying to the MMU Role 3.
    This year, we established a targeted training program at the Naval
    Expeditionary Medical Training Institute (NEMTI) onboard Marine Corps
    Base Camp Pendleton for our personnel deploying to the MMU. The
    training is part of an effort designed to foster teamwork, and build
    medical skills specific to what personnel require while on a 6-month
    deployment. Navy Medicine and U.S. Fleet Forces Command (FFC)
    recognized the need to integrate medical training scenarios to expand
    upon the knowledge and skills required to fill positions at the
    Kandahar Role 3 facility. In January, I had the opportunity to see this
    impressive training in action during the course's final exercise and
    saw our personnel implement the clinical skills they honed during the
    2-week course. They participated in a scenario-driven series of
    exercises, including staffing a fully equipped hospital receiving
    patients with traumatic injuries, simulated air strike, and a mass
    casualty drill. This training, as well as the program at the Navy
    Trauma Training Center (NTTC) at Los Angeles County/University of
    Southern California Medical Center where our personnel train as teams
    in a busy civilian trauma center, help ensure our deployers have the
    skills and confidence to succeed in their combat casualty care mission.
        Recognizing the importance of ensuring our deployed clinicians have
    access to state-of-the-art capabilities, Navy Medicine, in conjunction
    with the Army, Air Force, and our contracted partners worked
    successfully to deliver the first ever magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
    technology in a combat theatre to aid the comprehensive diagnosis and
    treatment of concussive injuries. Efforts included the planning,
    design, and execution of this new capability as well as ensuring that
    clinical, logistical, transportation, environmental, and sustainment
    considerations for the MRIs were fully addressed prior to the
    deployment of the units to the battlefield. The fact that we were able
    to design, acquire, and deliver this new capability to the battlefield
    in approximately 6 months from contract award is a testament to the
    commitment of the joint medical and logistics teams. MRIs are now in
    place Role 3 MMU in Kandahar, Role 3 Trauma Hospital in Camp Bastion
    and the Joint Theatre Hospital located on Bagram Airfield.
        Navy Medicine also supports stability operations through multiple
    types of engagements including enduring, ship-centric humanitarian
    assistance (HA) missions such as Pacific Partnership and Continuing
    Promise, which foster relationships with partner countries. During 2011
    Pacific Partnership 2011, 86 Navy Medicine personnel augmented with
    nongovernmental organization, interagency, and other Service personnel
    conducted activities in Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste,
    and the Federated States of Micronesia. Engagements included
    engineering projects, veterinary services, preventive medicine/public
    health, and biomedical equipment repair. Continuing Promise 2011
    involved 480 Navy Medicine personnel conducting activities in Jamaica,
    Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica,
    and Haiti. More than 67,000 patients were treated and 1,130 surgeries
    were performed during this important mission. In addition to our
    efforts at sea, Navy Medicine also supports land-based HA engagements
    including Marine Corps exercises such as Africa Partnership Station and
    Southern Partnership Station as well as multiple Joint exercises such
    as Balikatan in the Philippines.
              medical home port: patient- and family-centered care
        We completed our initial deployment of Medical Home Port (MHP)
    throughout the Navy Medicine enterprise. MHP is Navy Medicine's
    adaptation of the successful civilian patient-centered medical home
    (PCMH) concept of care which transforms the delivery of primary care to
    an integrated and comprehensive suite of services. MHP is founded in
    ensuring that patients see their assigned provider as often as
    possible, and that they can access primary care easily rather than
    seeking primary care in the emergency room. Strategically, MHP is a
    commitment to total health and, operationally, it is foundational to
    revitalizing our primary care system and achieving high-quality,
    accessible, cost-efficient healthcare for our beneficiaries.
        We are also working with the Marine Corps to implement the Marine-
    centered medical home (MCMH) as a complementary analogue to the MHP.
    Likewise, we are working with U.S. Fleet Forces Command to establish a
    fleet-based model of the PCMH using the same principles. The first
    prototype carrier-based PCMH concept will be developed for USS Abraham
    Lincoln (CVN-72).
        Initial results are encouraging. MHP performance pilots at the
    Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) and Naval
    Hospital Pensacola have shown improvement in key healthcare outcomes
    such as:
      --increased patient satisfaction;
      --improved access to care; and
      --improved quality of care associated with decreased use of the
            emergency room (an important cost driver).
        Data show similar results enterprise-wide through October 2011, and
    also indicate improved continuity with assigned provider, decreased
    emergency room utilization, and better cost containment when compared
    with fiscal year 2010.
                       healing in body, mind, and spirit
        Health is not simply the absence of infirmity or disease--it is the
    complete state of physical, mental, spiritual, and social well-being.
    As our wounded warriors return from combat and begin the healing
    process, they deserve a seamless and comprehensive approach to their
    recovery. Our focus is integrative, complementary, and
    multidisciplinary-based care, bringing together clinical specialists,
    behavioral health providers, case managers, and chaplains. There are
    approximately 170 medical case managers who work closely with their
    line counterparts in the Marine Corps' Wounded Warrior Regiment and the
    Navy's Safe Harbor program to support the full-spectrum recovery
    process for sailors, marines, and their families.
        We have made remarkable progress in ensuring our wounded
    servicemembers get the care they need--from medical evacuation through
    inpatient care, outpatient rehabilitation to eventual return to duty or
    transition from the military. With our historically unprecedented
    battlefield survival rate, we witness our heroes returning with the
    life-altering wounds of war which require recovery and long-term care.
    We must continue to adapt our capabilities to best treat these
    conditions and leverage our systems to best support recovery.
        To that end, we are committed to connecting our wounded warriors to
    approved emerging and advanced diagnostic and therapeutic options
    within our military treatment facilities (MTFs) and outside of military
    medicine. We do this through collaborations with major centers of
    reconstructive and regenerative medicine while ensuring full compliance
    with applicable patient safety policies and practices. The Naval
    Medical Research and Development Center in Frederick, Maryland, is
    aggressively engaged in furthering support for cooperative medical
    research between multiple centers of regenerative and reconstructive
    medicine. Their collaborative efforts, in conjunction with the Armed
    Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM), are essential in
    developing new regenerative and transplant capabilities, both at the
    civilian and the military institutions with ultimate sharing of
    knowledge, expertise, and technical skills in support of restoration of
    our wounded warriors.
        Navy Medicine continues a robust translation research program in
    wound healing and wound care, moving technologies developed at the
    bench to deployment in the clinic to enhance the care of the wounded
    warfighter. Concurrently, we are focused on improving the capability
    and capacity to provide comprehensive and interdisciplinary pain
    management from the operational setting to the MTF to home. This
    priority includes pain management education and training to providers,
    patients, and families to prevent over-prescribing, misuse of
    medications, and promoting alternative therapies.
        Preserving the psychological health of servicemembers and their
    families is one of the greatest challenges we face today. The Navy
    continues to foster a culture of support for psychological health as an
    essential component to total force fitness and readiness. Navy and
    Marine Corps combat operational stress control (COSC) programs provide
    sailors, marines, leaders, and families the skills and resources to
    build resiliency. We also continue to address stigma by encouraging
    prevention, early intervention, and help-seeking behaviors. Training is
    designed to build teams of leaders, marines, sailors, medical, and
    religious ministry personnel to act as sensors for leadership by
    noticing small changes in behavior and taking action early. These
    efforts support in fostering unit strength, resilience, and readiness.
        Navy Medicine has continued to adapt psychological health support
    across traditional and nontraditional healthcare systems. Access to
    psychological health services have increased in venues designed to
    reduce the effects associated with mental health stigma. These efforts
    are also focused on suicide prevention and are designed to improve
    education, outreach, and intervention. In 2011, more than 1,000 health
    providers received targeted training in assessing and managing suicide
    risk. We are also integrating behavioral health providers in our MHP
    program to help address the needs of our patients in the primary care
    setting.
        Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is one of many psychological
    health conditions that adversely impacts operational readiness and
    quality of life. Navy Medicine has an umbrella of psychological health
    programs that target multiple, often co-occurring, mental health
    conditions including PTSD. These programs support prevention,
    diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of PTSD. Our
    efforts are also focused on appropriate staffing, meeting access
    standards, implementing recommended and standardized evidence-based
    practices, as well as reducing stigma and barriers to care.
        We recently deployed our fifth Navy Mobile Mental Health Care Team
    (MCT) in Afghanistan. Consisting of two mental health clinicians, a
    research psychologist and an enlisted behavioral health technician,
    their primary mission is to administer the Behavioral Health Needs
    Assessment Survey (BHNAS). The results give an overall assessment and
    actionable intelligence of real-time mental health and well-being data
    for our deployed forces. It can also identify potential areas or
    subgroups of concern for leaders on the ground and those back in
    garrison. The survey assesses mental health outcomes, as well as the
    risk and protective factors for those outcomes such as combat
    exposures, deployment-related stressors, positive effects of
    deployment, leadership perceptions, and morale and unit cohesion. The
    MCT also has a preventive mental health and psycho-education role and
    provides training in COSC and combat and operational stress first aid
    (COSFA) to sailors in groups and individually to give them a framework
    to mitigate acute stressors and promote resilience in one another.
        Data from previous MCT deployments and BHNAS analyses indicate
    continued need for implementation of COSC doctrine and command support
    in OEF. In addition, the Joint Mental Health Assessment Team (J-MHAT 7)
    surveillance efforts conducted in Afghanistan during 2010 indicate an
    increase in the rate of marines screening at-risk for PTSD relative to
    similar surveys conducted in marine samples serving in Iraq during 2006
    and 2007. This assessment also shows increases in training
    effectiveness regarding managing combat deployment stress, as well as a
    significant reduction in stigma associated with seeking behavioral
    health treatment.
        In collaboration with the Marine Corps, the operational stress
    control and readiness (OSCAR) program represents an approach to mental
    healthcare in the operational setting by taking mental health providers
    out of the clinic and embedding them with operational forces to
    emphasize prevention, early detection, and brief intervention. OSCAR-
    trained primary care providers recognize and treat psychological health
    issues at points where interventions are often most effective. In
    addition, OSCAR includes chaplains and religious personnel (OSCAR
    Extenders) who are trained to recognize stress illness and injuries and
    make appropriate referral. More than 3,000 marine leaders and
    individual marines have been trained in prevention, early detection,
    and intervention in combat stress through OSCAR Team Training and will
    operate in OSCAR teams within individual units.
        Through the caregiver occupational stress control (CgOSC) program,
    Navy Medicine is also working to enhance the resilience of caregivers
    to the psychological demands of exposure to trauma, wear and tear,
    loss, and inner conflict associated with providing clinical care and
    counseling. The core objectives include:
      --early recognition of distress;
      --breaking the code of silence related to stress reactions and
            injuries; and
      --engaging caregivers in early help as needed to maintain both
            mission and personal readiness.
        Our emphasis remains ensuring that we have the proper size and mix
    of mental health providers to care for the growing need of
    servicemembers and their families who need care. Within Navy Medicine,
    mental health professional recruiting and retention remains a top
    priority. Although shortfalls remain, we have made progress recruiting
    military, civilian, and contractor providers, including psychiatrists,
    clinical psychologists, social workers, and mental health nurse
    practitioners. We have increased the size of the mental health
    workforce in these specialties from 505 in fiscal year 2006 to 829 in
    fiscal year 2012. Notwithstanding the military is not immune to the
    nationwide shortage of qualified mental health professionals.
    Throughout the country, the demand for behavioral health services
    remains significant and continues to grow.
        Caring for our sailors and marines suffering with traumatic brain
    injury (TBI) remains a top priority. While we are making progress, we
    have much work ahead of us as we determine both the acute and long-term
    impact of TBI on our servicemembers. Our strategy must be both
    collaborative and inclusive by actively partnering with the other
    Services, our Centers of Excellence, the Department of Veterans Affairs
    (VA), and leading academic medical and research centers to make the
    best care available to our warriors afflicted with TBI.
        Navy Medicine is committed to ensuring thorough screening for all
    sailors and marines prior to deployment, while in theatre, and upon
    return from deployment. Pre-deployment neurocognitive testing is
    mandated using the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics
    (ANAM). The ANAM provides a measure of cognitive performance, that when
    used with a patient with confirmed concussion, can help a provider
    determine functional level as compared to the servicemember's baseline.
    In-theatre screening, using clinical algorithms and the Military Acute
    Concussion Evaluation (MACE), occurs for those who have been exposed to
    a potentially concussive event, as specified by the event driven
    protocols of the TBI Directive-type Memorandum (DTM) 09-033 released in
    June 2010.
        DTM-09-033 has changed the way we treat TBI in theatre. It requires
    pre-deployment on point-of-injury care, improved documentation, and
    tracking of concussion by line and medical leaders, as well as a move
    toward standardization of system-wide care.
        In-theatre, the Concussion Restoration Care Center (CRCC) at Camp
    Leatherneck Afghanistan, became operational in August 2010. CRCC
    represents a ground-breaking, interdisciplinary approach to
    comprehensive musculoskeletal and concussion care in the deployed
    setting. As of December 1, 2011, the CRCC has seen more than 2,500
    patients (more than 750 with concussion) with a greater than 95 percent
    return to duty rate. I am encouraged by the impact the CRCC is having
    in theatre by providing treatment to our servicemembers close to the
    point-of-injury and returning them to duty upon recovery. We will
    continue to focus our attention on positioning our personnel and
    resources where they are most needed.
        Postdeployment surveillance is accomplished through the
    postdeployment health assessment (PDHA) and postdeployment health
    reassessment (PDHRA), required for returning deployers. Navy Medicine
    has conducted additional postdeployment TBI surveillance on high-risk
    units and those marines with confirmed concussions in theatre, with a
    goal of improving patient outcomes and better informing leaders.
        Access and quality of care for treating TBIs are being addressed
    through standardization of Navy Medicine's current six clinical TBI
    specialty programs at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Naval Medical
    Center San Diego, Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, Naval Hospital Camp
    Pendleton, Naval Health Clinic New England--Branch Health Clinics
    Groton and Portsmouth. Additionally, we have an inpatient program at
    WRNMMC which focuses on moderate and severe TBI while also conducting
    screening for TBI on all polytrauma patients within the medical center.
        The National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE) is dedicated to
    providing cutting-edge evaluation, treatment planning, research, and
    education for servicemembers and their families dealing with the
    complex interactions of mild TBI and psychological health conditions.
    Their approach is interdisciplinary, holistic, patient-, and family-
    centered. The NICoE's primary patient population is comprised of Active
    Duty servicemembers with TBI and PH conditions who are not responding
    to current therapy. The NICoE has spearheaded partnerships with many
    military, Federal, academic, and private industry partners in research
    and education initiatives to further the science and understanding of
    these invisible wounds of war. The Department of Defense (DOD) has
    recently accepted an offer from the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund to
    construct several NICoE Satellite centers to treat our military
    personnel suffering from PTSD or TBI locally. The first installations
    to receive these centers will be Fort Belvoir, Camp Lejeune, and Fort
    Campbell. The Services are actively working together to determine the
    details regarding project timelines, building sizes, staffing, funding,
    and sustainability.
        We need to continue to leverage the work being done by the Defense
    Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain
    Injury, including the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, given
    their key roles in the expanding our knowledge of PH and TBI within the
    MHS, the VA and research institutions. This collaboration is also
    evident in the work being conducted by the Vision Center of Excellence
    (VCE), established by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008.
    VCE, for which Navy Medicine currently provides operational support,
    exemplifies this important symmetry with military medicine, the VA and
    research partners. They are developing a distributed and integrated
    organization with regional locations that link together a network of
    clinical, research, and teaching centers around the world. The VCE
    encompasses an array of national and international strategic partners,
    including institutions of higher learning, and public and private
    entities.
        Family readiness supports force readiness so we must have programs
    of support in place for our families. We continue to see solid results
    from FOCUS (Families Over Coming Under Stress), our evidence-based,
    family-centered resilience training program that enhances understanding
    of combat and operational stress, psychological health and
    developmental outcomes for highly stressed children and families.
    Services are offered at 23 CONUS/OCONUS locations. As of December 2011,
    270,000 families, servicemembers, and community support members have
    been trained on FOCUS. Based on the program's annual report released in
    July 2011, we can see there has been a statistically significant
    decrease in issues such as depression and anxiety in servicemembers,
    spouses, and children who have completed the program as well as a
    statistically significant increase in positive family functioning for
    families.
        For our Marine Corps and Navy Reserve populations, we have
    developed the Reserve Psychological Health Outreach Program (PHOP).
    PHOP provides psychological health outreach, education/training, and
    resources a 24/7 information line for unit leaders or reservists and
    their families to obtain information about local resources for issues
    related to employment, finances, psychological health, family support,
    and child care. PHOP now includes 55 licensed mental health providers
    dispersed throughout the country serving on 11 teams located centrally
    to Navy and Marine Force Reserve commands.
        Returning warrior workshops (RWWs) began with the Navy Reserve more
    than 5 years ago and are conducted quarterly in each Navy Reserve
    Region across the country. As of September 2011, more than 10,000
    servicemembers and their families have participated in RWWs. RWWs
    assist demobilized servicemembers and their loved ones in identifying
    immediate and potential issues that often arise during postdeployment
    reintegration.
        Navy Medicine maintains a steadfast commitment to our substance
    abuse rehabilitation programs (SARPs). SARPs offer a broad range of
    services to include alcohol education, outpatient and intensive
    outpatient treatment, residential treatment, and medically managed care
    for withdrawal and/or other medical complications. We have expanded our
    existing care continuum to include cutting-edge residential and
    intensive outpatient programs that address both substance abuse and
    other co-occurring mental disorders directed at the complex needs of
    returning warriors who may suffer from substance abuse disorders and
    depression or PTSD. In addition, Navy Medicine has developed a new
    program known as My Online Recovery Experience (MORE). In conjunction
    with Hazelden, a civilian leader in substance abuse treatment and
    education, MORE is a ground-breaking Web-based recovery management
    program available to servicemembers 24/7 from anywhere in the world.
    Navy Medicine has also invested in important training opportunities on
    short-term interventions and dual diagnosis treatment for providers and
    drug and alcohol counselors, markedly improving quality and access to
    care.
        Our Naval Center for Combat & Operational Stress Control (NCCOSC)--
    now in its fourth year--continues to improve the psychological health
    of marines and sailors through comprehensive programs that educate
    servicemembers, build psychological resilience and promote best
    practices in the treatment of stress injuries. The overarching goal is
    to show sailors and marines how to recognize signs of stress before
    anyone is in crisis and to get help when it is needed. NCCOSC continues
    to make progress in advancing research for the prevention, diagnosis,
    and treatment of combat and operational stress injuries, including
    PTSD. They have 50 on-going scientific projects and have doubled the
    number of enrolled participants from a year ago to more than 7,100.
    Similarly, they have expanded the enrollment in their psychological
    health pathways (PHP) pilot project to 2,248 patients--a 38-percent
    increase over last year.
       force multipliers: research and development and graduate medical
                                   education
        Innovative research and development and vibrant medical education
    help ensure that we have the capabilities to deliver world-class care
    now and in the future. They are sound investments in sustaining our
    excellence to Navy Medicine to our mission of Force Health Protection.
        The continuing mission of our Medical Research and Development
    program is to conduct health and medical research in the full spectrum
    of development, testing, clinical evaluation (RDT&E), and health threat
    detection in support of the operational readiness and performance of
    DOD personnel worldwide. In parallel with this primary operational
    research activity, our clinical investigation program (CIP) continues
    to expand at our teaching MTFs with direct funding being provided to
    support the enrichment of knowledge and capability of our trainees.
    Where consistent with this goal, these programs are participating in
    the translation of knowledge and tangible products from our RDT&E
    activity into proof of concept and cutting edge interventions that are
    directly applied in benefit of our wounded warriors and our
    beneficiaries.
        Navy Medicine's five strategic research priorities are set to meet
    the war-fighting requirements of the Chief of Naval Operations and the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps. These pursuits continue with
    appropriate review and the application of best practices in meeting our
    goals. These five areas of priority include:
      --TBI and psychological health treatment and fitness;
      --medical systems support for maritime and expeditionary operations;
      --wound management throughout the continuum of care;
      --hearing restoration and protection for operational maritime surface
            and air support personnel; and
      --undersea medicine, diving, and submarine medicine.
        We continue to strengthen our medical partnerships in Southeast
    Asia, Africa, and South America through the cooperation and support
    provided by our Naval Medical Research Units and medical research
    operations in those geographical regions. We find that the application
    of medical and healthcare diplomacy is a firm cornerstone of successful
    pursuit of overarching bilateral relations between allies. These
    engagements are mutually beneficial--not only for the relationships
    with Armed Forces of engaged countries but for generalization of
    healthcare advances to the benefit of peoples around the globe.
        Graduate Medical Education (GME) is vital to the Navy's ability to
    train board-certified physicians and meet the requirement to maintain a
    tactically proficient, combat-credible medical force. Robust,
    innovative GME programs continue to be the hallmark of Navy Medicine.
    We are pleased to report that despite the challenges presented by 10
    years of war, GME remains strong.
        Our institutions and training programs continue to perform well on
    periodic site visits by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
    Education (ACGME) and most are at or near the maximum accreditation
    cycle length. The performance of our three major teaching hospitals, in
    particular, has been outstanding with all three earning the maximum 5-
    year accreditation cycle length. Board certification is another
    hallmark of strong GME. The overall pass rate for Navy trainees in 2011
    was 96 percent, well-above the national average in most specialties.
    Our Navy-trained physicians continue to prove themselves exceptionally
    well-prepared to provide care to all members of the military family,
    and in all operational settings ranging from the field hospitals of the
    battlefield to the platforms that support disaster and humanitarian
    relief missions.
        Overall, I am pleased with the progress we are making with our
    joint enlisted training efforts at the Medical Education and Training
    Campus (METC) in San Antonio, Texas. I had an opportunity to visit the
    training center earlier this year and meet with the leadership and
    students. We have a tremendous opportunity to train our sailors with
    their Army and Air Force counterparts in a joint environment, and I am
    working with my fellow Surgeons General to ensure we optimize our
    efforts, improve interoperability and create synergies.
                 interoperability and collaborative engagement
        Navy Medicine continues to leverage its unique relationships with
    the Army, Air Force, the VA, as well as other Federal and civilian
    partners. This interoperability helps create system-wide synergies and
    foster best practices in care, education and training, research and
    technology.
        Our sharing and collaboration efforts with the VA continue
    throughout our enterprise and Navy Medicine's most recent joint venture
    is a unique partnership between the Naval Health Clinic Charleston,
    Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Naval Hospital
    Beaufort and the Air Force's 628th Medical Group. This partnership will
    manage joint healthcare services and explore local joint opportunities
    for collaboration. In addition, our new replacement facility at Naval
    Hospital Guam, currently under construction, will continue to provide
    ancillary and specialty service to VA beneficiaries.
        Operations continue at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
    Care Center (FHCC) in Great Lakes, Illinois--a first-of-its-kind fully
    integrated partnership that links Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes and
    the North Chicago VA Medical Center into one healthcare system. This
    joint facility, activated in October 2010, is a 5-year demonstration
    project as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
    Year 2010. During its first year, FHCC successfully completed the
    Civilian Personnel Transfer of Function which realigned staff from
    1,500 to more than 3,000. The USS Red Rover Recruit Clinic processed
    more than 38,000 U.S. Navy recruits and delivered more than 178,000
    immunizations to the Navy recruits. We continue to work with DOD and
    the VA to leverage the full suites of information technology
    capabilities to support the mission and patient population.
        In addition, our collaborative efforts are critical in continuing
    to streamline the integrated disability evaluation system (IDES) in
    support of our transitioning wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers.
    Within the Department of Navy (DON), we have completed IDES expansion
    to all 21 CONUS MTFs and we are working to implement improvements and
    best practices in order to streamline the IDES process to allow for
    timely and thorough evaluation and disposition. Further collaboration
    between DOD, the Services, and the VA regarding information technology
    improvements, ability for field-level reports for case management and
    capability for electronic case file transfer is ongoing.
        In support of DOD and VA interagency efforts, we are leveraging our
    information technology capabilities and building on joint priorities to
    support a seamless transition of medical information for our
    servicemembers and veterans. This ongoing work includes the development
    of an integrated electronic health record and the virtual lifetime
    electronic record (VLER), including the Naval Medical Centers San Diego
    and Portsmouth participation in VLER pilot projects.
        We completed the requirements associated with the base realignment
    and closure (BRAC) in the National Capital Region (NCR) with the
    opening of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and Fort
    Belvoir Community Hospital. The scope of this realignment was
    significant, and we are continuing to devote attention to ensuring that
    our integration efforts reduce overhead, maintain mission readiness,
    and establish efficient systems for those providing care to our
    patients. We have outstanding staff members comprised of Navy, Army,
    Air Force and civilians, who are executing their mission with skill,
    compassion, and professionalism. The opening of these impressive
    facilities represented several years of hard work by the men and women
    of military medicine, as well as generous support from Members of
    Congress. I am proud of what we accomplished and, moving forward,
    encouraged about the opportunities for developing a sustainable,
    efficient integrated healthcare delivery model in the NCR. I, along
    with my fellow Surgeons General, am committed to this goal and
    recognize the hard work ahead of us.
                        people--our most important asset
        The hallmark of Navy Medicine is our professional and dedicated
    workforce. Our team consists of more than 63,000 Active component (AC)
    and Reserve component (RC) personnel, government civilians as well as
    contract personnel--all working around the world to provide outstanding
    healthcare and support services to our beneficiaries. I am continually
    inspired by their selfless service and sharp focus on protecting the
    health of sailors, marines, and their families.
        Healthcare accessions and recruiting remain a top priority, and,
    overall, Navy Medicine continues to see solid results from these
    efforts. Attainment of our recruiting and retention goals has allowed
    Navy Medicine to meet all operational missions despite some critical
    wartime specialty shortages. In fiscal year 2011, Navy Recruiting
    attained 101 percent of Active Medical Department officer goals, and 85
    percent of Reserve Medical Department officer goals. In a collaborative
    effort with the Chief of Navy Reserve and Commander, Navy Recruiting
    Command, we are working to overcome challenges in the RC medical
    recruiting missions. We recently held a recruiting medical stakeholders
    conference during which we discussed the challenges and courses of
    action to address them. Using a variety of initiatives such as the
    Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), special incentive pays
    and selective re-enlistment bonuses, Navy Medicine is able to support
    and sustain accessions and retention across the Corps. We are grateful
    to the Congress for the authorities provided to us in support of these
    programs.
        As a whole, AC Medical Corps manning at the end of fiscal year 2011
    was 100 percent of requirements; however, some specialty shortfalls
    persist including general surgery, family medicine, and psychiatry.
    Aggressive plans to improve specialty shortfalls include continuation
    of retention incentives via special pays, and an increase in psychiatry
    training billets. Overall AC Dental Corps manning was at 96 percent of
    requirements, despite oral and maxillofacial surgeons manning at 77
    percent. A recent increase in incentive special pays was approved to
    address this shortfall. General dentist incentive pay and retention
    bonuses have helped increase general dentist manning to 99 percent, up
    from 88 percent manning a year ago. At the end of fiscal year 2011, AC
    Medical Service Corps manning was 94 percent of requirements. A
    staffing shortage does exist for the social work specialty, manned at
    45 percent. This shortage is due to increased requirements and billet
    growth during the past 3 years. We anticipate that this specialty will
    be fully manned by the end fiscal year 2014 through increased
    accessions and incentive programs. Our AC Nurse Corps manning at the
    end of fiscal year 2011 was 94 percent of requirements. Undermanned
    low-density/high-demand specialties including peri-operative nurses,
    certified registered nurse anesthetists and critical care nurses are
    being addressed via incentive special pays.
        Our AC Hospital Corps remains strong with manning at 96 percent.
    Critical manning shortfalls exist in several skill sets such as
    behavioral health technicians, surface force independent duty corpsmen,
    dive independent duty corpsmen, submarine independent duty corpsmen,
    and reconnaissance corpsmen. Program accession and retention issues are
    being addressed through increased special duty assignment pay,
    selective re-enlistment bonuses and new force shaping policies.
        Reserve component Medical Corps recruiting continues to be our
    greatest challenge. Higher AC retention rates have resulted in a
    smaller pool of medical professionals leaving Active Duty, and
    consequently, greater reliance on highly competitive Direct Commission
    Officer (DCO) market. RC Medical Corps manning at the end of fiscal
    year 2011 manning was at 71 percent of requirements while our Nurse
    Corps RC manning was 88 percent. To help mitigate this situation, there
    is an affiliation bonus of $10,000 or special pay of up to $25,000 per
    year based on specialty, and activated reserves are also authorized
    annual special incentive pays as applicable. Due to robust recruiting
    efforts and initiatives, the Reserve component Nurse Corps exceeded
    recruiting goals for the second consecutive year. Dental Corps and
    Medical Service Corps RC manning is 100 and 99 percent, respectively.
        Overall RC Hospital Corps manning is at 99 percent; however, we do
    have some shortfalls in surgical, xray, and biomedical repair
    technicians. Affiliation bonuses are specifically targeted toward those
    undermanned specialties.
        We are encouraged by our improving overall recruiting and retention
    rates. Improvements in special pays have mitigated manning shortfalls;
    however, it will take several years until Navy Medicine is fully manned
    in several critical areas. To ensure the future success of accession
    and retention for Medical Department officers continued funding is
    needed for our programs and special incentive pays. We are grateful for
    your support in this key area.
        For our Federal civilian personnel within Navy Medicine, we have
    successfully transitioned out of the National Security Personnel System
    (NSPS) and, in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Health Affairs and the other Services, we have begun a phased
    transition to introduce pay flexibilities in 32 healthcare occupations
    to ensure pay parity among healthcare providers in Federal service. The
    initial phase occurred in fiscal year 2011 when more than 400 Federal
    civilian physicians and dentists were converted to the new Defense
    Physician and Dentist Pay Plan. Modeled on the current VA pay system,
    the Defense Physician and Dentist Pay Plan provides us with the
    flexibility to respond to local conditions in the healthcare markets.
    We continue to successfully hire required civilians to support our
    sailors and marines and their families--many of whom directly support
    our wounded warriors. Our success is largely attributed to the hiring
    and compensation flexibilities granted by the Congress to the DOD's
    civilian healthcare community over the past several years.
        The Navy Medicine Reintegrate, Educate and Advance Combatants in
    Healthcare (REACH) program is an initiative that provides wounded
    warriors with career and educational guidance from career coaches, as
    well as hands-on training and mentoring from our hospital staff. To
    date, Navy Medicine has launched the REACH program at WRNMMC, Naval
    Medical Centers Portsmouth and San Diego, as well as Naval Hospital
    Camp LeJeune. The ultimate goal of the REACH program is to provide a
    career development and succession pipeline of trained disabled veterans
    for Federal Civil Service positions in Navy Medicine.
        I am committed to building and sustaining diversity within the Navy
    Medicine workforce. Our focus remains creating an environment where our
    diversity reflects that of our patients and our Nation and where our
    members see themselves represented in all levels of leadership. We
    embrace what we learn from our unique differences with the goal of a
    work-life in balance with mind, body, and spirit. I believe we are more
    mission-ready, stronger, and better shipmates because of our diversity.
    Navy Medicine will continue to harness the teamwork, talent, and
    innovation of our diverse force as we move forward into our future.
                                   conclusion
        In summary, Navy Medicine is an agile and vibrant healthcare team.
    I am grateful to those came before us for their vision and foresight; I
    am inspired by those who serve with us now for commitment and bravery;
    and I am confident in those who will follow us because they will surely
    build on the strength and tradition of Navy Medicine. I have never been
    more proud of the men and women of Navy Medicine.
        On behalf of the men and women of Navy Medicine, I want to thank
    the subcommittee 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. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        General Horoho.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PATRICIA HOROHO,
                SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
        General Horoho. Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Ranking
    Member Cochran, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to share with
    you today my thoughts on the future of Army Medicine and
    highlight some of the incredible work that is being performed
    by the dedicated men and women with whom I'm honored to serve
    alongside.
        We are America's most trusted premiere medical team, and
    our successful mission accomplishment over these past 10 years
    is testimony to the phenomenal resilience, dedication, and
    innovative spirit of the soldier medics, civilians, and family
    members throughout the world. Since 1775, Army Medicine has
    been there. In every conflict, the United States has fought
    with the Army, Army Medicine has stood shoulder-to-shoulder
    with our fighting forces in the deployed environment, and
    receive them here at home when they returned.
        It cannot be overstated that the best trauma care in the
    world resides with the United States military in Afghanistan,
    prosecuted by a joint healthcare team. Yet, we cannot have gone
    through 10 years of war for the length of time and not been
    aware of these experiences and how they've changed us as
    individuals, as an organization, and as a Nation.
        The Army, at its core, is its people, not equipment or
    weapon systems. I'd like to thank the subcommittee for ensuring
    these brave men and women, who have endured so much over the
    past decade, have received a variety of programs, policies, and
    facilities to cope with the cumulative stress, the injuries,
    and the family separations caused by 10 years of war.
        The warfighter does not stand alone. We must never forget
    that our success in Iraq and Afghanistan comes at a heavy price
    for our Army family. In supporting a nation in persistent
    conflict, with the stressors resulting from 10 years of war,
    Army Medicine has a responsibility to all those who serve, to
    include family members, our retirees, who have already answered
    the call to our Nation.
        We hold sacred the enduring mission of providing support to
    the wounded warriors and their families. I would like to take a
    moment to acknowledge the warm embrace from communities across
    America, as our veterans transition back to civilian life.
        While proudly acknowledging our many healthcare
    accomplishments at home and in theater, I want to turn to the
    future. The scope of Army Medicine extends beyond the
    outstanding in-theater combat care, and our mission is larger
    than the wartime medicine. We are an organization that has
    endured and excelled in global healthcare delivery, medical
    research and training programs, and collaborative partnerships.
    We are at our best when we operate as part of the joint team,
    and we need to proactively develop synergy with our partners as
    military medicine moves towards a joint operating environment.
    Continuity of care, continuity of information, and unity of
    effort are key not only to the current delivery of care as a
    DOD and VA team but also as we move forward in military
    medicine.
        The current conflicts have shown the Nation and the world
    the incredible care that is provided by the joint team, and
    this unity of effort will continue to be key in facing future
    challenges. For example, we have partnered with the VA, the
    Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and the Defense
    Center of Excellence for TBI and psychological health and
    academia, as well as the National Football League, to improve
    our ability to diagnose, treat, and care for those that are
    affected by TBI.

                                 NEW CHALLENGES

        Army Medicine has a history of changing to meet new
    challenges. We are looking at our culture and practices that
    focus on systems of care and transforming our enterprise from a
    healthcare system to a system for health. This transformation
    requires that we expand our focus beyond the treatment of
    illness and injury, and emphasize the importance of health,
    wellness, and prevention. In order for us to influence the
    health and wellness of our military members and families, we
    must engage with those entrusted to our care, so that we can
    influence their behaviors and impact their life space, where
    the daily decisions are made that ultimately have the greatest
    effect on health and wellness.
        The Army Medicine team is committed to ensuring the right
    capabilities are available to promote health and wellness,
    support and sustain a medically ready force, and leverage
    innovation in order to remain a premiere healthcare
    organization. We are focused on decreasing variance, while
    increasing standards and furthering standardization across our
    organization.
        The comprehensive behavioral health system is restoring the
    resiliency, resetting the formation, and re-establishing family
    and community bonds. We are strengthening our soldiers and
    family's behavior health and emotional resiliency through
    multiple touch points across a spectrum of time, from pre-
    deployment to redeployment, and into garrison life. We are
    committed to providing the continuity and standardized approach
    across the care continuum.
        It is truly an honor to care for our military members and
    their families. We are advocates for those that are entrusted
    to our care, and Army Medicine team proudly serves our Nation's
    heroes with the respect and dignity that they have earned. In
    an increasingly uncertain world, we can state with certainty
    that Army Medicine is committed to providing the patient and
    family centric care. Every warfighter has a unique story, and
    we are dedicated to caring for each patient with compassion,
    respect, and dignity. This approach to medicine enhances the
    care, and we believe our patients deserve a care experience
    that embraces their desire to heal and have an optimal life.
        I would like to close today by discussing the Army Medicine
    promise. The promise, a written covenant that will be in the
    hands of everyone entrusted to our care over the next year,
    tells those that we care for, the Army Medicine team believe
    they deserve from us. It articulates what we believe about the
    respect and dignity surrounding the patient care experience.
    The promise speaks to what we believe about the value of care
    we deliver, about the compassion contained in the care we
    deliver, and how we want to morally and ethically provide care
    for those that we serve.
        I'll share two items with you of the promise. ``We believe
    our patients deserve a voice in how Army Medicine cares for
    them, and all those entrusted to our care''. Our patients want
    to harness innovation to improve and change their health, and
    we are empowering their efforts via the wellness centers. At
    our premiere wellness clinics, we collaborate with patients to
    not only give them the tools that they need to change their
    health but also a life-space partner to help them change their
    life.
        Our wellness clinics are new and still evolving, but I'm
    committed to increasing their numbers and expanding their
    capabilities in order to dramatically impact those more than
    500,000 minutes out of the year when our patients are living
    life outside the walls of our hospitals. The wellness clinics
    allow us to reach out to those we care for rather than having
    them reach in.
        ``We believe our patients deserve an enhanced care
    experience that includes our belief and their desire to heal,
    be well, and have an optimal life''. We are committed to
    ensuring that we in Army Medicine live up to this promise.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In conclusion, I'm incredibly honored and proud to serve as
    the 43rd Surgeon General of the Army and Commander of the U.S.
    Medical Command. There are miracles happening every day in
    military medicine because of the dedicated soldiers and
    civilians that make up the Army Medical Department.
        With the continued support of the Congress, we will lead
    the Nation in healthcare, and our men and women in uniform will
    be ready when the Nation calls them to action. Army Medicine
    stands ready to accomplish any task in support of our
    warfighters and military families. Army Medicine is serving to
    heal and truly honored to serve.
        Thank you. And I look forward to entertaining your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Patricia D. Horoho
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee: Thank you for providing me this opportunity to
    share with you today my thoughts on the future of the U.S. Army Medical
    Department (AMEDD) and highlight some of the incredible work being
    performed by the dedicated men and women with whom I am honored to
    serve alongside. We are America's most trusted premier medical team,
    and our successful mission accomplishment over these past 10 years is
    testimony to the phenomenal resilience, dedication, and innovative
    spirit of soldier medics, civilians, and military families throughout
    the world.
        Since 1775, Army Medicine has been there. In every conflict the
    U.S. Army has fought, Army Medicine stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our
    fighting forces in the deployed environment and received them here at
    home when they returned. The past 10 years have presented the AMEDD
    with a myriad of challenges, encompassing support of a two-front war
    while simultaneously delivering healthcare to beneficiaries across the
    continuum. Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have strengthened
    our capacity and our resolve as a healthcare organization. Army
    Medicine, both deployed and at home, civilian, and military, has worked
    countless hours to ensure the wellness of our fighting force and its
    families. Army Medicine continues to support in an era of persistent
    conflicts, and it is our top priority to provide comprehensive
    healthcare to support war-fighters and their families. The soldier is
    America's most sacred determinant of the Nation's force projection and
    the Army's most important resource; it is our duty to provide full-
    spectrum healthcare for our Nation's best. Committed to the health,
    wellness, and resilience of our force and its families, we will stand
    alongside and inspire confidence in our warriors when our Nation calls.
    Through the development of adaptive, innovative, and decisive leaders,
    we stand poised to support the foundation of our Nation's strength.
        Over the past decade, Army Medicine has led the joint healthcare
    effort in the most austere environments. As part of the most decisive
    and capable land force in the world, we stand ready to adapt to the
    Army's reframing effort. Ten years of contingency operations have
    provided numerous lessons learned. We will use these as the foundations
    from which we deliver the Army's vision. The following focus areas are
    the pillars upon which we deliver on that effort.
                               support the force
        I was privileged to serve as the International Security Assistance
    Force Joint Command (COMIJC) Special Assistant for Health Affairs (SA-
    HA) from July-October 2011. My multidisciplinary team of 14 military
    health professionals conducted an extensive evaluation of theater
    health services support (HSS) to critically assess how well we were
    providing healthcare from point of injury to evacuation from theater.
    It cannot be overstated that the best trauma care in the world resides
    with the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq. From the most forward
    combat outposts to the modern Role 3 facilities on the mature forward
    operating bases, the performance and effectiveness of the U.S. military
    health system (MHS) is remarkable. The medical community holds the
    trust of the American servicemember sacred. The fact that
    servicemembers are willing to go out day-to-day and place themselves in
    harm's way in support of our freedom is strongly dependent on the
    notion that, if they become injured, we will be there providing the
    best medical care in the world. This has been proven time and time
    again with MEDEVAC remaining an enduring marker of excellence in the
    CJOA-A. The average mission time of 44 minutes is substantially below
    the 60-minute mission standard established by the Secretary of Defense
    in 2009. The survival rate for the conflict in Afghanistan is 90.1
    percent. This ability to rapidly transport our wounded servicemembers
    coupled with the world-class trauma care delivered on the battlefield
    has resulted in achievement of the highest survival rate of all
    previous conflicts. The survival rate in World War II (WWII) was about
    70 percent; in Korea and Vietnam, it rose to slightly more than 75
    percent. In WWII, only 7 of 10 wounded troops survived; today more than
    9 out of 10 do. Not only do 9 in 10 survive, but most are able to
    continue serving in the Army.
        Enhanced combat medic training has without question, contributed to
    the increased survival rates on the battlefield by putting the best
    possible care far forward. The need for aerial evacuation of critical,
    often postsurgical patients, presented itself in Afghanistan based on
    the terrain, wide area dispersement of groundbased forces, as well as
    increased use of forward surgical teams. En route management of these
    patients required critical care experience not found organic to
    MEDEVAC. In response to these needs, our flight medic program (AD, NG,
    AR) is raising the standard to the EMT-Paramedic level to include
    critical care nursing once paramedic certified for all components. This
    will enhance our capabilities to match the civilian sector and make our
    flight medics even more combat ready for emergencies while on mission.
    We've just begun the first course that will pave the way with 28 flight
    medics coming from all components. By 2017, we will have all flight
    medics paramedic certified. In the area of standardization of enlisted
    medical competencies, we are ensuring that our medics are being
    utilized as force multipliers to ensure world-class healthcare in our
    facilities. We are working with our sister services to ensure that all
    medics, corpsmen, and medical technicians are working side-by-side in
    our joint facilities and training to the highest joint standard.
        We have an enduring responsibility, alongside our sister services
    and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), to provide care and
    rehabilitation of wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers for many
    years to come. We will stand alongside the soldier from point of injury
    through rehabilitation and recovery, fostering a spirit of resiliency.
    The Warrior Care and Transition Program is the Army's enduring
    commitment to providing all wounded, ill, and injured soldiers and
    their families a patient-centered approach to care. Its goal is to
    empower them with dignity, respect, and the self-determination to
    successfully reintegrate either back into the force or into the
    community. Since the inception of warrior transition units in June
    2007, more than 51,000 wounded, ill, or injured soldiers and their
    families have either progressed through or are being cared for by these
    dedicated caregivers and support personnel. Twenty-one thousand of
    these soldiers, the equivalent of two divisions, have been returned to
    the force, while another 20,000 have received the support, planning,
    and preparation necessary to successfully and confidently transition to
    civilian status. Today, we have 29 warrior transition units (WTUs) and
    9 community-based warrior transition units (CBWTU). More than 9,600
    soldiers are currently recovering in WTUs and CBWTU with more than
    4,300 professional cadre supporting them. Standing behind these
    soldiers each stage of their recovery and transition is the triad of
    care (primary care manager, nurse case manager, and squad leader) and
    the interdisciplinary team of medical and nonmedical professionals who
    work with soldiers and their families to ensure that they receive the
    support they deserve.
        The Army remains committed to supporting wounded, ill, or injured
    soldiers in their efforts to either return to the force or transition
    to Veteran status. To help soldiers set their personal goals for the
    future, the Army created a systematic approach called the Comprehensive
    Transition Plan, a multidisciplinary and automated process which
    enables every warrior-in-transition to develop an individualized plan,
    which will enable them to reach their personal goals. These end goals
    shape the warrior-in-transition's day-to-day work plan while healing.
        For those soldiers who decide to transition to veteran status the
    Warrior Transition Command's (WTC) mission is to assist them to
    successfully reintegrate back into the community with dignity, respect,
    and self-determination. One example of how the WTC is working to better
    assist this group of soldiers is the WTC-sponsored, joint service
    Wounded Warrior Employment Conference (WWEC) held in February. This is
    the second year the WWEC has brought together key stakeholders in the
    Federal Government and private industry. The goal is improved alliance
    and collaboration between military, civilian, Federal entities, and
    employers to encourage them to cooperatively support employment related
    objectives and share best practices in hiring, retaining, and promoting
    wounded warriors, recently separated disabled veterans, their spouses,
    and caregivers.
                                care experience
        The warfighter does not stand alone. Army Medicine has a
    responsibility to all those who serve, to include family members and
    our retirees who have already answered the call to our Nation. We
    continue to fully engage our patients in all aspects of their
    healthcare experience. At each touch point, starting with the initial
    contact, each team member plays an important role in enhancing patient
    care. We will make the right care available at the right time, while
    demonstrating compassion to those we serve and value to our
    stakeholders. Beneficiaries will choose hospitals who give them not
    only outstanding outcomes but the best-possible experience. And we aim
    to elevate the patient care experience across the enterprise to make
    the direct care system the preferred location to receive care. I am
    proud to share today that our patient satisfaction rate is currently
    above 92 percent, and we are in the top 10 percent of health plans in
    the United States according to Healthcare Effectiveness and Data
    Information Set (HEDIS), a tool used by more than 90 percent of
    America's health plans to measure performance on important dimensions
    of care. This said, my challenge--and my personal belief is that we can
    get better--we must be better. I'd like to outline a few areas where we
    continue to better ourselves in order to better the care experience for
    our patients.
        Army Medicine is committed to accountable care--where our clinical
    processes facilitate best practice patterns and support our healthcare
    team in delivering competent, compassionate care. In everything we do,
    there is a need for accountability--to our patients, our team members,
    and ourselves. Accountability is not just providing competent delivery
    of healthcare; our warfighters deserve more than that. Accountability
    is about taking ownership of the product we create and how it is
    delivered, considering it a reflection of ourselves and the
    organization. At the end of the workday, accountability is not measured
    by relative value units, but by impact on patients. It is not about the
    final outcome, but about the process and upholding our commitment to
    soldiers and their families. Soldier well-being and health are
    absolutely our top priorities. The Army Medicine team will continue
    advocating for patients and their well-being. As an Army at war for
    more than a decade, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the warfighter,
    both on the battlefield and at home. This means never losing sight of
    the importance of caring for our Nation's heroes and their families.
    Realizing that this Army Medicine team is working around the clock and
    around the world to ensure soldiers and their families are cared for
    with compassion and dignity, I have asked our leaders to focus on
    caring for those who are giving care. The Army Medicine team is not
    immune to the stress of deployments, workload demands, and challenging
    circumstances. We provide the best care for our patients when we take
    care of each other. By doing that, we give our best to all those
    entrusted to our care.
        Army Medicine has consciously committed to building a ``culture of
    trust''. Trust in patient care, trust within Army Medicine and the Army
    family. In healthcare, trust plays a critical and important role. This
    strategic initiative is focused on an organizational culture change
    within Army Medicine and creating a lifestyle of trust. A culture of
    trust in Army Medicine is a shared set of relationship skills, beliefs,
    and behaviors that distinguish our commitment to our beneficiaries to
    provide the highest quality and access to health services. Every
    initiative aimed at reducing variance and standardizing and improving
    patients' healthcare experiences, outcomes, and readiness will be
    founded on a culture of trust. Last fall the culture of trust task
    force began piloting the initial culture of trust training. This
    foundational training provides information on trust behaviors, tenets,
    and fundamentals creating a baseline upon which we will grow and
    expand.
        We constantly seek to establish stronger, more positive
    relationships with all that we serve in Army Medicine, to produce the
    very best-possible individual care experience. To that end, Army
    Medicine has implemented a training program titled, ``Begin with the
    Basics''. The central theme of this training is individual personalized
    engagement practiced by each and every member of Army Medicine. Through
    these relationships we increase understanding and in understanding our
    patients better, we are able to provide better solutions. The goal is
    full deployment of the basics of this model across Army Medicine in the
    next 18 months. We are using this model for care and service training
    as we deploy our medical home care model across Army Medicine.
        In February 2011, Army Nursing began implementing a patient-
    centered outcomes focused care delivery system encompassing all care
    delivery environments; inpatient, outpatient, and deployed. The Patient
    Caring Touch System (PCTS) was designed to reduce clinical quality
    variance by adopting a set of internally and externally validated best
    practices. PCTS swept across Army Medicine, and the last facility
    completed implementation in January 2012. PCTS is a key enabler of Army
    Medicine's Culture of Trust and nests in all of Army Medicine's
    initiatives. PCTS is enhancing the quality of care delivery for
    America's sons and daughters. PCTS has improved communication and
    multidisciplinary collaboration and has created an increased demand and
    expanded use of multidisciplinary rounds. Several facilities have
    reported that bedside report, hourly rounding, and multidisciplinary
    rounding are so much a part of the routine that they cannot recall a
    time when it was not part of their communication process.
        The collective healthcare experience is driven by a team of
    professionals, partnering with the patient, focused on health
    promotion, and disease prevention to enhance wellness. Essential to
    integrated healthcare delivery is a high-performing primary care
    provider/team that can effectively manage the delivery of seamless,
    well-coordinated care and serve as the patient's medical home. Much of
    the future of military medicine will be practiced at the patient-
    centered medical home (PCMH). We have made PCMHs and community-based
    medical homes a priority. The Army's 2011 investment in patient-
    centered care is $50 million. PCMH is a primary care model that is
    being adopted throughout the MHS and in many civilian practices
    throughout the Nation. Army PCMH is the foundation for the Army's
    transition from a ``healthcare system to a system for health'' that
    improves soldier readiness, family wellness and overall patient
    satisfaction through a collaborative team-based system of comprehensive
    care that is ultimately more efficient and cost effective. The PCMH
    will strengthen the provider-patient relationship by replacing episodic
    care with readily available care with one's personal clinician and care
    team emphasizing the continuous relationship while providing proactive,
    fully integrated and coordinated care focusing on the patient, his or
    her family, and their long-term health needs. The Army is transforming
    all of its 157 primary care practices to PCMH practices. A key
    component of transformation to the Army PCMH requires each practice to
    meet the rigorous standards established by the National Committee for
    Quality Assurance (NCQA). In December 2011, 17 Army practices received
    NCQA recognition as PCMHs, and I anticipate we will have 50 additional
    practices that will obtain NCQA recognition by the end of this calendar
    year. It is expected that all Army primary care clinics will be
    transformed to Army Medical Homes by fiscal year 2015. Transformation
    to the PCMH model should result in an increased capacity within Army
    military treatment facilities (MTFs) of more than 200,000 beneficiaries
    by fiscal year 2016. The Army has established Community Based Medical
    Homes to bring Army Medicine closer to our patients. These Army-
    operated clinics in leased facilities are in off-post communities
    closer to our beneficiaries and aim to improve access to healthcare
    services, including behavioral health, for Active-Duty family members
    by expanding capacity and extending the MTF services off post.
    Currently we are approved to open 21 clinics and are actively enrolling
    beneficiaries at 13 facilities.
                                unity of effort
        The ability to form mixed organizations at home and on the
    battlefield with all service and coalition partners contributing to a
    single mission of preserving life is proof of the flexibility and
    adaptability of America's medical warfighters. It is our collective
    effort--Army, Air Force, and Navy--that saves lives on the battlefield.
    It is an Army MEDEVAC crew who moves a wounded servicemember from the
    point-of-injury to a jointly staffed Role III field hospital. It's the
    Air Force provided aeromedical evacuation to Landstuhl Regional Medical
    Center where a triservice medical care team provides further definitive
    care. And then finally it's a joint team's capabilities at locations
    such as Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and the San
    Antonio Military Medical Center that provide the critical care and
    rehabilitative medicine for this servicemember, regardless if they are
    a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. The AMEDD is focused on building
    upon these successes on the battlefield as we perform our mission at
    home and is further cementing our commitment to working as a combined
    team, anywhere, anytime.
        We are at our best when we operate as part of a Joint Team, and we
    need to proactively develop synergy with our partners as military
    medicine moves toward a joint operating environment. The wars in
    Afghanistan and Iraq have led to increased collaboration and
    interoperability with allied medical services, and have highlighted
    differences and gaps in our respective combat health service support
    systems. While the combatant commands have a responsibility to harvest
    and publicize lessons learned and implement new best practices
    operationally, the MHS has the opportunity to address and apply, at the
    strategic, operational and tactical levels, the lessons learned
    regarding combat casualty care and medical coalition operations.
        MHS governance changes will change the way we currently operate for
    everyone. These recommended changes will strengthen our system. In the
    delivery of military medicine, the military departments have more
    activities in common than not--together we will drive toward greater
    common approaches in all areas, except where legitimate uniqueness
    requires a service-specific approach. Our commitment is to achieve
    greater unity of effort, improve service to our members and
    beneficiaries, and achieve greater efficiency through a more rapid
    implementation of common services and joint purchasing, as well as
    other opportunities for more streamlined service delivery.
        Our MHS is not simply a health plan for the military; it is a
    military health system. A system that has proven itself in war and
    peace time. Our focus continues to be on supporting soldiers, other
    warriors and their families--past, present, and future--and on the most
    effective and efficient health improvement and healthcare organization
    to add value in the defense of the Nation. The best way to do that is
    through a unified and collaborative approach to care, both on the
    battlefield and in garrison. We must have outcome and economic metrics
    to measure and accountability assigned. And we must develop standard
    and unified performance measures across a wide-range of health and care
    indicators e.g., population health, clinical outcomes, access,
    continuity, administrative efficiency, agile operational support,
    warrior care, and transition programs, patient satisfaction, cost, and
    others, to ensure we are effective, efficient, and timely.
               innovate army medicine and health service support
        Many innovations in healthcare have their origins on the
    battlefield. Army Medicine's medical innovations borne from lessons
    learned in combat have become the world-class standard of care for
    soldiers on the battlefield and civilians around the world. As our
    presence in the current war begins to change, we must remain vigilant
    in developing and assessing strategies to protect, enhance, and
    optimize soldier wellness, prevention, and collective health. Through
    leverage of information technology and militarily relevant research
    strategies, we will continue to develop new doctrine and education
    programs to reflect best practice healthcare on and off the
    battlefield, while ensuring that Army Medicine remains responsive and
    ready. Our speed of execution, combined with the ability to leverage
    knowledge and actionable ideas quickly, is paramount to optimize the
    constancy of improvement. Our biggest competitive edge is our knowledge
    and our people.
        In 2004, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs
    directed to the formation of the Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) and
    the Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR). The JTTS coordinates trauma
    care for our wounded warriors. Since that time the services, working
    together, have created a systematic and integrated approach to
    battlefield care which has minimized morbidity and mortality and
    optimized the ability to provide essential care required for the battle
    injuries our soldiers are facing. The vision of the JTTS is for every
    soldier, marine, sailor, or airman wounded or injured in the theater of
    operations to have the optimal chance for survival and maximal
    potential for functional recovery and they are. Our 8,000-mile
    operating room stretches from Kandahar to Landstuhl to Walter Reed
    National Military Medical Center at Bethesda, to San Antonio Military
    Medical Center to the Veteran's Administration and other facilities
    throughout the United States. It's collaborative, it's integrated, and
    it knows no boundaries. JTTS changed how the world infuses blood
    products for trauma patients. In fact we just had a patient receive 400
    units of blood. He coded three times on the battle field. And today he
    is recovering in Walter Reed National Medical Center at Bethesda. The
    JTTS also led to materiel changes in helmets, body armor, and vehicle
    design. This is not a success of technology or policy. This is a
    success of a trauma community that expects and values active
    collaboration across its 8,000-mile operating room.
        The JTTR, is the largest combat injury data repository and is an
    integral and integrated part of the JTTS. It provides the information
    necessary to advance the improvement of battlefield and military trauma
    care and drive joint doctrine and policy, while enabling process
    improvement and quality assurance. Additionally, it enables more
    efficient and effective medical research in a resource-constrained
    environment. The improvements in trauma care driven by both the JTTS
    and JTTR are increasing the survival rate on today's battlefield and
    saving lives in our Nation's civilian trauma centers through shared
    lessons learned. We must maintain this critical capability to ensure
    that we continue to drive innovation and are able to respond to our
    next threat.
        An area in which the Army and our sister services have innovated to
    address a growing problem is in concussion care. The establishment of a
    mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)/concussive system of care and
    implementation of treatment protocols has transformed our management of
    all battlefield head trauma. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the
    invisible injuries resulting from not only the signature weapons of
    this war, improvised explosive devices, and rocket propelled grenades
    but also from blows to the head during training activities or contact
    sports. Since 2000, 220,430 servicemembers have been diagnosed with TBI
    worldwide (Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, 2011). In 2010,
    military medicine implemented a new mTBI management strategy to
    disseminate information that our healthcare workers needed and outlined
    the unit's responsibilities, creating a partnership between the medical
    community and the line units. This policy directed that any soldier who
    sustained a mandatory reportable event must undergo a medical
    evaluation including a mandatory 24-hour down time followed by medical
    clearance before returning to duty. The mandatory events are a command-
    directed evaluation for any soldier who sustains a direct blow to the
    head or is in a vehicle or building associated with a blast event,
    collision, or rollover, or is within 50 meters of a blast. Since the
    Department of Defense (DOD) implemented Policy Guidance for Management
    of Concussion/mTBI in the Deployed Setting in June 2010, deployed
    Commanders screened more than 10,000 servicemembers for concussion/
    mTBI, temporarily removed them from the battlefield to facilitate
    recovery, and ensured that each of them received a mandatory medical
    evaluation. Codification of this concussive care system into AMEDD
    doctrine is ongoing. To further support the TBI care strategy over the
    past 21 months the services have stood up 11 facilities devoted to
    concussive care far forward on the battlefield, staffed with concussion
    care physicians and other medical providers, in order to care for those
    with TBI at the point-of-injury. The Army has medical staff at nine of
    these facilities. These centers provide around-the-clock medical
    oversight, foster concussion recovery, and administer appropriate
    testing to ensure a safe return to duty. The current return to duty
    rate for soldiers who have received care at theater concussion centers
    is more than 90 percent.
        To further the science of brain injury recovery, the Army relies on
    the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command's (MRMC) TBI
    Research Program. The overwhelming generosity of the Congress and the
    DOD's commitment to brain injury research has significantly improved
    our knowledge of TBI in a rigorous scientific fashion. Currently, there
    are almost 350 studies funded by DOD to look at all aspects of TBI. The
    purpose of this program is to coordinate and manage relevant DOD
    research efforts and programs for the prevention, detection,
    mitigation, and treatment of TBI. In the absence of objective
    diagnostic tools, MRMC is expediting research on diagnostic biomarkers
    and other definitive assessment tools that will advance both military
    and civilian TBI care. By identifying and managing these injuries on
    the battlefield, we have eliminated many unnecessary medical evacuation
    flights and facilitated unprecedented return to duty rates. The Army
    realizes that there is much to gain from collaboration with external
    partners and key organizations. We have partnered with the Department
    of Veterans Affairs, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, the
    Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic
    Brain Injury, academia, civilian hospitals, and the National Football
    League, to improve our ability to diagnose, treat, and care for those
    affected by TBI.
        There are significant health related consequences of more than 10
    years of war, including behavioral health needs, post-traumatic stress,
    burn or disfiguring injuries, chronic pain, or loss of limb. Our
    soldiers and their families need to trust we will be there to partner
    with them in their healing journey, a journey focused on ability vice
    disability.
        A decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to tremendous
    advances in the knowledge and care of combat-related physical and
    psychological problems. Ongoing research has guided health policy, and
    multiple programs have been implemented in theater and postdeployment
    to enhance resiliency, address combat operational stress reactions, and
    behavioral health concerns. Similar to our approach to concussive
    injuries, Army Medicine harvested the lessons of almost a decade of war
    and has approached the strengthening of our soldiers and families'
    behavioral health and emotional resiliency through a campaign plan to
    align the various behavioral health programs with the human dimension
    of the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle, a process we call the
    Comprehensive Behavioral Health System of Care (CBHSOC). This program
    is based on outcome studies that demonstrate the profound value of
    using the system of multiple touch points in assessing and coordinating
    health and behavioral health for a soldier and family. The CBHSOC
    creates an integrated, coordinated, and synchronized behavioral health
    service delivery system that will support the total force through all
    ARFORGEN phases by providing full-spectrum behavioral healthcare. We
    leveraged experiences and outcome studies on deploying, caring for
    soldiers in combat, and redeploying these soldiers in large unit
    movements to build the CBHSOC. The CBHSOC is a system of systems built
    around the need to support an Army engaged in repeated deployments--
    often into intense combat--which then returns to home station to
    restore, reset the formation, and re-establish family and community
    bonds. The intent is to optimize care and maximize limited behavioral
    health resources to ensure the highest quality of care to soldiers and
    families, through a multiyear campaign plan.
        The CBHSOC campaign plan has five lines of effort:
      --Standardize Behavioral Health Support Requirements;
      --Synchronize Behavioral Health Programs;
      --Standardize & Resource AMEDD Behavioral Health Support;
      --Access the Effectiveness of the CBHSOC; and
      --Strategic Communications.
        The CBHSOC campaign plan was published in September 2010, marking
    the official beginning of incremental expansion across Army
    installations and the Medical Command. Expansion will be phased, based
    on the redeployment of Army units, evaluation of programs, and
    determining the most appropriate programs for our soldiers and their
    families.
        Near-term goals of the CBHSOC are implementation of routine
    behavioral health screening points across ARFORGEN and standardization
    of screening instruments. Goals also include increased coordination
    with both internal Army programs like Comprehensive Soldier Fitness,
    Army Substance Abuse Program, and Military Family Life Consultants.
    External resources include VA, local, and State agencies, and the
    Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health.
        Long-term goals of the CBHSOC are the protection and restoration of
    the psychological health of our soldiers and families and the
    prevention of adverse psychological and social outcomes like family
    violence, driving under intoxication violations, drug and alcohol
    addiction, and suicide. This is through the development of a common
    behavioral health data system; development and implementation of
    surveillance and data tracking capabilities to coordinate behavioral
    health clinical efforts; full synchronization of tele-behavioral health
    activities; complete integration of the Reserve components; and the
    inclusion of other Army Medicine efforts including TBI, patient-
    centered medical home, and pain management. We are leveraging
    predictive modeling tools to improve our insight into data, research
    advances, and electronic medical record systems in order to provide
    ``genius case management'' for our patients with behavioral health
    disease, that is, care that is tailored for each patient, and a care
    plan aimed at better understanding the patient, and not just their
    disease. Integral to the success of the CBHSOC is the continuous
    evaluation of programs, to be conducted by the Public Health Command
    (PHC).
        For those who do suffer from PTSD, Army Medicine has made
    significant gains in the treatment and management of PTSD as well. The
    DOD and VA jointly developed the three evidenced-based Clinical
    Practice Guidelines for the treatment of PTSD, on which nearly 2,000
    behavioral health providers have received training. This training is
    synchronized with the re-deployment cycles of U.S. Army brigade combat
    teams, ensuring that providers operating from MTFs that support the
    brigade combat teams are trained and certified to deliver quality
    behavioral healthcare to soldiers exposed to the most intense combat
    levels. In addition, the U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School
    collaborates closely with civilian experts in PTSD treatment to
    validate the content of these training products to ensure the
    information incorporates emerging scientific discoveries about PTSD and
    the most effective treatments.
        Work by the AMEDD and the MHS over the past 8 years has taught us
    to link information gathering and care coordination for any one soldier
    or family across the continuum of this cycle. Our behavioral health
    specialists tell us that the best predictor of future behavior is past
    behavior, and through the CBHSOC we strive to link the management of
    issues which soldiers carry into their deployment with care providers
    and a plan down-range and the same in reverse. We have embedded
    behavioral health personnel within operational units circulate across
    the battlefield to facilitate this ongoing assessment.
        The management of combat trauma pain with medications and the
    introduction of battlefield anesthesia was a tremendous medical
    breakthrough for military medicine. The first American use of
    battlefield anesthesia is thought to have been in 1847 during the
    Mexican-American War, and the use of opioid medication during the Civil
    War was not uncommon. Military medicine has worked very hard to manage
    our servicemembers' pain from the point-of-injury through the
    evacuation process and continuum of care. The management of pain--both
    acute and chronic or longstanding pain--remains a major challenge for
    military healthcare providers and for the Nation at large. We have
    launched a major initiative through a multidisciplinary, multiservice
    and DOD-VA pain management task force to improve our care of pain. The
    use of medications is appropriate, if required, and often an effective
    way to treat pain. However, the possible overreliance on medication-
    only pain treatment has other unintended consequences, such as
    prescription medication use. The goal is to achieve a comprehensive
    pain management strategy that is holistic, multidisciplinary, and
    multimodal in its approach, uses state-of-the-art modalities and
    technologies, and provides optimal quality of life for soldiers and
    other patients with acute and chronic pain. The military is developing
    regional pain consortiums that combine the pain expertise from DOD with
    local Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and civilian academic
    medical centers. The first of many of these relationships has been
    established in Washington State between Madigan Army Medical Center, VA
    Puget Sound Health Care System, and University of Washington Center for
    Pain Relief. Some of the largest research projects dealing with
    wounded-warrior pain have been facilitated through partnerships with
    VHA research leaders. Collaborations of this type will ensure the
    latest, evidence-based pain-care techniques and protocols are available
    to patients. Pain research in direct support of military requirements
    will also be facilitated by these Federal and civilian partnerships.
    Other partnerships include working with organizations such as the
    Bravewell Collaborative and the Samuelli Institute, both of whom
    provide DOD with expertise in building mature integrative medicine
    capabilities to compliment and improve our existing pain medicine
    resources.
        Another concerning area of emphasis for military medicine that has
    emerged from the current wars is ``dismounted complex blast injury''
    (DCBI), an explosion-induced battle injury (BI) sustained by a
    warfighter on foot patrol that produces a specific pattern of wounds.
    In particular, it involves traumatic amputation of at least one leg, a
    minimum of severe injury to another extremity, and pelvic, abdominal,
    or urogenital wounding. The incidence of dismounted complex blast
    injuries has increased during the last 15 months of combat in the
    Afghanistan theater of operations (ATO). The number of servicemembers
    with triple limb amputation has nearly doubled this past year from the
    sum of all those seen over the last 8 years of combat. The number of
    genital injuries increased significantly from previous Operation Iraqi
    Freedom (OIF) rates. The severity of these injuries presents new
    challenges to the medical and military communities to prevent, protect,
    mitigate, and treat. Army Medicine has spearheaded a task force
    comprised of clinical and operational medical experts from DOD and VA
    and solicited input from subject-matter experts in both Federal and
    civilian sectors to determine the way forward for healing these complex
    injuries.
        Evidence-based science makes strong soldiers and for this we rely
    heavily on the MRMC. MRMC manages and executes a robust, ongoing
    medical research program for the MEDCOM to support the development of
    new healthcare strategies. I would like to highlight a few research
    programs that are impacting health and care of our soldiers today.
        The Combat Casualty Care Research Program (CCCRP) reduces the
    mortality and morbidity resulting from injuries on the battlefield
    through the development of new life-saving strategies, new surgical
    techniques, biological and mechanical products, and the timely use of
    remote physiological monitoring. The CCCRP focuses on leveraging
    cutting-edge research and knowledge from Government and civilian
    research programs to fill existing and emerging gaps in combat casualty
    care. This focus provides requirements-driven combat casualty care
    medical solutions and products for injured soldiers from self-aid
    through definitive care, across the full spectrum of military
    operations.
        The mission of the Military Operational Medicine Research Program
    (MOMRP) is to develop effective countermeasures against stressors and
    to maximize health, performance, and fitness, protecting the soldier at
    home and on the battlefield. MOMRP research helps prevent physical
    injuries through development of injury prediction models, equipment
    design specifications and guidelines, health hazard assessment
    criteria, and strategies to reduce musculoskeletal injuries.
        MOMRP researchers develop strategies and advise policy makers to
    enhance and sustain mental fitness throughout a servicemember's career.
    Psychological health problems are the second leading cause of
    evacuation during prolonged or repeated deployments. MOMRP
    psychological health and resilience research focuses on prevention,
    treatment, and recovery of soldiers and families behavioral health
    problems, which are critical to force health and readiness. Current
    psychological health research topic areas include behavioral health,
    resiliency building, substance use and related problems, and risk-
    taking behaviors.
        The Clinical and Rehabilitative Medicine Research Program (CRMRP)
    focuses on definitive and rehabilitative care innovations required to
    reset our wounded warriors, both in terms of duty performance and
    quality of life. The Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine
    (AFIRM) is an integral part of this program. The AFIRM was designed to
    speed the delivery of regenerative medicine therapies to treat the most
    severely injured United States servicemembers from around the world but
    in particular those coming from the theaters of operation in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The AFIRM is expected to make major advances in the
    ability to understand and control cellular responses in wound repair
    and organ/tissue regeneration and has major research programs in limb
    repair and salvage, craniofacial reconstruction, burn repair, scarless
    wound healing, and compartment syndrome.
        The AFIRM's success to date is at least in part the result of the
    program's emphasis on establishing partnerships and collaborations. The
    AFIRM is a partnership among the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, DOD,
    VA, and the National Institutes of Health. The AFIRM is composed of two
    independent research consortia working with the U.S. Army Institute of
    Surgical Research. One consortium is led by the Wake Forest Institute
    for Regenerative Medicine and the McGowan Institute for Regenerative
    Medicine in Pittsburgh while the other is led by Rutgers--the State
    University of New Jersey and the Cleveland Clinic. Each consortium
    contains approximately 15 member organizations, which are mostly
    academic institutions.
        The health of the total Army is essential for readiness, and
    prevention is the best way to health. Protecting soldiers, retirees,
    family members and Department of the Army civilians from conditions
    that threaten their health is operationally sound, cost effective, and
    better for individual well-being. Though primary care of our sick and
    injured will always be necessary, the demands will be reduced.
    Prevention--the early identification and mitigation of health risks
    through surveillance, education, training, and standardization of best
    public health practices--is crucial to military success. Army Medicine
    is on the pathway to realizing this proactive, preventive vision.
        The newest addition to the Army Medicine team is the PHC, having
    reached initial operational capability in October 2010 with full-
    operational capability is targeted for October 2011. As part of the
    overall U.S. Army Medical Command reorganization initiative, all major
    public health functions within the Army, especially those of the former
    Veterinary Command and the Center for Health Promotion and Preventive
    Medicine have been combined into a new PHC, located at Aberdeen Proving
    Ground in Maryland. The consolidation has already resulted in an
    increased focus on health promotion and has created a single
    accountable agent for public health and veterinary issues that is
    proactive and focused on prevention, health promotion, and wellness.
    Army public health protects and improves the health of Army communities
    through education, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and disease and
    injury prevention. Public health efforts include controlling infectious
    diseases, reducing injury rates, identifying risk factors and
    interventions for behavioral health issues, and ensuring safe food and
    drinking water on Army installations and in deployed environments. The
    long-term value of public health efforts cannot be overstated:
      --public health advances in the past century have been largely
            responsible for increasing human life spans by 25 years; and
      --the PHC will play a central role in the health of our soldiers,
            deployed or at home.
        A significant initiative driven by the PHC which will be
    instrumental to achieving public health is our partnering with Army
    installations to standardize existing Army Wellness Centers to preserve
    or improve health in our beneficiary population. The centers focus on
    health assessment, physical fitness, healthy nutrition, stress
    management, general wellness education, and tobacco education. They
    partner with providers in our MTFs through a referral system. I hold
    each MTF Commander responsible for the health of the extended military
    community as the installation Director of Health Services (DHS).
        Army Medicine has put a closer lens on women's health through a
    recently established Women's Health Task Force to evaluate issues faced
    by female soldiers both, in Theater and CONUS. Women make up
    approximately 14 percent of the Army Active Duty fighting force. As of
    August 2011, almost 275,000 women have deployed in support of OIF/OND/
    OEF. The health of female soldiers plays a vital role in overall Army
    readiness. Army Medicine recognizes the magnitude and impact of women's
    health and appreciates the unique challenges of being a woman in the
    Army. In order for women to be fully integrated and effective members
    of the team, we must ensure their unique health needs are being
    considered and met. The Task Force combines talent from different
    disciplines:
      --civilian and military;
      --officer and enlisted; and
      --collaborates with our private industry partners.
        We will assess the unique health needs and concerns of female
    soldiers, conducting a thorough review of the care currently provided,
    identifies best practices and gaps, and revises, adapts, and initiates
    practices so that we may continue to provide first class care to our
    female warriors. The Women's Health Campaign Plan will focus on
    standardized education and training on women's health, logistical
    support for women's health items, emphasis on the fit and functionality
    of the Army uniform and protective gear for females; and research and
    development into the psychosocial effects of combat on women. While
    sexual assault is not a gender specific issue, the Women's Health Task
    Force is working with Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) G-1
    to evaluate theater policy with regards to distribution of sexual
    assault forensic examiners and professionalizing the role of the victim
    advocate. The task force is collaborating with tri-service experts to
    investigate the integration of service policies and make
    recommendations.
        While proudly acknowledging our many healthcare accomplishments at
    home and in theater, I want to turn to the future. It is time we
    further posture Army Medicine in the best possible manner that aligns
    with the MHS strategic vision that moves us from healthcare to health.
    We must ask, where does ``health'' happen, and I have charged Army
    Medicine leadership to spearhead the conversion to health and to fully
    integrate the concept into readiness and the overall strategy of health
    in the force. Improved readiness, better health, better care, and
    responsibly managed costs are the pillars on which the MHS Quadruple
    Aim stands, but between those pillars, or in that ``White Space'', is
    where we can create our successful outcomes. Sir William Osler,
    considered to be the Father of Modern Medicine, said ``One of the first
    duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take
    medicine.'' A snapshot of the average year with the average patient
    shows that healthcare provider spend approximately 100 minutes with
    their patient during that year. How much health happens in those 100
    minutes? There are approximately 525,600 minutes in that year, yet we
    focus so much of our time, effort, and spending on those 100 minutes;
    the small fraction of a spot on the page. But what happens in the
    remaining 525,600 minutes of that year? What happens in the ``White
    Space?'' I will tell you what I think happens--that is where health is
    built, that is where people live. The ``White Space'' is when our
    soldiers are doing physical fitness training, choosing whether to take
    a cigarette break, or deciding whether they will have the cheeseburger
    or the salad for lunch. It's when family members are grocery shopping
    or cooking a meal. The ``White Space'' is when soldiers spend time with
    their family, or get a restful night of sleep, or search the Internet
    to self-diagnose their symptoms to avoid adding to those 100 minutes in
    the clinician's office. We want to lead the conversation with Army
    leadership to influence the other 525,600 minutes of the year with our
    soldiers . . . the ``White Space''. In order for us to get to health,
    we must empower patients, move beyond the 100 minutes, and influence
    behaviors in the white space. The way ahead is connected,
    collaborative, and patient-centered.
        I have discussed but a few of the important medical issues and
    programs that are relevant to the current wars and vital to the future
    of Military Medicine require solutions and funding that will go years
    beyond the end of the current wars. Our Nation, our Army, and Army
    Medicine have a duty and responsibility to our soldiers, families, and
    retirees. There will be considerable ongoing healthcare costs for many
    years to support for our wounded, ill, or injured soldiers. The
    programs we have established to care for our soldiers and families
    cannot falter as our deployed footprint diminishes. The level of care
    required does not end when the deployed soldier returns home.
                               optimize resources
        One of Army Medicine's greatest challenges over the next 3-5 years
    is managing the escalating cost of providing world-class healthcare in
    a fiscally constrained environment. People are our most valuable
    resource. We will employ everyone to their greatest capacity and ensure
    we are good stewards of our Nation's resources. To capitalize on the
    overall cost savings of procurement and training, we will standardize
    equipment, supplies, and procedures. And we will leverage our
    information technology solutions to optimize efficiencies.
        Despite the cost containment challenges we face, we must accomplish
    our mission with an eye on reducing variance, focusing on quality, and
    expecting and adapting to change. These are our imperatives. Army
    Medicine will focus on collaborative international, interagency, and
    joint partnerships and collective health, including prevention and
    wellness, to ensure the enduring capabilities required to support the
    current contemporary operating environment and those of the future are
    retained.
        We will be methodical and thoughtful in our preparation for budget
    restraints to ensure that the high-quality care our warriors and
    military family demand is sustained. With the anticipated downsizing of
    forces, there will be a need to critically look at where medical
    services could be consolidated. However, we will use this as an
    opportunity to evaluate workloads to maximize efficiencies while
    maintaining effectiveness and focus on what services are best for our
    beneficiary population and dedicate resources to those.
        The rising cost of healthcare combined with the increasingly
    constrained Defense budget poses a challenge to all within the MHS. DOD
    offers the most comprehensive health benefit, at lower cost, to those
    it serves than the vast majority of other health plans in the Nation--
    and deservedly so. The proposed changes in TRICARE fees do not change
    this fact--the TRICARE benefit remains one of the best values for
    medical benefits in the United States with lower out-of-pocket costs
    compared to other healthcare plans. Adjustment to existing fees, and
    introduction of new fees are proposed. Importantly, these benefit
    changes exempt soldiers, and their families, who are medically retired
    from Active service, and families of soldiers who died on Active Duty
    from any changes in cost-sharing. I support these modest fee changes
    when coupled by the MHS's shift in focus from healthcare to health,
    maintaining health and wellness, identifying internal efficiencies to
    capitalize on, and instituting provider payment reform.
        A major initiative within Army Medicine to optimize talent
    management and move towards a culture of trust, discussed earlier in
    this testimony, is the Human Systems Transformation, led by a newly
    established Human Systems Transformation Directorate. Army Medicine's
    ability to efficiently transform our culture requires a roadmap for
    achieving planned systemic change. The plan focuses on enhanced
    investment in four human system tiers (lines of effort) to:
      --improve senior leader development (new command teams/designated key
            staff positions);
      --increase investment in the development of Army Medicine workforce
            members;
      --establish a cadre of internal organizational development
            professionals;
      --leverage partnering; and
      --collaboration opportunities with internal and external
            stakeholders.
        In order to change the culture of our organization, we must invest
    in our people.
                                develop leaders
        At the core of our medical readiness posture is our people. The
    Army calls each of us to be a leader, and Army Medicine requires no
    less. We will capitalize on our leadership experiences in full-spectrum
    operations while continuing to invest in relevant training and
    education to build confident and competent leaders. Within this focus
    area, we will examine our leader development strategy to ensure that we
    have clearly identified the knowledge, skills, and talent required for
    leaders of Army Medicine. We will continue to develop adaptive,
    innovative, and decisive leaders who ensure delivery of highly
    reliable, quality care that is both patient-centered and inherently
    trustworthy. Being good stewards of our Nation's most treasured
    resources, through agile, decisive, and accountable leadership, we will
    continue to build on the successes of those who have gone before us.
    Our recruitment, development, and retention of medical professionals--
    physicians, dentists, nurses, ancillary professionals, and
    administrators--remains high. With the support of the Congress, through
    the use of flexible bonuses and special salary rates, we have been able
    to meet most of our recruiting goals. Yet we recognize that competition
    for medical professionals will grow in the coming years, amidst a
    growing shortage of primary care providers and nurses.
                          support the army profession
        Army Medicine has a rich history of sustaining the fighting force,
    and we need to tell our story of unprecedented successes across the
    continuum of care--from the heroic efforts of our medics at the point-
    of-injury to the comprehensive rehabilitation of our wounded warriors
    in overcoming exceptional challenges. After more than 10 years of
    persistent conflict, it is time to renew our collective commitment to
    the Army, its ideals, traditions, and ethos. As we have stood alongside
    our warfighters on the battlefield we have earned the trust of our
    combat-tested warfighters, and it is critical that we continue to
    demonstrate integrity and excellence in all that we do.
                              worldwide influence
        Army Medicine reaches around the world; from those supporting two
    theaters of war and humanitarian relief efforts to those conducting
    militarily relevant research and providing care to our military
    families overseas, AMEDD soldiers and civilians answer our Nation's
    call. The time that two oceans protected our freedom-loving Nation is
    long gone, and replaced with ever-present risks to our way of life. The
    Nation relies on its Army to prepare for and conduct full-spectrum
    operations from humanitarian and civil support to counterinsurgency and
    general war throughout the world. Army Medicine stands committed to
    sustain the warfighter and accomplish the mission, supporting the
    world's most decisive land force and the strength of the Nation.
        In the MHS, one of our biggest challenges lies in integrating the
    shared electronic health record (EHR) information available in our
    systems with the information that is provided through our civilian
    network providers and VA partners. Without that seamless integration of
    data, healthcare cannot be coordinated properly for the patients across
    all providers and settings. To support DOD and VA collaboration on
    treating PTSD, pain, and other healthcare issues, the EHR should
    seamlessly transfer patient data between and among partners to improve
    efficiencies and continuity of care. The DOD and the VA share a
    significant amount of health information today and no two health
    organizations in the Nation share more nonbillable health information
    than the DOD and VA. The Departments continue to standardize sharing
    activities and are delivering information technology solutions that
    significantly improve the secure sharing of appropriate electronic
    health information. We need to include electronic health information
    exchange with our civilian partners as well--a health information
    systems which brings together three intersecting domains--DOD, VA,
    civilian--for optimal sharing of beneficiary health information and to
    provide a common operating picture of healthcare delivery. These
    initiatives enhance healthcare delivery to beneficiaries and improve
    the continuity of care for those who have served our country.
    Previously, the burden was on servicemembers to facilitate information
    sharing; today, we are making the transition between DOD and VA easier
    for our servicemembers. The AMEDD is committed to working
    collaboratively with our partners across the MHS to seek solutions that
    will deliverable a fully integrated EHR that will enhance healthcare
    delivery to beneficiaries and improve the continuity of care for those
    who have served our country.
        At the core of our Army is the warfighter. A focus on wellness and
    prevention will ensure that our warriors are ready to heed the Nation's
    call. Yet in the Army today we have more than a division of Army
    soldiers who are medically not ready (MNR). This represents a readiness
    problem. We created a Soldier Medical Readiness Campaign to ensure we
    maintain a health and resilient force. The deployment of healthy,
    resilient, and fit soldiers and increasing the medical readiness of the
    Army is the desire end state of this campaign. The campaign's key tasks
    are to:
      --provide Commanders the tools to manage their soldiers' medical
            requirements;
      --coordinate, synchronize and integrate wellness, injury prevention,
            and human performance optimization programs across the Army;
      --identify the MNR population;
      --implement medical management programs to reduce the MNR population;
      --assess the performance of the campaign; and
      --educate the force.
        Those soldiers who no longer meet retention standards must navigate
    the physical disability evaluation system (PDES). The present
    disability system dates back to the Career Compensation Act of 1949.
    Since its creation problems have been identified include long delays,
    duplication in DOD and VA processes, confusion among servicemembers,
    and distrust of systems regarded as overly complex and adversarial. In
    response to these concerns, DOD and VA jointly designed a new
    disability evaluation system to streamline DOD processes, with the goal
    of also expediting the delivery of VA benefits to servicemembers
    following discharge from service. The Army began pilot testing the
    disability evaluation system (DES) in November 2007 at Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center and has since expanded the program, now known as the
    IDES, to 16 MTFs. DOD has replaced the military's legacy disability
    evaluation system with the IDES.
        The key features of the IDES are a single physical disability
    examination conducted according to VA examination protocols, a single
    disability rating evaluation prepared by the VA for use by both
    Departments for their respective decisions, and delivery of
    compensation and benefits upon transition to veteran status for members
    of the Armed Forces being separated for medical reasons. The DOD and VA
    continue to move towards reform of this process by identifying steps
    that can be reduced or eliminated, ensuring the servicemembers receive
    all benefits and entitlements throughout the process. Within the Army,
    I recently appointed a task force focused on examining the Integrated
    Disability Evaluation Process in parallel with ongoing MHS efforts. The
    AMEDD is committed to working collaboratively with our partners across
    the MHS to seek solutions that will best serve those who have
    selflessly served our country.
        I would like to close today by discussing the Army Medicine
    Promise. The Promise, a written covenant that will be in the hands of
    everyone entrusted to our care over the next year, tells those we care
    for what we, the Army Medicine team, believe they deserve from us. It
    articulates what we believe about the respect and dignity surrounding
    the patient care experience. The Promise speaks to what we believe
    about the value of the care we deliver, about the compassion contained
    in the care we deliver and how we want to morally and ethically provide
    care for those we serve. I'll share two items from the Promise with
    you.

        ``We believe our patients deserve a voice in how army medicine
    cares for them and all those entrusted to our care.''

        Our patients want to harness innovation to improve or change their
    health and we are empowering their efforts via our wellness centers. At
    our premier wellness clinics, we collaborate with patients to not only
    give them the tools they need to change their health but also a
    lifespace partner to help them change their life. Our wellness clinics
    are new and still evolving, but I am committed to increasing their
    numbers and expanding their capabilities in order to dramatically
    impact those more than 500,000 minutes out of the year when our
    patients are living life outside the walls of our hospitals. The
    wellness clinics allow us to reach out to those we care for rather than
    them having to reach in.

        ``We believe our patients deserve an enhanced care experience that
    includes our belief in their desire to heal, be well, and have an
    optimal life.''

        The warrior transition care comprehensive transition plan supports
    this promise by providing countless wounded warriors with a dynamic
    plan for living that focuses on the soldier's future across six domains
    of strength--career, physical, emotional, social, family, and spiritual
    strength. The plan empowers soldiers to take control of their lives.
        In conclusion, the AMEDD has served side-by-side with our sister
    services in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at home we will continue to
    strengthen those collaborative partnerships to provide responsive,
    reliable, and relevant healthcare that ensures a healthy fighting force
    and healthy families. To succeed, we must remain ready and relevant in
    both our medical proficiencies as well as our soldier skills. We will
    continue to serve as a collaborative partner with community resources,
    seek innovative treatments, and conduct militarily relevant research to
    protect, enhance, and optimize soldier and military family well-being.
    Soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, their families, and our retirees
    will know they are receiving care from highly competent and
    compassionate professionals.
        I am incredibly honored and proud to serve as the 43rd Surgeon
    General of the Army and Commander, U.S. Army Medical Command. There are
    miracles happening at our command outposts, forward operating bases,
    posts, camps, and stations every day because of the dedicated soldiers
    and civilians that made up the AMEDD. With continued support of the
    Congress we will lead the Nation in healthcare, and our men and women
    in uniform will be ready when the Nation calls them to action. Army
    Medicine stands ready to accomplish any task in support of our
    warfighters and military family.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General.
        I have a question I'd like to ask the whole panel. In 2003,
    the Nurse Chiefs of all the services had an increase in their
    rank to two stars. Last month, the Congress received a
    directive from the DOD. In this directive, they suggested, or,
    in fact, mandated that this promotion be repealed and nurses
    will become one star again.
        In 1945, when I was in my last hospital stage, the chief of
    the Nurse Corps in the Army was a colonel. The senior nurse in
    my hospital was a captain. And throughout my care, I saw the
    physician once a week. I saw the nurse 7 days a week, every
    day, every hour. And I felt, as most of the men in that ward,
    that something was drastically wrong. And so I was happy when
    the announcement was made to increase it to two stars, but now
    there's one star. I want you to know that I'm against this, and
    I think this is not the right thing to do at this moment in our
    medical history.
        So, I'd like to ask you, what effect will this have on the
    services? Will it have a negative effect? Will it affect the
    morale? Will it affect the service?
        May I start with the Admiral?
        Admiral Nathan. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
    And may I echo your sentiment about military nursing and the
    role it plays, especially these days, as we compartmentalize
    house staff and physician training, and limit the hours. The
    military nurse is often the most steadfast provider, from a
    continuity perspective, of the patient.

                             CHIEF NURSE CORPS RANK

        That said, I believe that some of the changes they have in
    mind don't prohibit a Navy Nurse Corps officer from obtaining
    the rank of two stars. While it just would not be automatically
    conveyed, they would compete among other one-star admirals and
    generals for the senior healthcare executive rank of two stars.
        I think one of the things that, and, again, you may want to
    get this specifically from your chiefs of the Nurse Corps, but
    one of the benefits that it may bring with it is automatic
    promotion to two stars then does limit, at least in the Navy,
    the number of officers we can promote from captain to one star
    in the Nurse Corps. And so, it may limit the actual numbers who
    are flag officers.
        But there will be--in the Navy, there will always be Nurse
    Corps admirals, and they will, as they have in years past, be
    able to compete for two stars, and many of them do. We have
    Nurse Corps officers who are in charge of many of our major
    medical facilities. They have, in the past, been in charge of
    our major medical centers. They run the major headquarters of
    the Bureau of Medicine and surgery. For those who compete
    successfully for the second star in different arenas, they can
    then relinquish chief of the Nurse Corps, and we're then at
    liberty to pick another one-star admiral to be the chief of the
    Nurse Corps.
        Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you. General Horoho.
        General Horoho. Thank you, Senator. First, I'd like to
    thank you very much, because you've been extremely supportive
    in the rank structure that we've had across our military.
        This has really been a maturation process within Army
    Medicine. Over the last--I'd probably say the last 6 years, we
    have a leader development program that has allowed Army nurses
    to be very competitive for command, which is our stepping stone
    for general officer. And so we have nurses that are extremely
    competitive for a level one and level two command, and now very
    competitive for our branch and material one stars.
        So, since DOD has supported the direction of reducing from
    two stars to one star, I believe we have a leadership
    development program that will allow our nurses to actually
    compete across the board for all of the one stars and then be
    competitive for two stars in the future.
        Chairman Inouye. General Green.
        General Green. Sir, I would expand upon what Admiral Nathan
    said, in terms of not only are our nurses vital to the in-
    patient arena but in the patient-centered medical homes, and
    the things that we're doing with--they have much more contact
    with the out-patient as well, because of their roles as case
    managers and disease managers. And so, they do, certainly, I
    agree with you, is what I'm saying, have an extremely vital
    role.
        In terms of general officers, because of the economy and
    the Department's decision to take efficiencies, the Air Force
    concurs. Actually, we're the smallest of the medical services.
    We will lose 1 net general officer, going from 12 to 11. If the
    decision is made to not go directly to two star, we will still
    have a one-star nurse, who will have the same responsibilities
    in terms of oversight of nursing and other important programs.
        We also, like the Army, have a very strong leadership
    development program, and I believe our nurses will compete very
    well, because there's nothing in the proposal that's come to
    you that would restrict them from competition for two star, it
    just doesn't make that particular corps position an automatic
    two star.
        Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Well, I thank you very much, but I can
    assure you that I will be voting and speaking against it.

                                  TRICARE FEES

        I'd like to ask this question of the Admiral. In the fiscal
    year 2013 budget, it is assumed that $423 million in savings
    will be based upon new TRICARE enrollment fees and increases in
    co-pay for prescription drugs. The House has just announced
    that this will not pass muster in the House. It will not see
    the light of day. What is your thought?
        Admiral Nathan. Thank you, Sir. This is clearly an issue
    that's front and center among many organizations, both in our
    Nation's leadership, the military leadership, and our
    beneficiary populations.
        We recognize that the cost of healthcare has escalated
    dramatically. In 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) spent
    approximately $19 billion on its Defense Health Program (DHP).
    And this year, it's approximately $51 billion, and expected to
    reach the $60 billion point in the next few years.
        So, the onus is on us to look for ways to sustain the
    healthcare benefit, to continue to fund it, to keep faith with
    our beneficiaries, to keep faith with those men and women who
    paid with years of service, and often with sacrifice of their
    lives and their families to earn this benefit.
        Given the resource constraints and trying to get a handle
    on healthcare costs, we are looking at organizational changes,
    governance changes, trying to find efficiencies through
    transparency increased efficiency, reducing redundancy among
    the services, and finding more joint solutions. The other was
    to determine if the healthcare cost to the beneficiary has kept
    up over the last 15 years with the total benefit package that
    beneficiaries receive.
        Neither I nor my colleagues here were involved in the
    actual number crunching or the decisions of tiering or levels
    of tiering to the various beneficiaries, but we do understand
    that the cost of the healthcare beneficiary has remained
    unchanged, and actually decreased in relative dollars over the
    last 10 to 15 years. The TRICARE enrollment fees have remained
    static at about $400 to $500 per year, since the 1990s. The
    drug co-pays have changed very little. And, in fact, there have
    been additional programs implemented including TRICARE For
    Life, and others, which have greatly increased the cost to the
    Government for beneficiary healthcare.
        So, the bottom line, Sir, I believe this is an effort to
    try to find a fair increase in the participation of the
    beneficiaries that is commensurate or not above the benefits
    actually received over the last several years.
        And I'll just close by saying, I recognize the emotion
    here. I'm an internal medicine doctor. I take care of a large
    population of patients for whom these changes may affect. We
    always worry about whether or not we're keeping or breaking
    faith with the commitment they made and the benefits they
    should receive. I'm vitally interested in making sure that we
    can have a sustainable program that would allow retirees and
    their family members to continue to get this benefit, and I
    believe this is part and parcel of this effort.
        Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Admiral.
        Generals Green and Horoho, do you have any comments to
    make? I'm just curious. The military leadership, in general,
    seems to be supportive, but I'd like to know what the thoughts
    of families and troops may be, because they're not here to
    testify. Have you heard from them?
        General Green. Sir, we're hearing from the coalition the
    same as I'm sure you are now, in terms of their representatives
    to this process, because the proposed fee increases would
    affect the Active Duty and their family members very minimally,
    in terms of some of the co-pays with pharmacy, and if they
    happen to be in TRICARE Prime, the change to the catastrophic
    cap could affect those. We're not hearing too many things from
    our Active Duty population.
        The retirees, who bear the brunt of some of the cost
    increases, I think they're being very vocal, and we're hearing
    from all of the different agencies and representative groups
    telling us that they're not supporting the activities that are
    being proposed.
        The Air Force supports the Department's position. On a
    personal level, obviously, I am going to be someone who is
    joining the ranks of retirees, and will be paying these fees.
        General Green. And I would tell you that there is a
    mismatch right now, over the years, based on the inflation that
    is in the healthcare indexes that goes into the cost-of-living
    increases that's not been brought back to the beneficiaries.
        And so, in other words, we've been giving cost-of-living
    increases to the retirement, but we haven't been increasing any
    of the out-of-pocket costs. And so, although you're getting
    money that's respective of the healthcare inflation, you're not
    actually paying any of the healthcare costs that have come up.
        And so, I believe that the out-of-pocket costs need to
    increase, and on a person that would be willing to pay the fees
    that are proposed. I do think that, you know, there may be
    other ways that we could reach a similar endpoint, but the
    Department has put considerable work and had taskforce that is
    basically brought this forward, which is why the Air Force
    supports the Department's position at this time.
        Chairman Inouye. General Horoho.
        General Horoho. Sir, in addition to what my colleagues have
    said, I think where we've heard back is more from the
    coalitions that are out there. Senior leaders that are retired
    have been very supportive of this, of wanting to ensure that
    our military benefit continues. And so, their feedback has been
    in support of the fee increases.
        And in addition to DOD, or with the fee increases, I think
    really what's at stake is the need for all of us to be
    critically looking at our programs and our processes, and
    figure out where we have redundancies, so that we can look at
    saving dollars in other areas to offset some of the rising
    costs in healthcare for the future.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Vice Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. I'm pleased to join you in welcoming our
    distinguished panel in thanking you for the responsibilities
    you've assumed under the jobs that you now have, and the work
    you are doing for our Armed Forces. We think it's very
    important that we provide a standard of hospital and nursing
    care, and medical assistance to our men and women in uniform,
    and we know that you're responsible in your services for seeing
    that that becomes a reality, and it is ministered in a way
    that's sensitive to the needs of our military men and women in
    service, and also sensitive to the retirees as they become more
    concerned about costs, and cost-of-living adjustments, and
    availability of services. And we share those concerns, and we
    know that you'll do your best to help meet the challenges that
    your official duties require.
        So, that's a long way of saying thank you for doing what
    you do. We want to be sure that we provide the resources that
    are necessary to ensure a sensitive and professional standard
    of care that is commensurate with the sacrifice and service,
    and the importance of that to our Nation.
        In your assessment, let me just start here, General Horoho,
    thank you for your comments that you've already made in your
    statement and in your answers to Senator Inouye's questions.
    What, if anything, do you think we could do in terms of
    targeting funding or making changes in the support that we
    provide as the Congress to the Army's medical needs and
    generally speaking to those who are responsible for managing
    these funds? Is the level of funding adequate to carry out our
    responsibilities to the men and women in the Armed Forces?
        General Horoho. Thank you, Vice Chairman, for that
    question.
        Right up front, the funding this year is absolutely
    adequate for us to be able to meet our mission. The area that I
    think will be critical to ensure that we continue with funding
    will be the funding for our scholarship programs that allows us
    to bring in the right talent, so our physicians, our dentists,
    and our nurses, and our social workers, I think, that's very,
    very critical, so that we sustain the right talent to be able
    to care for our warriors in the future.
        The other area that I think is critical to make sure that
    we have the right funding for is the care for our warriors with
    our warrior transition units. As we draw down as an army, we
    will continue to have a large number of patients that we will
    need to care for for their psychological wounds, as well as
    physical injuries that have occurred over the last 10 years.
    And so, those are probably the two most important areas that I
    think we need to ensure that funding remains available.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        General Horoho. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral Nathan, what's your response to
    the same question?

                        MILITARY MEDICAL PROGRAM FUNDING

        Admiral Nathan. Thank you, Sir.
        Again, we certainly believe that the funding is adequate to
    meet our mission from the President's budget for fiscal year
    2013. The areas that we remain concerned about, as we see
    looming budget pressures, are, in many ways, in concert with
    what General Horoho said. We want to make sure that our wounded
    warrior programs, especially those that facilitate transition,
    remain intact. We want to continue to partner with not only our
    military but our private sector and academic partners, and
    finding best practices, and to engage them in programs, so that
    we can create a unified approach to some of the more vexing
    challenges from 10 years of war, including post-traumatic
    stress and TBI.
        We're also committed to military medical engagement via
    humanitarian assistance disaster relief in our overseas
    facilities. We believe they are great ambassadors of the
    American passion, the American ethos, and show an American
    military that brings light and help as much as it can bring
    heat. So we're also hoping to make sure that those remain
    robust, and an everlasting presence of what we do in the
    military, as well as our support of the kinetic operations.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        General Green.
        General Green. And Sir, our budget is also adequate. I mean
    it meets all of our needs this year. All of our programs are
    fully funded.
        I would add one thing to the scholarship request of General
    Horoho, and that is that I would tell you that I think we also
    need to be certain to fund our Uniform Services University,
    because they give us a highly professional officer that stays
    with us much longer than some of the folks who are just with
    the scholarships, and coming from our outside medical schools.
        In addition to that, I would ask that you watch very
    carefully to ensure that we still have funding for research,
    and TBI, and PTSD. I think that we're learning a great deal,
    and we need to learn more because of this burgeoning problem,
    as we bring people home from the wars.
        And finally, one thing that's kind of outside of your
    question, but I would tell you that to make certain that we are
    actually doing the best job possible with the money, I would
    tell you that we need to move towards a single financial
    accounting system for DHP dollars. Whichever one is chosen
    would be fine, but I think to avoid redundancy and to make
    certain that we're delivering the most efficient healthcare, we
    need a single system that actually gives us visibility of all
    programs within the DHP.
        Thank you, Sir.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        For those of us who don't hear the terms used by the
    military every day, TBI means ``traumatic brain injury,''
    doesn't it?
        General Green. Yes, Sir.
        Senator Cochran. Okay.
        General Green. Yes, Sir. And post-traumatic stress. And
    then the DHP is ``Defense Health Program.''
        Senator Cochran. Good. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, after I conclude these
    questions, I have to go to the NIH hearing, so I just want to
    say to the second panel of nurses, we really salute you for
    your service, and echo the comments made by the chairman. And I
    just want to say to you and to the people who are also part of
    our military Nurse Corps service, you are stars. You are stars.
    We just want to make sure you have the chance to wear them on
    your shoulders. So, we want to thank you for that.
        And also, Mr. Chairman, I hope, as we look at this, we
    continue, as we listen to our Nurse Corps, focus on workforce
    needs, both doctors and nurses, and then other areas of allied
    health, to make sure we have all that we need to do to backup.
        Now, let me go right to my question. First of all, I think
    we want to say to all of those serving in military medicine,
    what stunning results we've achieved in acute battlefield
    medicine. I think you're breaking history books in terms of
    lives saved, and it's an unparalleled seamless network,
    General, from response on the battlefield, to the transport
    through the Air Force, to Germany, back home here. So, we
    really want to thank you for that, and General Green, for you,
    and all of those who serve in the Air Force.
        But, let me get to my question, because it goes to, we have
    two challenges. War is war. So, there are those who suffer the
    injuries, because of the weapons of war. This is a whole genre
    that we're focusing on. But then there's the consequences of
    war, and the consequences of the military, so it's those who
    are Active in duty, and then their families.
        Much has been said now about resiliency. Resiliency. So
    that no matter what happens to you, even going in that white
    space, General Horoho, that you talked about is there.
        So, here is my question, and you refer to it in many of
    your testimony: The medical home. You talk about your new
    partnerships with Samueli Institute, headed by a former Walter
    Reed doc, the Bravewell collaborative. Could you share with me
    what this whole issue of resiliency and the use of
    complementary and integrative techniques, and tell me where we
    are, when the momentum that was created by Admiral Mullen,
    General Schoomaker, and other of our surgeon generals, on this
    whole idea of resiliency wellness that facilitated being ready
    for combat, support that the family embraced, and then, quite
    frankly, in their recovery.
        Did they have a good idea? So, could you tell me what
    you're doing, and does it have efficacy?
        General Horoho. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        We are continuing to build upon the prior efforts of
    Admiral Mullen, General Casey, as well as General Schoomaker,
    and really looking at how do we ensure that we focus on the
    mind, body, spirit, and soul of our warriors and their family
    members. And we've learned over this 10-year conflict that we
    can't just treat our warriors, that we absolutely have to treat
    the family, because it impacts on both.
        So, we've started with the platform of having patient-
    centered medical homes, really focusing on continuity of care,
    and wellness, and managing their care. We've also stood up
    community-based clinics, and so, we have pushed healthcare out
    into the communities where the patients live, with one standard
    of care of being very much focused on embedding behavior health
    in our primary care, as well as our community-based clinics.
        We've stood up a pain management taskforce that is now on
    its second year, and last year it was nationally recognized for
    the work that was done. Those recommendations from the pain
    management taskforce are now going to be implemented this year.
    We'll have nine across each one of our major medical centers,
    and the complimentary and integrative medicine that occurs with
    that, so we're incorporating yoga, acupressure, acupuncture,
    mindfulness, sleep management, and really trying to get to more
    of the prevention when we look at healthcare and wellness.
    We've taken these concepts and integrated some of these on the
    battlefield.
        When I was deployed in Afghanistan, we had many areas where
    we actually coordinated care with behavior health and
    concussive care, and incorporated some of the mindfulness
    training there, and sleep management.
        Senator Mikulski. Has that had efficacy? I mean, you know,
    we make much of evidence-based medicine, and I think we're all
    there. We can't afford to waste time or dollars. So, could you
    talk about the efficacy of those efforts? Were Mullen and all
    of them on the right track?
        General Horoho. I do believe we're on the right track. We
    have seen a decrease in the reliance of poly-pharmacy.
        Senator Mikulski. Does that mean drugs?
        General Horoho. Yes, Ma'am. Multiple drugs. We've had many
    of our warriors that have used yoga, and acupressure, and
    acupuncture vice narcotic pain medicine. So, we are seeing help
    in that area.
        We also have a patient caring touch system that has been
    rolled out that's one standard of care across all of Army
    Medicine. And with that, we have seen a decrease in medication
    errors. We've seen an increase in documentation of pain
    management. We've seen a decrease in left without being seen in
    our emergency rooms. So, increase in continuity of care. So, we
    are seeing critical lab values that are equating to better
    patient outcomes. And we've got a ways to go, as we look at how
    do you measure wellness. What are the metrics that we should be
    looking at that really measures wellness and improved mental
    and spiritual health? So, we've got tremendous work to do in
    that area, but I do believe we're moving in the right
    direction.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, and I think it goes to the recovery
    from them, also, because that deals with many of the
    consequences of frequent deployments, the stresses, et cetera.
        Admiral Nathan, did you want to comment on that, because
    you also, in your testimony, talked about body, mind, spirit
    medicine, which is the whole warrior, and the support of the
    warrior.
        Admiral Nathan. Yes, Ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. The family support.
        Admiral Nathan. Thank you, Senator. You made two great
    points in your question. One is, how do we support the warrior
    and the family while they're deployed in operations, undergoing
    warfare, and then, how do we support them as a unit when they
    return home as a family unit, seeking care in a garrison
    environment?

                  WOUNDED WARRIOR AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

        Some of these things have been touched on. We have
    unprecedented surveys now and assessments of our personnel on
    deployments. We have the behavioral needs assessment study,
    which is done of all our individual augmentees in the Navy. The
    Marines have a similar program, where they are all surveyed.
    We've actually seen, because of this interaction, a decrease in
    the stigma of seeking help. We've seen a decrease in the rate
    of psychotropic drugs, basically antidepressants being used on
    the battlefield, in our populations.
        Senator Mikulski. That's pretty big, isn't it?
        Admiral Nathan. I think so. And I think we can attribute it
    to the engagement that the services now have in training not
    only the medical professionals who are deployed but the line
    officers and the operators who are deployed along with our
    servicemembers.
        In the Navy and Marine Corps, we have the combat and
    operational stress control (COSC) training and the operational
    stress control and readiness (OSCAR) training. These are
    embedded teams, with mental health professionals, and corpsmen
    and medics, who have been trained to engage and embed with the
    war-fighting forces.
        In the Marine Corps, we've trained more than 5,000 marines
    who are battalion commanders, garrison commanders, squadron
    commanders on the signs and symptoms of stress, of depression,
    of looking for those first tips of somebody who's starting to
    bend before they break. I think that has helped us both in
    getting people referred earlier and in destigmatizing the
    scenario where somebody raises their hand and says, ``I'm not
    doing well.''
        In the family units, we have now 23 Families Overcoming
    Under Stress (FOCUS) locations, which are centered on taking
    care of children, families, the warrior themselves. It has a
    variety of outreach programs to take care of kids who are
    either failing in school or suffering from the parent being
    deployed. These can be reached both by walking in, making
    appointments, and virtually by telephone.
        For the Reserve community, we have the Psychological Health
    Outreach Program, which both can be reached by telephone or
    remotely walking in. We also have the Returning Warrior
    Workshops. The returning warrior from Reserves and spouse
    attend one of these, and they're held on the weekends. They're
    an intensive 72-hour program, where all the facilities and
    programs are made available to them.
        Senator Mikulski. Admiral Nathan, I think in the time for
    the subcommittee members----
        Admiral Nathan. Yes, Ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And the Chairman's being generous, if we
    could have kind of a white paper or something from you on this,
    because I think all of us want to certainly help our warriors
    who have endured injury from the weapons of war, and I want to
    be sure that we have the right resources for you to be able to
    do the right things, with the consequences of war. And you seem
    to have an excellent program. It has momentum. It has
    demonstrable efficacy. I'd like to have a description of it in
    more detail, and whether, again, you have the resources to do
    it.
        Admiral Nathan. Happy to do that.
        [The information follows:]

        Navy Medicine continues to foster a culture of support for
    psychological health as an essential component to total force fitness
    and readiness. Operational Stress Control programs provide sailors,
    marines, leaders, and families the skills and resources to build
    resiliency. We also address stigma by encouraging prevention, early
    intervention, and help-seeking behaviors.
        We have made remarkable progress in ensuring our wounded
    servicemembers get the care they need--from medical evacuation through
    inpatient care, outpatient rehabilitation to eventual return to duty or
    transition from the military. Our programs of support, which are
    adequately resourced, continue to mature and show progress. Our
    emphasis remains ensuring that we have the proper size and mix of
    mental health providers to care for the growing need of servicemembers
    and their families who need care. Within Navy Medicine, mental health
    professional recruiting and retention remains a top priority.
        Our focus continues to be embedding psychological health providers
    in Navy and Marine Corps units, ensuring primary and secondary
    prevention efforts, and appropriate mental healthcare are readily
    accessible for sailors and marines. The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Combat
    and Operational Stress Control program uses Operational Stress Control
    and Readiness (OSCAR) as an approach to mental healthcare in the
    operational setting by taking mental health providers out of the clinic
    and embedding them with operational forces to emphasize prevention,
    early detection, and brief intervention. More than 5,000 marine leaders
    and individual marines have already been trained in prevention, early
    detection, and intervention in combat stress through OSCAR Team
    Training and will operate in OSCAR teams within individual units.
        We are also embedding psychological health providers in the primary
    care setting where most servicemembers and their families first seek
    assistance for mental health issues. This practice enhances integrated
    treatment, early recognition, and access to the appropriate level of
    psychological healthcare. The Behavioral Health Integration Program in
    the Medical Home Port is a new program that is actively being
    implemented across 69 Navy and Marine Corps sites.
        Traumatic brain injury (TBI) care on the battlefield has improved
    significantly since the beginning of Operations Enduring Freedom and
    Iraqi Freedom. Most improvements have targeted early screening and
    diagnosis followed by definitive treatment. In 2010, the Department of
    Defense (DOD) issued the Directive-type Memorandum 09-033, which has
    resulted in improved diagnosis and treatment of battlefield concussion.
    For the Navy and Marine Corps, the primary treatment site for concussed
    servicemembers has been the Concussion Care Restoration Center (CRCC)
    at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan. Since its opening in 2010, CRCC
    staff have treated more than 930 servicemembers with concussions,
    resulting in a greater than 98-percent return-to-duty (RTD) rate and an
    average of 10.1 days of duty lost from point-of-injury to symptom-free
    RTD. There is also a Concussion Specialty Care Center (CSCC) at the
    NATO Role III Hospital in Kandahar, with a neurologist on staff.
        Upon return from deployment, enhanced screening methods for TBI and
    mental health conditions are being piloted at several Navy and Marine
    Corps sites. These efforts include additional screening and follow-up
    for any servicemember who was noted to have sustained a concussion in
    theater. Efforts are underway to increase the use of the National
    Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE) across DOD and Navy, and the
    development of NICoE satellite sites, to provide state-of-the-art
    evaluation and treatment for those patients who do not improve with
    routine clinical care.
        Additional examples of support programs throughout Navy Medicine
    include:
          Overcoming Adversity and Stress Injury Support.--Overcoming
            Adversity and Stress Injury Support (OASIS) is a residential
            post-traumatic stress disorder treatment program at the Naval
            Medical Center San Diego. It opened in August 2010, onboard the
            Naval Base Point Loma and is providing intensive mental
            healthcare for servicemembers with combat-related mental health
            symptoms from post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as major
            depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse
            problems. Care is provided 7 days a week for 1,012 weeks, and
            servicemembers reside within the facility while they receive
            treatment.
          Families Over Coming Under Stress.--Families Over Coming Under
            Stress (FOCUS) is a family psychological health and resiliency
            building program that addresses military family functioning in
            the context of the impact of combat deployments, multiple
            deployments, and high-operational tempo. The application of a
            three-tiered approach to care: community education, psycho
            education for families, and brief treatment intervention for
            families has shown statistically significant outcomes in
            increasing family functioning and decreasing negative outcomes
            such as anxiety and depression in both parents and children.
            The program serves Active Duty and Reserve families. Families
            can access the program through a direct self-referral,
            referrals by military treatment facility providers, community
            providers such as Fleet and Family Service Centers, chaplains,
            and schools. There are currently 23 FOCUS locations operating
            at 18 installations.
          Reserve Psychological Health Outreach Program.--Reserve
            Psychological Health Outreach Program (PHOP) was developed for
            our Navy and Marine Corps Reserve populations. The program
            provides psychological health outreach, education/training, and
            resources a 24/7 information line for unit leaders or
            reservists and their families to obtain information about local
            resources for issues related to employment, finances,
            psychological health, family support, and child care. PHOP now
            includes 55 licensed mental health providers dispersed
            throughout the country serving on 11 teams located centrally to
            Navy and Marine Force Reserve commands.
          Returning Warrior Workshop.--The Returning Warrior Workshop (RWW)
            is a dedicated weekend designed to facilitate reintegration of
            sailors and marines returning from combat zones with their
            spouses, significant others. RWWs are available to all
            individual augmentees, both Active Duty and Reserve, and are
            considered the Navy's ``signature event'' within the Yellow
            Ribbon Reintegration Program. The RWW employs trained
            facilitators, including the PHOP teams and chaplains, to lead
            warriors and their significant others through a series of
            presentations and tailored break-out group discussions to
            address post-combat stress and the challenges of transitioning
            back to civilian life. RWWs assist demobilized servicemembers
            and their loved ones in identifying and finding appropriate
            resources for immediate and potential issues that often arise
            during post-deployment reintegration. As of September 2011,
            more than 10,000 servicemembers and their families have
            participated in RWWs. RWWs assist demobilized servicemembers
            and their loved ones in identifying immediate and potential
            issues that often arise during post-deployment reintegration.
          Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Programs.--Navy Medicine maintains
            a steadfast commitment to our Substance Abuse Rehabilitation
            Programs (SARPs). SARPs offer a broad range of services to
            include alcohol education, outpatient and intensive outpatient
            treatment, residential treatment, and medically managed care
            for withdrawal and/or other medical complications. We have
            expanded our existing care continuum to include cutting-edge
            residential and intensive outpatient programs that address both
            substance abuse and other co-occurring mental disorders
            directed at the complex needs of returning warriors who may
            suffer from substance abuse disorders and depression or post-
            traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition, Navy Medicine
            has developed a new program known as My Online Recovery
            Experience (MORE). In conjunction with Hazelden, a civilian
            leader in substance abuse treatment and education, MORE is a
            ground-breaking Web-based recovery management program available
            to servicemembers 24/7 from anywhere in the world.
        Navy Medicine is committed to connecting our wounded warriors to
    approved emerging and advanced diagnostic and therapeutic options
    within our medical treatment facilities and outside of military
    medicine. We do this through collaborations with major centers of
    reconstructive and regenerative medicine while ensuring full compliance
    with applicable patient safety policies and practices. We will continue
    our active and expansive partnerships with the other Services, our
    Centers of Excellence, the VA, and leading academic medical and
    research centers to make the best care available to our warriors.

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much. And thank you,
    everybody, for what you're doing.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Murray.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        General Horoho, you and I have had a number of discussions
    about the invisible wounds of war and the challenges soldiers
    are facing, seeking behavioral healthcare. And as you well
    know, Madigan Army Medical Center, in my home State of
    Washington, is dealing now with how to handle these wounds and
    provide our soldiers quality consistent care, especially for
    our soldiers who are going through the Integrated Disability
    Evaluation System (IDES).
        Now, I think some of the issues that have been raised at
    Madigan are unique to that facility, but I do continue to have
    a number of concerns, not only about the situation at Madigan
    today but the implication for our soldiers, really, across the
    Army who may have also struggled to get a proper diagnosis,
    adequate care, and an honest evaluation during the integrated
    disability system process.
        I wanted to ask you today, prior to 2007, Madigan did not
    use the forensic psychiatry to evaluate soldiers in the medical
    evaluation board process, and wanted to ask you before the
    subcommittee today, why was that system changed in 2007?
        General Horoho. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        The first thing that I'd like is just pick up on the word,
    when you said ``invisible wounds.'' I know it has been said
    during this war that the signature wound is an invisible wound.
    I would submit that it's not invisible to the family, nor is it
    invisible to the soldier that is undergoing those challenges,
    behavioral challenges.
        The reason, and I'm guessing on this, Ma'am, because I
    wasn't there, you know, prior to, but prior to 2007, we were a
    Nation that entered into war in about 2001, when we were
    attacked, and 2002 timeframe. And we had a very old system.
    That was the Medical Hold (MEDHOLD) and the Medical Holdover
    (MEDHOLDOVER) system, which was two separate systems on how we
    managed those servicemembers, Active and Reserve component. And
    that was the system that has been in place for many, many
    years.
        And what we found with the large number of deployments and
    servicemembers that were exposed to physical wounds, as well as
    behavioral health wounds is that we found that the Army system
    was overwhelmed, and that really is what was found in the 2007
    timeframe, is that we didn't have the administrative capability
    as well as the logistical support that needed to be there. And
    that's why we stood up our warrior transition units.
        So, we had a large volume going through the disability
    process that was an old antiquated process, and we had an
    overwhelming demand on our Army that we needed to restructure
    to be able to support and sustain.
        Senator Murray. But prior to 2007, there wasn't a forensic
    psychiatry that added an additional level of scrutiny. Is that
    correct?
        General Horoho. I honestly will need to take that for the
    record, because I don't know in 2006 if they had forensics or
    not. So, I can't answer that question for you. I would like to
    give you a correct answer.
        Senator Murray. Okay.
        General Horoho. So, if I could take that one for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

        While forensic psychiatry has been in the Army inventory for many
    years, there was no separate forensic psychiatry department at Madigan
    Army Medical Center (MAMC) prior to 2007, and they did not provide
    forensic evaluations in routine disability assessments unless it was
    determined that a forensic evaluation was specifically required.
    Forensic psychiatry evaluations are appropriate in civil and criminal
    legal proceedings and other administrative hearings, as well as
    independent determinations of specialized fitness for duty issues where
    the basis of the diagnosis in not clearly determined.

        Senator Murray. I would appreciate that. And as I
    mentioned, I am really concerned that soldiers Army-wide have
    been improperly diagnosed and treated by the Army. What have
    you found, under your investigation, of soldiers getting
    incorrect Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation
    Board (PEB) evaluations at other facilities?
        General Horoho. Ma'am, if I could just, when soldiers are
    getting diagnosed with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or post-
    traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), we use the same diagnostic
    tool within the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, which is the
    same tool that is used in the civilian sector. So, it is one
    standard diagnostic tool that is very well-delineated on the
    types of symptoms that you need to have in order to get a
    diagnosis of PTS or PTSD.
        So, we are using that standard across the board, and we
    have been using that standard across the board.
        Senator Murray. Well, we do know now at Madigan there were
    soldiers that were incorrectly diagnosed. And we're going back
    through, there's several investigations going on to re-
    evaluate. And my question is, there's been a lot of focus at
    Madigan. I'm concerned about that system-wide. And you're doing
    an investigation system-wide to see if other soldiers have been
    incorrectly diagnosed. Correct?
        General Horoho. Yes, Ma'am. So, if I can just lay things
    out and reiterate some of our past conversations. We have one
    investigation that is ongoing. Actually, it's completed. And
    it's with the lawyers. That's being reviewed. The Deputy
    Surgeon General, General Stone, initiated that investigation.
    And that was to look into----
        Senator Murray. System-wide?
        General Horoho. No, Ma'am. That's the one at Madigan that's
    looking at the forensics.
        Then, there's another investigation that was launched by
    the Western Region Medical Command to look into the command
    climate at Madigan Army Medical Center. And then what I
    initiated was an Inspector General (IG) assessment, not an
    investigation, but an assessment that looked at every single
    one of our military treatment facilities and the provision of
    care to see whether or not we had this practice of using
    forensic psychiatry or psychology in the medical evaluation
    process.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Well, my question was whether you had
    found at other facilities, incorrect diagnosis. And I want you
    to know that I have asked my Veterans Affairs Committee staff
    to begin reviewing cases from throughout the country of
    servicemembers involved in this process, and we are just
    beginning our review right now. But, we have already
    encountered cases in which a servicemember was treated for PTSD
    during their military service, entered the disability
    evaluation process, and the military determined that the
    servicemember's PTSD was not an unfitting condition.
        So, my concern is the significant discrepancy now between
    the Army's determination and the VA's finding that the soldier
    had a much more severe case of PTSD. Now, our review on my
    subcommittee is ongoing, but besides bringing individual cases
    to your attention, I wanted to ask you what specific measures
    do you look at to evaluate whether soldiers are receiving the
    proper diagnosis, and care, and honest evaluation.
        General Horoho. Within the Army, our role as the physicians
    is to evaluate the patients, not to determine a disability. So,
    they evaluate and identify a diagnoses and a treatment plan.
    And then once that is done, during the treatment, and if they
    are determined where they need to go into the disability
    system, then once they're in the disability system, now,
    because of Integrated Delivery Evaluation System (IDES), that
    occurred in 2010, they now have that evaluation done by the VA,
    the compensation exam. That's the compensation and pension
    (C&P) exam that's done by the VA.
        And then they are brought back into the disability system.
    So, the PEB is actually where the determination for disability
    is made. That is not a medical. That's an administrative action
    that falls under our G-1. And so I just want to make sure we
    don't mix what we do within the medical community in treating
    and evaluating and what gets done in the disability process
    that's an administrative process, that is reviewing the
    evaluation from the VA, and then the evaluation from the
    medical to determine disability.
        Senator Murray. My concern is that every single soldier who
    has mental health disability, PTSD, gets the care that they
    need, and that they get the support that they need, and they're
    adequately cared for, whether they leave the service or are
    sent back overseas, or whatever. So, we're going to continue to
    look at the system-wide, and as you know, the problems at
    Madigan were allowed to go on for years, and I'm really
    concerned that that lack of oversight over the disability
    evaluation system is much more broad, and really, you're going
    to be following to see what steps you take to ensure that this
    process is maintained. Not just at Madigan, where there's a
    severe focus right now, but nationwide.
        General Horoho. And Ma'am, what we've done so far, since I
    took over as Surgeon General on the 5th of December, what I've
    done so far is we're pulling behavior health up to the
    headquarters level, and making that a service line, so that we
    have one standard of care across all of Army Medicine, and
    we're able then to shift that capability where the demand is.
        I've got a team that has developed clinical practice
    guidelines for the use of forensics, as well as clinical
    practice guidelines for implementation of behavior health
    capability across Army Medicine.
        Senator Murray. When will that be implemented?
        General Horoho. Those are, right now, being evaluated by
    the experts. So, we've had them written up, and now they're
    being evaluated, and then we'll get that rolled out probably
    within the next several weeks.
        Senator Murray. Okay. So, we have two issues. We need to go
    back and find every soldier that may have not gotten the proper
    diagnosis and evaluation, and we need to move forward quickly
    to make sure there is the same diagnostic tool moving
    nationwide.
        General Horoho. Ma'am, right now, we are using the same
    diagnostic tool as my Air Force, and Navy, and the civilian
    sector for evaluating PTSD.
        Senator Murray. Do you believe we're using the right
    diagnostic tools?
        General Horoho. It's the one standard that's out in the
    civilian sector as well as the military. It is the best
    standard that's out there for diagnosing.
        Senator Murray. Okay. And finally, I just wanted to ask
    you, in your testimony you said that you've created a taskforce
    within the Army to examine the IDES process in conjunction with
    the ongoing MHS efforts. What specific aspects of the IDES
    process are you reviewing?
        General Horoho. Yes, Ma'am. We did this first, from an Army
    perspective. So, prior to General Crowley leaving, we set up a
    taskforce that Brigadier General Lyon, who is a medical corps
    physician, Army, he led that, and that was with U.S. Army
    Forces Command (FORSCOM), the G-1, and as well as Army
    Medicine. So we had a collaborative process looking at every
    aspect within the IDES to ensure that we had metrics, and as
    well as standards across implementation throughout the IDES
    process.
        After that was done, we then stood up an Army Medicine
    taskforce to be able to look at it then, Deepdive, from the
    medical piece that we're responsible for. Brigadier General
    Williams led that taskforce. It was multifunctional in
    capability. Individuals with multiple capabilities sat on that.
    And what we want to do is to be able to launch our standards
    across, so that we have no variance in every place that we have
    soldiers that are going through the IDES process.
        Army is getting ready to put out an all Army activities
    (ALARACT) message Army-wide with the standard. That will be
    going out, I think, in the April timeframe. And then ours,
    we're ready now. As soon as the Army launches that, we'll be
    able to put our standards in that impacts our medical care.
        Senator Murray. When will this be complete?
        General Horoho. Ma'am, right now, we're looking at starting
    that in the April timeframe, and the rollout of those standards
    across. And so I can get back with you on how long that would
    take.
        [The information follows:]

        The Army issued DA EXORD 080-12 on February 17, 2012 which provides
    guidance for standardization of Integrated Disability Evaluation System
    (IDES) across the Army. The U.S. Army Medical Command subsequently
    issued MEDCOM OPORD 12-33 which operationalizes three main efforts to:
      --standardize the process;
      --build capacity; and
      --establish Soldier-Commander responsibilities.
        From 2007 to 2011, the Army deployed IDES across the force to 32
    sites and continue efforts to implement new IDES guidance.

        Senator Murray. Okay. I'd really appreciate that.
        General Horoho. I can tell you that my full focus is
    ensuring that we do have a system, and I believe that everyone
    is focused on caring for our warriors. We're very committed to
    that. And we're looking at everywhere where we have variance,
    so that we can decrease that variance, and be able to ensure
    that we have one standard across Army Medicine.
        Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much. Thank you to
    your attention to this.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a serious issue. I've sat and talked
    with numerous soldiers and families who were diagnosed with
    PTSD, were getting care, and then as they went through the MEB
    process, were told they didn't have PTSD. They're now out in
    the community, and it is tragic that they're not getting the
    care that they need, and certainly, for the families, this has
    been extremely stressful, and my major attention on this, and
    my Veterans Affairs Committee is looking at this system-wide,
    and we'll continue to work with you on this.
        Chairman Inouye. I'm certain the troops and the veterans
    are very grateful to you. Thank you very much.
        Admiral Nathan, General Green, and General Horoho, thank
    you very much for your testimony, and more importantly, thank
    you for your service to our Nation.
        General Horoho. Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        General Horoho. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Admiral Nathan. Thank you, Sir.
        General Green. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. I'd like to call the next panel, the panel
    of nurses. I'd like to welcome Major General Kimberly
    Siniscalchi, the Assistant Air Force Surgeon General for
    Nursing Services; Rear Admiral Elizabeth Niemyer, Director of
    the Navy Nurse Corps; and Major General Jimmie Keenan, Chief of
    the Army Nurse Corps.
        Needless to say, I've had a great love for nurses
    throughout my life. They have a very special spark. And so I
    look forward to your testimony, sharing with us the
    accomplishments of your corps, also the vision for the future,
    and problems, if any.
        So, may we begin with General Siniscalchi?
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL KIMBERLY A. SINISCALCHI,
                ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL FOR NURSING
                SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
        General Siniscalchi. Chairman Inouye, thank you for your
    continued support of military nursing and for the opportunity
    to once again represent more than 18,000 men and women of our
    total nursing force. Sir, I am honored to report on this year's
    outstanding achievements and future initiatives.
        This past year, more than 1,100 nursing personnel deployed
    in support of global contingency operations, comprising 47
    percent of all Air Force medical service deployers. The
    transition from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn
    brought many of our troops home. Joint Base Balad Theater
    Hospital closed as part of this transition, marking the end of
    an era.
        A team of our deployed medics had the honor of retiring the
    historic American flag that covered Balad's Heroes Highway, the
    entry that welcomed more than 19,000 wounded warriors into our
    care. As this flag, which offered hope to our wounded, was
    taken down, the medics stood in awe as they discovered the
    stars from the flag were forever imprinted on the roof of the
    tent covering Heroes Highway.
        Our mission continues in support of Operation Enduring
    Freedom. This year, we introduced the tactical critical care
    evacuation team concept and piloted the first team for inter-
    theater transport. Consisting of an emergency room physician
    and two of our nurse anesthetists, this team moved 122 critical
    patients, providing advanced interventions early in the patient
    care continuum, and we now have five teams trained.
        This past year, critical care air transport and air medical
    evacuation teams safely moved 17,800 patients globally. Our
    efforts to advance research and evidence-based practice led to
    new initiatives improving safe patient handoff and pain
    management. To continue building the next information bridge,
    we field tested a new electronic health record during air
    medical transport missions. All documented en route care can
    now be downloaded into the same clinical database used by our
    medical facilities, and can be readily visible to medical teams
    around the globe.
        Based on lessons learned over the past 10 years, we
    completely transformed our air medical evacuation training into
    a more efficient modular format, with increased proficiency
    levels, based on the latest evidence-based clinical protocols.
    This new curriculum reduced overall training time by 130 days.
        As we face current challenges, our total nursing force is
    well-prepared. We've established amazing partnerships with
    Federal and healthcare facilities whose in-patient areas and
    acuity levels provide the optimal environment for initial
    clinical training and skill sustainment. This year, we
    processed 39 training affiliation agreements in nursing. We
    also established three new 12-month fellowships: Patient
    safety, in partnership with the Tampa James Haley VA Patient
    Safety Center; magnet recognition, in partnership with
    Scottsdale Healthcare system; and Informatics, at our Air Force
    Medical Operations Agency.
        This year, we launched our new Air Force residency program,
    aligning with the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.
    Our newly assessed novice nurses complete the nurse transition
    program, and upon arrival at their first duty station enter the
    nurse residency program, where they receive clinical mentoring
    and professional development through their first year of
    practice.
        Whether on the battlefield or at home, our nurses and
    technicians are well-prepared to provide world-class care to
    all beneficiaries. The Federal Nursing Service chiefs have
    partnered in building collaborative plans to better prepare
    nursing teams for their integral roles in providing better
    health, better care, best value.
        Patient-centered care is our highest priority, and high
    touch, high care remains our true north. As we continue the
    journey from healthcare to health, we are committed to improve
    continuity of care, enhanced resiliency, and promote safe
    healthy lifestyles.
        With support from the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program
    (TSNRP), our nurse scientists completed research in the areas
    of patient safety, post-traumatic stress, pain management, and
    women's health. These research initiatives demonstrate our
    commitment to advanced nursing practice by fostering a culture
    of inquiry.
        However, an ongoing challenge is retaining our clinical
    experts. In an effort to explore factors affecting retention,
    the Uniform Services University, of the Health Sciences,
    conducted a study and found the number one reason influencing a
    nurse's decision to remain on Active Duty was promotion. The
    survey findings support our continued efforts to balance the
    Nurse Corps grade structure. Although our nursing retention
    rates have improved with incentive special pay program, and
    we've had continued success in meeting our recruiting goals, we
    must continue every effort to increase fill-grade
    authorizations in order to promote and retain our experienced
    nurses.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, we genuinely appreciate
    your support as we continue to deliver world-class healthcare
    anytime, anywhere. We strive to ensure that those who wear our
    Nation's uniform and their families receive safe, expert, and
    above all, compassionate care.
        Again, I thank you, and I welcome your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Major General Kimberly A. Siniscalchi
        Mr. Chairman and esteemed members, it is indeed an honor to report
    to the subcommittee on this year's outstanding achievements and the
    future initiatives of the more than 18,500 members of our Total Nursing
    Force (TNF). I am proud to introduce a new team this year--Brigadier
    General Gretchen Dunkelberger, Air National Guard (ANG) Advisor;
    Colonel Lisa Naftzger-Kang, United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR)
    Advisor; and Chief Master Sergeant Cleveland Wiltz, Aerospace Medical
    Service Career Field Manager.
        I extend, on their behalf and mine, our sincere gratitude for your
    steadfast support, which has enabled our TNF to provide world-class
    healthcare to more than 2 million eligible beneficiaries around the
    globe. Throughout the past year, Air Force nursing personnel have
    advanced the transition from healthcare to health through patient
    education, research, and evidence-based practice. Our TNF priorities
    are:
      --Global Operations;
      --Force Development;
      --Force Management; and
      --Patient-Centered Care.
        Woven through each of these areas are new initiatives in education,
    research, and strategic communication. Today, my testimony will
    highlight the accomplishments and challenges we face as we pursue our
    strategic priorities.
                               global operations
        Operation Iraqi Freedom has now drawn to a close, and yet our
    medics remain fully engaged in wartime, contingency, humanitarian
    peace-keeping, and nation-building missions. In 2011, we deployed more
    than 1,100 nurses and technicians in support of these global missions.
    Our TNF made up approximately 47 percent of all Air Force Medical
    Service (AFMS) deployed personnel.
        The transition from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn
    brought many of our troops home to friends and family. Joint Base Balad
    Theater Hospital closed in November 2011 as a part of this transition.
    During its tenure, more than 7,500 Air Force medical personnel deployed
    to Balad, approximately 50 percent of whom were nursing personnel. This
    premier trauma hospital supported more than 19,000 admissions, 36,000
    emergency patient visits, and 20,000 operating room hours while
    sustaining a 95 percent in-theater survival rate, the highest in
    military medical history. Serving as the last Deputy Group Commander,
    Chief Nurse, and Medical Operations Commander, during the final
    rotation at Balad, was my USAFR Advisor, Colonel Naftzger-Kang. She and
    her team successfully executed end-of-mission planning and the
    transition of $335,000 in equipment and more than 90 personnel with
    facility on-time closure.
        Balad's closure marked the end of an era and was bittersweet for
    all those who had journeyed through the hospital doors. The final
    rotation had the honor of retiring the American flag that covered
    Heroes Highway, the entry that welcomed our wounded warriors into our
    care. As the flag was taken down, our nurses and medics stood in awe as
    they discovered that the stars from the flag were imprinted on the roof
    of the Heroes Highway tent. This flag, which offered hope to thousands
    of wounded soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, will be proudly
    displayed at the new Defense Health Headquarters, Falls Church,
    Virginia.
        No matter the setting, high-touch, high-care remains the True North
    of the TNF. When a soldier, who was severely injured by an improvised
    explosive device (IED) blast first awoke in the intensive care unit
    (ICU), at Craig Joint Theater Hospital, Bagram, his first concern was
    not for himself but for his military working dog, also injured in the
    blast. The soldier was being prepared for evacuation to Germany; he
    knew his dog would be distraught if separated from him. Recognizing the
    importance of this soldier's relationship with his dog, Captain Anne
    Nesbit, an Air Force Critical Care Nurse, went above and beyond to
    reunite them. She spearheaded efforts to bring the dog to his bedside.
    The dog entered the ICU and immediately jumped on to the soldier's bed
    and curled up next to his master. Those who witnessed this reunion were
    brought to tears. Even in the midst of war, the nurse's compassion is
    never lost.
        Our medical technicians continue to deploy with our Army partners
    to Afghanistan as convoy medics to provide world-class healthcare at
    forward operating locations. One example, is Senior Airman Jasmine
    Russell, a medical technician assigned to a Joint Expeditionary Tasking
    as a logistics convoy medic with the Army. She traveled with her
    battalion more than 80,000 miles throughout 40 districts and completed
    more than 450 convoys in the Regional Command Southwest, Afghanistan.
    On January 7, 2011, while north of the Helmand Province, her convoy
    encountered 17 IEDs, 3 small arms fire attacks, and 2 missile attacks,
    killing a local national, and injuring coalition forces assigned to the
    convoy. Despite being injured, this junior enlisted member acted far
    beyond her years of experience as she began immediate triage and care,
    preparing the wounded for evacuation. Senior Airman Russell stated, ``I
    wasn't even concerned about myself; my peers were my number one
    priority.''
        While initial stabilization and surgery occurs at forward locations
    close to the point of injury, casualties must be aeromedically
    evacuated for further care. In wartime, contingency, peacetime, and
    nation-building, our aeromedical evacuation (AE) crews and Critical
    Care Air Transport Teams (CCATT) continue to provide world-class care
    and champion advancements in enroute nursing practice. This past year,
    AE moved 17,800 patients globally, with 11,000 from within United
    States Central Command alone. Since the start of Operations Enduring
    and Iraqi Freedom more than 93,000 patients have been safely moved.
        In 2011, we introduced the Tactical Critical Care Evacuation Team
    (TCCET) concept and piloted the first team in Afghanistan. Lieutenant
    Colonel Virginia Johnson, a certified registered nurse anesthetist
    (CRNA), stationed at Langley Air Force Base (AFB), Virginia, led the
    way in closing the gap in enroute care from initial surgical
    intervention to the next level of hospital care. Lieutenant Colonel
    Johnson and Captain Alejandro Davila, also a CRNA, took to the sky in a
    UH-60 Helicopter. This Air Force team of two CRNAs, and an emergency
    room physician moved 122 critical patients, and provided state-of-the-
    art enroute care. In May 2012, the Air Force will deploy two more
    TCCETs into Afghanistan.
        This past year, the Air Force field-tested a new electronic health
    record (EHR) during AE missions. Our AE crews carried laptop computers,
    which facilitated documentation and downloading of enroute care into
    the same clinical database used by our medical facilities, and allowed
    all care provided to be readily visible to medical teams around the
    globe. This capability is fully operational for AE missions between
    Bagram and Ramstein Air Base (AB), Germany. Our teams continue to build
    the next information bridge by adding this capability to AE missions
    departing Ramstein AB enroute to Andrews AFB, Maryland and Lackland
    AFB, Texas.
        Air Force nursing leaders are also filling critical strategic roles
    in the joint operational environment. Colonel Julie Stola, the Command
    Surgeon for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, was instrumental in the
    implementation of the Central Command's mild traumatic brain injury
    (TBI) training and tracking procedures for the Combined Information
    Data Network Exchange Database. As the theater subject-matter expert on
    the use of EHR for servicemembers involved in blast exposures, her
    exceptional leadership and guidance to users resulted in an increase of
    blast exposures documentation from 35 to 90 percent in 2011.
        An Air Force nursing priority for 2011 was to further advance
    research and evidence-based practice initiatives to improve patient
    safety and pain management during AE transport. Lieutenant Colonel
    Susan Dukes at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio and Major Jennifer Hatzfeld
    at Travis AFB, California, are working closely with medical teams at
    Air Mobility Command and leading efforts to evaluate the effectiveness
    of these safety initiatives and enroute pain management strategies. A
    team of our nurse scientists recently completed a project entitled
    ``Enhancing Patient Safety in Enroute Care Through Improved Patient
    Hand-Offs.'' Major Karey Dufour, is member of this team, she will also
    be our first graduate from the Flight and Disaster Nursing Master's
    program at Wright State University, Ohio. She used this study as her
    Capstone project. One aspect of this research project was the
    development of a standardized checklist to facilitate communication
    during the preparation of patients for AE transport and at each patient
    hand-off. Pilot testing of this checklist demonstrated an improvement
    in the safety and quality of care throughout the AE system.
    Implementation of the checklist is ongoing across the AE community.
        In our effort to optimize pain management of patients transitioning
    between ground and air, an in-depth review of care standards and safety
    was performed. As a result, all AE crews were trained in caring for
    patients receiving epidural analgesia. This advanced intervention
    ensures optimal pain management as patients move through the continuum
    of care. Major Hatzfeld, Lieutenant Colonel Dukes, and Colonel
    Elizabeth Bridges, USAFR, are currently evaluating patient outcomes
    from those who have received pain management through epidural analgesia
    and peripheral nerve blocks within the AE environment.
        Our global AE force remains dynamic; 16 additional crews were added
    to the Active Duty inventory to support global requirements. The AFMS
    responded by actively recruiting new AE members. More than 75
    exceptional medics stood up to the challenge and joined the AE team.
    Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron (AES) manning levels are at the highest
    rate since the beginning of the war, with flight nurses at 89 percent
    and AE technicians at 85 percent.
        Another accomplishment this year was a major transformation of our
    AE training. The goal was to incorporate lessons learned from AE
    missions and the latest clinical protocols. We increased focus on
    evidence-based care, patient outcomes, safe patient hand-off, pain
    management, enroute documentation, and raised overall training
    proficiency levels. Currently, the Line of the Air Force Operations
    community is building a formal training unit (FTU) to be co-located
    with the United States School of Aerospace Medicine at Wright-Patterson
    AFB, Ohio. This FTU will focus on enhancing the knowledge and
    performance required to operate in our AE aircraft. The new modularized
    curriculum and the relocation of the FTU will reduce overall training
    time by 130 days, provide flexibility in completing the training
    requirements, eliminate redundancies, and save thousands of dollars in
    travel costs. More importantly, this initiative will standardize
    training across the TNF, better preparing our AE community for any
    operational mission.
        In 2011, our strategic AE mission from Ramstein AB, Germany
    expanded as San Antonio, Texas was added as an additional destination
    for our returning wounded warriors. This new aeromedical staging
    facility (ASF) capitalizes on the available capacity and specialty care
    provided at the San Antonio Military Medical Center. It also allows
    wounded warriors from that region to be closer to their unit, friends,
    and family as they recover. The ASF staff of 57 airmen is a seamless
    team of Active Duty, Reserve, and Guard personnel.
        While we are learning, we are also sharing the knowledge of AE
    execution with our global partners. Our International Health
    Specialists are key to building global partnerships and growing medical
    response capabilities. As subject-matter experts, they are part of a
    team that directs training and education to improve healthcare
    infrastructure and disaster response. Staff Sergeant Amber Weaver, an
    Aeromedical Evacuation Technician with the 187th, AES, Wyoming, ANG,
    expressed her enthusiasm as a member of a team that provided AE
    training for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Air Force. Her
    hope is that the Congolese military medical personnel will apply the
    training she provided to help their wounded. Lieutenant Jodi Smith, a
    flight nurse with the same unit, stated, ``The goal was to teach the
    DRC's quick response force how to safely aeromedically evacuate their
    patients.'' The Congolese training staff noted that this effort
    definitely strengthened the partnership and cooperation between the
    United States and the Congolese.
        Continuing around the globe, our Joint and coalition partnerships
    were never more evident than on March 11, 2011, when a 9.0 earthquake
    and tsunami caused catastrophic damage along the eastern coast of
    Japan. This event also posed a potential radiological threat from
    extensive nuclear plant damage. In support of Operation Tomodachi, Air
    Force medics assisted air crews with six passenger transport missions,
    resulting in the safe movement of 26 late term pregnant females and
    their 40 family members to the U.S. Naval Hospital, Okinawa, Japan.
        Another example of our international involvement took place in
    Nicaragua where this year 50 Air Force Reserve medics from the 916th
    Aerospace Medicine Squadron, Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina,
    provided medical care to more than 10,000 local citizens during their
    Medical Readiness Training Exercise (MEDRETE). Each day began at 4
    a.m., with hundreds of patients lining the roadway to the medical site,
    waiting to be seen by this team. Some patients traveled for hours on
    horseback, while others had walked countless miles in the August heat
    with their families in tow. Lieutenant Colonel Dawn Moore, commander of
    the MEDRETE mission stated, ``We are proud to collaborate with other
    countries and provide excellent medical care, as well as build
    international capacity.''
        Air Force nursing continues to be vital in their role as
    educational and training instructors for the Defense Institute for
    Military Operations (DIMO) in their efforts to build global
    partnerships and capacity. An example of educational impact was from an
    Iraqi Air Force Flight Nurse who reported that 78 lives were saved by
    Iraqi Air Force AE teams, just months after completing the Basic
    Aeromedical Principles Course. In another example, 10 soldiers were
    badly injured during an insurgent conflict west of Nepal. The follow-on
    forces that came to their relief the next morning were astonished when
    they found the badly wounded soldiers alive as a result of applying the
    self-aid and buddy-care techniques they learned in the DIMO First
    Responders Course. The DIMO medical training missions are making a
    profound difference in patient outcomes.
        These critical partnerships grow not only through formal training
    and joint exercises but also through international professional forums.
    In 2011, we partnered with our nursing colleagues from Thailand and co-
    hosted the 5th Annual Asia-Pacific Military Nursing Symposium. The
    theme, ``Asia-Pacific Military Nursing Preparedness in Global Change,''
    reinforced partnerships to enhance nursing response to pandemics and
    humanitarian crises, and to advance evidence-based nursing practice.
    Twelve countries participated, more than 20 international colleagues
    briefed, and more than 30 presented research posters. During this
    conference, the focus on joint training initiatives in disaster
    response and aeromedical evacuation proved to be critical when Thailand
    experienced severe flooding, which impacted more than 13 million people
    and resulted in 815 deaths. The very concepts discussed during the
    symposium were later applied during the rapid deployment and
    establishment of an Emergency Operations Center and successful
    aeromedical evacuation of patients. We look forward to continuing to
    build our international Asia-Pacific nursing partnerships as we prepare
    to co-host the 6th annual conference in 2012.
                               force development
        It is imperative our TNF possess the appropriate clinical and
    leadership skills for successful execution of our mission. We are
    excited to announce three new fellowships:
      --Magnet Recognition;
      --Informatics; and
      --Patient Safety.
        The Magnet Fellowship provides the AFMS with a rare opportunity to
    gain first hand, up-to-date insights into the Magnet Culture; an
    environment that promotes nursing excellence and strategies to improve
    patient outcomes. Our Magnet Fellow will spend 1 year at Scottsdale
    Healthcare System, Arizona, a nationally recognized Magnet healthcare
    facility and one of our current Nurse Transition Program (NTP) Centers
    of Excellence (CoE). The Magnet Fellow will assume a consultant role to
    integrate Magnet concepts across the AFMS.
        The Informatics Fellowship is critical to prepare nurses to
    participate in the development and fielding of computer-based clinical
    information systems, such as the EHR. Nursing is a major end-user of
    these electronic information systems and should be actively involved in
    the development of requirements to enhance patient safety,
    communication, seamless patient handoff, and ease of documentation.
        The Patient Safety Fellowship is a new partnership with the
    Veterans Administration (VA) at the James A. Haley VA Patient Safety
    Center of Inquiry in Tampa, Florida. The Fellow will learn how to
    design and test safety defenses related to the patient, healthcare
    personnel, technology, and organization, to export evidence into
    practice, and facilitate patient safety and reduce adverse events. This
    fellowship is designed to prepare nurses to lead interdisciplinary
    patient safety initiatives.
        In last year's testimony, we previewed our plan to consolidate the
    NTP training sites in order to provide a more robust clinical
    experience. We established four CoE:
      --Scottsdale, Arizona;
      --Tampa, Florida;
      --Cincinnati, Ohio; and
      --San Antonio, Texas.
        Our data shows NTP CoE offer many opportunities to practice a
    variety of clinical skills in an environment with a large volume of
    high-acuity patients, which allows us to confidently decrease our
    program length from 77 to 63 days. Additionally, the resulting 19
    percent improvement in training efficiency allowed us to reduce NTP
    course instructors by 40 percent thus returning experienced nurses to
    the bedside.
        In response to the National Council of State Board of Nursing
    Transition to Practice (TTP) Initiative and the Institute of Medicine
    Future of Nursing recommendations, we have initiated a residency
    program to develop our novice nurses. Beginning in September 2011, all
    novice nurses entering Active Duty were enrolled in the new Air Force
    Nurse Residency Program (AFNRP). In the AFNRP, carefully selected
    senior nurses mentor novice nurses through their transition from nurse
    graduate to fully qualified registered nurse. We were pleased to
    discover that 80 percent of the TTP recommended content was already
    incorporated into the nurses' orientation during the first year of
    military service, allowing us to focus our efforts on weaving the
    remaining content such as evidence-based practice, quality, and
    informatics, into the AFNRP.
        One of the desired outcomes of the NTP and AFNRP is enhanced
    critical thinking skills. Using a validated assessment tool in a pilot
    study, we found a significant increase in the critical thinking skills
    of nurses who completed the NTP. We expanded this assessment to
    systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the NTP and AFNRP. We
    gathered representatives from these CoE to reflect on successes of
    these military and civilian partnerships and to discuss the way ahead.
        Another area where we are working to further develop our nurses is
    through our Critical Care Fellowship. We identified opportunities to
    enhance efficiencies of this training program. After extensive research
    on civilian and military programs, we recommended reduction from three
    training locations to two and initiated a review of curriculum to
    standardize the didactic and clinical experiences. Additionally, we are
    exploring civilian training partnerships which may give our students
    the opportunity to work with a greater volume of high-acuity patients.
        Our new mental health course is an example of our success in
    advancing our practice through education and training. Based on the
    changing needs of the mental health community, and in response to the
    National Defense Authorization Act, we are incorporating outpatient
    mental health case management training for our mental health nurses.
        Advanced Practice Nurses are central to the success of a clinical
    career path that promotes optimal patient outcomes through critical
    analysis, problem solving and evidenced based decisionmaking. Building
    on last year's initiatives, we continue to work with our Sister
    Services and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
    (USUHS) Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) to launch a Doctorate of
    Nursing Practice (DNP) program. This year, the Air Force has selected
    five Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (PMHNP) DNP students
    and three Doctor of Philosophy students for enrollment in the USUHS
    GSN. In addition, we also have developed a transition plan to meet the
    advanced practice doctoral level requirements for our Family Nurse
    Practitioner and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist by 2015.
        In 2011, we moved forward with efforts to clearly define the roles
    of the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS), Master Clinician, and Master
    Nurse Scientist. As part of this endeavor, we discovered significant
    variance in the definition and expected educational preparation of the
    CNS. Standardization of qualifications for the title ``Clinical Nurse
    Specialist'' were determined to be paramount for us to match qualified
    nurses with designated positions. As a result, the Air Force Nurse
    Corps Board of Directors (BOD) approved a standard definition for CNS
    and standard qualifications in seven areas of practice. A special
    experience identifier (SEI), for the CNS, was approved by the Air Force
    Personnel Center (AFPC). This SEI allows us to clearly identify our
    CNSs and streamline the assignment process to fill these critical CNS
    requirements. Additionally, the BOD approved standard definitions and
    qualifications for the Master Clinician and Master Nurse Scientist.
        A new AFMS regulation governing anesthesia delivery by Air Force
    CRNAs was published this year, recognizing their full scope of
    practice. This change reflects the recommendations from the 2010
    Institute of Medicine report, ``The Future of Nursing: Leading the
    Change, Advancing Health'', stating that nurses should practice to the
    full extent of their education and training. The president of American
    Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Dr. Debra Malina, CRNA, DNSc
    commended the Air Force for making this change.
        One of our ongoing challenges is to optimize clinical training. It
    is imperative that our nurses and medical technicians maintain
    proficiency in their clinical skills not only for contingency
    operations but also for peacetime operations. We continue to advance
    our partnerships with other Federal and civilian medical facilities
    whose inpatient platforms and acuity levels provide the optimal
    environment for initial specialty development and skill sustainment. We
    have partnered with several civilian medical centers, as well as
    universities. In these partnerships, both civilian institutions and
    military facilities host each other's students and optimize educational
    opportunities available in each setting. This year, the AFMS processed
    180 training affiliate agreements. Of these agreements, 39 were in
    nursing. These partnerships are vital to our training platforms and
    promote professional interaction.
        As we strive to obtain efficiencies in Joint training, we are
    reviewing our electronic and virtual distant learning systems for ways
    to reduce redundancies within the Military Health System. This year,
    the Joint Health Education Council (HEC) facilitated shared access of
    232 training programs between the DOD and the VA. In 2011, more than
    113,000 DOD and VA personnel accessed these sites representing more
    than 800,000 episodes of training. We continue to be an active
    participant on the HEC. Our involvement in this council is crucial, as
    a significant number of training programs are nursing related.
        In last year's testimony, I spoke of the opening of the Medical
    Education and Training Campus (METC). I can now share a few of METC's
    successes in 2011. METC reached full operational capability on
    September 15, 2011, and was recognized nationally for it's
    accreditation process which earns METC graduates transferable college
    credits. Our additional ability to support the medical enlisted
    educational mission will foster international partnerships, and
    contribute to educational research and innovation.
        We are constantly seeking ways to develop our enlisted medics. In
    2011, we selected two airmen to attend the Air Force Institute of
    Technology for graduate education in Information Resource Management
    and Development Management. The most recent graduate of the Development
    Management program, Master Sergeant Carissa Parker, lauded this program
    and stated, ``This is by far, one of the most exciting and unexpected
    opportunities I've had in my Air Force career. This advanced academic
    degree allows me to apply the unique knowledge and skill set to best
    serve my Air Force.'' In order to align candidates for success in these
    programs, we continue to actively force develop our enlisted personnel.
        Deliberate development of our civilian nursing personnel is
    ongoing. This year, we established a career path from novice to expert,
    which offers balanced and responsive career opportunities for our
    civilian nurses. We finalized two new tools, a civilian career path and
    a mentoring guide, to aid supervisors, both have been distributed Air
    Force wide. In January 2012, we conducted our second Civilian
    Developmental Board at AFPC, where civilian Master Clinician positions
    were laid in to allow for career progression and much-needed continuity
    in our military treatment facilities. Our next step is a call for
    candidates to outline the criteria and assist our civilian nurses in
    applying for these targeted positions, which will ultimately enhance
    patient care and job satisfaction.
                                force management
        The Air Force continues to be successful with recruiting. In 2011,
    we met our recruiting goal as we accessed 113 fully qualified nurses
    and 46 new nursing graduates. This brought our overall end strength to
    95 percent. Our flagship programs for recruiting, the Nurse Accession
    Bonus and the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program, remain the
    primary vehicles for recruiting the majority of our entry-level nurses.
    This year we executed 35 accession and 89 loan repayment bonuses. Other
    accession pipelines include the Reserve Officer Training Corps
    scholarship program, the Nurse Enlisted Commissioning Program, and the
    Health Professions Scholarship Program.
        Nurse Corps retention rates have improved with the implementation
    of the Incentive Special Pay Program, allowing the AFMS to retain high-
    quality skilled nurses in targeted clinical specialties. Overall,
    retention has risen 13 percent since 2008 and now stands at 80 percent
    at the 4-year point. Historically, we found retention drops
    precipitously, by at least 44 percent, at the 10-year point.
        In an effort to explore factors affecting retention, USUHS
    conducted a triservice nursing study. The total sample size was 2,574
    with an overall response rate of 30 percent. The results were released
    in January 2012. Significant factors found to influence a nurse's
    decision to remain on Active Duty were promotion, followed by family
    relocation. Overall, deployments were not a significant decision factor
    in determining intent to remain in the service. Most nurses were happy
    to deploy and saw this as part of their patriotic duty. Noteworthy
    comments from the study were, ``the promotion rates in the Nurse Corps
    are behind the rest of the Service'' and ``the reason for my
    consideration for leaving military is due to lack of promotion.'' Other
    findings, specifically related to promotion opportunity, confirmed our
    understanding of the grade imbalance within the Air Force Nurse Corps
    structure.
        Over the past few years, the Air Force Nurse Corps has worked with
    the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower, Personnel, and
    Services, to provide consistent career opportunities for Nurse Corps
    Officers as intended by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
    (DOPMA). DOPMA grade tables are applied to the entire Service, not to a
    specific competitive category, so the challenge for the Air Force Nurse
    Corps is a lack of sufficient field grade authorizations for the
    clinical and scientific experience needed. The addition of the CNS and
    Master Clinician at the bedside, both of whom are educated to the
    masters or doctoral level has been crucial in providing the education
    and experience needed in the patient care arena. There is a positive
    correlation between advanced nursing education and experience as it
    relates to clinical outcomes and safety.
        In a continued partnership with the Office of the Undersecretary of
    Defense, Personnel and Readiness, and the Assistant Secretary of the
    Air Force, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, we continue to pursue ways to
    alleviate deficits in field grade authorizations. Our goal is to
    improve retention of the uniquely trained experienced military nurse
    and increase return on investment for advanced education.
        During 2011, we made significant strides in strategic
    communication. We launched the official Air Force Nurse Corps Web site
    and social network page. Our social network page has received more than
    250,000 visits since inception. These Web pages are excellent
    recruiting and retention tools, and serve as a means to reach out to
    our retirees as well as the military and civilian community. In
    addition to the public domain, we have a targeted intra-net capability.
    The Knowledge Exchange (Kx) is a phenomenal information resource for
    all Air Force military members and Government employees to assist them
    with professional development at any level in their career. We launched
    a Kx subscriber campaign this year, highlighting the large amount of
    information available on this site. The number of subscribers increased
    500 percent. The Kx is a venue where our nurses and medical technicians
    can share best practices, innovative suggestions, personal stories,
    accomplishments, and stay connected.
                             patient-centered care
        Patient-centered care is at the core of all we do; it is our
    highest priority. Care for our patients crosses into both inpatient and
    outpatient arenas, and has been redefined with a more focused emphasis
    on providing healthcare to promoting health.
        An important contribution of nursing to healthcare is exemplified
    by the integral role of Disease and Case Managers in our Family Health
    Initiative. For example, at Moody AFB, Georgia, the nurses initiated
    disease management interviews with their diabetic patients. The nurses
    used motivational interviews, a face-to-face approach, enabling them to
    provide education, support, and individual goal setting. This
    innovative strategy increased accountability for the patient and
    medical team, and resulted in marked improvement in adherence to the
    treatment plan and control of the patient's disease process.
        Overall, care case manager (CCM) interventions have been found to
    mitigate risk. Major Don Smith, Health Care Integrator, and Director of
    Medical Management, Keesler AFB, Mississippi, implemented a process
    improvement for the identification of wounded warriors as they entered
    the healthcare system and enrollment of these individuals with a CCM.
    This initiative increased the communication and person-to-person
    transfer of care between facility case managers at Keesler, the VA, and
    Gulfport Naval Station. Additionally, Major Smith orchestrated CCM
    services for vulnerable populations to include military retirees,
    Medicare, and Medicaid patients who are eligible for care on a limited
    basis at Keesler, but who are at risk for fragmented care as they
    transition across the healthcare system. Finally, he designed a
    ``Medical Management Database'' consisting of a comprehensive set of
    CCM documentation tools and tracking methods for patient volume and
    acuity. The database captures workload, quantitative, and qualitative
    outcomes. The use of this database improved CCM metrics and decreased
    documentation workload by 200 percent. Specific outcomes such as
    avoidance of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, or clinic
    visits were assigned a corresponding and substantiated dollar amount.
    The return on this investment exceeded savings of $1.1 million in 2011.
    This database tool is currently being implemented Air Force wide.
        The TBI clinic at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska is
    advancing care for wounded warriors. This only Air Force led TBI
    clinic, offers wounded warriors comprehensive care, including
    specialized neurological assessment and testing, mental health
    services, pain management, and the creation of a tailored treatment
    plan.
        Our partnership with the VA through our Joint Ventures has yielded
    improvements with staffing, efficiencies, and patient outcomes. One of
    the most recent Joint initiatives was the formation of a peripherally
    inserted central catheter (PICC) team from the 81st Medical Group,
    Keesler AFB. In the past, VA patients needing central line intravenous
    access were transported to Keesler for the procedure. The PICC team now
    travels to the VA to perform this procedure; resulting in significant
    cost savings associated with patient care. More importantly, patients
    who are too unstable for safe transport can now receive the best care
    in a timely manner at their bedside. Also, at the 81st Medical Group, a
    team of VA and military staff assisted with more than 1,500 cardiac
    catheterizations in 2011.
        The Joint Venture working group at Elmendorf determined there was a
    lack of continuity of care and sharing of medical information with the
    VA clinic for follow-up when VA patients were discharged from the ICU.
    This working group developed a process by which the ICU discharging
    nurse contacts the VA CCM to provide an up-to-date medical history to
    include medication reconciliation and discharge summary. This endeavor
    has assured that the Primary Care Provider has the most current medical
    information available at the follow-up appointment. In addition, a
    template was developed for primary care staff to track all the required
    medical documentation for patients being discharged from the Joint
    Venture ICU. This process was replicated at the Medical Specialty Unit.
        Embedded in our patient-centered care is an emphasis on resilience.
    The Air Force is committed to strengthening the physical, emotional,
    and mental health of our airmen and their families. We continuously
    reinforce the need for our airmen to bolster their ability to withstand
    the pressures of military life. Our Air Force understands that we can
    only be successful when the entire Air Force Community promotes the
    importance of resilience and early help-seeking by all airmen in
    distress. We continue efforts to diminish the negative connotation
    associated with seeking help. All airmen need to perceive seeking help
    as a sign of strength, not a sign of failure.
        We have persevered in our campaign spearheaded by leaders, who
    themselves have suffered post-traumatic stress, and have come forward
    to openly discuss their experiences and encourage others to get the
    care they need from the many support services available. These leaders
    emphasize that their decision to seek care did not adversely affect
    their Air Force career; rather receiving care, made it possible for
    them to continue to be successful. During our nursing leadership
    symposium this year, one of our senior nurses presented her own
    personal, traumatic experiences to the audience and described what
    brought her to the point where she recognized the need to seek mental
    healthcare. Mental Health professionals were in attendance and
    conducted on-site discussion groups for medics with similar
    experiences. Feedback from those who attended the groups was
    overwhelmingly positive.
        Air Force Nurse Scientists are conducting research to enhance the
    resilience of our servicemembers and their families. For example,
    Colonel Karen Weis, Director of Nursing Research, Lackland AFB, Texas
    with support from the TriService Nursing Research Program, is studying
    an innovative strategy using maternal mentors to build family
    resilience. Lieutenant Colonel Brenda Morgan, a recent USUHS graduate,
    identified psychological exercises that can be integrated into a daily
    routine to enhance resilience. We continue to seek avenues that build a
    resilient force, identifying at-risk airmen and treating those in need
    of help.
                         advancing a culture of inquiry
        Air Force nurses are advancing healthcare and improving patient
    outcomes through a culture of inquiry. The ongoing process of
    questioning and evaluating practice, providing evidence-based care,
    creating practice changes through research, and evaluating the outcomes
    of our care reflects our culture of inquiry. In support of this
    culture, the Air Force Nurse Corps sponsored a competition that
    highlighted research and evidence-based projects currently being
    implemented to improve patient care. Some of this work will be
    presented at this year's nursing leadership symposium, demonstrating
    the advancement of evidence-based care not only by our Nurse
    Researchers but, more importantly, by the nurses who provide direct
    patient care.
        An excellent example of this initiative is the nursing staff of the
    Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan, who
    have taken patient safety to the next level. In 2011, 185 infants were
    admitted to the NICU. Often, these seriously ill neonates require the
    placement of a central intravenous catheter for administering life
    sustaining medications and fluids. Unfortunately, these central lines
    can be a source of infection, which can lead to life-threatening blood
    stream infections and even death. Although the unit's central line
    infection rate of 3.9 percent was well below the national average of 10
    percent, the staff strived for a zero percent infection rate, due to
    the increased risk of mortality for these vulnerable patients. In
    fiscal year 2011, the nursing staff implemented a new procedure used
    during the care and management of central lines. Following the
    implementation of this innovative solution they achieved their goal:
    zero infections from 69 central lines (representing 393 line days).
        Research initiatives completed this year demonstrate the strategic
    leadership role played by our nurse scientists. In January 2012,
    Lieutenant Colonel Susan Perry, Assistant Professor in the CRNA program
    at USUHS, completed her Ph.D. Her ground-breaking research identified a
    genetic abnormality that may predispose an individual to malignant
    hyperthermia, an inherited muscle disorder triggered by certain types
    of anesthesia. Lieutenant Colonel Perry's research advances our
    understanding of this potentially fatal disease and provides insight
    into strategies to decrease the risk for malignant hyperthermia. Her
    research highlights the unique opportunities given to our students who
    study at the USUHS, as she was able to work in one of the only
    laboratories in the world dedicated to malignant hyperthermia.
    Similarly, current Ph.D. students at the USUHS School of Nursing have
    their introduction to research at the renowned National Institutes of
    Health.
        Lieutenant Colonel Karen O'Connell, who completed her doctoral
    studies at USUHS, identified factors associated with increased
    mortality in combat casualties with severe head injury. According to
    her research, some of these factors are modifiable, which suggests
    areas of care that can be targeted to improve outcomes for these
    patients. Colonel Marla DeJong, Dean of the School of Aerospace
    Medicine, served as chairperson of the Scientific Review Committee for
    brain injury and mechanisms of action of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for
    persistent postconcussive symptoms after mild TBI. She also spearheaded
    the creation of baseline datasets that will be used in a study to
    evaluate the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in casualties with
    post-concussive symptoms after mild TBI.
        The research conducted by our nurse scientists is of the highest
    quality. In 2011, Colonel Bridges, with assistance from the Joint
    Combat Casualty Research Team (JC2RT), completed a study using
    noninvasive methods to monitor critically injured casualties during
    resuscitation. This research described the minute-by-minute changes in
    the combat casualty's vital signs and hemoglobin using a noninvasive
    probe placed on their finger. The results demonstrated the potential
    for earlier identification of clinical deterioration and the tailoring
    of resuscitation. This study received the 2011 Research Poster Award at
    the AFMS Research Conference. Colonel Sean Collins, Commander, 104th
    Medical Group, Westfield, Massachusetts, ANG and a nurse scientist, was
    the first guardsman to serve on the JC2RT. During his deployment at
    Camp Dwyer, Afghanistan, Colonel Collins played a vital role in
    advancing operational research and in articulating the importance of
    nursing research in the care of our warriors. Colonel Collins completed
    a landmark analysis of the relationship between physical symptoms
    reported during deployment and emotional health. Analysis is ongoing to
    further identify those at highest risk for poor health outcomes to
    allow for targeted interventions.
        Research and evidence-based initiatives also focused on readiness.
    Colonel Bridges completed a list of operational nursing competencies,
    which were validated by deployed nurses. These competencies will aid in
    the standardization of training for nurses across all Services. The
    results of this study further validated the content of the TriService
    Nursing Research Program Battlefield and Disaster Nursing Pocket Guide.
    This pocket guide was updated in 2011, and 7,000 copies of the updated
    guide were distributed to Army, Navy, and Air Force nursing personnel.
    The evidence-based recommendations summarized are now the standards for
    Air Force nursing readiness training.
        Along with research and evidence-based practice, we are also
    leveraging our existing collegial partnerships. One such endeavor is
    our participation in the Federal Nurses Service Council. This council
    includes the Service Chief Nurses, Directors of Nursing, Public Health,
    Veterans Affairs, USUHS, the American Red Cross, and Reserve
    counterparts of the Army, Navy, Air Force. This year, the group
    developed a strategic plan that focuses on blending our efforts as a
    single professional voice on three strategic Federal Nursing
    priorities: Role Clarification, Culture of Inquiry, Influence, and
    Collaboration. As a united force, we can tackle tomorrow's healthcare
    challenges today.
                                   way ahead
        The Air Force Nurse Corps is committed to achieving excellence in
    both the art and science of nursing. As a TNF, we will continue to
    invest in nursing research and foster a culture of inquiry to further
    advance quality patient outcomes. We will continue to advocate for and
    invest in academic preparation to retain the Master Clinician at the
    bedside. We will continue to optimize training opportunities and
    efficiencies within the Air Force, jointly, and with our civilian
    nursing colleagues. Above all, we will continue to invest in our nurses
    and technicians by focusing our efforts on enhancing resiliency,
    promotion opportunities, and education in order to retain those
    individuals whose experience makes military nursing the best in the
    world.
        In closing, as Colonel Mary Carlisle, Commander Surgical Services,
    Misawa, AB, Japan stated, ``You will know you're a military nurse when
    you visit the National Mall in Washington DC, and Vietnam Veterans
    visiting The Wall, tell you their stories of how nurses saved their
    lives, and then they thank you for serving. Then you swallow the lump
    in your throat and blink back the tears in your eyes and continue doing
    what you were doing without missing a beat. You can't find the right
    words to explain to anyone what you've just been through. You will know
    you're a military nurse when at the end of the day, at the end of the
    tour, or the career, you say, I'd do it all over again.''
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is
    an honor to represent a committed, accomplished Total Nursing Force.
    Our Nation's heroes and their families depend on our nurses and
    technicians to deliver superior, safe, and compassionate care. Grounded
    in high-touch, high-care, our Air Force nurses and technicians proudly
    serve and will continue to deliver world-class healthcare anytime,
    anywhere.
    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL ELIZABETH S. NIEMYER,
                DIRECTOR, NAVY NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF
                THE NAVY
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General Siniscalchi.
    May I now recognize Admiral Niemyer?
        Admiral Niemyer. Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Vice
    Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. I'm extremely pleased to be here and thank you
    for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Navy Nurse Corps.
    Support of the operational forces continues as the top
    priority. In addition, I've remained focused on five key
    strategic areas: Workforce, nursing knowledge, research,
    strategic partnerships, and communication. My written statement
    has been submitted for the record, and today I will share some
    of Navy nurses' remarkable accomplishments in these vital
    areas.
        The Navy Nurse Corps is comprised of 5,842 Active, Reserve,
    and Federal civilian registered nurses, delivering outstanding
    patient- and family-centered care. At the end of fiscal year
    2011, our Active component was 94-percent manned, and our
    Reserve component was 88-percent manned. We are projecting
    another successful year in attaining our fiscal year 2012
    recruiting goals.
        People are our most vital asset, and I remain committed to
    recruiting and retaining nurses ready to meet the challenges of
    Naval service. The Nurse Accession Bonus and Nurse Candidate
    Programs are top recruiting programs for our Active component,
    while accession and affiliation bonuses, and loan repayment
    programs are most successful with our Reserve component.
        For the past 2 years, the Navy Nurse Corps has sustained
    improvements and retention. The registered nurse incentive
    special pay, Health Profession Loan Repayment Program, and Duty
    Under Instruction for graduate education are key to this
    forward progress. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your continued
    support of these crucial programs.
        This past year, 342 Active and Reserve Navy nurses served
    throughout the Central Command area of responsibility as
    members of Shock Trauma Platoons, Forward Resuscitative
    Surgical Systems, and other forward-operating medical units.
    They were also vital to medical stability operations, serving
    as members of embedded training and provincial reconstruction
    teams.
        Infants and children comprise approximately 25 percent of
    the trauma patients treated at the Kandahar Role 3
    Multinational Medical Unit. Navy nurses with advanced expertise
    in maternal infant, neonatal intensive care, and pediatric
    nursing played a pivotal role in providing outstanding trauma
    care, staff development, and patient and family education for
    this precious population.
        Integral to the Navy's mission is a ``Global Force for
    Good.'' Navy nurses also supported humanitarian assistance
    missions. In 2011, Active and Reserve Navy nurses, together
    with nurses from nongovernmental organizations and partner
    nations supported the longstanding humanitarian and civic
    assistance operations, continuing promise and Pacific
    Partnership. Their actions further strengthened regional
    cooperation, interoperability, and relationships with partner
    nations.
        Our clinical and leadership roles with the Marine Corps
    continue to expand. For the first time, a Navy Nurse Corps
    officer serves as the First Marine Expeditionary Force
    Headquarters Group Surgeon at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan.
    Navy nurses with battlefield injury expertise are also serving
    as clinical advisers at Headquarters Marine Corps, Marine Corps
    Combat Development Command, and the Marine Corps Warfighting
    Lab, assisting Marine Corps Dismounted Complex Injury Teams to
    prevent and treat these devastating injuries.
        Here at home, Navy nurses are recognized clinical experts
    and educators for the care of wounded warriors, with
    psychological health issues and TBI. Nurses are central to the
    new in-patient units, offering convenient, private, holistic,
    and coordinated care for our wounded warriors and their
    families.
        Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioners can continue
    to enhance the resiliency and mission readiness of our sailors,
    marines, and their families. We responded to the increased
    demand for mental healthcare, and grew our Psychiatric Mental
    Health Nurse Practitioner community from 8 to 23 billets. I'm
    pleased to share that following the graduation of seven
    students this year, this vital community will be 100-percent
    manned.
        The Navy Nurse Corps is committed to doctoral education,
    with 21 nurses in doctoral study, and another 12 selected this
    year for programs taking them directly from bachelor to
    doctoral degrees in advance practice specialties and Ph.D.'s in
    nursing research. I remain committed to increasing and
    diversifying our footprint in nursing research.
        In 2011, the positions of executive Director of the Tri-
    Service Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) and Deputy Director of
    the Joint Combat Casualty Research Team overseeing research
    activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait were held by Navy
    nurses. Additionally, Navy nurses were granted $1.5 million in
    TSNRP funds as principal investigators for new and diverse
    projects. Mr. Chairman, I'm extremely grateful, and would like
    to thank you again for your ongoing support of nursing
    research.
        Joint and integrated work environments are the new order of
    business. As such, Navy nurses promote, build, and strengthen
    strategic partnerships, work with our sister services, the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, and other Federal and
    nongovernmental agencies. They also serve as individual
    augmentees and teach at the Uniformed Services University
    Graduate School of Nursing.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Navy nurses are pivotal to the success of every mission
    involving Navy Medicine. We remain focused on improving the
    health of those entrusted to us by providing a care experience
    that is patient- and family-centered.
        Senator Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for your unwavering
    support of military nursing and the profession of nursing.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Elizabeth S. Niemyer
                                  introduction
        Good morning. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am extremely pleased to be
    here again and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
    Navy Nurse Corps.
        The Navy Nurse Corps is comprised of 4,059 Active and Reserve
    component and 1,783 Federal civilian registered nurses. Together, they
    are a unified and highly respected team of healthcare professionals
    known for their unwavering focus on delivering outstanding patient- and
    family-centered care for our Active Duty forces, their families, and
    our retired community. The clinical expertise and leadership of Navy
    nurses ensures a fit and ready fighting force vital to the success of
    Navy and Marine Corps operational missions at sea and on the ground.
    Navy nurses also play a key role in medical stability operations,
    deployment of hospital ships and large-deck amphibious vessels and
    humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) efforts around the
    globe. Nurses are central to the provision of outstanding care and
    optimal patient outcomes for beneficiaries and wounded warriors here at
    home serving in various clinical and leadership roles within our
    military treatment facilities (MTFs) and ambulatory care clinics.
        I would like to share some of the remarkable accomplishments of
    Navy nurses over this past year, as well as discuss opportunities and
    challenges before us in 2012. First, I will talk about the
    contributions of Navy nurses serving in unique roles and environments
    supporting operational, humanitarian, and disaster relief missions.
    Second, I will highlight the significant work and resulting successes
    our Corps has achieved in the past year in my five key strategic focus
    areas of:
      --Workforce;
      --Nursing knowledge/Clinical excellence;
      --Research;
      --Strategic partnerships; and
      --Information management/Communication.
        Last, I will discuss our future challenges and opportunities as we
    remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure the provision of the
    highest quality of care to those entrusted to us.
             operational, humanitarian, and disaster relief support
        Our commitment to operational forces remains a top priority. Over
    the past year, Navy nurses continued to be an invaluable presence with
    223 Active and 119 Reserve component nurses actively engaged in
    military operations throughout the Central Command area of
    responsibility for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Navy nurses are
    ready to deploy anytime, anywhere, and they continue to set the
    standard for excellence as clinicians, patient advocates, mentors, and
    leaders providing compassionate and holistic care even in the most
    austere conditions.
        Navy nurses are an integral part of diverse units and teams
    throughout the Helmand and Nimroz Provinces in Afghanistan. They are
    key members of shock trauma platoons (STPs) and forward resuscitative
    surgical systems (FRSSs) assigned to Marine Corps medical battalions,
    expeditionary forces, and logistics groups supporting the immediate
    pre- intra- and post-operative phases of care for traumatically injured
    patients. They are also trained and qualified to provide en-route care
    and medical support in rotary wing airframes during the transport of
    injured U.S. servicemembers, Coalition Forces, Afghan military and
    civilian security personnel, and local nationals to higher levels of
    care.
        A Nurse Corps officer assigned to the Alpha Surgical Shock Trauma
    Platoon at a Role 2 Emergency Medical Care unit located on a remote
    forward operating base (FOB) in Afghanistan served as the senior
    critical care nurse. Her expertise in critical care nursing was crucial
    to ensuring the 100-percent survival rate of personnel receiving
    immediate after injury care in this unit. Additionally, she provided
    exceptional leadership and was an experienced clinical resource for 22
    nurses across six FOBs in the Helmand and Nimroz Provinces.
        Following initial life-saving stabilization at the point of injury
    on the battlefield, critically injured patients are transported to
    comprehensive medical facilities such as the Role 3 Multinational
    Medical Units in Kandahar and Bastion, Afghanistan. In Kandahar's Role
    3 facility, Navy nurses provide unparalleled clinical leadership and
    world-class care to critically injured NATO, coalition, and Afghan
    combat casualties. Focused on providing the best-possible care for
    combat wounded, they developed a comprehensive cross-training program
    for nurses and corpsmen serving in clinical areas outside the
    emergency/trauma specialty. This training gave them the clinical
    expertise and technical skills to competently work as members of the
    multidisciplinary trauma teams vital to this operational emergency/
    trauma environment. The ready availability of additional personnel
    trained in emergency/trauma significantly increased the Role 3's
    capability to effectively respond and provide life-saving trauma care
    for several casualties simultaneously. This innovation was put to the
    test and proved invaluable during a real mass casualty situation when
    Role 3 personnel were able to immediately establish seven highly
    functional trauma teams to successfully treat eight severely injured
    servicemembers transported directly from the battlefield. This training
    has also been credited with providing adequate numbers of trained
    personnel to establish additional forward surgical capability while
    still meeting the Role 3 mission.
        A unique challenge at the Kandahar Role 3 Multinational Medical
    Unit is that about 25 percent of the complex trauma cases are infants
    and children. This necessitates a unique clinical knowledge base in
    which Navy nurses have shown their exceptional adaptability and
    flexibility. In addition to nurses with surgical, emergency/trauma,
    critical care, and medical-surgical backgrounds--specialties considered
    to be wartime critical--nurses with experience in maternal-infant,
    neonatal intensive care, and pediatrics are now playing a pivotal role
    in ensuring the provision of outstanding hands-on care, staff
    development, and patient and family education for this precious
    population. These nurses are also volunteering off-duty time serving as
    health educators at the Kandahar Regional Military Hospital, providing
    health promotion and disease education to Afghan soldiers, women, and
    children.
        Although our mission supporting the British Role 3 Multinational
    Medical Unit in Bastion, Afghanistan was completed near the end of
    2011, Navy nurses from all clinical backgrounds demonstrated a
    remarkable ability to integrate into the British medical team. They not
    only gained the advanced clinical skills needed to treat critical and
    complex polytrauma casualties, but they also provided this advanced
    care utilizing British trauma and treatment protocols. Among this
    stellar group are emergency/trauma nurses who rapidly progressed in
    mastering the advanced knowledge and skill required to serve as Trauma
    Nursing Team Leaders in the British hospital. In this role, they
    demonstrated exceptional leadership and nursing skills in the
    management of the most severely injured trauma patients. In accordance
    with nationally recognized trauma scales, patients treated at the Role
    3 in Bastion typically have injury severities scoring twice as high as
    the average patient seen in a Level 1 trauma center in the United
    States. There is no doubt nurses are making a tremendous contribution
    to the unprecedented 95 percent and 98 percent survival rate of
    casualties treated at the British Role 3 in Bastion and Kandahar Role 3
    Multinational Medical Unit, respectively.
        In addition to providing cutting edge care to the wounded, Navy
    nurses are uniquely trained and qualified in illness prevention and
    health promotion. A Navy nurse assigned as a medical/surgical nurse put
    her graduate education in public health to use as the Infection Control
    Officer for the Kandahar Role 3. In her off-duty time, she also served
    as the Role 3 liaison to the Army Preventive Medicine personnel at the
    Kandahar Air Field. In this capacity, she developed infection control
    policies and collaborated in the development of a clinical
    investigation on multiple drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) infecting
    the wounds of our injured servicemembers. This clinical investigation
    is being continued by replacement personnel and will provide meaningful
    data to identify, treat, and alleviate this serious health threat
    facing our troops.
        Throughout Afghanistan, Navy nurses are primary members of medical
    stability operations serving with North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    (NATO) forces and teams led by the other Services as members of
    Embedded Training and Provincial Reconstruction Teams. They provide
    medical support and serve as healthcare system consultants for NATO
    forces, nonmedical United States and Afghan forces, tribal leaders, and
    local nationals to assist in the establishment of a healthcare
    infrastructure in Afghanistan. They also serve as mentors and teachers
    for Afghan military and civilian medical personnel in the Afghanistan
    National Army Hospital. Their contributions in exchange of knowledge
    will enhance the quality of medical care for Afghan military and police
    forces and the people of Afghanistan for generations to come.
        Last year, I spoke of Navy nurses serving as teachers and mentors
    for members of the Afghan National Army Nurse Corps through a Health
    Service Engagement Program project called ``Shana baShana'' (Shoulder-
    to-Shoulder) at the Kandahar Regional Military Hospital. Their efforts
    were to support Afghan nurses' professional development and produce
    long-term improvements in nursing practice in the Afghan healthcare
    system. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely proud to report that this
    partnership has significantly increased the clinical knowledge and
    skill level of the Afghan Army nurses. The Kandahar Regional Medical
    Hospital is now receiving and providing medical care and treatment to
    nearly all Afghan Security Forces battlefield injuries with the
    exception of severe head and/or eye injuries, as well as conducting a
    weekly outpatient clinic for Afghanistan civilians.
        Navy nurses also play a key role in civil-military operations and
    health-related activities such as those conducted by the Combined Joint
    Task Force Team--Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) whose members are involved
    in the local communities building and renovating clinics and hospitals
    and providing medical care to local populations. In support of the
    personnel conducting this operation in Africa, a Navy nurse assigned to
    the Expeditionary Medical Facility (EMF) in Camp Lemonier, Djibouti,
    Africa, led junior nurses in the provision of care for medical/
    surgical, critical care, and primary care patients. As the sole
    experienced perioperative nurse on the medical team, he managed
    clinical operations and provided perioperative care for all surgical
    procedures performed at the only U.S. operating suite within theater.
    His outstanding efforts ensured the delivery of the highest-quality
    care and force health protection for return to duty or transfer to
    higher levels of care for critical, mission essential U.S. Africa
    Command (AFRICOM) personnel.
        In ``A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,'' the U.S.
    lists HA/DR as one of the core components of our maritime power and an
    activity that helps prevent war and build partnerships. Integral to the
    Navy's expanding maritime strategy as a ``Global Force for Good'' are
    Navy nurses who serve in a very different role than on the battlefield
    but an equally important and vital role in the Navy's HA/DR mission. In
    this role, Navy nurses provide outstanding care and education that
    ensures long-term improvements in the health and quality of life by
    enhancing the partner nation's capacity to provide care after the Navy
    departs. The trusting and collaborative relationships they forge with
    our host nation partners strengthens U.S. maritime security and
    facilitates the on-going training for disaster relief scenarios,
    ultimately improving capability to work together with partner nations
    in the event of a disaster in the future.
        From April to September 2011, 93 Active and Reserve component Nurse
    Corps officers, as well as nurses from nongovernmental organizations
    and partner nations embarked aboard the USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) for
    Continuing Promise providing humanitarian civic assistance to nine
    countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean. Navy nurses
    were also key members of the healthcare teams aboard the USS Cleveland
    (LPD 7) for Pacific Partnership 2011 supporting humanitarian efforts in
    Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and Micronesia. Nurses
    served in a variety of roles as direct patient care providers, case
    managers, discharge planners, Medical Civic Action Program (MEDCAP)
    site leaders, patient educators, trainers for partner nation healthcare
    providers, and mentors.
        On March 11, 2011, mainland Japan experienced a 9.1 magnitude
    earthquake. In its aftermath, a catastrophic tsunami and subsequent
    Fukushima nuclear meltdown devastated the Pacific coastline of Japan's
    northern islands. Navy nurses were once again at the ready providing
    reassurance, advocacy, education, and compassionate care for local
    nationals, Active Duty and retirees and their family members during
    Operation Tomodachi. In theater, nurses at sea aboard the USS Ronald
    Reagan (CVN 76), one of the first ships to arrive on station following
    the tsunami, and nurses assigned to Fleet Surgical Team SEVEN aboard
    the USS Blueridge (LCC 19) rapidly prepared for the possibility of a
    mass influx of casualties and provided care for the sailors conducting
    air search and rescue/recovery operations.
        Navy nurses were also actively supporting our military personnel
    and families on the ground. A Navy Certified Nurse Midwife at U.S.
    Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan, led the early identification and
    recall of expectant mothers providing timely and appropriate outreach
    assessment and education for this high-risk, vulnerable patient
    population and coordinated the medical evacuation of 19 families
    transferred to Okinawa, Japan. When low levels of radiation were
    detected, a Navy Family Nurse Practitioner led one of the five
    potassium iodide distribution sites with fellow nurses providing
    educational counseling for the remaining 200 expectant mothers and more
    than 2,800 parents with children under the age of 5. Labor and delivery
    nurses were medical attendants for expectant mothers and family members
    during their transport flight to Okinawa, Japan and provided assistance
    to U.S. Naval Hospital, Okinawa during this influx of obstetric
    patients.
        Nurses stationed at U.S. Naval Hospital, Okinawa provided medical
    and emotional support for 27 expectant mothers medically unable to
    return to the United States and family members arriving from Yokosuka,
    Iwakuni, Misawa, and Camp Zama. The first birth occurred just 2 days
    after arriving on Okinawa with the rest of the births following over
    the course of the next 4 weeks. Nursing support of these families did
    not stop following delivery and discharge from the hospital. Over the
    course of their 3-month stay, the nurses ensured the delivery and
    coordination of the highest-quality care until their safe return home.
        Fleet nurses continue to be a significant part of Navy Medicine's
    medical support and training to our sailors and marines at sea. On
    aircraft carriers, well-rounded nurses, specialized in critical care,
    emergency/trauma, and anesthesia provide care and safeguard the health
    and well-being of 4,000-5,000 crew members and embarked personnel, as
    well as train and prepare the ship's crew to effectively manage a
    disastrous event resulting in mass casualties. Their actions
    significantly contribute to overall mission success by ensuring total
    force readiness while underway.
        Extremely versatile, Navy nurses also provide tremendous support to
    the amphibious fleet as members of Fleet Surgical Teams (FSTs) bringing
    medical and surgical support, inpatient care and training capability to
    Navy vessels for a variety of missions. For example, a FST nurse
    anesthetist worked alongside medical officers of the Royal Singapore
    Navy providing clinical training and leadership during the 3-day
    medical training portion of ``Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training
    (CARAT),'' an annual exercise between the U.S. Navy, its sister
    services, and the maritime forces of eight Southeast Asian countries.
    His sharing of medical knowledge strengthened regional cooperation,
    interoperability and relationships between partner nations increasing
    regional maritime security and stability.
        FST nurses aboard the USS Wasp (LDH 1) provided the around-the-
    clock medical and surgical support required to conduct flight deck
    operations during the 18 days of initial sea trials of the F35B
    Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. They supported the 22nd Marine
    Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Bataan (LDH 5) during Joint Task
    Force Odyssey Dawn, a limited military action to protect Libyan
    citizens during a period of unrest. FST nurses aboard the USS Essex
    (LDH 2) were integral members of the medical contingency supporting
    President Obama's attendance at the 19th Association of Southeast Asian
    Nations (ASEAN) Summit in Bali, Indonesia, providing a readily
    available medical platform in the event of an unforeseen crisis.
        Navy nurses continue to serve side-by-side with the marines in
    vital clinical and leadership roles providing invaluable medical
    support and training. For the first time, a Family Nurse Practitioner
    is filling the role as the First Marine Expeditionary Force
    Headquarters Group Surgeon at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan. Nurses are
    now also serving in unique roles as clinical advisors at Headquarters
    Marine Corps (HQMC), Marine Corps Combat Development Command and the
    Marine Corps Warfighting Lab giving clinical input and recommendations
    to the Marine Corps dismounted complex blast injury (DCBI) team to
    prevent and treat blast injuries. Their clinical expertise, battlefield
    experience and knowledge of recent theater requirements contributed
    invaluable input for improvements in the equipment carried by marines
    and sailors and implementation of tactical combat casualty care (TCCC)
    recommendations for pre-hospital care that markedly increased the
    chance of survival for casualties. These nurses also collaborated with
    Coalition Forces through American, British, Canadian, and Australian/
    New Zealand Armies to implement TCCC and DCBI guidelines throughout the
    pre-hospital phase standardizing care across the nations.
        The recently released National Defense Strategy ``Sustaining Global
    Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century'' states, ``We will of
    necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region'' and we will
    ``emphasize our existing alliances, which provide a vital foundation
    for Asia-Pacific security.'' Navy nurses assigned to the 3D Medical
    Battalion, 3D Logistics Group are essential leaders and subject matter
    experts in Pacific Medical Stability Operations. These nurses trained
    the corpsmen responding to Operation Tomodachi and provided direct
    medical support and training to FRSS, STP, and en-route care nurses.
    They also trained coalition medics and lay health providers embedded
    with the military medical assets involved in joint training exercises
    for international nation building in the Philippines, Thailand, Korea,
    and Cambodia. Overall, these nurses function as key leaders and
    planners in the development and execution of operational field training
    exercises that encompass Mission Essential Task List requirements for
    global operational readiness. The care, healthcare education, medical
    training, and leadership they provide while serving side by side with
    our marines is unparalleled.
        Through these diverse examples, it is clear that Navy nurses
    personify the Navy's slogan, ``Whatever it takes. Wherever it takes
    us.'' Navy nurses are central to the delivery of safe, comprehensive,
    and high-quality care often in the most demanding, challenging, and
    austere missions supported by Navy Medicine. Our Corps continues to
    make a significant impact on the long-term health and quality of life
    of our sailors and marines, as well as citizens of our international
    partner nations. Mr. Chairman, the remainder of my testimony will
    highlight Navy nursing's achievements in my five strategic focus areas:
      --Workforce;
      --Nursing knowledge/Clinical expertise;
      --Research;
      --Strategic partnerships; and
      --Information management/Communication.
                                 our workforce
        The Navy Nurse Corps recognizes its people as our most vital asset,
    and we are committed to maintaining a force of highly skilled and
    adaptable nurses ready to meet the diverse challenges of Naval service.
    The Navy Nurse Corps Active component (AC) was 94-percent manned at the
    end of fiscal year 2011. The Navy Nurse Corps remains an employer of
    choice as evidenced by our projected successful attainment of our
    fiscal year 2012 AC recruiting goal. Although more challenging, our
    Reserve component (RC) is working very hard to attain similar
    recruiting success and was 88-percent manned at the end of fiscal year
    2011. These recruiting achievements are attributed to continued funding
    support for our accession and incentive programs, recruiting activities
    of local Navy Recruiters, active participation of Navy nurses in local
    recruiting efforts, and the public's positive perception of service to
    our country.
        The Nurse Accession Bonus and the Nurse Candidate Program remain
    our two most successful recruiting programs for Active-Duty nurses
    entering the Navy through direct accessions. For our Reserve component,
    officer accession, and affiliation bonuses for critical shortage or
    high-demand specialties such as Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist,
    Psychiatric/Mental Health Nurse Practitioners, critical care, medical-
    surgical, perioperative, and psychiatric nursing, and loan repayment
    programs for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and Psychiatric/
    Mental Health Nurse Practitioners remain the most successful recruiting
    tools.
        Last year, the Navy Nurse Corps experienced a significant decrease
    in our loss rates. I am happy to report the 2011 loss rates remained
    consistent with the improvements seen the prior year, particularly in
    our mid-level officers. We will make every effort to sustain these
    gains through long-term retention of these highly trained and qualified
    nurses. The Registered Nurse Incentive Special Pay (RN-ISP) and Health
    Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) remain central to our
    retention success. Full-time duty under instruction (DUINS) offering
    graduate education leading to advanced nursing degrees remains a major
    program for attracting new nurses as well as retaining those
    experienced Nurse Corps officers who desire advanced nursing education.
    I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Cochran, and all
    subcommittee members, for your continued support of these vital
    recruiting and retention programs.
        Although we have experienced great success in nurse recruitment and
    retention over the past several years, our efforts to attract and keep
    the best and brightest nurses is still a top priority. Navy nurses
    throughout the United States and abroad are actively involved in nurse
    recruitment and retention efforts to ensure the sustainment of a Corps
    with the most talented nurses. We are currently in the middle of our
    second successful tour with a Nurse Corps Fellow assigned to the Nurse
    Corps Office to monitor recruitment and retention efforts. Her presence
    at professional nursing conferences and job fairs speaking with new
    graduates and nurses across the United States provides an invaluable
    opportunity for us to gain real time information for prioritizing,
    planning, and implementing our recruitment and retention goals.
        Last year, I spoke of our focused efforts to build our psychiatric/
    mental health nurse practitioner (PMHNP) community in response to an
    ever-growing healthcare need. PMHNPs continue to have a significant
    impact on building resiliency and enhancing the mission readiness of
    our sailors, marines, and families serving in diverse roles with the
    1st, 2d, and 3d Marine Divisions, in stateside and overseas MTFs and
    clinics, and a myriad of deployments in support of our fighting forces.
    I am pleased to say over the past 5 years, we have increased our PMHNP
    billets from 8 to 23. There are currently 17 nurses practicing in this
    specialty. With the anticipated graduation of seven PMHNPs in May of
    this year, this vital community will be 100-percent manned with several
    remaining in and selected for the training pipeline to maintain maximum
    manning levels in this critical specialty.
                     nursing knowledge/clinical excellence
        Clinical excellence in the provision of holistic and compassionate
    patient- and family-centered care is the cornerstone of Navy nursing
    and remains one of my top strategic priorities. Navy nurses are
    respected healthcare professionals actively involved in all levels of
    professional nursing organizations, the advancement of nursing
    practice, and sustainment of clinical excellence. The National
    Conference of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners inducted two
    Navy nurses into the prestigious Fellows of the American Academy of
    Nurse Practitioners and another was honored as the recipient of the
    Pacific U.S. Territories State Award for Excellence.
        The Navy Nurse Corps remains committed to our nurse practitioners
    and nurse anesthetists attaining doctoral education through our full-
    time DUINS program. We currently have 21 nurses in the training
    pipeline in programs that will take them directly from Bachelor's
    education to doctoral study, in specialties that include Certified
    Registered Nurse Anesthetist, Psychiatric/Mental Health Nurse
    Practitioner, Family Nurse Practitioner, Pediatric Nurse Practitioner
    as well as Nursing Research. This year, we selected 12 more nurses for
    doctoral education.
        Nurses new to the Navy face many unique challenges from learning
    the intricacies of patient care and becoming competent in the
    application of newly acquired knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs),
    to integrating into the Navy culture as a commissioned officer.
    Developing clinical expertise begins immediately upon the Nurse Corps
    officer's arrival at their first-duty assignment. To ensure novice
    nurses a smooth transition into this challenging clinical role and
    environment, we developed a standardized Nurse Residency Program based
    on the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education's ``Standards for
    Accreditation of Post-BSN Nurse Residency Programs'' and implemented it
    across Navy Medicine. This program provides an avenue for new nurses to
    gain competence, confidence, and comfort through didactic learning. It
    integrates evidence-based practice concepts, a designated preceptor in
    each clinical rotation site and a list of expected knowledge, skills,
    and abilities to be achieved for competency-based learning. Although
    implemented at all facilities receiving novice nurses, the largest
    impact of the Nurse Residency Program can be felt at our medical
    centers. Recognized for the diverse and complex clinical training these
    large tertiary care facilities provide, they receive the largest
    numbers of novice nurses with more than 200 nurses completing the
    residency program at large MTFs annually.
        Over the past few years, the Nurse Corps has identified nursing
    specialties vital to routine and operational missions, developed
    standardized core competencies for these specialties, and ensured the
    development and sustainment of clinical proficiency for nurses
    throughout the enterprise. This year, significant work was done to
    update the core competencies based on current specialty practice
    standards. Formal policy was also developed to provide guidance for
    nursing leaders to sustain the utilization of these core clinical
    competencies and clinical proficiency in the identified critical
    specialties. This work will ensure nurses sustain the necessary
    clinical knowledge and skills within their clinical specialties to
    continually meet and succeed in any mission they are asked to fulfill.
        Earlier in this testimony, I gave examples of advanced nursing
    knowledge and clinical excellence of Navy nurses who are providing
    heroic care to our Armed Forces in theater at the point of injury for
    initial stabilization, during transport to higher levels of care and
    upon receipt to Role 3 facilities. This nursing knowledge and clinical
    excellence is also pivotal in every facet of care we provide our
    wounded warriors from the time they return stateside through their
    return to Active Duty or medical separation from Active service. Navy
    nurses are essential to creating and implementing innovative approaches
    to convenient and comprehensive treatment that enhances the care
    experience for our wounded warriors.
        Navy nurses serving at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
    (WRNMMC) continue to do phenomenal inpatient work on the Traumatic
    Brain Injury/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Unit. They are recognized
    subject matter experts and educators on the topic of nursing care for
    patients with psychological health-traumatic brain injury (PH-TBI).
    They serve as instructors at the Uniformed Services University of the
    Health Sciences (USUHS) on evidence-based nursing interventions so
    nurses new to this specialty have knowledge of current practice trends
    for PH-TBI. This past year, they also taught at Andrews Air Force Base
    instructing members of the Air Force Explosive Ordinance Disposal Team
    about the signs and symptoms of TBI to facilitate earlier
    identification and initiation of treatment for servicemembers.
        Inpatient nurses at the Naval Medical Centers San Diego and
    Portsmouth led the establishment of new inpatient units focused on the
    care of our returning wounded warriors. These units facilitate a smooth
    transition to the stateside MTF and provide comprehensive, convenient
    care in one centralized location. The ``one-stop-shop'' care concepts
    include direct admission to the unit providing a quiet, comfortable,
    and private environment for initial medical evaluations and often the
    first-time reunions with their families. Services brought to the
    patient include physical and occupational therapy, Project C.A.R.E.
    (Comprehensive Aesthetic Restorative Effort), education, and support
    groups for amputees and those experiencing combat operational stress,
    radiography, casting, evaluation by the acute pain service, and complex
    wound care. The care provided on these patient- and family-centered
    units has a tremendous impact on the recovery of our wounded warriors
    and their families.
        Navy nurses continually research best nursing practices and align
    with national healthcare initiatives in an effort to advance the
    outstanding care they provide to our beneficiaries. Nurses were
    instrumental to Naval Hospital Jacksonville's becoming 1 of only 119
    hospitals throughout the United States to have earned the ``Baby
    Friendly'' designation by ``Baby Friendly USA,'' a global initiative
    sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations
    Children's Fund. To achieve this designation, staff educational and
    facility design requirements must be met as well as passing a rigorous
    on-site survey. To maintain this designation, the staff must provide 10
    clinical practices that include initiating breastfeeding within the
    first hour of life, keeping mothers and babies in the same room, and
    providing support groups for women who breast feed.
        Nurses at Okinawa, Japan introduced evidence-based practice
    initiatives endorsed by the Institute of Healthcare Improvement (IHI)
    and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's program Transforming Care at
    the Bedside (TCAB), a national effort to improve the quality and safety
    of care on medical surgical units and improve the effectiveness of the
    entire care team. They led the implementation of multidisciplinary
    patient rounds and change of shift nursing report at the patient's
    bedside. These changes provide an opportunity for the patient and
    family members to be fully engaged in their plan of care with all
    members of the healthcare team. They also started the practice of
    having patient safety huddles throughout the shift to communicate
    changes in patient status or plan of care so all members of the
    healthcare team are aware prior to the care hand-off at the change of
    shift. These nurse-led practices improved the effectiveness of the
    healthcare team's communication with the patient and with each other,
    increased the quality and efficiency of patient care hand-offs, and
    significantly reduced medication errors. These improvements have also
    been major contributors to the unit's overall 93 percent patient
    satisfaction score, the highest of any department in the hospital.
                                nursing research
        Advancing the science of nursing practice through research and
    evidence-based practice to improve the health of our patients is a
    vital strategic focus for the Navy Nurse Corps. Navy nurses authored
    more than 30 nursing publications and provided more than 50 formal
    presentations at various professional forums. We remain committed to
    increasing and diversifying our footprint in the field of research.
    This year, a team of outstanding nurses completed significant work to
    create a culture of scientific inquiry and revitalize nurses' interest
    in research, as well as increase the number of submissions and
    selections for projects funded by the Tri-Service Nursing Research
    Program (TSNRP).
        Fundamental to the growth and development of nurse researchers is
    the availability of experienced mentors to guide and teach research
    novices throughout the process. To address this need, a nurse
    researcher position was developed and filled by experienced researchers
    at Navy Medical Center San Diego, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, and
    WRNMMC. Additionally, a nursing research network data base listing
    personnel with experience in research along with a list of research
    educational offerings was developed and placed on Navy Knowledge Online
    (NKO) providing a centralized location with easy accessibility for
    nurses throughout Navy Medicine. Last, a Nurse Corps recognition
    program was established to recognize and promote excellence in
    implementing evidence-based nursing practice.
        Mr. Chairman, we are extremely grateful for your continued support
    of the TSNRP, and I am proud to say that Navy nurses in both the Active
    and Reserve component are actively involved in leading and conducting
    Navy and joint research and evidence-based practice projects. In 2011,
    a Navy nurse took the helm as Executive Director of TSNRP and for the
    first time in Navy Medicine's history, a Navy nurse was selected to
    serve as the Deputy Director of the Joint Combat Casualty Research Team
    (JCCRT) overseeing medical and operational research activities in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and Kuwait. Navy nurses completed research projects funded
    through TSNRP that have provided meaningful information to improve the
    care of our beneficiaries. One such study entitled, ``Stress Gym for
    Combat Casualties'' explored the lived experiences of combat casualties
    and the military nurses who cared for them. That information was used
    to develop and implement a Web-based intervention called Stress Gym,
    which provides an anonymous and private avenue for combat wounded to
    learn about the effects of and methods to manage stress, anxiety,
    anger, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and symptoms of
    depression. Stress Gym is extremely valuable in assisting nurses to
    address the psychosocial needs of returning warriors.
        Another study entitled ``Psychometric Evaluation of the Triage
    Decision Making Inventory'' resulted in findings that will assist us in
    preparing our nurses for deployment. This study validated the ``Triage
    Decision Making Inventory'' as a reliable tool for assessing nurses'
    clinical competence. Nurses working in any clinical specialty can now
    utilize this tool to evaluate their knowledge and target additional
    clinical experience and training as necessary to ensure optimal
    clinical readiness for operational deployments.
        A recently completed Tri-service study entitled, ``Factors
    Associated with Retention of Army, Navy and Air Force Nurses'' provided
    invaluable insight into why nurses stay in the military. Among the most
    important findings revealed in this study was that deployments,
    originally thought to be a significant factor in determining nurses'
    job satisfaction and retention, were actually not a significant factor.
    Most servicemembers are happy to deploy and saw this as their patriotic
    duty. Other factors influencing job satisfaction and retention in the
    military are based on opportunity for promotion, relocation frequency,
    professional leadership/autonomy, and ongoing opportunity to work in
    their clinical specialty. These findings are vital to the development
    of policy and leadership practices that facilitate continued job
    satisfaction and retention of our highly educated, skilled, and
    dedicated nurses.
        Numerous funded projects are currently in progress, and in 2011,
    Navy nurses were granted $1.5 million in TSNRP funds as Principal
    Investigators (PI) for new projects proposing to study cognitive
    recovery from mild traumatic brain injury, new treatments for
    hemorrhagic shock, elective surgery outcomes for veterans with PTSD,
    and the role of nurses working in Patient-Centered Medical Homes in the
    management of patients and/or populations with high rates of
    utilization of healthcare services. Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you again for you
    ongoing support of nursing research and I look forward to sharing the
    results of these studies in the future.
                             strategic partnerships
        Collaboration is absolutely essential in today's environment of
    continued rising healthcare costs and limited financial resources.
    Joint and integrated work environments are now the ``new order'' of
    business. As leaders in Navy Medicine and the Military Healthcare
    System, Navy nurses possess the necessary skills and experience to
    promote, build, and strengthen strategic partnerships with our
    military, Federal, and civilian counterparts to improve the healthcare
    of our beneficiaries.
        Currently, Navy nurses work with the Army, Air Force, the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other Federal and
    nongovernmental agencies. They serve as individual augmentees (IAs),
    work in Federal facilities and joint commands, conduct joint research
    and teach at the Uniformed Services University Graduate School of
    Nursing. This past year, a nursing team was chartered to focus on
    exploring methods to further expand collaborative partnerships across
    Federal and civilian healthcare systems. Their diligent efforts
    resulted in the development of a standardized Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU), approved by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
    (BUMED), to assist MTFs and clinics to more easily establish strategic
    partnerships with civilian medical and teaching institutions. These
    partnerships are necessary to increase collaboration and provide
    additional clinical experience and training opportunities for nurses to
    remain deployment ready.
        A unique partnership has been established between Naval Health
    Clinic New England in Newport, Rhode Island, the Naval Branch Health
    Clinic in Groton, Connecticut and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center
    (VAMC) in Providence, Rhode Island. Navy nurses from these clinics work
    two shifts each month in the VAMC emergency room or intensive care
    unit. This partnership benefits both organizations as it provides an
    opportunity for Active-Duty nurses to sustain their critical wartime
    specialty skills while assigned in an ambulatory setting and gives the
    VAMC additional nurses to support the provision of outstanding care to
    our veterans. Nurses involved in this collaboration who have returned
    from deployment, believed their VAMC clinical experience enhanced their
    training and preparation for deployment and instilled the confidence
    necessary to effectively perform in their role while deployed.
        Navy nurses serving at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
    Care Center, the only VA and DOD integrated facility, work side-by-side
    with VA civilian nurse colleagues to provide high-quality care to
    Active-Duty military and their family members, military retirees, and
    veterans. Through this partnership, Navy nurses have increased their
    clinical knowledge and skills in the care of medical-surgical patients
    with more complex and chronic conditions seen in geriatric populations.
                      information management/communication
        Strategic Communication is paramount to the successful achievement
    of the Navy Nurse Corps' mission. In 2008, the DOD's ``The Principles
    of Strategic Communication'' describes Strategic Communication as ``the
    orchestration and/or synchronization of actions, images, and words to
    achieve a desired effect''. One of the nine key principles listed in
    this document is that it must be leadership-driven and ``to ensure
    integration of communication efforts, leaders should place
    communication at the core of everything they do''. I am committed to
    continually improving communication in the Nurse Corps to further
    strengthen our effectiveness.
        Today's global scope and varying degrees of technology venues are
    recognized variables in effective communication. This past year, I
    chartered a team of Nurse Corps officers to promote communication
    across the Nurse Corps by developing methods to sustain, advance, and
    evaluate current communication processes. This team conducted an
    environmental scan to gather data regarding the most preferred and most
    effective communication venues and analyzed the responses from more
    than 1,000 participants. Results obtained from the environmental scan
    survey have been operationalized into a Strategic Communication
    Playbook explaining the types of communication venues available, where
    these venues are located, and when the information is disseminated
    across the enterprise. Additionally, they completed the framework for a
    formalized Navy Nurse Corps Strategic Communication Plan. Our work in
    Strategic Communication will continue in the upcoming year, and I look
    forward to sharing our progress.
                                   conclusion
        Navy nurses continually embody the highest caliber of naval
    officers and healthcare professionals. They remain at the forefront of
    clinical and military leadership, pivotal to the success of every
    mission involving Navy Medicine. Their commitment to clinical
    excellence, advanced education, scientific inquiry, operational
    medicine, and global health is unsurpassed. In every mission at home
    and abroad, our efforts remain focused on improving the health of those
    entrusted to our care by providing a care experience that is patient-
    and family-centered, compassionate, convenient, equitable, safe, and
    always of the highest quality.
        Senator Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members of
    the subcommittee, thank you again for this opportunity to share the
    remarkable accomplishments of Navy nurses and your unwavering support
    of the nursing profession. I am honored to be here representing the men
    and women of the Navy Nurse Corps and look forward to my continued
    service as the 23d Director of the Navy Nurse Corps.
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL JIMMIE O. KEENAN, CHIEF,
                ARMY NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        Now, may I call on General Keenan.
        General Keenan. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, it
    is our honor to speak before you today on behalf of the nearly
    40,000 Active, Reserve, and National Guard officers,
    noncommissioned officers, enlisted, and civilians that
    represent Army nursing.
        Nurses have a proud history of more than 236 years of
    standing shoulder-to-shoulder with and caring for this Nation's
    warriors. We've done this in every conflict, from the dawning
    days of the American Revolution, to our current operations in
    Afghanistan. The Army Nurse Corps remains dedicated to
    America's sons and daughters who selflessly place themselves in
    harms way to defend this Nation.
        I'd like to share with you today a story from Captain
    Bujak. She's one of our Army intensive care unit (ICU) nurses.
    She was deployed to Iraq in 2009. Captain Bujak describes her
    experience with the patient she cared for in theater and later
    met back in the United States.
        ``During my deployment to Iraq, I took care of numerous
    patients, from servicemembers, to contractors, to local
    nationals. Two months into my deployment, our ICU received a
    critically injured soldier from a rocket-propelled grenade
    (RPG) attack. From the moment he arrived, nurses, physicians,
    medics on duty came together and worked as a team. He was
    fighting for his life, and we were fighting with him. He was
    stabilized and was later evacuated back to United States.
        ``Fast forward 2\1/2\ years. After the U.S. Army Medical
    Command (MEDCOM) change of command ceremony, I saw a familiar
    face, a face I've never forgotten. It was our soldier from
    Baghdad, wearing ACUs, and walking up the stairs on his
    prosthetics. I was honored to be able to introduce myself and
    speak with him about those 2 days in Baghdad.
        ``Speaking with the man whom I had remembered fighting for
    his life, and now was preparing to leave other soldiers
    assigned to the warrior transition command is an amazing
    experience. I don't have to wonder any more about that soldier
    from 2\1/2\ years ago. Now, I know I completed my mission.''

                              IMPROVE PATIENT CARE

        We're a globally ready medical force. Within the last year,
    483 of our nurses have deployed worldwide. We go with soldiers,
    airmen, sailors, and marines to save lives, support healing,
    and provide comfort. This is demonstrated by our medical
    management of the movement of critically injured patients in
    theater. The en route critical care nurse program is a joint
    Army, Navy, and Air Force endeavor, providing critical care
    transport capabilities on fixed- and rotary-wing evacuation
    platforms. This en route care program is a direct result of 10
    years of caring for wounded warriors.
        In addition to meeting demands, we continue to work to
    integrate our major initiatives to improve patient care. In
    February 2011, Army nursing began implementing a patient-
    centered outcomes focus care delivery system encompassing all
    delivery environments: In-patient, out-patient, and deployed.
    The patient caring touch system was designed to reduce clinical
    quality variance by adopting a set of internally and externally
    validated best practices. The patient caring touch system is a
    true enabler of our major healthcare initiative, patient-
    centered medical home. It enhances the quality of care
    delivered for America's sons and daughters.
        Nurses are taking a leading role in the implementation of
    and partnership with the delivery of services that focus on
    wellness outside the treatment facility. We serve in Army
    wellness centers and provide lifestyle coaching, health
    education that focuses on the behaviors that lead to
    preventable diseases, empowering our beneficiaries to lead
    healthier lives.
        As members of Army Medicine, we address the white space to
    impact the life space. Nurses are there at the many touch
    points of the comprehensive behavioral health system. We are
    integral in providing continuity and a standardized approach
    for our soldiers and families.
        I envision the Army Nurse Corps' journey toward nursing
    excellence will continue. We in the Army Nurse Corps are
    dedicated to the compassionate and trusted healthcare that we
    provide to America's sons and daughters.
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, we appreciate this
    opportunity to speak to you about Army nursing, and we also
    appreciate all of your support to Army nursing. I am very
    humbled and honored to represent the more than 40,000 men and
    women that comprise Army nursing, and also to serve as the 24th
    Chief of the Army Nurse Corps.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Major General Jimmie O. Keenan
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and 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, and National Guard officers, noncommissioned
    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 exceptional care to those who
    bravely defend and protect our Nation.
        Nurses have a proud history of more than 236 years of standing
    shoulder-to-shoulder with, and caring for this Nation's warriors. We
    have done so in every conflict from the dawning days of the American
    Revolution to our current operations in Afghanistan.
                  globally ready nursing supporting the force
        The Army Nurse Corps (ANC) remains dedicated to America's sons and
    daughters who selflessly place themselves in harm's way to defend this
    Nation. They remain our priority, and Army nurses are an invaluable
    presence, with 483 Active Duty and Reserve component nurses engaged in
    military operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
    other missions worldwide in 2011.
        I would like to share a story from Captain (CPT) Bujak, one of our
    nurses who deployed to Iraq, on a patient she cared for in theater and
    later met back in the United States.

        ``During my deployment to Iraq, I have taken care of numerous
    patients, from our servicemembers, contractors to local nationals. Each
    patient was unique and my fellow nurses, medics and I provided them
    with the best care we could deliver. Two months into my deployment, our
    intensive care unit (ICU) received a critically injured soldier from an
    rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attack. Upon arrival to the emergency
    room (ER), he was quickly taken to the operating room and after couple
    hours of surgery, he was transferred to the ICU for recovery and
    stabilization. From the moment he arrived in the ICU, all of the
    nurses, physicians and medics on duty came together and worked as a
    team. Everyone was calm and focused, yet you could sense the concern,
    whether we can make a difference and get this soldier home. He was
    fighting for his life, and we were fighting with him. [The patient was
    stabilized and evacuated back to the United States].
        ``For the next couple of months, we would get updates from Walter
    Reed Army Medical Center on the status of `our soldier', but once I
    redeployed back, I lost the ability to follow up. From time to time, I
    would reflect on that day, my teammates, the hard work and of course
    `our soldier'. Two-and-a-half years later, after the Army Medical
    Command (MEDCOM) Change of Command ceremony, I saw a familiar face; a
    face I have never forgotten. It was `our soldier' from Baghdad, wearing
    Army combat uniforms (ACUs) and walking up the stairs on his
    prosthetics. He looked as healthy and strong as any other soldier in
    the room. I was overcome with peace and joy. I was honored to be able
    to introduce myself to him and speak with him about those 2 days in
    Baghdad. Speaking with a man whom I remember fighting for his life and
    was now preparing to lead other soldiers assigned to the Warrior
    Transition Command is an amazing experience. I wanted to call the rest
    of my deployment ICU team and let them know `We did make a difference'.
    I don't have to wonder anymore about that soldier from 2 years ago. Now
    I know, I completed my mission.''

        The ANC is dedicated to the care of our warriors and continues to
    incorporate lessons learned from supporting over a decade of war. We
    are structuring our capabilities and skill sets to meet the latest
    strategic imperatives of Army Medicine. Let me share with you several
    examples of how we are meeting the needs of the Army.
        As a globally ready medical force, we go with the soldier, airman,
    sailor, and marine to save lives, support healing, and provide comfort.
    This is demonstrated by our medical management of the movement of
    critically injured patients in theater. The Enroute Critical Care Nurse
    Program (ECCN) is the direct result of 10 years of caring for wounded
    warriors. Its legacy is in the over-70-years of aero-medical
    evacuation. Enroute Care is the transport of critical patients via
    helicopter in theater. It is based on a research identified
    capabilities gap for the safe transportation of critically injured
    patients from point-of-injury (POI) to forward surgical resuscitation
    (Level II); from post-operative care Level II facilities to more
    definitive care at our Combat Support Hospitals (Level III); and from
    Level III facilities to the Strategic Evacuation platforms for
    transport to more definitive care in Europe and continental United
    States (CONUS). It encompasses strategically placed critical care
    nursing transport assets across the Combined Joint Operational Area--
    Afghanistan (CJOA-A).
        The Army nurses providing this battlefield capability face many
    challenges. They must first meet the rigorous physical challenges
    required for the training and mission support. They must hold the 66H
    (8A) critical care nursing career field identifier and complete flight
    nurse training at the Joint En-route Care Course (JECC). The challenges
    to be overcome in training are minimal to the practice adaptations that
    must be made to provide in-flight care to critically wounded patient on
    life-support in the confined cabin of a rotary wing aircraft at
    altitude in hostile airspace, connected to an aircraft communication
    systems at night. Yet these nurses overcome these challenges, provide
    quality care under sub-optimal conditions and execute precision patient
    hand-offs between levels of care on the battlefield.
        The ECCN program is a joint Army, Navy, and Air Force endeavor
    providing critical care transport capabilities on both fixed and rotary
    wing evacuation platforms. The Army ECCN personnel requirements are
    mission dependent. However, there are currently nine Army nurses and an
    Air Force Team of one Physician and two Certified Registered Nurse
    Anesthetists (CRNA) assigned to the mission. They are attached to
    aviations assets across the CJOA-A supporting the movement of
    critically ill and injured across the battle space. In the last
    calendar year, these flight nurses transported 1,192 patients between
    levels of care within the Afghan theater. Two hundred eighty-two (27.5
    percent) of these transfers were United States service personnel; 303
    (29.5 percent) were Afghan Security Forces; 41 (4.1 percent) were
    coalition partners; 336 (32.7 percent) were Afghan civilians; and 37
    (3.1 percent) were detained personnel.
        ECCN personnel do more than transport the critically ill or injured
    while in theater; they also ensure that they remain relevant and ready
    not only for themselves but insure their team is ready as well. Captain
    (CPT) Ritter and First Lieutenant (1LT) Bester are shining examples of
    this within their aviation companies, as they ensure sustained
    competence of the enlisted flight medics. They are truly integrated
    members of the MEDEVAC team with a vested interest in the team's
    collective mission success.
        We have continued to develop full-spectrum capability to manage
    critical trauma patients in all environments responding to the Army's
    needs, broadening our scope across the battlefield, and consistently
    meeting unprecedented challenges while providing care to America's
    injured and ill sons and daughters. The first Trauma Nurse Course
    (Pilot course) was completed in February 2012, and 15 students
    completed an 18-week program at San Antonio Military Medical Center
    (SAMMC). The Trauma Nurse is a multifunctional Army Nurse with critical
    care theory, knowledge, and highly developed nursing expertise capable
    of optimizing patient outcomes. This nurse will have the foundation to
    care for patients across the continuum of care both in the emergency
    and intensive settings, and during patient movement regardless of the
    environment. This pilot is critical to determine the skill sets
    required to continue to be an agile and flexible medical force for our
    warriors.
        In addition to the trauma skill set, the ANC is developing other
    clinical skills to meet the Army's current and future needs. One of our
    new initiatives is the development and utilization of Psychiatric Nurse
    Practitioners which will be adopted as an area of concentration (AOC)
    for the Army. The Army Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner provides the
    assessment and diagnosis of mental illness and any medical problem that
    may account for or exacerbate a mental illness. They treat mental
    illness through medication management and psychotherapy. Treatment also
    includes the appropriate ordering of diagnostic tests and medical
    consultation/referral when indicated.
        Army Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners serve in as direct provider in
    the outpatient and inpatient behavioral health arena. Additional roles
    in a fixed facility include officer-in-charge of outpatient behavioral
    health clinics or the Chief of Department of Behavioral Health at a
    medical activity (MEDDAC) or medical center (MEDCEN). The senior Army
    Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner currently serves as the Psychiatric
    Nurse Practitioner Consultant to the Surgeon General (TSG). This senior
    Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner works with the other Behavioral Health
    Consultants to address behavioral health policy and procedures.
        Army Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners have deployed since the
    beginning of the Global War on Terrorism primarily to combat
    operational stress control (COSC) units, but also to Combat Support
    Hospital (CSH) in support of detainee care missions. Psychiatric Nurse
    Practitioners provided care to detainees and the soldiers, sailors,
    airman, and marines assigned to this mission. Army Psychiatric Nurse
    Practitioners have served as commander(s) of COSC unit(s) in Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        One provider, Colonel (COL) Yarber, served as the Chief of
    Behavioral Health for a detainee care mission in Iraq for more than
    20,000 detainees and military/civilian support. Upon redeployment, he
    provided full-time direct outpatient care and served as the officer-in-
    charge (OIC) for a 3-week intensive outpatient post-traumatic stress
    disorder (PTSD) treatment program (Fort Hood). Consequently, he was
    selected to serve as the OIC for the Outpatient Behavioral Health
    Clinic at Fort Hood while serving as the Behavioral Health Care manager
    for more than 1,000 soldiers and civilians identified as ``high risk''
    after the November 5, 2009 SRP shooting incident at Fort Hood. He
    managed the ongoing assessment and coordinated care as required for
    both soldiers and civilians. Later he was selected to serve as the
    Chief, Department of Behavioral Health and subsequently deployed in
    support of OEF. COL Yarber is the Consultant to the Surgeon General for
    Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners, and is a shining example of our
    specialty addressing behavioral health needs of our warriors.
        Despite our efforts in theater, working with our coalition
    partners, the journey of our wounded warriors does not end in theater.
    Army Nurse case managers have been engaged in warrior care efforts
    since June 2003, when as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    the demand for support and assistance for wounded, ill, and injured
    servicemembers began increasing exponentially. The Warrior Care and
    Transition Program has continued to make improvements to warrior care
    and nurse case managers have been at the forefront of those
    improvements. In December 2011, the Warrior Transition Command
    published the Comprehensive Transition Plan Policy and Execution
    Guidance. The comprehensive transition plan provides a tool that
    supports a soldier's goals to heal and successfully transition back to
    the force or to separate from the Army as a Veteran.
        The primary role of the nurse case manager is to assist each
    wounded, ill, or injured soldier in the development of personal goals,
    and then to oversee the coordination of his clinical care to ensure
    achievement of these goals. Nurse case managers are at the forefront of
    care managed by Triad of Care teams (which are comprised of a nurse
    case manager, primary care manager, and a squad leader or platoon
    sergeant), planned with the input of an interdisciplinary team, and
    outcomes focused on return to duty and the creation of informed and
    prepared Veterans who are armed and confident as they begin a new life
    out of uniform. Today, the Army has more than 500 nurse case managers
    assisting a warrior transition unit population of nearly 10,000
    wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. Case management efforts have
    facilitated the transition of 51 percent of this population back to the
    force.
        While our warrior transition units focus on our most severely
    wounded, ill, and injured soldiers, the number of soldiers requiring
    care for conditions that result in a medically nondeployable condition
    continues to grow. We recognized that there is a value add to provide
    this group of soldiers with nurse case managers in order to maintain a
    force that is ready to fight. The result has been the development of
    Medical Management Centers to facilitate a rapid return to the force of
    these soldiers. We have aligned Nurse Case Managers with our combat
    units in garrison to work with teams of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)
    Care Coordinators to quickly identify and coordinate care for our
    ``medically not ready'' soldiers. These are soldiers who have temporary
    profiles for ongoing medical conditions that will take 30 days or
    greater to resolve. The Nurse Case Managers and LPN Care Coordinators
    partner with the soldier, the soldier's unit and the patient-centered
    medical home (PCMH) team to develop and execute a soldier-centered plan
    of care. This plan of care focuses treatment to return the soldier to
    full medical readiness as soon as the soldier is able. When a full
    return to duty is not possible, the nurse case manager facilitates the
    soldier's care and transition through the Integrated Disability
    Evaluation System (IDES).
        Our effort toward ensuring a globally ready medical force was
    further realized with the assignment of a senior nurse at U.S. Army
    Africa. As the first Chief Nurse for U.S. Army Africa, COL Armstrong is
    responsible for establishing nursing's role in support of the DOD's
    newest command. This includes researching the ``State of Nursing'' in
    55 African nations, ascertaining the medical activities of
    governmental/nongovernmental agencies to eliminate any overlap of Army
    programs, and serving as a medical ``strategist'' to identify
    opportunities for future engagements. Other activities include serving
    as a clinical expert and facilitator for military to military medical
    exchanges, surveying host nation medical facilities, and ensuring that
    personnel have the appropriate credentials for all Army-led medical
    missions on the continent.
        COL Armstrong also served as the Surgeon for Joint Task Force (JTF)
    Odyssey Guard in support of Libya during its ``Arab Spring'' uprising.
    As the senior medical advisor to the JTF Commander, COL Armstrong and
    her staff played a key role in the joint planning and oversight of
    ground, sea, and air medical assets, coordinated the medical evacuation
    of 26 Libyan war wounded to facilities in the United States and Europe,
    and supported the re-establishment of the United States Embassy in
    Tripoli.
                         enhancing the care experience
        In February 2011, Army nursing began implementing a patient-
    centered, outcomes focused care delivery system encompassing all care
    delivery environments; inpatient, outpatient, and deployed. The Patient
    Caring Touch System (PCTS) was designed to reduce clinical quality
    variance by adopting a set of internally and externally validated best
    practices. PCTS swept across Army Medicine, and the last facility
    completed implementation in January 2012. PCTS is a key enabler of Army
    Medicine's Culture of Trust and nests in all of Army Medicine's
    initiatives. PCTS is enhancing the quality-of-care delivery for
    America's sons and daughters.
        PCTS has improved communication and multidisciplinary collaboration
    and has created an increased demand and expanded use of
    multidisciplinary rounds (Patient Advocacy--Care Teams). In one large
    Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), a provider was concerned with
    gaps that he saw in the discharge planning process that he had on a one
    of his wards. He said ``I think that all would agree that the PCTS has
    been a huge success in improving physician/nurse communication.
    Personally, I love being able to round with the nurse taking care of my
    patients and have already seen improvements with accountability and
    performance . . .  Mr. F. approached me this morning with a fantastic
    way to extend this same system of communication to discharge
    planning.'' This provider facilitated the necessary changes, partnering
    with nurses to ensure that the patient remained the focus of the
    change. Several facilities have reported that bedside report, hourly
    rounding, and multidisciplinary rounding are so much a part of the
    routine that they cannot recall a time when it was not part of their
    communication process. During one facility site visit, when the team
    walked into the patient room, the patient was overheard to say, ``Hello
    Care Team! It is so good to see your familiar faces--time to update my
    white board and for me to tell you what kind of day I had and what my
    priorities are tonight!''
        For the first time in the history of Army nursing, we have outcome
    data obtained through the systematic tracking and reporting of 10
    priority metrics, benchmarked against national standards. (Evidence-
    Based Practices--Optimized Performance). This has served to increase
    individual and collective accountability, and the use of evidence-based
    practices. In three of our largest military treatment facilities (MTFs)
    we were having challenges in pain reassessment--we knew that it was
    being done, but it was not being documented. Pain reassessment (in the
    inpatient) and pain assessment (in the outpatient) environment is 1 of
    the 10 priority metrics of PCTS. It is also a focus area for the Pain
    Management Task Force, the Joint Commission, etc. We found that just by
    tracking this metric, there has been a significant improvement (on
    average 50-90 percent compliance within the first 60 days) to 98-
    percent compliance within 90 days. Staff in these facilities were very
    excited, and instituted simple, cost neutral interventions such as
    using a medication administration buddy system, door signs in the shape
    of a clock, use of hourly rounds, and pager systems to support pain
    reassessment processes. In the outpatient areas, visual cues regarding
    the ``fifth vital sign,'' referring to perceived pain, were created,
    and a modified buddy system was used to support pain assessment
    processes. These interventions have supported pain reassessment rates
    and assessment rates of 98-100 percent which have a positive outcome
    impact for patients. We are seeing decreased rates of falls with
    injury, medication errors and medication errors with injury since
    implementation of PCTS, and are continuing to monitor these data
    monthly.
        PCTS increases the continuity of care by decreasing staff
    absenteeism and reducing staff churn. We have been tracking facility
    absentee rates monthly since PCTS was implemented, and have noted a
    decrease in many facilities. As part of PCTS, we conduct Practice
    Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI) surveys,
    completing one in January 2011 and one in July 2011. When we compared
    the data for intent to leave, there saw improvements in the data
    postimplementation. These data are very promising and warrant close
    evaluation. We will continue to monitor absentee rates, and we will
    conduct the survey again in April 2012. We expect this trend continue
    and to be able to link these data to PCTS.
        PCTS increases nurse engagement which positively impacts patient
    outcomes. (Healthy Work Environments--Shared Accountability) At a
    recent site visit to a MTF a registered nurse when asked why she was
    actively engaged in PCTS said, `` . . . for the first time in a long
    time I feel that what I have to say matters, and that nurses are seen
    as an equal part of the healthcare team--that feels good.'' One nurse
    said, ``PCTS has given the practice of nursing back to nurses--others
    used to tell us what we could and could not do and we let them--we have
    to know what our scope of practice is and PCTS has made us have to be
    much smarter about it.''
        Facilities across Army Medicine have implemented shared
    accountability in the development of unit practice councils and
    facility nurse practice councils. This has allowed each to create real
    time examination of practice, to ensure that it is standards based,
    innovative and current, and aligns with the ANA Standards of Practice
    and Professional Performance and Code of Ethics. Several of the
    products from these councils are being prepared for review by the Army
    Nurse Corps Practice Council (ANPC) for consideration as an ANC-wide
    best practice. The ANPC has fielded two Army nursing-wide clinical
    practice guidelines since PCTS implementation; patient falls prevention
    and nursing hourly rounding. Both directly support one of the 10
    priority outcome based metrics and illustrate another first for Army
    nursing.
        PCTS supports licensed personnel to perform at their fullest scope
    of their licensure, and for nonlicensed personnel to perform at their
    fullest scope of competence. In a recent site visit, a 68D
    Noncommissioned Officer shared that he is the Core Component Leader for
    Shared Accountability, and is the leader for the Unit Practice
    Councils. He said that before PCTS, he would never have been able to
    have this role. He now has a better understanding of licensed practice,
    and the scope of competence of unlicensed personnel. He believes that
    this has increased the understanding of exactly what the 68D (operating
    room technician) can do and what the 68W (medic can do). This has
    really helped all across the facility--medics are doing more than just
    taking vital signs. This makes the medics feel valued in their role in
    the clinics.
        PCTS ensures that our patients know that their best interests drive
    all of our care decisions, and that they are part of those decisions.
    As PCTS moves into sustainment, we expect that we will continue to have
    positive impacts in each of the 10 priority metrics and that these
    results will enable similar changes in Army Medicine.
        Another healthcare initiative is the patient-centered medical home
    (PCMH). Nursing engagement and commitment to in the PCMH transformation
    process have been impressive. The PCMH transformation process has been
    a grassroots and top driven endeavor from the regional medical command
    level down to each individual MTF to provide comprehensive and
    continuous healthcare to our beneficiaries.
        Nurses have been on the forefront of PCMH transformation and while
    many had unique PCMH nursing stories the following were ones that are
    the most memorable. Major (MAJ) Gray, Officer-In-Charge Military
    Readiness Clinic and Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP) states that the
    continuity of care that PCMH provides has allowed her, as an FNP, to
    put patients back into the center of care and allowed patients to trust
    that the system works. One story she shared was how a wounded warrior
    was able to decrease his pain meds from four to one over the past 6 to
    9 months. She stated that continuity of care between herself and the
    patient allowed the patient to trust that ``you will take care of me''.
    For the nurses that work in her clinic, ``the spark has been reignited
    . . . you can see it in their eyes'' and in the nursing care that they
    deliver. Often the nurses remark that, ``This is why I got into
    nursing--this is why I went to nursing school. PCMH helps me to make a
    difference and helps me to improve my patient's lives.'' One of MAJ
    Gray's nurse's, Ms. Ingram, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN), states
    that PCMH allows her to be considered a nursing professional. She
    didn't feel as if others regarded her as a professional because she was
    a LVN. She stated, ``Now my patients know me and the team. We have a
    personal relationship. They feel like we care, and we do. When we ask
    them how they are doing, they tell us. They trust the system. Even when
    I am not at work, like the other day I was at Wal-Mart after work, my
    patient call out to me, `Hey! You are my nurse!' PCMH is not about
    numbers but about our relationship with our patients.''
        Nurse Case Managers play a large role in the coordination of all
    phases of patient care in this system. Nurse case managers are having a
    direct impact on savings within our PCMHs. The case manager's early
    identification and care coordination of high-risk patients reduces
    hospitalizations and emergency room visits, improves medication
    adherence and closes care gaps that trigger or exacerbate health
    conditions. The return on investment of embedding Nurse Case Managers
    into the Primary Care Clinics and the Medical Management Centers
    directly supports the MEDCOM's initiatives.
        We recognized a need to educate Army Nurse Case Managers in all
    practice settings. In November 2011, we launched a new nurse case
    management qualification course directed toward the novice case manager
    but open to any case manager joining the Army Medical Department
    (AMEDD) team. Military graduates are awarded the M9 identifier.
    Additionally, graduates should have the core skills to sit and pass a
    national certification exam once they have obtained the clinical
    practice hours to be eligible to take either the certified case manager
    (CCM) or American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) exam.
        During the week of February 6, 44 nurse case management students
    assigned to warrior transition units, community-based warrior
    transition units, and PCMH practice settings worked alongside warrior
    transition unit squad leaders and platoon sergeants at the resident
    course in San Antonio, Texas to practice skills in communication and
    collaboration. The case managers watched a movie outlining the journey
    of four Operation Iraqi Freedom soldiers and their families from
    deployment through recovery. They formed teams and developed care plans
    using the Comprehensive Transition Plan process for one of the four
    soldiers and presented it to the group. That same week, a group of 28
    nurses participated in guided discussions on effective documentation
    and the integrated disability evaluation system from around the
    country. They used Defense Connect Online technology to facilitate
    their discussion, share ideas and continue to develop a standard skills
    set as case managers.
        The Army also recognized a need for ongoing professional
    development of our nursing case managers. To facilitate the education
    of Supervisor Nurse Case Managers, the Warrior Transition Command
    developed a 4.5 day Clinical Leader Orientation Program. This program
    focuses on key leader competencies and provides attendees with 13 hours
    of continuing education. In August of this year, MAJ Steimle will begin
    a course of study to obtain a Master of Science in Nursing Case
    Management. She is our first ANC officer to receive funded graduate
    education support for a Masters in case management. Beginning in fiscal
    year 2013, we have programmed funds to send two nurses to graduate case
    management programs annually.
        Under the direction of Ms. Roberts, the Womack Army Medical Center
    Medical Management team developed a process to examine the essential
    components of appropriately sized caseloads for case managers in MTFs.
    The team developed a model that not only takes into account patient/
    family acuity and nurse case manager abilities but also provides for
    capture of quality metrics, return on investment data, utilization
    management data, and peer review.
        The result was the development of the Nurse Case Manager Workload
    and Acuity Tool. This process improvement initiative has had a
    statistically significant and measurable impact on the role of case
    management in patient care, individual and department goal-setting, the
    supervisory process, and performance expectation. The MEDCOM has
    recognized this initiative as a best practice model in caseload
    calculation and the resulting quality implications. As a result the
    tool is being tested Army-wide.
        As we expand the utilization of Nurse Case Managers, so, too, do
    savings generated by their efforts. The case manager's early
    identification and care coordination of high-risk patients reduces
    hospitalizations and emergency room visits of the chronically ill,
    improves medication adherence, return's soldiers to Full Medical
    Readiness and closes care gaps that trigger or exacerbate health
    conditions.
         unity of effort through joint teams and coalition partnerships
        As they have selflessly served in the past, Army nurses stand today
    on freedom's frontiers in Afghanistan supporting the International
    Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), our partners in the North Atlantic
    Treaty Organization (NATO), and as members of United States Forces--
    Afghanistan. One hundred thirty-six Army nurses from all three Army
    components make up the Army Nursing Care Team--Afghanistan. Ninety-nine
    represent the Active component, 30 represent the U.S. Army Reserves,
    and two represent the Army National Guard. These nurses are delivering
    world class care to our warriors, our NATO partners, Afghan Security
    Forces, and the people of Afghanistan. They provide care in 39
    different facility-based locations, at the four distinct roles in the
    spectrum of battlefield care, at the five theater regional command
    levels, and along the entire continuum of combat care--from point-of-
    injury to evacuation from the theater of operation. This care includes
    reception of Afghan casualties, treatment, and responsible discharge
    planning to the Afghan National Care System.
        Multinational partnerships are part of the shared vision for a
    stable, independent, sovereign Afghanistan. This includes the
    coordinated application of all of the available instruments of power to
    aid in stabilizing and legitimizing the Afghan system. Partner
    countries engage in activities to win the hearts and minds of the
    Afghans and a peaceful end to war and enhance efforts toward national
    stability. This includes helping the Afghan people meet their basic
    need for clean food and water, health and security; while
    simultaneously ensuring the health and welfare of the International
    Security Assistance Forces. In September 2011, 87 members of the 10th
    Combat Support Hospital from Fort Carson Colorado joined forces with
    the 208th Field Hospital and a Danish Forward Surgical Teams to provide
    comprehensive Role 3 combat health service support at Camp Bastion in
    Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
        This first ever joint U.S. Army and UK Army health service delivery
    partnership has been an innovation in the responsiveness, flexibility,
    adaptability, and battlefield capabilities supporting coalition forces,
    Afghan Security Forces, and providing much needed trauma support for
    severely injured Afghan civilians. While the partnership is largely
    about the enhanced healthcare capabilities and building reliance on the
    Afghan system of care, it has also transformed how we train, deploy,
    and sustain medical forces in a combat zone.
        The 87 members of the 10th Combat Support Hospital, including 43
    Army Nurses, began their road to war by joining 143 British
    counterparts from the 208th Field Hospital to take part in a 2-week
    Mission Support Validation (MSV) Hospital Exercise (HOSPEX) in
    Strensall, England. The assembled team was specifically formed to
    provide enhanced polytrauma surgical capabilities to care for the
    emerging complexities of blast injuries from improvised explosives
    devices (IEDs) encountered by coalition forces during dismounted
    patrols in south and southwest Afghanistan. This first ever US/UK joint
    training exercise conducted in Strensall, England was a model for
    mission specific team training for deployed operation. During this
    HOSPEX, the newly established team was collectively exposed to the
    mission expectations and facilities at Camp Bastion, including every
    aspect of care from casualty reception to evacuation. Forming teams
    with their specific practice areas the primary focus was on team
    development, familiarizing the team with the equipment and processes of
    care. This collaborative environment provided the healthcare teams with
    the opportunity to share evidence based clinical practice guidelines,
    train on procedures, and rehearse trauma procedures prior to deploying
    to ensure that everybody on the team knew, understood, and was
    validated with every protocol under combat like conditions prior to
    deploying.
        The joint US/UK support mission at Bastion/Camp Leatherneck is a
    critical one and the 43 Army nurses assigned there play an essential
    role in the combat health service support to the more than 54,650
    coalition soldiers at risk within Regional Commands South-West and
    West. They provide compassionate nursing care in the 6-bed emergency/
    trauma suite, the operating theater, the 16-bed intensive care unit,
    and the 50-bed intermediate care ward. And while they do so they are
    innovating nursing practice, streamlining the discharge planning
    process, and supporting the Afghan healthcare system.
                             health service support
        The ANC is fully engaged in joint operations with our sister
    services. One example of the synergy we have created with dedicated
    effort of the Navy and the Air Force is the Joint Theater Trauma System
    (JTTS). The ANC has been providing officers to function as trauma nurse
    coordinators in the JTTS since 2004. These critical care nurses serve
    jointly with Navy, Air Force, and Canadian nurses to collect trauma
    data in-theater and conduct performance improvement at the three U.S.-
    staffed military hospitals. In the past year, six Army nurses have
    filled this role in southern and eastern Afghanistan, working closely
    with British forces and the air medical evacuation units in those
    regions. In 2011, these nurses entered more than 2,000 records in the
    military trauma registry, documenting the medical care given to all
    casualties, military and host nation, cared for by Coalition forces
    from point-of-injury to hospital discharge.
        In addition to deployed personnel, the ANC has recently positioned
    two field grade officers at the Joint Trauma System in San Antonio.
    These officers were assigned following postgraduate fellowships at the
    RAND Corporation. Using the analytic skills learned in their training,
    they have completed system-wide performance improvement and evaluation
    projects on a variety of urgent trauma issues, including pre-hospital
    medical evacuation, blood product utilization, en route critical care,
    clinical practice guidelines, and surgical complications. Whether it's
    optimizing care at the bedside in-theater, ensuring the best care at
    each stop on a wounded warrior's journey home, or at the enterprise
    level monitoring delivery of the most current evidence-based care,
    nurses continue to be integral parts of the trauma system of care.
        Another successful example of joint operations is the Walter Reed
    National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) Inpatient Traumatic Brain
    Initiative/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Unit (TBI/PTSD). The TBI/PTSD
    unit, (7 East) is a 6-bed acute care unit with medical/surgical and
    behavioral health capability. Conceptually, it is a short stay unit (2-
    3 weeks) where functional deficits are evaluated among wounded and
    injured servicemembers, while simultaneously engaging in early
    interventions for TBI complications. This multidisciplinary approach is
    a major collaborative effort among nurses, therapists, physicians,
    patients, and family members, and it continues to be one of the
    essential pillars that navigate and shape care provided to this complex
    population.
        One of the success stories from this venture was patient J.B. who
    initially came to 7 East with increasing behavioral issues that
    prevented his ability to live unassisted in the community after
    sustaining injuries from an IED blast and a subsequent automobile
    accident. After multiple failed hospitalizations, the family turned to
    WRNMMC for help. The patient's recovery improved with highly
    specialized collaborative treatment interventions including medication
    adjustments and behavioral therapy. A full article was published on
    this patient's case in the September 2011 Washingtonian Magazine.
        We are following the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recommendation
    to prepare and enable nurses to lead change and advance health through
    the assignment of Army nurses to warrior transition units and our focus
    on public health and behavioral health. I believe that my assignment as
    Commander of USA Public Health Command shows that the Army recognizes
    the importance of nursing in advancing health from a healthcare system
    to a system of health.
        In America, we in DOD spend an average of a 100 minutes each year
    with our healthcare team. The other 525,500 minutes of the year our
    patients are not with us--the same amount of time our environment
    influences the behaviors that determine our health occur. Nurses are
    taking a leading role in the implementation of and partnership with the
    delivery of services that focus on wellness outside the treatment
    facility. They serve in Army Wellness Centers and provide lifestyle
    coaching and health education that focus on the behaviors that lead to
    the manifestation of diseases (e.g., hypertension, diabetes,
    cholesterol) thus reducing dependency on treatment and empowering them
    to lead healthier lives.
        Another initiative to support America's sons and daughters wellness
    outside the treatment facility is the Army healthy weight campaign--a
    comprehensive framework to increase physical activity, redesign how we
    eat and the environments that support both. It is a plan to achieve a
    unified vision of an Army family leading the Nation in achieving and
    maintaining a healthy weight through surveillance, clinical prevention,
    and community prevention. This campaign supports two strategic
    priorities of the National Prevention Strategy, signed by President
    Obama on June 16, 2011. Public health executive nurse leaders were
    instrumental in the development of this National Prevention Strategy,
    and continue to serve as national leaders in the implementation of this
    roadmap for our Nation's health.
        When prevention is insufficient to protect our warriors from health
    threats across the globe, the USA Public Health Command created the
    structure for enhanced public health nursing capability that provides
    centralized oversight with decentralized health protection and wellness
    services world-wide. This public health nursing capability exceeded all
    expectations when tested in September as part of the Rabies Response
    Team efforts when more than 9,000 warriors, DOD civilians and
    contractors across the globe received medical screening and treatment
    services--the majority within 72 hours of notification. Initially, Army
    Public Health nurses reached out to these warriors during the Labor Day
    holiday to provide the human touch that allayed their fears and
    synchronized follow-on care regardless of their remoteness to military
    healthcare facilities.
        The ANC is also engaged with the latest initiatives in the AMEDD.
    Recognizing the magnitude and impact of women's health, the Surgeon
    General identified the need for a Women's Health Task Force (WHTF) to
    evaluate issues faced by female soldiers both in theater and garrison.
    We have several Army nurses assigned to the task force, the Executive
    Officer MAJ Perata is an obstetrics/gynecology nurse. The Task Force is
    currently working on a number of initiatives for Women Health, to
    include research and development on the fit and functionality of
    uniform and protective gear for female body proportions, research of
    the psychosocial affects of combat on women, and to investigate the
    integration of Service policies on sexual assault prevention and
    response programs in theater. Given the large percentage of women in
    our Army, we fully support the TSG initiatives in women's health.
                         development of nursing leaders
        The Nurse Corps is dedicated to the support of lifelong learning by
    providing numerous continuing education opportunities. We created the
    Nursing Leaders' Academy to provide the developmental leadership skills
    within our nursing officers to mold them into future healthcare
    leaders. We send Nurse Corps officers for advanced degrees in clinical,
    research, and administrative degree programs to build our profession.
    We also support contact hours for lectures, conferences, and seminars
    to maintain our officer's licensure.
        We believe that providing a residency program to our novice nurses
    is essential to the training of new graduates. We implemented a
    Clinical Nurse Transition Program which last 6 months and prepares our
    novice nurses for clinical practice. This program, in its third year,
    has resulted in an increase in our novice nurses intent to stay in the
    ANC beyond their initial obligation as well as favorable comments from
    patient surveys. We also have developed a Clinical Nurse Leader pilot
    program and support clinical residency programs for a number of our
    graduate education programs and clinical specialty programs.
        The ANC is also following IOM's recommendation to increase the
    number of nurses with a doctorate. Our advanced practice nurses will
    possess a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) as the standard degree in
    our training and education programs by 2015. We currently fund five
    nurses a year through our robust Long-Term Health Education and
    Training Program for Ph.D. studies.
        An example of one of our recent Ph.D. students is MAJ Yost who
    earned her Ph.D. degree in nursing from the University of Virginia. Her
    dissertation was titled, ``Qigong as a Novel Intervention for Service
    Members With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury''. The purpose of the study
    was to determine the level of interest in and perceived benefit of a
    program of qigong, a Chinese health system that has been practiced for
    thousands of years. In addition to perceived improvements in quality of
    life and pain management, the active meditative movements of qigong
    allowed servicemembers to enjoy benefits of meditation without
    experiencing troublesome flashbacks commonly seen in those with mild
    traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and comorbid PTSD.
        The ANC also values the contributions of our Department of the Army
    civilian nurse leaders. Our consultant for Nursing Research, Dr. Loan,
    is one of our many valued civilian members. Dr. Loan, Ph.D., RNC, just
    completed her second year as the Consultant to the Surgeon General for
    Nursing Research. Her recent contributions include: AMSUS November 2011
    Speaker: Army Nursing Research Evidence-Based Priorities Breakout
    Session; Nursing Research Advisory Board Meeting November 2011 to
    establish 2012 EBP/Research priorities. She recently was published in
    the AMEDD Journal related to the transformation from Nursing Research
    Service to Centers for Nursing Science and Clinical Inquiry October-
    December 2011. Dr. Loan was inducted into the Fellows of the American
    Academy of Nursing (FAAN) in October 2011.
        The total civilian nurse (registered nurse (RN), licensed practical
    nurse (LPN), and certified nursing assistant (CNA)) inventory
    constitutes 23 percent of the MEDCOM civilian workforce and 34 percent
    of the civilian medical occupations in Career Program 53--Medical.
    Civilian nurses work in all nursing care settings to promote readiness,
    health, and wellness of soldiers, their family members, retirees, and
    other eligible beneficiaries across the lifespan. It is the dedicated
    civilian nurse workforce that enables and complements the ANC to meet
    full mission requirements by serving as the fibers in the network of
    continuity at fixed facilities. Civilian Nurse Career development has
    been on the forefront of the Nurse Corps agenda for the past decade in
    support of integrated Talent Management and Leader Development. This
    integration fosters development of adaptive leaders and further
    building of highly trained, educated, and confident leaders and
    followers to construct required high-performing integrated teams.
        The ANC has diligently worked to establish sustainable career life-
    cycle management strategies such as Student Loan Repayment Program,
    Accelerated Training and Promotion Program, standardized nurse titling,
    nurse competencies, and nursing position descriptions (some dating back
    to the 1970s), and Career Maps which have either been implemented or
    are in progress. For example, the student loan repayment program has
    supported 955 individuals with 299 of them supported for multiple
    years. This has resulted in 85-percent retention rate of these for
    retention purposes and improved educational status of the workforce.
    The Accelerated Training Program allows for new RN placement and
    accelerated promotion of two grades within 1 year with successful
    completion of each phase of training. Fifty-three personnel have
    successfully completed this program which has resulted in advancing
    academic accomplishments and career entry for nursing personnel. The
    DOD Civilian Healthcare Occupations Sustainment Project (CHOSP) has
    been a multiphased initiative that has resulted in updated
    qualification standards for civilian RN and LPN nursing positions and
    the creation of an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) standard
    to support a relevant and dynamic workforce. These, along with
    standardized titling and competencies, promote value by reducing
    unnecessary variance leveraging the full capabilities of a trained
    workforce, and enhancing unity of effort. The feasibility and
    functionality of Professional Standards Boards (PSBs) continue to be
    explored as a culmination of the nurse career development and
    progression.
        I envision the ANC will continue compassionate care and innovative
    practice in healthcare. Through the PCTS and the PCMH we will
    consistently and reliability meet the needs of our patients and their
    families. We will continue to grow and develop our nurses to fill the
    gaps in our health system while anticipating future needs. The ANC is
    positioned for the changes in our Army and in Military Medicine. We
    will continue to embrace our proud past, engage the present challenges,
    and envision a future of seamless improvement in quality care. We in
    Army nursing are truly honored to care for America's sons and
    daughters. Senator Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, thanks again for the opportunity to
    highlight Army nursing. I am humbled and honored to represent the more
    than 40,000 men and women who comprise Army nursing and serve as the
    24th Chief of the Army Nurse Corps.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General Keenan.
    Before I proceed, I'd like to assure all of you that your full
    statements are part of the record, and then we will be
    submitting our more technical questions for your responses in
    writing.

                             CHIEF NURSE CORPS RANK

        I have one question with two parts: Any comments you'd like
    to make on the reduction of rank from 08 to 07, as Chief of new
    nurses? Do you do have any problems with recruiting and
    retention?
        May I start with the Admiral?
        Admiral Niemyer. Thank you, Senator. On the first question,
    first and foremost, we are very grateful for your continued
    support of leadership opportunities for nurses in both the
    profession of nursing as well as military nursing.
        I have had the unique experience among my peers to serve as
    a one star. When I was selected as a one star, it gave me the
    opportunity to have a position that I believe was extremely
    competitive in a leadership role, overseeing the TRICARE
    contract for the western region, a $17 billion contract. I
    believe that opportunities like that, at the one-star level,
    could, in fact, make our nurses continue to be competitive in a
    selection process for a second star.

                        NURSE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

        I do not disagree with the efficiencies that have been
    directed by the Department. I would like to say that having an
    important leadership path and competitive support for nurses
    getting exposure to various assignments that will, in fact,
    make them competitive both at the rank of selection for one
    star as well as two is extremely important. And I think as we
    see a group of nurses coming forth, who have the same battle-
    tested expertise, fleet assignments and assignments with the
    Marine Corps, we will continue to grow a very competitive group
    of nurses who can compete in any environment.
        In the second question, recruitment and retention, we are
    doing extremely well in both of those areas in the Navy Nurse
    Corps. We have met our recruiting goals in the Active component
    for the last 6 years, and I believe that we have the right
    incentives with special pays and accession bonuses that you've
    been quite instrumental in helping us to attain. That has been
    extremely useful for us in our retention as well, with special
    pays for registered nurses and our advanced practice nurses.
    So, we are doing quite well.
        We do recognize that there is a time where we may not have
    the same kind of economy, where we may see people leaving the
    military, and we look continually for programs and
    opportunities to continue that exposure to the military and
    develop our staff along the way, so that the choice will be
    retention and not movement to the civilian sector.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. General Keenan.
        General Keenan. Yes, Sir. On the first question, I will
    tell you that I do agree with Lieutenant General Horoho. We
    have developed a very robust leadership development track in
    Army Medicine that truly allows our nurses to compete at any
    level or command. And with that, we want to thank you for your
    continued support to expand fair opportunities for us in
    military medicine to have those abilities to compete for those
    types of inmaterial command.
        But, we do believe that with the leadership opportunities
    that we do have available in military medicine to compete for
    combat commands, in combat support hospitals, we've had several
    nurses who have led combat support hospitals in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. We have Army nurses who have led at the level-two
    medical center level, and then we have the opportunities to
    command other branch and material areas. We believe there is a
    system in place that would support our progression.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        General Siniscalchi.
        General Siniscalchi. Sir, first, I would like to thank you
    for your continued advocacy for nursing. Words just can't
    express how much we appreciate the value that you have placed
    on our profession. And regarding the two-star billets, you
    know, I have just been honored and blessed to serve at this
    rank, and it has served our Air Force Medical Service very
    well.
        However, recognizing the need for efficiencies, the Air
    Force does support the Department's decision. However, until
    the legislation is changed, the Air Force will continue to fill
    this position of responsibility with the two-star.
        And, Sir, in regards to your question on recruiting and
    retention, like my sister services, we also are doing very well
    in recruiting. However, the majority of our recruits are new
    nurses. They're new graduates. Novice nurses. We have great
    opportunities for them to advance professionally and to
    transition into their new profession and into military nursing.
        The incentive special pay has helped a tremendous amount in
    our retention, and we do have professional opportunities for
    advanced academic education and for fellowships. Also like my
    partners, we are very excited about the opportunity to offer
    our nurses the new Director of Nursing Practice (DNP) program.
    We have the new graduate program at the Uniform Services
    University for mental health nurse practitioners. And so that
    is serving as an incentive for our nurses to stay. However, we
    do experience problems with retaining our clinical experts at
    the bedside, tableside and litter side, because of our
    constrained promotion opportunity.
        But, I am very pleased to say that we have received
    tremendous support from the Air Force, and our sister services
    are supporting us in this endeavor. And so we continue to work
    with the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and
    Readiness, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    for Personnel and Readiness in exploring various policy options
    to help us correct the great constraints that we currently
    have.
        So, we are very hopeful that we will be able to open the
    aperture for promotion and have the grade that we need at the
    field-grade rank, so that we can retain the clinical experts
    that we need in order to grow and mentor our novice nurses
    coming up through the ranks.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        General Siniscalchi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. I asked that question, because as you're
    aware, in the civilian sector, nursing shortage is a major
    problem, and we're trying our best to resolve that, but it's
    very expensive. Thank you very much.
        The Vice Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I may ask this question of all of our witnesses. We have
    information about a new system called ``Care Case Manager
    System'' that was implemented in my State at Keesler Air Force
    Base Hospital, and it involves supporting patients with a
    communication case manager at both Keesler and the VA Hospital
    in Biloxi. I'm told that this has really helped define needs in
    a unique way, that the Care Case Manager System that was
    implemented at Keesler is innovative and is a big success.
        I wonder if you've heard about this, or if this is
    something that is being replicated at other treatment centers
    or hospitals around the country.
        I'll ask each of you.
        General Keenan. Yes, Sir. We do have nurse case management
    in the Army, and actually, we've had case management.
    Historically, it was in disease management. So, if you looked
    at asthma or high-risk disease processes. In 2007, when we
    stood up the warrior transition units, one of the key
    components that we found was missing in the care of our
    wounded, ill, and injured soldiers was case management, because
    they really provided that holistic support to the soldier and
    their family to coordinate their care.
        From our lessons learned with case management, and also
    with our patient caring touch system, and how we have now
    focused on our major platform of our patient-centered medical
    home, we have implemented not only case management in our
    warrior transition units, but we've also implemented it in our
    patient-centered medical homes, also in our embedded behavioral
    health teams that support our brigade combat teams, as well as
    in our medical management centers for our soldiers, and we
    truly believe, as you do, Sir, that this really empowers our
    patients. It ensures they're getting quality safe care, and it
    coordinates their care, and it gives them a safety net, someone
    that they can go to, they can help them understand what is
    going on in the care process.
        We really envision in Army nursing the next step is in our
    Army wellness centers when we talk about the white space, the
    525,500 minutes that people are not directly in our purview,
    our care, and our Movement Tracking System (MTS), that this is
    really going to give us the ability to affect diet, exercise,
    well-being for their mental and spiritual health. So, we
    totally embrace the concept of our nurse case managers and
    truly see it as an enabler for all we do, not only in Army
    nursing but also in Army Medicine.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Admiral Niemyer.
        Admiral Niemyer. Thank you, Senator.
        Nurse case management is the very fabric of communication
    and integration for across the enterprise for our wounded
    warriors, for our family members, from pediatrics, to
    geriatrics, to our wounded warriors in between. And it is the
    weaving together of a multidisciplinary effort to take a
    holistic approach with a patient, including that transition,
    perhaps, out of our system, as you recognized, into the VA. The
    Federal recovery coordinators for the VA are in our system, are
    in our MTS, to assist with that warm handoff, so we don't lose
    a patient in that transition.

                             NURSE CASE MANAGEMENT

        Nurse case management, as well as nonmedical case
    management, is so important to helping our patients guide
    through the multitude of administrative systems they have as
    wounded warriors. So we're equally as engaged and partnered in
    ensuring that all of our facilities have robust case management
    programs across the enterprise.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you. General Siniscalchi.
        General Siniscalchi. Yes, Sir. Keesler Air Force Base is a
    great example. So, I'd like to thank you for sharing that.
        Actually, once they initiated the program with case
    management, they were able to notice a difference within the
    first 6 months. And we've seen significant impact as we've
    moved forward the Air Force's pathway to patient-centered
    medical home has been the family health initiative. And within
    that staffing model, we laid in case managers as well as
    disease managers, but we found the impact of the role of the
    case manager has been phenomenal with this process. We've seen
    decreased emergency room and urgent care visits. We've seen
    increased provider as well as patient satisfaction. Better
    communication amongst the team, the family health team, as well
    as increased communication with the nurse, the technicians, and
    the patient. And, you know, in essence, the case manager has
    really been able to step in and navigate, help the patient
    navigate through the healthcare continuum.
        So, if I may share just a few data points, as we've been
    trying to actually monitor and track the success of our family
    health initiative and the role of the case manager in that. The
    case managers have coordinated care for more than 66,000
    patients in fiscal year 2011. And this actually was an increase
    from fiscal year 2010 of more than 6,000. And we have seen
    their coordinated care with our wounded warriors. Their care
    has touched more than 3,200 since fiscal year 2011. So, they're
    having a very significant impact and a strategic reach across
    the healthcare continuum.
        So, as we've tracked several data points, we found that in
    healthcare costs that the impact they're making has actually
    resulted in $2.6 million in savings. So, we've been very
    pleased with the initiative of putting the case management
    model and that role in our patient-centered medical home.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. It's a very impressive report and we
    congratulate you on the initiative and also the leadership in
    all of our healthcare centers throughout the armed services.
        Your leadership, all of you, is really remarkable. It sets
    the United States apart from every other country in the success
    that we've had in managing the care, delivering healthcare
    services to our men and women who have served, and have been
    injured, or become ill in the military service of our country.
    Thank you all.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Chairman Inouye. On behalf of the subcommittee, I thank the
    Surgeons General, and the Chief of the Nurses Corps, and we
    look forward to working with you in the coming months.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing but
    were submitted to the Department of response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted to General Charles B. Green
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. General Green, since 2003 the Nurse Corps Chief position
    for each of the Services has been authorized as a two-star billet. The
    Department recently sent over a legislative proposal that would reduce
    the Corps Chief position to the one-star level. What would be the
    negative effects on the Nurse Corps if the Chief positions were
    converted back to one-star billets?
        Answer. A two-star billet, as the Nurse Corps Chief, has served the
    Air Force Medical Service well. Recognizing the need for efficiencies,
    the Air Force supports the Department of Defense's decision. Nurse
    Corps officers receiving in-depth professional development will
    complete well for two-star positions available in the Air Force Medical
    Service without the congressional mandate for the Corps Chief to be a
    two star. Until the legislation is changed, the Air Force will continue
    to fill this position of responsibility with a two star.
        Question. The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget assumes $452
    million in savings based on new TRICARE enrollment fees and increases
    in co-pays for prescription drugs. General Green, I understand that
    military leadership supports these changes, but what are you hearing
    from troops and their families? Do you believe this will impact
    recruiting?
        Answer. Our retiree population actively shapes perceptions of the
    value of military service. Any action that discourages our retiree
    population can adversely impact recruiting activities. Healthcare
    benefits for Active Duty military personnel are minimally impacted
    under the current proposal. TRICARE standard caps will affect the small
    number of Active Duty family members not enrolled in Prime. Pharmacy
    co-pay increases only affect those who do not get their prescription
    filled at a military treatment facility. Although increases in
    healthcare fees may be perceived as a loss of benefit to our
    beneficiaries, the increases are not expected to negatively influence
    retention of Active Duty military personnel.
        Question. General Green, I understand the Air Force has begun using
    vending machine-like kiosks on bases to help alleviate pharmacy wait
    times. What other initiatives are under way?
        Answer. The most significant initiative underway to improve
    pharmacy operations and reduce wait times is the development and
    implementation of the pharmacy staffing model. The model helps us
    balance pharmacy manpower across the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS)
    based on workload. Changes in the long-term program using this model
    begin taking effect in fiscal year 2013, but we are also using it now
    to address the most egregious staffing imbalances with current year
    funding. The Air Force Manpower Agency has also recently begun
    conducting a formal manpower study to more precisely quantify pharmacy
    manpower requirements utilizing management engineering techniques. This
    study will result in a new official manpower standard for Air Force
    Pharmacy.
        We are engaged in a continuing effort of sharing and implementing
    lessons learned from Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century
    (AFSO21) events (and other best practices) from site visits and regular
    communications with pharmacy leadership to optimize workflow and
    facility design. We are currently reviewing the results to ensure we
    are taking advantage of what we have learned already and targeting
    future efforts at expanding our knowledge base of best practices for
    application across Air Force pharmacies.
        An additional system-wide initiative is the upgrade of pharmacy
    automation and patient queuing technology. We are working towards a
    full technology refresh Air Force Medical Service wide within the next
    3 years. The new automation equipment will include telepharmacy
    capability, which allows remote review of prescriptions to assist
    pharmacies, particularly smaller ones, during their busiest times or
    when Active Duty pharmacists are deployed. Recent efforts to improve
    wait times have included adding manpower, shifting manpower as needed
    to problem areas (e.g., from in-patient to out-patient pharmacies),
    workflow process improvements, and the addition of or upgrading of
    current patient queuing systems and pharmacy automation equipment.
    Facility expansion and improvements are also underway at several Air
    Force pharmacies.
        Question. General Green, part of the challenge of recruiting
    medical professionals is the divide between private sector and military
    compensation for health specialties. Given the increasing fiscal
    constraints the Department is facing in the coming years, how will you
    manage your resources to sustain the medical professionals required to
    care for servicemembers and their families?
        Answer. AFMS continually reviews current and projected healthcare
    needs and directs appropriate changes within the allocated force
    structure in order to meet our ever-evolving missions. With total
    personnel inventory slightly below our total funded authorizations, the
    AFMS meets the Nation's critical mission needs by apportioning the
    current inventory to meet requirements in the near-term and relying on
    the purchased care system from our TRICARE partners for the noncritical
    mission needs of the Air Force. The AFMS is utilizing Federal service
    employees and contractors within our Medical Treatment Facilities in
    addition to our TRICARE partners to supplement shortfalls of our
    uniformed staff as we provide quality healthcare to our entire
    beneficiary population.
        Even as Air Force retention in general is high, recruiting and
    retention of highly-skilled health professionals is improving with our
    long-term program strategies, albeit tenuously, through a three-prong
    approach. The Air Force continues to fund all available authorities to
    stabilize ailing health professions career fields by:
      --fully utilizing scholarship and educational programs for our long-
            term shortages;
      --effectively targeting accession bonuses and other special and
            incentive pay programs for our immediate needs; and
      --providing emphasis and support for other nonmonetary programs to
            retain our quality staff.
        Question. General Green, the Services continue to transition
    patients to a medical home model. This concept organizes health
    professionals into teams to provide a more comprehensive primary
    approach. Each patient's personal physician leads the team and serves
    as a continuous point of contact for care. Has the Air Force seen
    improvements in patient satisfaction or cost control with this
    initiative?
        Answer. Over the course of the past year, we have completed the
    enrollment into Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) for our Air Force
    Family Health and Pediatric clinics. Now more than 945,000 patients are
    currently being cared for under this model. We have seen a steady
    improvement in the satisfaction of our patients seen in a PCMH with the
    percent rating satisfied or completely satisfied with their care rising
    from 91.9 percent in May 2011 to 93 percent in December 2011. Likewise,
    we have seen substantial cost avoidance with notable decline in our
    patients' utilization of Emergency Room/Urgent Care Clinic (ER/UCC)
    care. Over the similar May-December 2011 time period, ER/UCC
    utilization from patients enrolled to a PCMH in the Air Force has
    decreased from 6.87 visits per 100 enrollees per month to 5.59 visits
    per 100 enrollees per month.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                   mefloquine
        Question. In 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) published
    research that showed that approximately 1 in 7 servicemembers with
    mental health contraindications had been prescribed mefloquine contrary
    to the instructions in the package insert guidance, including to
    servicemembers taking antidepressants and with serious mental health
    conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. This research went
    on to highlight that such use may have significantly increased the risk
    of serious harm among those who had been misprescribed the drug.
        What research has the Air Force undertaken to determine whether
    this trend has been reversed, and what efforts has the Air Force
    undertaken to identify and follow-up on those who were misprescribed
    the drug, to determine whether they may be suffering from the adverse
    effects of its use? Can the Air Force assure us that this group has not
    experienced more significant problems associated with this
    misprescribing?
        Answer. The Air Force began enforcing the Food and Drug
    Administration's warnings and precautions regarding mefloquine in 2005,
    several years before the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
    Affairs memorandum was issued in 2009. Air Force utilization of
    mefloquine declined considerably between 2005 and 2009. In 2009, the
    Health Affairs memorandum about mefloquine was sent to every Air Force
    medical treatment facility, and subsequently the Air Force mefloquine
    utilization declined an additional 90 percent from 2009 to 2011. Only
    458 prescriptions for mefloquine were issued in 2011.
        Mefloquine is one of the medications that have annual drug
    utilization review requirements from each Air Force medical treatment
    facility, as directed in the 2005 Air Force memorandum. Reviews cover,
    at a minimum, the following:
      --not prescribing mefloquine to those on flying status or with
            contraindications;
      --correct dosing and directions within prescriptions;
      --patient counseling and documentation;
      --completing the DD 2766; and
      --providing the printed Food and Drug Administration's MedGuide at
            the pharmacy.
        The reviews from the last quarter of 2011 demonstrated that no
    mefloquine was prescribed to flyers or patients with contraindicating
    conditions, and that the pharmacy provided the patient medical guide
    100 percent of the time.
        Question. What epidemiological research is currently underway to
    investigate the short- and long-term effects of exposure to mefloquine?
    Can you tell me what is the total amount of funding devoted to these
    projects?
        Answer. The Air Force does not currently have any active
    epidemiologic research on the short- and long-term effects of exposure
    to mefloquine. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
    Follow-up Agency maintains the records and approves research using the
    clinical and laboratory specimens for one of the longest cohort studies
    of servicemembers, the Air Force Health Study. The participants in the
    study may have included members who had received mefloquine for malaria
    prophylaxis. Additionally, the Army and Navy have ongoing research into
    antimalarials through the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, the
    Naval Medical Research Center, and the overseas laboratories. The
    Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Follow-up Agency, the Army, and
    the Navy can provide figures for the total amount of funding devoted to
    these projects.
        Question. The Department of Defense has specialized centers to
    address traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder
    (PTSD), including the National Intrepid Center of Excellence and other
    centers within the Centers of Excellence for Traumatic Brain Injury and
    Psychological Health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    has recently noted that the side effects of mefloquine may ``confound
    the diagnosis and management of posttraumatic stress disorder and
    traumatic brain injury''. Given that the adverse effects of mefloquine
    may often mimic those of TBI and PTSD, has the Air Force provided
    training to those who work within the National Intrepid Center of
    Excellence and Defense Centers of Excellence to include the diagnosis,
    management, and research of mefloquine toxicity?
        Answer. All providers sent by the Air Force to any Center of
    Excellence are fully qualified and expected to practice in accordance
    with current clinical standards such as the Department of Veterans
    Affairs/Department of Defense practice guidelines for TBI and PTSD. The
    symptoms of TBI are nonspecific, thus any evaluation of symptoms
    associated with TBI includes consideration of other causative or
    contributing factors including medications. Likewise, a diagnosis of
    Acute Stress Disorder or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder requires that
    the treating provider reach the conclusion that the observed
    ``disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a
    substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication)'' among other factors.
    Therefore, consideration of the effects of any medications the patient
    is currently taking, or has taken recently, are integral to the
    screening and diagnostic processes at the National Intrepid Center of
    Excellence, Defense Centers of Excellence and Air Force medical
    treatment facilities worldwide. When Air Force nonphysician mental
    health providers such as social workers, psychologists, and psychiatric
    nurse practitioners have questions regarding the potential effects of
    any medication, they are encouraged to seek consultation and
    collaboration with psychiatrists or other physicians.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                           hyperbaric oxygen therapy
        Question. General Green, I understand that $8.6 million is included
    to fund a clinical trial using hyperbaric oxygen therapy to diagnose
    and treat brain injury. What is your experience with this therapy? Do
    you think it has merit in treating traumatic brain injury?
        Answer. Anecdotal case reports and open-label studies suggest
    benefit of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) for treating chronic
    symptoms associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However,
    anecdotes and open-label studies cannot discriminate between the
    effects of the HBO2 and the indirect, or placebo, effects of
    study participation. Further, TBI is not endorsed by the Undersea and
    Hyperbaric Medical Society or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
    Administration as a medical indication for HBO2. The
    Department of Defense and the Air Force are committed to an evidence-
    based approach to developing policy on HBO2 use to ensure it
    is safe, effective, and comparable or superior to standard care for
    symptoms associated with TBI. Several recent studies, including the Air
    Force study in San Antonio suggest that HBO2 is safe in
    servicemembers with chronic symptoms associated with TBI. The Air Force
    study found no statistical difference between the treatment group and
    the sham group. Improvements in some test measures, however, were seen
    in both groups. Additional data analysis is underway to determine if
    there are similar demographics in subgroups that showed improvement. We
    continue to support a robust research effort on hyperbaric oxygen for
    chronic symptoms associated with TBI, and data from those studies will
    be frequently re-assessed for evidence of safety and efficacy.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Matthew Nathan
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                             nurse corps chief rank
        Question. Admiral Nathan, since 2003 the Nurse Corps Chief position
    for each of the Services has been authorized as a two-star billet. The
    Department recently sent over a legislative proposal that would reduce
    the Corps Chief position to the one-star level. What affect would a
    reduction in rank have on the Navy Nurse Corps?
        Answer. We support the decision to standardize the rank of the
    Director of the Navy Nurse Corps to the grade of 07, and believe this
    change will have no adverse impact on the Nurse Corps. Navy Medicine
    places a priority on our leader development programs, and our Navy
    Nurses continue to demonstrate they have the experience, skill and
    motivation to succeed positions of great responsibility and trust. We
    have Nurse Corps officers in command of our medical treatment
    facilities, serving in senior operational medicine assignments with the
    Fleet and Marine Forces, and managing vital headquarters-level
    responsibilities. The Director of the Navy Nurse Corps will have the
    skills, experience, and opportunity to succeed as a one-star flag
    officer; and correspondingly, be highly competitive for selection to
    two-star. If Director is selected for promotion to two-star, this would
    allow an another flag officer opportunity for the Nurse Corps as an
    officer would then be selected to serve as a one-star flag officer and
    the Director.
                                  tricare fees
        Question. Admiral Nathan, the Department's fiscal year 2013 budget
    assumes $452 million in savings based on new TRICARE enrollment fees
    and increases in co-pays for prescription drugs. Will these increased
    fees affect care for servicemembers and their families? How are
    servicemembers and retirees reacting to these proposals?
        Answer. The Department of Navy supports these proposals and
    believes they are important for ensuring a sustainable and equitable
    benefit for all our beneficiaries. The TRICARE fee proposals do not
    affect our Active Duty servicemembers, and specifically exempt
    medically retired servicemembers and their families, as well as
    survivors of military members who died on Active Duty. While the
    proposed increases will primarily impact our retired beneficiaries,
    military medicine provides one of the most comprehensive health
    benefits available. These changes will help us better manage costs,
    provide quality, accessible care, and keep faith with our
    beneficiaries.
                             pharmacy waiting time
        Question. Admiral Nathan, the structure of the proposed TRICARE
    pharmacy co-pays strongly incentivizes members to fill their
    prescriptions at pharmacies within military treatment facilities. Yet,
    we continue to hear concerns about the current wait times at numerous
    pharmacies. How is the Navy addressing the problem of lengthy pharmacy
    wait times?
        Answer. Our Navy Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) strive to
    efficiently balance the staffing of the pharmacy (and other clinical
    areas) with expected demand, while expanding the service and/or hours
    of access provided. Understanding that increases in demand are expected
    in the future and improvements in access could be realized, Navy
    Medicine has engaged in a relook of the outpatient pharmacy workflow
    process as part of the acquisition to replace our existing pharmacy
    automation, which is close to 10 years old.
        Through a review of the existing workflow at our larger sites by
    pharmacy workflow experts (i.e., industrial engineers, operations
    research specialists, and pharmacists), we have developed pharmacy
    workflow and automation requirements. These requirements will support
    up to a doubling of the existing workload while striving for a 90th
    percentile wait time of 30 minutes or less. This goal reflects an
    approximate 50-percent decrease in our current 90th percentile waiting
    time. Moving forward, we will continue to invest in pharmacy automation
    which allows us to address any expected increase in demand at our MTF
    pharmacies and maintain outstanding customer services.
                               suicide prevention
        Question. Admiral Nathan, the Services are seeking to provide early
    identification and treatment of psychological health through a number
    of initiatives; yet, suicides throughout the military continue to rise.
    In 2011, Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve soldiers took their lives at a
    record high rate. How are the Services working together to learn from
    one another and combat the continued rise in suicides?
        Answer. The Services work together closely in the area of suicide
    prevention by sharing lessons learned, research, and promising
    practices in formal and informal mechanisms of suicide prevention. The
    Navy continues to integrate efforts related to personal and family
    readiness programs, not only across the Navy enterprise but in
    collaboration with the other Services, DOD, the VA, and various Federal
    agencies, with the shared goal of reducing the number of suicides. Some
    specific ways the Services have worked together include:
    Suicide Prevention and Risk Reduction Committee
        The DOD Suicide Prevention and Risk Reduction Committee (SPARRC)
    with representation from all Services (including Coast Guard) and DOD,
    has now expanded to include VA and Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Services Administration (SAMSHA) participants. Over the years the
    SPARRC has worked to standardize the process for determining suicide
    numbers and rates, developed a common data collection mechanism (the
    DOD Suicide Event Report), conducted an annual conference, and provided
    a forum for the sharing of observations, promising practices, and
    lessons learned regarding the prevention of military suicides. The
    SPARRC chairmanship moved from its original home in DOD Health Affairs
    to the Defense Center of Excellence, and at the end of 2011, to the new
    OSD Suicide Prevention Office under the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Readiness.
    Department of Defense/Department of Veterans Affairs Suicide Prevention
            Conference
        The Department of Defense (DOD)/Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    Annual Conference has grown into the largest meeting of its kind in the
    world. This weeklong conference has multiple tracks that include
    clinical, research, and practical tools for suicide prevention. It
    brings together many of the Nation's leading suicidology theorists and
    researchers, along with military leaders, care providers, and
    policymakers.
    Task Force
        The congressionally mandated (Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense
    Authorization Act) Task Force on the Prevention of Suicides Among
    Members of the Armed Forces published its report in the fall of 2010.
    The Services are continuing to implement many of these recommendations
    and one key outcome has been the establishment of an office within OSD.
                               physician staffing
        Question. Admiral Nathan, some medical specialties are severely
    understaffed, particularly in the Reserve component. How is the Navy
    ensuring that it has the number of Reserve physicians it needs?
        Answer. Reserve physician recruiting remains one of our greatest
    challenges; our manning at the end of March 2012 was at 55 percent of
    requirements. High Active component physician retention rates are a
    positive for the Navy; however, the second order affect is a decreased
    pool of medical professionals eligible for Reserve affiliation.
    Consequently, there is a greater reliance on attracting civilian
    physicians in a highly competitive Direct Commission Officer (DCO)
    market.
        We have developed strong partnerships with our key Navy
    stakeholders and are exploring a plethora of action items in our
    efforts to recruit and retain the right physician skill sets in our
    Reserve physician inventory. Examples include a Medical Leads
    Assistance Program; affiliation, specialty, and incentive pay
    initiatives; and a change in paygrade billet requirements under an
    Officer Sustainability Initiative. We are optimistic that these
    initiatives as well as a continued reduction in Reserve Individual
    Augmentee assignments will incentivize potential Reserve physician
    recruits.
        Navy Medicine has representation on the Tri-Service Medical Working
    Group that has reviewed the results of the Joint Advertising, Market
    Research and Studies (JAMRS) Physician Recruit Study (Recruiter Guide)
    released in September 2011 and work continues to augment incentive
    capabilities to address the challenges all Services are experiencing in
    recruiting Reserve physicians.
                        military health system structure
        Question. Admiral Nathan, earlier this month the Department
    released its final decision on the structure of the Military Health
    System. The Department decided on a proposal to combine the
    administration and management of the Military Health System into a
    Defense Health Agency. Can you please share with the subcommittee any
    concerns you may have about the final recommendations?
        Answer. Navy Medicine fully supports a joint solution that will
    enhance interoperability of medical care across the MHS both
    operationally and within Services' medical treatment facilities. We
    must, first and foremost, not break a highly functioning patient care
    continuum that can bring a warrior from the point-of-injury to
    definitive care at a level four MTF in 48-72 hours. A thorough
    outcomes-based analysis of any major changes in governance that impacts
    meeting Service operational commitments must first be completed and
    then presented to the Service Chiefs. Although the belief may be that
    consolidation of services or support will be cost effective, an in-
    depth effects-based analysis for each shared service prior to
    consolidation must be completed to set a baseline cost to assess the
    need for change or to evaluate future return on investment of system
    changes. The bottom line is that the MHS must proceed in a deliberate
    and measured manner to ensure that our readiness to support our
    Services' missions and core warfighting capabilities will be maintained
    and our excellence in healthcare delivery will be sustained.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                   mefloquine
        Question. In 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) published
    research that showed that approximately 1 in 7 servicemembers with
    mental health contraindications had been prescribed mefloquine contrary
    to the instructions in the package insert guidance, including to
    servicemembers taking anti-depressants and with serious mental health
    conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This research
    went on to highlight that such use may have significantly increased the
    risk of serious harm among those who had been misprescribed the drug.
        What published research has the Navy undertaken to determine
    whether this trend has been reversed, and what efforts has the Navy
    undertaken to identify and follow-up on those who were misprescribed
    the drug, to determine whether they may be suffering from the adverse
    effects of its use? Can the Navy assure us that this group has not
    experienced more significant problems associated with this
    misprescribing?
        Answer. In 2006, medical researchers at the Naval Health Research
    Center in San Diego published a peer-reviewed paper describing a
    retrospective study of health histories of 8,858 Active Duty
    servicemembers who had been prescribed mefloquine between 2002 and
    2004. The health history outcomes of these members were compared
    against a full analysis of the health histories of 388,584
    servicemembers not prescribed mefloquine during the same period. The
    results of that study showed a significantly decreased proportion of
    mefloquine prescribed individuals hospitalized for mood disorders when
    compared to servicemembers assigned to Europe or Japan and no
    difference in mood disorders or mental disorders compared to
    servicemembers in deployed status. These data demonstrated no
    association between mefloquine prescriptions and severe health effects
    as measured by hospitalizations across a wide range of disorders,
    including mental health outcomes.
        Navy Medicine is aware of two articles published in 2008 and 2009
    describing analysis of military medical records of a cohort of 11,725
    servicemembers progressively deployed to Afghanistan over a 6-month
    period in early 2007 of which 38.4 percent had been prescribed
    prophylactic use of mefloquine. Of those so prescribed, 13.8 percent
    had recorded medical history which would pose a relative
    contraindication to its use.
        Navy Medicine has not performed a follow-up on the data or subjects
    described in the 2008 and 2009 articles as this analysis did not
    provide information as to adverse outcome, nor did it break out
    information from the analysis of records that included servicemembers
    from all services which would have identified what proportion of the
    cohort records analyzed pertained to Navy or Marine Corps personnel.
    Navy Medicine stands by the medical outcome data described in the Naval
    Health Research Center study of 2006.
        Question. What epidemiological research is currently underway to
    investigate the short- and long-term effects of exposure to mefloquine?
    Can you tell me what is the total amount of funding devoted to these
    projects?
        Answer. At this time, there is no epidemiological research
    currently underway which would add to or test the findings of the 2006
    published study of prescription of mefloquine to 8,858 Active Duty
    servicemembers which demonstrated a decreased proportion of mefloquine
    prescribed individuals hospitalized for mood disorders when compared to
    servicemembers assigned to Europe or Japan and no difference in
    hospitalizations across a wide range of disorders, including mental
    health outcomes in combined data from individuals assigned to Europe,
    Japan, or otherwise deployed.
        Question. DOD has specialized centers to address traumatic brain
    injury (TBI) and PTSD, including the National Intrepid Center of
    Excellence and other centers within the Centers of Excellence for
    Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health. The Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention has recently noted that the side effects
    of mefloquine may ``cofound the diagnosis and management of
    posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury''. Given that
    the adverse effects of mefloquine may often mimic those of TBI and
    PTSD, has the Navy provided training to those who work within the
    National Intrepid Center of Excellence and Defense Centers of
    Excellence to include the diagnosis, management, and research of
    mefloquine toxicity?
        Answer. Navy Medicine has not specifically provided training on the
    diagnosis, management, and research of mefloquine toxicity to the
    professional staff at the Defense Centers of Excellence (DCoE).
    However, the DCoE staff has reviewed reports, guidance, and DOD policy
    related to the use of mefloquine. Additionally, their staff has
    actively completed reviews of the current science on the use of
    mefloquine for malaria chemoprophylaxis and neuropsychiatric adverse
    reactions, as well as reviews of mefloquine, TBI, and psychological
    health conditions. As reported to Navy Medicine, DCoE staff continues
    to monitor emerging science as it relates to mefloquine, TBI, and
    psychiatric conditions and will work to revise clinical guidance and
    provide input to DOD policy should emerging science indicate clear
    detrimental effects.
        With respect to mefloquine confounding the diagnosis of mild TBI
    and/or PTSD, staff members from the National Intrepid Center of
    Excellence (NICoE) have also not undergone specific training. However,
    personnel who comprise the White Team--the triage team which screen all
    prospective NICoE candidates--include two experienced medical officers
    with extensive combat/deployment experience who understand the
    potential neuropsychiatric contraindications and have utilized
    mefloquine appropriately in the deployed environment. The White Team is
    also backed up by a neurologist and neuropsychologist who, similarly,
    have comprehensive knowledge of compounds, drugs, and exposures which
    may impact the nervous system. Additionally, all members presented to
    NICoE go through an exhaustive medication review, supported by a Doctor
    of Pharmacy (Pharm D).
        Finally, Navy Medicine is currently developing a mefloquine
    training module to serve as a refresher on FDA requirements and DOD
    policy for all providers and pharmacists. This training is expected to
    be implemented by June 2012.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                             nonmedical caregivers
        Question. Military family members already make incredible
    sacrifices to support both the soldier deployed and the wounded warrior
    at home. Since 2001, nearly 2 million troops have deployed in support
    of Operation Enduring Freedom and/or Operation Iraqi Freedom; of those,
    nearly 800,000 have deployed more than once. There are nearly 48,000
    wounded warriors from the 10 years of war. For many wounded warriors,
    their spouses and extended families become the front line of care for
    their rehabilitation and recovery. These nonmedical caregivers have to
    choose between their critically injured relative and their careers,
    children, and financial well-being.
        What has the Navy done to enhance care for family members of
    wounded marines and sailors?
        Answer. The Navy's Project FOCUS (Families Over Coming Under
    Stress) is a family psychological health and resiliency building
    program that addresses family functioning in the context of the impact
    of combat deployments, multiple deployments, and high-operational
    tempo. The application of a three-tiered approach to care via community
    education, psychoeducation for families, and brief-treatment
    intervention for families, has shown statistically significant outcomes
    in increasing family functioning and decreasing negative outcomes such
    as anxiety and depression in both parents and children. The program
    takes a de-stigmatized approach to care and is integrated within the
    community context.
        Additionally, the Marine Corps realizes that family members are
    essential to the successful recovery of our wounded, ill, and injured
    (WII) marines. Accordingly, we work to ensure our WII marines' families
    are part of the recovery process, to include supplying them with
    support programs and services. Since the Wounded Warrior Regiment (WWR)
    stood up more than 5 years ago, we have continually enhanced our
    services to ensure that the unique needs of our families are addressed.
    Examples include:
      --Family readiness and support staff at all locations;
      --Recovery Care Coordinators to help WII Marines and their family
            members map out and attain their recovery goals;
      --The Wounded Warrior Call Center, a 24/7 outreach and reach-back
            resource and referral capability;
      --District Injured Support Coordinators (DISCs) who help
            transitioning marines and families in remote locations away
            from military or Federal resources;
      --Our Medical Cell, a cell that provides medical subject matter
            expertise, advocacy, and liaison to the medical community; and
      --Enhanced communication efforts to ensure family members receive the
            right information when they need it through easy-to-understand
            fact sheets, a Marine Corps-customized ``Keeping It All
            Together'' Handbook, and a new mobile WWR App.
        Question. What training does the nonmedical caregiver receive to
    ensure continuity of care for their wounded warrior once that marine or
    sailor makes a transition to home?
        Answer. The WWR is working with the Office of Wounded Warrior Care
    and Transition Policy to ensure all caregivers of Marines who are
    receiving Special Compensation for Assistance with Activities of Daily
    Living receive caregiver training materials developed by the Easter
    Seals Foundation (also used by the Department of Veterans Affairs for
    their Caregiver Stipend Program). WWR also provides ``Care for the
    Caregiver'' Workshops as well as FOCUS, the resiliency training program
    referred to above. FOCUS is designed to assist and promote strong
    Marine Corps families to better equip them to contend with the stress
    associated with multiple deployments, combat stress, and physical
    injuries. Additionally, the WWR's DISC Program collaborates with Navy-
    Marine Corps Relief Society visiting nurses to make home visits to our
    WII marines and families in need. These nurses can provide a myriad of
    services, to include evaluate of home safety and adaptability,
    emotional support to families, and advocacy for the patient and family
    as they adjust to the enormous life changes resulting from their
    injuries.
        Question. What support do they receive to ensure they can maintain
    their own psychological health and well-being through this process?
        Answer. The WWR's capabilities mentioned above provide reach-back
    resource and referral capabilities for family members to maintain their
    psychological health and well-being. More specifically, the WWR Medical
    Cell is skilled at providing family referrals to the appropriate
    psychological health service, depending upon their needs and
    requirements.
        Question. What has the Navy done to leverage the help the private
    sector can provide?
        Answer. Many individuals and organizations routinely offer gifts to
    the Department of Defense, units, military personnel, and their
    families. The WWR's Charitable Giving Office works within the confines
    of Federal law and policy to ensure WII marines and families benefit
    from private sector help when and where it is appropriate. Support
    includes, but is not limited to, respite opportunities, child care,
    travel assistance, lodging/housing, and social activities.
                            medical pain management
        Question. Reliance on prescription cocktails to handle mental and
    pain management is having serious negative consequences amongst our
    military servicemembers. Recent studies have found that veterans with
    PTSD were most likely to be prescribed opioids as compared with vets
    with no mental health disorder--33.5 percent compared with 6.5 percent.
    Accidental drug deaths have doubled from 2001-2009, while prescriptions
    for painkillers are up 438 percent since 2001. The ``Defense Survey of
    Health-Related Behaviors'' found ``dangerous levels'' of alcohol abuse
    and the illicit use of drugs such as pain killers by 12 percent of
    military personnel.
        Should the military medical community examine its reliance on
    narcotics to control pain among wounded warriors?
        Answer. The Services are aware and concerned about alarming
    national trends in increased use of opioids and secondary
    complications, including misuse, dependence, higher care cost, and
    adverse outcome (including death). The Fiscal Year 2010 National
    Defense Authorization Act (section 711) directed the Secretary of
    Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive policy on pain
    management. In August 2009, the Army Surgeon General chartered the Army
    Pain Management Task Force to make recommendations for a comprehensive
    pain management strategy that was holistic, multidisciplinary, and
    multimodal in its approach. Task Force membership included
    representatives from the Navy, Air Force, TRICARE Management Activity,
    and the Veterans Administration. The Task Force developed 109
    recommendations. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (Health
    Affairs) released a Policy for Comprehensive Pain Management in March
    2011.
        Navy Medicine has designed the Navy Comprehensive Pain Management
    Program (NCPMP) to improve and expand pain management resources for all
    servicemembers. Key specific NCPMP objectives are to meet NDAA
    requirements and Joint Commission (JC) standards, by providing
    standardized and optimized care in accordance with recently published
    clinical practice guidelines. The current state-of-the-art for
    management of chronic and complex pain is based on the biopsychosocial
    model, which promotes a paradigm of comprehensive, multidisciplinary,
    and multimodal care. In that capacity, an important focus of the NCPMP
    is the expansion of access to health psychologists, physical
    therapists, exercise physiologists, and integrative medicine physicians
    to ensure the effective fusion of mainstream treatments like cognitive
    behavior therapy with Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)
    approaches, including the use of acupuncture. The specific stated
    mission of the NCPMP is ``To aid in the restoration of function and
    relief of pain by broadening access to state-of-the-art, standardized,
    multimodal, and interdisciplinary pain care across Navy Medicine,
    ensuring treatment efficacy through practice guidelines, education, and
    analysis of treatment outcomes.''
        To diminish reliance on narcotics to control pain, Navy Medicine is
    focusing on three general paradigms. First, decrease development of
    pain via prevention of injury (e.g., ergonomics, occupational safety)
    and disease precursors. Second, educate members and healthcare
    providers about risks of opioids and best practices when they are
    prescribed. Two videos are to be released shortly for required training
    of all Navy and USMC personnel (The War Back at Home) and providers (Do
    No Harm). Interim guidance and a subsequent Pain Instruction are to be
    released by BUMED as well, educating providers about up-to-date best
    practices for opioid use (e.g., routine screening for appropriateness,
    sole provider agreements, informed consent, and a multimodal approach).
    Third, provide capability for healthcare providers to utilize a
    multimodal biopsychosocial approach by employing alternative
    capabilities and assets. To that end, the NCPMP will utilize provider
    assets in pain medicine, integrative medicine, CAM, mental health and
    addiction medicine, case management, exercise physiology, physical
    therapy, and athletic training. These pain care assets, functionally
    integrated into Medical Home and SMART Clinics, will enable and promote
    comprehensive management of complex acute and chronic pain throughout
    Navy Medicine. A key component of NCPMP's Concept of Operations is
    tiered rollout of system wide acupuncture capability based on
    systematic and consistent training, certification, and credentialing
    throughout the healthcare enterprise.
        Question. What alternative options of pain management does the Navy
    have in place to give doctors a choice to lessen the use of
    prescription pain killers?
        Answer. Please see answer above. The following is a listing of key
    pain management modalities available to Navy doctors:
      --Disease-specific measures:
        --Tighter glucose control in diabetes;
        --Disease-modifying agents in MS and other inflammatory disorders;
        --Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy for nerve compression;
        --Infection control (HIV, herpes zoster, lyme disease); and
        --Ergonomics and occupational safety.
      --Local and regional treatments:
        --Regional Anesthetics (Pain Specialists): sympathetic, epidural,
                intrathecal, and selective nerve root blocks; epidural and
                intrathecal pumps;
        --Stimulation-Based: TENS, spinal cord stimulation, acupuncture
                (licensed, medical);
        --Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM): acupuncture,
                Osteopathic Manipulation, therapeutic massage;
        --Physical Rehabilitation: PT/OT, splinting, manipulation,
                assistive devices, range-of-motion exercises, ergonomics;
                and
        --Ablative Procedures: phenol/alcohol nerve ablation, cordotomy/
                rhizotomy, radiofrequency nerve root ablation.
      --Systemic treatments:
        --Pharmacological: Tricyclic antidepressants, SNRIs, clonazepam,
                atypical antipsychotic medications, gapapentin, pregabalin,
                anticonvulsants, NSAIDs, corticosteroids, opioids, mu-
                opioids (e.g., tramadol), muscle relaxants/antispasmodics,
                and benzodiazepine receptor antagonists (e.g., zolpidem);
                and
        --Behavioral: Addiction Medicine counseling, Psychologic counseling
                (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, guided imagery,
                other relaxation techniques).
        Question. Does the Navy track rates of addiction to prescription
    pain killers among wounded warriors--how would you know if you had a
    problem?
        Answer. The EpiData Center at the Navy and Marine Corps Public
    Health Center (NMCPHC) in Portsmouth, Virginia, currently provides a
    monthly prescription burden report for Marine specialty groups, and
    provides this report for the Navy and Marine Corps on a semiannual
    basis. The report includes an assessment of chronic prescription pain
    medication use. The report does not define addiction to prescription
    pain medications, but rather is used by local units to determine at
    their level if further action is needed.
        The Navy Health Research Center (NHRC) in San Diego, California, is
    also able to look at trends in diagnoses for opioid addiction and may
    be able to cross-reference this with prescription reissuance patterns
    as that capability continues to build through NHRC's new pharmaceutical
    use project.
        Question. Peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that servicemembers who
    incorporate complementary medicine for pain management rely less on
    prescriptions for pain management. Do you see promise for a more
    widespread application of this program?
        Answer. As noted, Navy Medicine is committed to expansion of
    Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) to enable and promote a
    comprehensive biopsychosocial approach to management of pain by Navy
    healthcare providers. Please see above answers for details.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                           hyperbaric oxygen therapy
        Question. Admiral Nathan, I understand that $8.6 million is
    included to fund a clinical trial using hyperbaric oxygen therapy to
    diagnose and treat brain injury. What is your experience with this
    therapy? Do you think it has merit in treating traumatic brain injury?
        Answer. The study for which this referenced funding will provide
    support is being administered and managed by the U.S. Army Medical
    Research and Material Command. Naval facilities at Camp Pendleton and
    at Camp Lejeune are participating in this study as centers where
    enrolled volunteers will be evaluated. To date, there is no outcome
    data available from this study.
        Naval facilities at Camp Lejeune, as well as at Pensacola and
    Panama City, Florida, are also participating in a DARPA-funded dose
    ranging study, conducted by the Naval Operational Medical Institute
    (NOMI), the McGuire VA Medical Center in Richmond, and the Virginia
    Commonwealth University. The study has recruited 60 percent of its
    volunteers, essentially all from Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. The
    target completion date is October 2012.
        As of March 28, 2012, there are no data to report from either of
    these two studies. There is, therefore, still no outcome information
    from well-designed, adequately controlled medical research which would
    support the safety and efficacy of use of hyperbaric oxygen for
    traumatic brain injury.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Patricia Horoho
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                   corps chief position legislative proposal
        Question. Since 2003, the Nurse Corps Chief position for each of
    the Services has been authorized as a two-star billet. The Department
    recently sent over a legislative proposal that would reduce the Corps
    Chief position to the one-star level. General Horoho, how has the
    increase in rank benefited the Army Nurse Corps?
        Answer. The rank of Major General afforded the Corps Chief the
    greater impact to sponsor great strides in the advancement of our
    mission in serving America's sons and daughters. A change in the Corps
    Chief's rank will not change the mission nor the importance of Army
    Nursing and our commitment of excellence in nursing care to our
    servicemembers and families will remain steadfast. There are many
    opportunities within the U.S. Army Medical Department (AMEDD) for
    nurses to cultivate leadership experience. The Army has a strong
    developmental path for its leaders, regardless of area of
    concentration.
                                    tricare
        Question. The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget assumes $452
    million in savings based on new TRICARE enrollment fees and increases
    in co-pays for prescription drugs. General Horoho, did the Department
    consider more modest fee increases for enrollment and prescription
    drugs than the significant fees proposed in the budget? Realizing the
    current difficult fiscal environment, is it fair to levy these
    prescription drug fees on our uniformed men and women who have been at
    war for more than 10 years?
        Answer. I must defer to the Department of Defense (DOD) to comment
    on any alternative strategies they may have used to develop this
    proposal.
        The proposal to raise pharmacy retail and mail order co-pays does
    not affect the Active Duty servicemember. The co-pays apply only to
    retirees and family members in order to encourage the use of mail order
    and generic drugs. Understanding the concern for the rising cost of
    medications to beneficiaries and realizing that a continual rise in
    medication costs to DOD jeopardizes the benefit for all, Army Medicine
    is developing a plan to promote beneficiaries' return to the military
    treatment facility for prescription fills for no or low medication
    costs. Increasing formularies, improving access to pharmacies, and
    providing pharmacists for medication counseling are a few steps towards
    accomplishing this goal.
        Question. General Horoho, the structure of the proposed TRICARE
    pharmacy co-pays strongly incentivizes members to fill their
    prescriptions at pharmacies within military treatment facilities. Yet
    we continue to hear concerns about the current wait times at numerous
    pharmacies. What steps are being taken to alleviate wait times, and
    will current facilities be able to process an increase in
    prescriptions?
        Answer. Initiatives currently underway that ease military treatment
    facility wait times include workflow process changes, permitting
    patients to drop off prescriptions and return at later times, and
    physician-faxed prescriptions. These are a few ways that allow the
    pharmacies to increase workload without affecting wait times. Plans are
    in place to expand pharmacy staffing as workload increases. Expansion
    of Community Based Medical Homes (CBMH) will shift workload from the
    main pharmacies providing the opportunity to recapture prescriptions at
    the current facilities. The pharmacies in CBMH can also provide support
    to beneficiaries in their community, offering another avenue for
    filling prescriptions.
                                  suicide rate
        Question. General Horoho, the Services are seeking to provide early
    identification and treatment of psychological health through a number
    of initiatives; yet suicides throughout the military, and especially in
    the Army, continue to rise. In 2011, Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve
    soldiers took their lives at a record high rate. What more can we be
    doing for our servicemembers to ensure they are receiving the necessary
    behavioral and mental healthcare in order to reverse this disturbing
    trend?
        Answer. The Army's Behavioral Health System of Care continues to
    explore ways to improve behavioral health services. The BHSOC currently
    has an extensive array of behavioral health services and wellness
    resources available to address the strain on servicemembers and their
    families throughout the Army Force Generation Cycle. Soldiers and
    family members have additional counseling options and other avenues to
    deal with stress through Army Chaplain services, Military One Source,
    in-theater combat and operational stress programs, psychological school
    programs, Army Community Service programs, and the Comprehensive
    Soldier Fitness program. Included in the BHSOC is the roll out of new
    and innovative evidenced based programs such as Embedded Behavioral
    Health in Brigade Combat Teams, Patient Centered Medical Homes and
    School Behavioral Health that will significantly change how we provide
    support to our soldiers and families.
               recruitment and retention of medical professionals
        Question. General Horoho, part of the challenge of recruiting
    medical professionals is the divide between private sector and military
    compensation for health specialties. Given the increasing fiscal
    constraints the Department is facing in the coming years, how will you
    manage your resources to sustain the medical professionals required to
    care for servicemembers and their families? Beyond the compensation
    gap, what other challenges do you face in recruiting and retaining a
    sufficient number of both military and civilian healthcare personnel?
        Answer. Entry into the future fiscally constrained environment will
    present challenges to any increase in the scope or dollar amounts of
    special pays. However, by targeting accession and retention bonuses, in
    coordination with sister services, the Army anticipates success in the
    recruitment of health professionals. DOD has recently delegated the
    authority to use an expedited hiring authority for 38 medical
    occupations. We are working to implement this new appointment
    authority.
        Nationwide shortages of highly trained health professionals remain
    a top challenge to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) in the
    recruitment of physicians, dentists and behavioral health
    professionals. Our student programs continue to be the lifeblood of our
    accession pipeline and accessions into these programs are doing well.
    We continue to partner with USAREC to insure all avenues are addressed
    with regard to recruitment of the necessary personnel to sustain the
    force.
                             military health system
        Question. General Horoho, earlier this month the Department
    released its final decision on the structure of the Military Health
    System. The Department decided on a proposal to combine the
    administration and management of the Military Health System into a
    Defense Health Agency. What advantages and challenges do you see to the
    jointness among the Services proposed in the new governance strategy?
        Answer. This recommendation represents an opportunity to achieve
    cost savings through reduction of duplication and variation, while
    accelerating the implementation of shared services, identify and
    proliferate common clinical and business practices, and develop
    entirely new approaches to delivering shared activities. I am
    encouraged by the potential benefits achieved by this plan and support
    the DOD's plan to move iteratively towards increased jointness.
                                  medical home
        Question. General Horoho, the Services continue to transition
    patients to a medical home model. This concept organizes health
    professionals into teams to provide a more comprehensive primary
    approach. Each patient's personal physician leads the team and serves
    as a continuous point of contact for care. The Army's new community-
    based medical homes are located off-post in communities in order to
    provide increased capacity for primary care. What are the Army's plans
    to expand this program, and when will it be available service-wide?
        Answer. The Army currently has 17 medical home practices in
    operation in our military treatment facilities (MTF) and 13 community-
    based medical homes open in the communities where our Army families
    live. By the end of this calendar year, 49 additional MTF-based medical
    home practices and 5 more community-based medical homes will open. The
    Army will ultimately transform 100 percent of its primary care to the
    medical home model by the end of calendar year 2014. We are also
    implementing this capability in our TO&E facilities.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                   mefloquine
        Question. In 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) published
    research that showed that approximately 1 in 7 servicemembers with
    mental health contraindications had been prescribed mefloquine contrary
    to the instructions in the package insert guidance, including to
    servicemembers taking anti-depressants and with serious mental health
    conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. This research went
    on to highlight that such use may have significantly increased the risk
    of serious harm among those who had been misprescribed the drug.
        What research has the Army undertaken to determine whether this
    trend has been reversed, and what efforts has the Army undertaken to
    identify and follow-up on those who were misprescribed the drug, to
    determine whether they may be suffering from the adverse effects of its
    use? Can the Army assure us that this group has not experienced more
    significant problems associated with this misprescribing?
        Answer. The U.S. Army Pharmacovigilance Center (USAPC) conducts
    continual review of data for:
      --the potential mis-prescribing of mefloquine with psychiatric
            medications;
      --the potential mis-prescribing in those servicemembers with a
            diagnosis of psychiatric illness; and
      --the acceptable use of mefloquine in those patients with a recent
            (within 1 year) history of psychiatric medication use.
        The USAPC will evaluate the risk of mefloquine use and subsequent
    psychiatric medication prescription or a psychiatric diagnosis.
        Question. What epidemiological research is currently underway to
    investigate the short- and long-term effects of exposure to mefloquine?
    Can you tell me what is the total amount of funding devoted to these
    projects?
        Answer. There is no funded epidemiology research at this time by
    the U.S. Army Medical Research Material Command to investigate the
    short- and long-term effects of exposure to mefloquine. The Army
    Medical Department has not provided training on mefloquine to Defense
    Center of Excellence or National Intrepid Center of Excellence.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                       support for nonmedical caregivers
        Question. Military family members already make incredible
    sacrifices to support both the solider deployed and the wounded warrior
    at home. Since 2001, nearly 2 million troops have deployed in support
    of Operation Enduring Freedom and/or Operation Iraqi Freedom; of those,
    nearly 800,000 have deployed more than once. There are nearly 48,000
    wounded warriors from the 10 years of war. For many wounded warriors,
    their spouses and extended families become the front line of care for
    their rehabilitation and recovery. These nonmedical caregivers have to
    choose between their critically injured relative and their careers,
    children, and financial well-being.
        What has the Army done to enhance care for family members of
    wounded soldiers?
        Answer. Caregivers are authorized medical care in a military
    treatment facility (MTF) while in nonmedical attendant (NMA) status.
    The Army recognizes the difficulties our wounded warrior primary
    caregivers face on a daily basis. If NMA is a dependent of the wounded
    warrior, they are entitled to the full range of behavioral health
    services the Army has to offer to support their needs. Additionally,
    the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered
    servicemember are entitled to take up to 26 workweeks of leave during a
    ``single 12-month period'' to care for a seriously injured or ill
    covered servicemember under new military family leave provisions.
        Additionally, on August 31, 2011, the Department of Defense
    authorized the Special Compensation for Assistance with Activities of
    Daily Living (SCAADL). The Army issued its SCAADL implementing guidance
    on November 21, 2011. The program is applicable to all soldiers--
    Active, National Guard, and Army Reserve. The SCAADL stipend provides a
    monthly payment to the soldier to support the caregiver. The basis for
    the level of payment is the severity of the soldier's wound, injury, or
    ailment, the amount of caregiver support required, and the geographic
    location of the soldier. Since implementing the SCAADL stipend, the
    Army has made payments to 347 families. As of May 4, 2012, 310 soldiers
    are currently receiving the SCAADL stipend, with an average payment of
    $1,473 per month.
        Question. What training does the nonmedical caregiver receive to
    ensure continuity of care for their wounded warrior once that soldier
    makes a transition to home?
        Answer. In early April 2012, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    Wounded Warrior Care and Transition Policy drafted a memorandum of
    understanding between the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
    Readiness and the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health
    Administration (VHA) for the purpose of having VHA, through their
    contract provider (Easter Seals), provide training for the caregivers
    assisting eligible catastrophic servicemembers in the SCAADL program.
        Also in early April 2012, the Easter Seals mailed training
    workbooks and CDs to each Army Warrior Transition Unit for distribution
    to the caregivers of soldiers in the process of transition from the
    Army to the VA. Before the VA will certify a caregiver, the caregiver
    must pass a test and the VA will conduct an in-home visit of the
    location where the soldier and caregiver will reside.
        The training workbooks have six modules:
      --caregiver self-care;
      --home safety;
      --caregiver skills;
      --veteran/servicemember personal care;
      --managing changing behaviors; and
      --resources.
        Question. What support do they receive to ensure they can maintain
    their own psychological health and well-being through this process?
        Answer. The Army recognizes the difficulty of wounded warrior
    primary caregivers. If a nonmedical attendant is a dependent of the
    wounded warrior, they are entitled to the full range of behavioral
    health services the Army has to offer to support their needs.
    Additionally, the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the
    covered servicemember are entitled to take up to 26 workweeks of leave
    during a ``single 12-month period'' to care for a seriously injured or
    ill covered Servicemember under new military family leave provisions.
        Many family members who serve as nonmedical caregivers are eligible
    for care in the military health system. These family members have
    access to direct and purchased care providers to address their personal
    psychological health and well-being. Members of the soldier's extended
    family who would not normally be eligible for care in the direct care
    system and who do not have private healthcare coverage may apply for
    access to care through the Secretary of Defense.
        Licensed Clinical Social Workers and Nurse Case Managers are
    required to assess potential family issues with each wounded warrior
    encounter as part of their standard of practice. Both Licensed Clinical
    Social Workers and Nurse Case Managers encourage family/caregiver
    participation in the rehabilitation and recovery process which enhances
    the ability to assess the needs of the nonmedical caregiver.
        Every Warrior Transition Unit has a Family Readiness Support
    Assistant. This individual is charged with reaching out to nonmedical
    caregivers to assess their needs and provide resiliency and support
    activities for spouses and extended families.
        We acknowledge that additional emphasis must be placed on the care
    of the caregiver. In November 2011, Army Family Action Plan Conference
    participants raised caregiver support as a formal issue for the Army to
    address. The Army Family Action Plan recommendation was to implement
    formal standardized, face-to-face training for designated caregivers of
    wounded warriors on self-care, stress reduction, burnout, and
    prevention of abuse/neglect. In June 2012, all Army Nurse Case Managers
    will begin receiving training in Caregiver Support. Nurse Case Managers
    will be educated on how to assess and train caregivers using the same
    training required by VA prior to receiving caregiver compensation in
    order to enhance lifelong learning and further reduce the training
    burden on caregivers. Following the training, Nurse Case Managers
    caring for wounded warriors will be required to invite caregivers in
    for an individual assessment, education using the Easter Seals training
    workbook, and potential referral to the Licensed Clinical Social Worker
    and/or other appropriate resources.
        Question. What has the Army done to leverage the help the private
    sector can provide?
        Answer. The Army recognizes the difficulty of wounded warrior
    primary caregivers. Dependents of wounded warriors are entitled to the
    full range of services the Army has to offer to support their needs.
    These services include those services available to Army beneficiaries
    in the private sector. Additionally, the spouse, son, daughter, parent,
    or next of kin of the covered servicemember are entitled to take up to
    26 workweeks of leave during a ``single 12-month period'' to care for a
    seriously injured or ill covered servicemember under new military
    family leave provisions.
                        mental health care provider gap
        Question. Former Vice Chief of Army, General Chiarelli has recently
    talked about a shortage in behavioral/mental healthcare providers. A
    2011 report by American Psychological Association found a 22-percent
    decrease in uniformed clinical psychologists and further characterized
    the approach to helping soldiers and families as a ``patchwork.'' There
    are not enough behavioral health specialists and those who are serving
    are completely overwhelmed by the level of work they have. Furthermore,
    the Guard and Reserve forces have been hit particularly hard by mental
    health issues. A 2011 study found nearly 20 percent of returning
    reservists had mental health problems serious enough for follow-up.
    Guard and Reservists are 55 percent more likely than Active Duty
    members to have mental health problems. Compounding the problem,
    Reservists lack access to the system or networks that experts say are
    needed to assess and treat their injuries.
        Do you have the workforce you need; whether it's mental healthcare
    providers or integrative medicine practitioners--such as
    acupuncturists?
        Answer. Behavioral health remains one of the Army's hardest to fill
    specialties. Specific shortage areas include psychiatrists, social
    workers, and technicians. Emerging capability needs related to
    integrative medicine, the Integrated Disability Evaluation System,
    Patient Centered Medical Homes, and brigade combat team embedded
    behavioral health will require additional providers.
        Question. Does the military health budget address the behavioral
    health providers?
        Answer. Yes, the Defense Health Program provides funding for
    Behavioral Health (BH) providers. The Army Medical Command has an
    historic base budget of more than $125 million for civilian BH
    providers. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget sustains an
    additional $184 million in funding for psychological health
    requirements that includes BH providers (among other BH operating
    costs, including facilities). Further, there is an additional $20.8
    million for BH providers as part of our Patient Centered Medical Home
    initiative; $24 million for our Embedded Behavioral Health initiative;
    and another $21 million for BH providers supporting the Integrated
    Disability Evaluation System.
        Question. What are you doing to attract and retain more mental
    healthcare providers?
        Answer. There are numerous programs to attract mental health
    providers to the Active military force. The Critical Wartime Skills
    Accession Bonus allows us to offer a psychiatrist an accession bonus of
    $272,000 for a 4-year commitment. There are accession and retention
    bonus programs for Clinical Psychiatrists and the Accession Bonus
    Program for Social Work officers. We have expanded our training
    programs to attract more recent graduates into service to accomplish
    the years of supervision required to become independent practitioners.
    Certified Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners are eligible for Incentive
    Special Pays.
        The MEDCOM has been successful in civilian recruiting and retention
    efforts by focusing on recruiting and retention incentives, an
    aggressive outreach recruitment program, and the addition of civilian
    students in the Fayetteville State Masters of Social Work Program. The
    MEDCOM has centralized the recruitment process for mission critical
    specialties, and that effort has reduced the fill time for hiring.
                           addiction to prescriptions
        Question. Reliance on prescription cocktails to handle mental and
    pain management is having serious negative consequences amongst our
    military servicemembers. Recent studies have found that veterans with
    PTSD were most likely to be prescribed opioids as compared with vets
    with no mental health disorder--33.5 percent compared with 6.5 percent.
    Accidental drug deaths have doubled from 2001-2009, while prescriptions
    for painkillers are up 438 percent since 2001. Furthermore, nearly 30
    percent of Army suicides between 2005 and 2010 included drug and/or
    alcohol use.
        Should the military medical community examine its reliance on
    narcotics to control pain among wounded warriors?
        Answer. The 2010 Army Pain Management Task Force examined not only
    military medicine's but U.S. medicine's overreliance on medication-only
    treatment for pain. The Pain Management Task Force Report made more
    than 100 recommendations to provide a comprehensive pain management
    strategy that was holistic, multidisciplinary, and multimodal. The Army
    has been implementing these recommendations through the Army
    Comprehensive Pain Management Campaign Plan which includes efforts to
    ensure proper use/monitoring of medication use and significant
    expansion of nonmedication pain treatment modalities.
        In June 2011, the Institute of Medicine released the report
    entitled, ``Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming
    Prevention, Care, Education, and Research''. The IOM report confirmed
    that overreliance on medication-only management of pain was an issue
    plaguing medicine in the U.S. and certainly not unique to the military.
    In addition to referencing the Army Pain Management Task Force, the IOM
    report's findings and recommendations largely paralleled those
    contained in the Army Pain Management Task Force Report.
        Question. What alternative options of pain management does the Army
    have in place to give doctors a choice to lessen the use of
    prescription pain killers?
        Answer. The Army's Comprehensive Pain Management Campaign Plan is
    operationalizing the Army Pain Management Task Force recommendations to
    move toward a more holistic, multidisciplinary, and multimodal
    treatment of pain. This includes standardizing availability and
    utilization of traditional treatment modalities such as medications,
    interventional procedures (injections, nerve blocks, and surgeries) and
    several nontraditional complementary modalities (acupuncture, movement
    therapy (Yoga), Biofeedback, and medical massage therapy).
        Army Medicine is developing capability and experience in providing
    multidisciplinary and multimodal pain management at eight
    interdisciplinary pain management centers and their subordinate pain
    augmentation teams.
        Question. Does the Army track rates of addiction to prescription
    pain killers among wounded warriors--how would you know if you had a
    problem?
        Answer. The Army tracks rates of positive urine drug screens among
    soldiers that represent abuse of illicit and prescription medications.
    The Army also tracks the number of soldiers enrolled for treatment of
    substance use disorders. In addition, the Army has put into place
    policies and practices to provide closer monitoring and support of our
    wounded warriors who require treatment for their multiple medical and
    behavioral health conditions, which often includes medications such as
    painkillers and anti-anxiety medications that have abuse potential.
    Because these policies and practices are in place, we have a better
    chance of detecting prescription drug abuse and identifying soldiers in
    need of intervention and treatment.
        Question. Peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that servicemembers who
    incorporate complementary medicine for pain management rely less on
    prescriptions for pain management. Do you see promise for a more
    widespread application of this program?
        Answer. Yes, the Army is developing capability and experience in
    providing multidisciplinary and multimodal pain management at eight
    interdisciplinary pain management centers (IPMC) and their subordinate
    pain augmentation teams. The Army's Comprehensive Pain Management
    Campaign Plan (CPMCP) is operationalizing the Army Pain Management Task
    Force recommendations to move toward a more holistic,
    multidisciplinary, and multimodal approach to the treatment of pain.
    This includes standardizing availability and utilization of traditional
    treatment modalities such as medications, interventional procedures
    (injections, nerve blocks, and surgeries), and several nontraditional
    complementary modalities (acupuncture, movement therapy (Yoga),
    Biofeedback, and medical massage therapy).
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                           hyperbaric oxygen therapy
        Question. General Horoho, I understand that $8.6 million is
    included to fund a clinical trial using hyperbaric oxygen therapy to
    diagnose and treat brain injury. What is your experience with this
    therapy? Do you think it has merit in treating traumatic brain injury?
        Answer. Case reports have suggested symptomatic improvement and
    more modest cognitive improvement in some individuals, but properly
    designed clinical trials results are still lacking. Departments of
    Defense (DOD), Veterans Affairs (VA) leaders, and medical professional
    societies such as the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Association and
    recently the American Psychiatric Association have cautioned that the
    results of randomized, controlled trials are needed before merit in
    treating mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) can be established. In
    order to evaluate the merit of this potential therapy, the DOD is
    continuing to fund and execute a series of clinical trials to evaluate
    hyperbaric oxygen in the rehabilitation of mTBI.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Major General Kimberly Siniscalchi
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              joint nursing issues
        Question. General Siniscalchi, how are lessons-learned from joint
    experiences being leveraged to improve the military health system and
    ultimately improving health outcomes?
        Answer. Lessons learned from Joint experiences have enabled us to
    focus our efforts on improving the Military Health System and health
    outcomes by enhancing interoperability through continued partnering
    with our Sister Services, Veterans Administration, Civilian Healthcare
    facilities, and other Federal agencies. The Federal Nursing Chiefs are
    meeting on a regular basis to address common nursing challenges and
    have developed a strategic plan to advance nursing practice and improve
    health outcomes, acting as a single voice with a common mission. We
    continuously strive to decrease variance in patient care delivery as we
    focus on efficiencies to reduce redundancies to advance the Quadruple
    Aim: Ready, Better Health, Better Care, and Best Value.
        Lessons learned from these experiences also refocused our attention
    on clinical currency, competency, and sustainment. We built enhanced
    partnerships with Federal and civilian healthcare facilities to ensure
    our nurses have robust clinical sustainment training platforms. In
    2011, we established 180 training affiliation agreements, 39 of which
    were specifically for nursing. We are working to enhance clinical
    sustainment training at our Sustainment of Trauma and Resuscitation
    Skills Program sites. Training on burn care and pediatric critical care
    was added to our Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills
    Centers. To further improve health outcomes based on lessons learned,
    we changed our clinical skill mix by increasing critical care,
    emergency/trauma, mental health, and aeromedical evacuation capability.
    Our 1-year critical care and emergency/trauma fellowships are
    undergoing major transformations and will be ready to implement in
    2013. Our overall number of mental health nurses and mental health
    nurse practitioners were increased and new roles developed in both the
    inpatient and outpatient settings. The new mental health course was
    established at Travis Air Force Base and the mental health nurse
    practitioner program was established at Uniformed Services University
    of the Health Sciences.
        Our most significant changes, based on lessons learned, were in the
    area of aeromedical evacuation. Overall requirements for flight nurses
    and aeromedical technicians were increased. The aeromedical evacuation
    training platform was redesigned into a modularized, efficient training
    pipeline with increased proficiency levels and overall reduction in
    training by 130 days. New clinical protocols for the use of epidural
    pain management in aeromedical evacuation were established and fielded.
    New research projects in collaboration with Wright State University,
    Dayton, Ohio, Air Mobility Command, and the USAF School of Aerospace
    Medicine were started to improve safe patient hand-offs.
                            nursing research issues
        Question. General Siniscalchi, the TriService Nursing Research
    Program (TSNRP) has supported innovations in nursing care through
    competitive grant programs such as the Military Clinician-Initiated
    Research Award and the Graduate Evidence-Based Practice Award. What are
    some of the military unique topics that have benefited from these grant
    programs?
        Answer. The TSNRP is the only program with the primary mission of
    funding military unique and military relevant nursing research studies.
    Since its beginning in 1992, the TSNRP has funded more than 315 nursing
    research and evidenced-based practice projects. Under Air Force Colonel
    Marla De Jong's leadership, the TSNRP established the Military
    Clinician-Initiated Research Award and the Graduate Evidence-Based
    Practice Award. The Military Clinician-Initiated Research Award is
    targeted to nurse clinicians who are well-positioned to identify
    clinically important research questions and conduct research to answer
    these questions under the guidance of a mentor. The Graduate Evidence-
    Based Practice Award is intended for Doctor of Nursing Practice
    students who will implement the principles of evidence-based practice
    and translate research evidence into clinical practice, policy, and/or
    military doctrine. It is critical that the award recipients disseminate
    the results of their studies so that leaders, educators, and clinicians
    can apply findings to practice, policy, education, and military
    doctrine as appropriate. The goal of this grant is to enhance the
    dissemination and uptake of evidence.
        Some of the areas in which research was conducted this year
    include:
      --pain management;
      --patient safety;
      --post-traumatic stress; and
      --women's health.
        Research initiatives in patient safety and pain management
    demonstrated improvement in the safety, quality of care, and management
    of pain as patients move through aeromedical evacuation continuum.
    TSNRP is invaluable to these research initiatives that display our
    commitment to advance nursing practice by fostering a culture of
    inquiry.
                         patient-centered medical home
        Question. General Siniscalchi, how are nonadvanced practice nurses
    being utilized in advancing the Air Force Family Health Initiative to
    realize the DOD focus on Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) as a
    strategy aimed at improving health outcomes while improving
    efficiencies in care delivery within military treatment facilities?
        Answer. The focus of PCMH is to create a partnership between the
    patient and their healthcare team while empowering the patient with
    increased responsibility for self-care and monitoring to achieve their
    goals for health. Our nonadvanced team nurses are integral to the care
    management and the coordination of patients and focus on prevention and
    improved health outcomes. The team nurse ensures a smooth care
    transition as patients pass through the continuum of care.
    Additionally, they vector high-risk patients to be followed by disease
    or case managers. The expanded team nurses' roles include disease or
    case managers; who manage and coordinate care for a target population,
    or the more complex patients, to improve quality and health outcomes
    for these defined populations while advocating and incentivizing
    healthy behaviors. Implementation of PCMH has resulted in decreased
    emergent and urgent care visits; increased provider, patient, and staff
    satisfaction; increased provider continuity associated with better
    health outcomes; and an uncomplicated early transition from a focus on
    healthcare to health.
                            transition from wartime
        Question. General Siniscalchi, what specific retention strategies
    are being developed to entice the best junior and mid-level nurses to
    continue their nursing careers in uniform?
        Answer. We offer many programs to inspire our junior and mid-level
    nurses to remain on Active Duty. The Incentive Specialty Pay program
    continues to have a positive impact on retention. We have a robust
    developmental program for our nurses as they transition from novice to
    expert. The nurse residency program develops our nurse graduates into
    fully qualified registered nurses and prepares them for success in
    their new profession and military nursing. The Nurse Transition Program
    for new graduates is conducted at one of four Centers of Excellence,
    two of which are Magnet hospitals. Our developmental career path offers
    three tracks--clinical, command, and academia--giving nurses the
    ability to focus in any one of these three areas, while still allowing
    them to weave in and out at the junior and mid-level points in their
    career.
        Additional force development opportunities include fellowship
    programs such as critical care, trauma, patient safety, magnet
    recognitions, leadership, education and training, administration,
    strategic planning, resourcing, informatics, research, and aeromedical
    evacuation. We offer advanced academic degree programs such as clinical
    nurse specialist (CNS), nurse practitioner, and nurse scientist. We
    partnered with Wright State University, Ohio, in developing a Master's
    program for a Flight and Disaster Nursing CNS. Our first student
    graduates in May 2012. Nurses now have the opportunity to pursue a
    Doctorate of Nursing Practice in the of areas Mental Health, Family
    Nurse Practitioner and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, in
    partnership with the Uniformed Services of the Health Sciences.
    Deployment opportunities provide unique experiences, which were cited
    as ``the most rewarding experience'' in the 2010 Tri-Service Nursing
    Retention Survey. We continue to pursue training affiliations with our
    Federal partners, civilian institutions, and international partners in
    order to advance interoperability and skill sustainment.
                                     ______

            Questions Submitted to Rear Admiral Elizabeth S. Niemyer
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              joint nursing issues
        Question. Admiral Niemyer, in recent years we have witnessed the
    unprecedented alignment of efforts among service medical departments,
    between Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs
    (VA) medical departments, and between governmental and nongovernmental
    nurses to deliver care across the spectrum of military treatment
    facilities, during humanitarian assistance/disaster relief efforts, and
    wartime missions. What is being done to ensure lessons learned from
    these opportunities are embedded in future training evolutions?
        Answer. Joint and integrated work environments are now the ``new
    order'' of business. Navy Medicine enjoys strong collaborative
    relationships with the Army and Air Force, as well as VA and civilian
    counterparts. As leaders in Navy Medicine and the Military Healthcare
    System, Navy nurses possess the necessary skills and experience to
    promote, build and strengthen strategic partnerships with our military,
    Federal, and civilian counterparts to improve the healthcare of our
    beneficiaries.
        Within the military treatment facilities (MTFs), lessons learned
    are shared and implemented into various training evolutions. Nurse
    Residency Programs for newly accessioned nurses and command orientation
    programs are integrated and nurses new to military medicine and/or a
    joint facility are introduced into a joint culture from day one. The
    Directors for Nursing Services assigned to our joint facilities have
    provided video teleconferences throughout Navy MTFs to share lessons
    learned throughout the enterprise and respond to questions from the
    field which has also proven to be a vital educational format as we
    continue to refine a unified culture focused on clinical excellence and
    professionalism.
        A decade of war has resulted in numerous advancements in military
    medicine from lessons learned by all of the Services. These
    advancements are incorporated into clinical and operational training
    evolutions. Examples are the use of tourniquets and procedures for
    resuscitating casualties such as earlier use of blood products,
    medications such as QuikClot and Combat Gauze. The Tactical Combat
    Casualty Care Course has curriculum committee involvement for all
    Services, as well as civilian experts. Improvements in critical care
    transport and rapid Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) to definitive care has
    also been incorporated into training. Implementing lessons learned from
    the Air Force's Critical Care Air Transport Team (CCATT), the Navy is
    also training and using critical care physicians and nurses in theater
    to provide critical care transport.
                            nursing research issues
        Question. Admiral Niemyer, in last year's testimony you provided an
    overview of the Navy Nurse Corps' efforts to regionalize nursing
    research efforts and implement research training to junior officers.
    How have these efforts impacted current research activities?
        Answer. Fundamental to the growth and development of future nurse
    researchers is the availability of experienced mentors to guide and
    teach our junior nurses throughout the research process. To this end,
    we aligned our senior nurse researchers regionally to serve in this
    role. We have continued our efforts to ``invigorate nursing research''
    at all levels of the organization; however, we have focused additional
    efforts to promote a culture of clinical inquiry in our junior nurses.
        A team is completing the development of a 2-3 day course on
    implementing evidence-based practice which we plan to present in all
    three regions by July of this year. This course will educate junior
    nurses on the process of evaluating the existing body of nursing
    knowledge and apply this knowledge to improve their nursing practice
    and advance their skills in the care of patients at the bedside
    ultimately enhancing patient outcomes. Following this course
    completion, our regional researchers will mentor the course
    participants in the initiation of three multisite, regional evidence-
    based practice projects. The first annual Navy Nurse Corps recognition
    program to promote and acknowledge excellence in implementing evidence-
    based practice was launched in February of this year.
        As a result of these on-going efforts, we are seeing an increased
    level of interest in evidence-based practice and increased level of
    participation in nursing research projects among our junior nurses.
    Throughout our organization, there continues to be an overwhelming
    number of nurses participating in the Tri-Service Nursing Research
    Program Research (TSNRP) Development Course. Navy nurses authored more
    than 30 publications and provided more than 50 formal presentations at
    various professional forums and were awarded $1.5 million in TSNRP
    funds as principal investigators for numerous projects.
                         patient-centered medical home
        Question. Admiral Niemyer, how are advanced practice nurses being
    utilized to forward the Navy Medical Homeport to realize the DOD focus
    on Patient-Centered Medical Home to improve health outcomes while
    improving care delivery within military treatment facilities?
        Answer. Transformation to the Navy Medical Homeport (MHP) has
    changed how patients, team members and providers interact with one
    another. It uses an integrated healthcare team to deliver the right
    care, at the right time, by the right person leveraging the skills of
    all team members to deliver timely, easily accessible quality care.
        Advanced practice nurses are at the forefront of MHP implementation
    across our enterprise. As experienced Primary Care Managers within Navy
    Medicine, advanced practice nurses are expertly prepared to deliver the
    highest quality care with the tenets of wellness and preventive care at
    the center of every encounter. Many are serving as MHP Team Leaders and
    command champions. In these roles, they are leading the efforts towards
    achieving National Center for Quality Assurance (NCQA) recognition, the
    gold standard for recognition of medical home practices in the United
    States.
        Advanced practice nurses have always practiced patient- and family-
    centered care and will continue to be recognized leaders in this cost-
    effective, high-quality healthcare delivery model.
                            transition from wartime
        Question. Admiral Niemyer, Navy Medicine has been involved in
    several humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) operations
    utilizing hospital ships, combatant ships, and land forces over the
    past year. How has the Navy Nurse Corps applied wartime experiences to
    these noncombat missions?
        Answer. Navy nurses are integral members of diverse medical units
    throughout the Helmand and Nimroz Provinces in Afghanistan. They serve
    in medical units at forward operating bases, Shock Trauma Platoons
    (STPs), Forward Resuscitative Surgical Systems (FRSS), and the
    Multinational Medical Units in Bastion and Kandahar supporting the
    immediate pre-, intra-, and post-operative phases of care for injured
    combat casualties.
        In accordance with nationally recognized trauma scales, patients
    treated at the Role 3 in Bastion typically had injuries scoring twice
    as high as those seen in a Level 1 trauma center in the United States.
    The advanced clinical expertise and technical skills of nurses gained
    through their wartime experience have significantly contributed to the
    unprecedented survival rates of greater than 95 percent. The expertise
    from wartime experience of our emergency/trauma, critical care,
    medical/surgical, pediatrics, neonatal intensive care, nurse
    anesthesia, and nurse practitioner specialties is also vital to the
    provision of outstanding patient care during HA/DR missions.
        Navy nurses are also trained and supported the theater's enroute
    care mission providing medical support in rotary wing airframes during
    the transport of casualties to higher levels of care. This skill set is
    also necessary for the critical care transport and rapid medical
    evacuation necessary in HA/DR missions.
        Navy nurses are primary members of medical stability operations on
    Embedded Training and Provincial Reconstruction Teams and served as
    mentors and teachers for Afghan military and civilian medical
    personnel. They gained experience in working with NATO members and
    other services, as well as Afghanistan civilians forging collaborative
    and trusting relationships to improve healthcare delivery systems. This
    is also a crucial skill set gained through wartime experience
    invaluable during HA/DR missions to build relationships with our host
    nation partners and strengthen U.S. maritime security and ultimately
    improving capability to work together with partner nations in the event
    of a future disaster.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted to Major General Jimmie O. Keenan
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                           patient care touch system
        Question. General Keenan, the Army Nurse Corps launched the Patient
    Care Touch System in February 2011. How has this approach to nursing
    practice been integrated with the Army Patient-Centered Medical Home
    (PCMH) delivery model?
        Answer. Patient Caring Touch System and PCMH are complimentary
    systems. Facilities that are implementing PCMH report that they
    integrate well and report that the similarities of the team concept
    facilitate transition of other members of the team, and nursing becomes
    an important advocate of change. Shared accountability and the unit
    practice councils help the PCMH team to develop policies and practices
    and processes that are common to both systems and enables improvements
    in communication and multidisciplinary collaboration.
                           training army nurse corps
        Question. General Keenan, how has the Army Nurse Corps been changed
    by 10 years of war and what steps are being taken to ensure the best of
    the experiences are capitalized upon in training tomorrow's Army Nurse
    Corps?
        Answer. Based upon lessons learned and data in theater, Army Nurses
    are prepared for deployment by completing individual clinical training.
    We have developed new nursing skill sets and capabilities such as
    revision of our critical care nurse training to improve trauma care as
    well as training our nurses to provide MEDEVAC transport. To ensure
    capability gaps are addressed in future operations, Army nurses have
    developed a comprehensive set of policies that address training,
    equipping, sustainment and practice protocols. The Army Nurse Corps
    assigns a senior nurse to the Medical Task Force, who is responsible
    for collaborating with nurses to ensure standards of nursing care are
    in compliance in a deployed environment.
        The Army Nurse Corps has transformed Army Nursing Leader Training
    through the design and implementation of a career-long iterative group
    of courses, guided by nationally accepted nurse leader competencies and
    the Patient Caring Touch System, and gauged by the Leader Capability
    Map.
                          nurses: service integration
        Question. General Keenan, focusing specifically on the treatment
    facilities impacted by base realignment and closure (BRAC), how are
    nurses from the different services being integrated to deliver seamless
    care to beneficiaries?
        Answer. The joint facilities created by BRAC offer the opportunity
    for the services to collaborate in improving patient care just as we
    have in 10 years of war together. Many of our officers served in a
    joint environment overseas and can leverage that experience working at
    our joint treatment facilities in the continental United States.
        Nurses are integrated at all levels of the organization and are
    delivering seamless care to beneficiaries. Army, Navy, and Air Force
    nurses work side-by-side in clinical environments at Fort Belvoir
    Community Hospital and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
    From orientation programs, ongoing training, committee work, and
    process improvement teams to middle and executive level leadership,
    nurses from all services collaborate in a very deliberate and
    integrated environment to provide the best quality care.
        Question. General Keenan, over the course of history nurses have
    risen to the challenges of war providing invaluable contributions that
    have had long-lasting impacts on healthcare. As our Nation has been at
    war for the past 10 years, what are some of the significant research
    findings military nurses have contributed to the body of professional
    knowledge with applications away from the battlefield?
        Answer. The Army Nurse Corps is fully engaged in military research
    related to war. We have nurses assigned to the U.S. Army Institute of
    Surgical Research (USAISR) which is working to develop lessons learned
    from the data they have collected from 10 years of war. At USAISR,
    there is a cell dedicated to Combat Casualty Care Nursing Research.
        We also have nurses deployed with the Joint Theatre Trauma System
    team and the Deployed Combat Casualty Research Team. LTC Elizabeth
    Mann, of the USAISR, recently co-authored a study on mortality
    associated with sepsis in burn and trauma patients, which is one of
    many studies she has been involved with dealing with the challenges
    with the critically ill patients we have seen return from theatre. The
    Army Nurse Corps is proactively changing and improving our nursing
    practice based on the lessons learned.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. The subcommittee will reconvene on
    Wednesday, April 18, at 10:30 a.m. to receive testimony from
    the Missile Defense Agency. Until then, we stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., Wednesday, March 28, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, April 18.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Cochran, Shelby, and Alexander.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Missile Defense Agency

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

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. Good morning. Today, we are pleased to
    welcome Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, Director of the
    Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to discuss the administration's
    fiscal year 2013 budget request.
        While we scheduled this year's hearing several months ago,
    it could not be more timely given the events that transpired
    last week. The attempted North Korean rocket launch serves as a
    stark reminder of potential threats to our homeland. I know the
    operational demands the Nation places on you.
        In fiscal year 2013, MDA is requesting $7.75 billion, a
    reduction of more than $650 million from amounts appropriated
    in the last fiscal year. This request supports a viable
    homeland defense, enhances European regional defenses,
    continues testing the current system, and develops new
    capabilities to address new threats.
        Like all of our defense and other Federal Government
    agencies, we're asking you to continue to perform your vital
    mission in a fiscally constrained environment. Your agency has
    several significant programs underway that I'm certain you will
    address this morning.
        In particular, I look forward to hearing an update on
    progress you have made after two successive test failures of
    the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. As you well
    know, the threat to our Nation is not static, and this
    subcommittee will continue to fully support your efforts to
    return to flight successfully.
        In addition to the regional defense of our deployed troops
    and allies, MDA has begun implementation of a phased adaptive
    approach (PAA) by placing a forward-based radar in Turkey and
    deploying an Aegis ballistic missile defense ship in the
    Mediterranean.
        You have also made progress in the next phases of the PAA
    by negotiating important postnation agreements and by
    continuing to upgrade our Aegis ships.
        Therefore, we are concerned to hear about the Navy's
    proposed plans to prematurely retire some of its ships that
    were slated to be upgraded to a ballistic missile defense (BMD)
    capability. This will result in six fewer BMD capable ships
    than what you had projected just 1 year ago. I believe this is
    alarming given the evolving threat, and we would like to hear
    your thoughts on that proposal.
        The year 2012 marks the 10-year anniversary of MDA, and
    over this time, you have made technical progress to secure our
    homeland and our allies. As we look forward to future
    challenges coupled with limited resources, our Nation will
    continue to rely on your foresight and technical expertise.
        Before I proceed, I would like to recognize the Vice
    Chairman, Senator Cochran, for his remarks.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you,
    General O'Reilly, for being here with us today to review the
    President's budget request with respect to the next fiscal year
    for the Department of Defense (DOD).
        We, of course, are interested in trying to do our part to
    hold back on wasteful Government spending. That's kind of the
    word of the day, and constrains us, as we review the request
    being submitted to the Congress this year for DOD.
        But we know we have no more important undertaking than to
    safeguard the security of the citizens of the United States and
    to help protect our interests around the world.
        We do need to practice fiscal discipline, but our
    adversaries continue to develop medium- and long-range
    ballistic missiles that threaten our security, as well as the
    security of our deployed forces around the world. And our
    friends and allies are threatened as well.
        So we hope to explore with our witnesses before the
    subcommittee at our hearing the technological and fiscal
    challenges we face and undertake to do what is thoughtful and
    necessary to help continue to provide a multi-tiered, missile
    defense system to help protect these security interests.
        Thank you for being here today, and we look forward to our
    discussion about the MDA and what we can do to help support
    your best efforts.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my opening
    statement be made part of the record. I look forward to hearing
    from General O'Reilly. We had a nice meeting yesterday. Thank
    you for calling this hearing.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Alexander.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to hear
    the General, and I have no opening statement.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Sir.
        General.

          SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PATRICK J. O'REILLY

        General O'Reilly. Good morning.
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and other
    distinguished members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on the MDA's $7.75 billion fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget request to further develop our
    missile defenses against the increasing ballistic missile
    threat to our homeland, armed forces, allies, and international
    partners.
        This request balances our policies as documented in the
    2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, U.S. Strategic Command's
    Integrated Air and Missile Defense priorities, the MDA's
    technical feasibility assessments, affordability constraints
    and current intelligence community estimates of the ballistic
    missile threat.
        I describe our past year's accomplishments and detailed
    justification of this year's budget request in my written
    statement submitted to this subcommittee. However, I would like
    to highlight now that last year our homeland defense
    improvements included activating a new missile field and an
    additional fire control node at Fort Greely, Alaska, activating
    a newly upgraded early warning radar in Thule, Greenland, and
    upgrading the reliability of three ground-based interceptors
    (GBIs).
        This year, we continue to aggressively pursue the agency's
    highest priority, to conduct a missile intercept with the
    newest version of the GBI's exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV)
    after two previous flight test failures.
        We conducted a failure review board comprised of Government
    and industry experts, redesigned critical GBI EKV components,
    and established more stringent manufacturing and component
    requirements.
        These requirements had previously not been encountered
    anywhere in the aerospace industry. As a result of these
    stringent manufacturing requirements, we have encountered
    delays in preparing for our next flight test.
        MDA is fully committed to test the GMD system as soon and
    as often as possible. But we will not approve the execution of
    a flight test until our engineers and independent experts are
    convinced that we have resolved all issues discovered in
    previous testing.
        We will fly a nonintercept test by the end of this year to
    verify we have resolved all issues, and then we will conduct
    our next intercept flight test early next year to reactivate
    the GMD production line.
        We will also activate our hardened power plant at Fort
    Greely, Alaska, this year, and we will increase the firepower
    of the fielded GBI's by continuing to test and upgrade the
    reliability of GBI components.
        Finally, we will continue to increase the capability of the
    Sea-Based X-band Radar (SBX). But we have cost effectively
    limited its operation to flight testing and operational
    contingency support under the control of the U.S. Navy Pacific
    Fleet.
        Our regional defense highlights over the past year include
    the on-time deployment of the first phase of the European
    phased adaptive approach (EPAA) consisting of a command and
    control node in Germany, a forward-based radar in Turkey, and
    an Aegis missile defense ship on station in the Mediterranean
    Sea.
        During the past year, we demonstrated the first Aegis
    intercept of a 3,700 kilometer target using a remote forward-
    based radar and we demonstrated the simultaneous intercept of
    two missiles by the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
    system.
        This year, the first two THAAD batteries will be available
    for deployment, increasing the number of Aegis capable ships to
    29 and conduct of three Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) Block 1B
    flight tests to demonstrate the resolution of last year's
    flight test failure.
        And we will conduct the largest missile defense test in
    history involving the first simultaneous intercepts of multiple
    short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles
    by Patriot Advanced Capability 3, THAAD and Aegis BMD systems
    integrated with a forward-based radar.
        Finally, we continue to work with more than 20 countries
    including our Cooperative Development Programs with Israel and
    Japan, and our first foreign military sale of THAAD to the
    United Arab Emirates. And we continue to support technical
    discussions with the Russians on missile defense.
        While Phases 2 and 3 of the EPAA to missile defense are on
    track to meet the 2015 and 2018 deployment dates, the
    Government Accounting Office (GAO) has criticized concurrent
    production of prefabricated buildings to house the Aegis Ashore
    System for Romania prior to the completion of flight testing
    with the Aegis Ashore at the Pacific Missile Range in Hawaii.
        While I concur with the GAO that programs of high
    concurrency between testing, production and fielding such as
    the initial fielding of the GMD system have associated risks, I
    deem the risk of proceeding with the production of
    prefabricated buildings for the Aegis Ashore System, while
    flight testing, is a low risk, since all the functions of the
    Aegis Ashore System are identical to the functions of the Aegis
    System that have been thoroughly tested at sea.
        However, the cost of suspending Aegis Ashore production
    until all flight testing is completed will greatly increase the
    production costs, needlessly delay the deployment of the second
    phase of the EPAA production protection of Europe, and
    negatively impact the industrial base supporting the Aegis
    program.
        Finally, I'm concerned about delivering the critically
    needed and cost-effective missile defense sensor capability of
    the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) and the need to
    develop a second independent layer of homeland defense with the
    SM-3 IIB Interceptor due to past congressional funding
    reductions to both programs.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I request your support for these programs so that our
    homeland benefits from the same layered missile defense
    approach that we successfully employ in our regional defenses.
        Three industry teams are developing the SM-3 IIB
    Interceptor concepts that expand the forward edge of our
    homeland defense battle space and provide our war fighters a
    highly effective Shoot-Assess-Shoot anti-intercontinental
    ballistic missiles (ICBM) capability as endorsed by the recent
    Defense Science Board Study.
        Thank you, and I look forward to the subcommittee's
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Patrick J. O'Reilly
        Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
    to testify before you today on the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) $7.75
    billion fiscal year 2013 budget request to develop protection for our
    Nation, our Armed Forces, allies, and partners against the
    proliferation of increasingly capable ballistic missiles. The
    Department developed the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request in
    accordance with the February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review,
    which balanced war fighter needs as expressed in the U.S. Strategic
    Command (STRATCOM) Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD)
    Prioritized Capability List (PCL) with technical feasibility and
    affordability constraints and intelligence community updates. We
    continue to demonstrate and improve the integration of sensor, fire
    control, battle management, and interceptor systems that transforms
    individual missile defense projects into a Ballistic Missile Defense
    System (BMDS) capable of defeating large raids of a growing variety of
    ballistic missiles over the next decade. For homeland defense, last
    year we completed the construction of the Ground-based Midcourse
    Defense (GMD) infrastructure for protection of the U.S. homeland
    against future limited intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
    threats from current regional threats including the activation of our
    newest hardened missile field at Fort Greely, Alaska (FGA). This year,
    we will continue to aggressively pursue the MDA's highest priority--
    successful return to flight and intercept tests of the Capability
    Enhancement II (CE II) version of the ground-based interceptor (GBI).
    We will prepare for the next GMD nonintercept flight test by the end of
    this year and our next intercept early in the following year, activate
    the hardened power plant at FGA, prepare to restart the GBI production
    line, and aggressively conduct component testing and refurbish
    currently deployed missiles to test and improve their reliability. For
    regional defenses, last year we deployed phase 1 of the European phased
    adaptive approach (EPAA) consisting of a command and control, battle
    management system in Germany, forward-based radar in Turkey, and an
    Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) ship in the Eastern Mediterranean
    Sea. This year, we will have two operational Terminal High-Altitude
    Area Defense (THAAD) batteries, convert 5 Aegis ships and upgrade 1 for
    a total of 29 ships with BMD capability installed, and increase the
    number of associated Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptors. In our
    test program, we will conduct three flight tests of the SM-3 Block IB
    to demonstrate resolution of last year's flight test failure and its
    ability to intercept complex short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) (up
    to 1,000 km) targets. Finally, this year we will demonstrate the
    maturity of our layered regional defense with the first simultaneous
    intercepts of three short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and two
    cruise missiles by an integrated architecture of PATRIOT Advanced
    Capability 3 (PAC-3), THAAD, and Aegis BMD systems assisted by a remote
    Army/Navy Transportable Radar Surveillance 2 (AN/TPY-2) forward-based
    radar--the largest, most complex, live fire missile defense test in
    history.
                           enhancing homeland defense
        MDA's highest priority is the successful GMD intercept flight test
    of the newest GBI exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV)--the CE II EKV.
    Last year, we concluded the Failure Review Board (FRB) evaluation for
    the December 2010 FTG-06a flight test by identifying the most probable
    cause of the failure and revising the CE II EKV design to correct the
    problem. As a result of that FRB, we have redesigned critical GBI EKV
    components and established more stringent manufacturing and component
    test standards--standards previously not used anywhere in the U.S.
    aerospace industry. As a result of these stringent manufacturing
    standards, we have encountered several delays in preparing for our next
    nonintercept and intercept flight tests. MDA is fully committed to test
    the GMD system as soon and often as possible, but we will not approve
    executing a flight test until our engineers, and independent government
    and industry experts, have been convinced that we have resolved all
    issues discovered in previous testing and will be successful in our
    next test. Flight testing as often as possible is our goal, but we risk
    further failure if we conduct GMD testing prior to verification that we
    resolved problems discovered in previous flight tests. Also, conducting
    flight tests at a pace greater than once a year prohibits thorough
    analysis of premission and postmission flight test data and causes
    greater risk of further failure and setbacks to developing our homeland
    defense capability as rapidly as possible. If our CE II nonintercept
    (controlled test vehicle (CTV) flight) is not successful later this
    year, we will be prepared to conduct the next test of the previous
    version of the EKV (the CE I EKV) GBI test while we continue to resolve
    any CE II issues in order to continue to test other improvements in our
    homeland defense. Other improvements to homeland defense include:
      --the upgrades and integration of the Thule Early Warning Radar into
            the BMDS to view and track threats originating in the Middle
            East;
      --upgrade of three emplaced FGA GBIs as part of our on-going GMD
            fleet refurbishment and reliability enhancement program;
      --fielding improved GMD fire control software to allow testing or
            exercises to be conducted while simultaneously controlling the
            operational system; and
      --upgrading the FGA communications system.
        We activated Missile Field 2 earlier this year, thus increasing the
    number of total GBI operational silos to 38 (34 at FGA and 4 at
    Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California). This past December, we
    awarded the GMD Development and Sustainment contract, one of MDA's
    largest and most complex competitive acquisitions, with a price of
    almost $1 billion less than the independent government cost estimate.
    For the next 7 years, this $3.5 billion contract will provide for
    sustainment and operations as well as improvements and enhancements of
    the current capability, provide for a robust and vigorous testing
    program, and deliver new and upgraded interceptors. A key part of the
    scope of this new contract is comprehensive verification and
    reliability testing, and upgrades as needed, of every component of our
    GBIs. These component reliability improvements and tests will require 3
    years to complete and will provide the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM)
    commander convincing GBI reliability data resulting in a greater number
    of ICBMs that can be engaged with a higher probability of protection of
    our homeland.
        We are requesting $903.2 million in fiscal year 2013 in research,
    development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding for the GMD
    program. We plan to continue to upgrade our fleet of 30 operational
    GBIs and acquire 5 additional GBIs for enhanced testing, stockpile
    reliability, and spares, for a total of 57 GBIs. We will continue GBI
    component vendor requalifications for the future GBI avionics upgrade
    and obsolescence program.
        Today, 30 operational GBIs protect the United States against a
    limited ICBM raid size launched from current regional threats. If, at
    some point in the future, this capability is determined to be
    insufficient against a growing ICBM threat, it is possible that we can
    increase the operational GBIs' fire power by utilizing all 38
    operational silos, refurbishing our 6-silo prototype missile field, and
    accelerating the delivery of new sensor and interceptor capabilities.
    Additionally, our GBI reliability improvement program will enable more
    successful intercepts with fewer GBIs with the same probability of
    successful intercept. In fiscal year 2013, we will begin construction
    of the GBI In-Flight Interceptor Communication System Data Terminal
    (IDT) at Fort Drum, New York, with a completion date by 2015. The East
    Coast IDT will enable communication with GBIs launched from FGA and
    VAFB over longer distances, thus improving the defense of the Eastern
    United States. We will also continue to develop and assess the 2-stage
    GBI to preserve future deployment options, including an intercept
    flight test in fiscal year 2014.
        Because the defense of our homeland is our highest priority, we are
    pursuing a layered defense concept--similar to that in regional missile
    defense--to achieve high-protection effectiveness by deploying more
    than one independently developed missile defense interceptor system;
    therefore, we will continue development of the SM-3 Block IIB to
    protect our homeland in the future by creating a new first layer of
    intercept opportunities, expanding the forward edge of our homeland
    defense battle space, and providing our war fighters highly feasible
    ``Shoot-Assess-Shoot'' firing doctrine. The recent Defense Science
    Board (DSB) agreed with our assessment that the SM-3 IIB will be
    challenged to destroy ICBMs before their earliest possible deployment
    of countermeasures. The DSB also supports MDA's development of the SM-3
    IIB to significantly expand the forward edge of our ICBM battle space
    and enable SAS to obtain very high levels of ICBM protection of our
    homeland. The fiscal year 2012 congressional reduction of the SM-3 IIB
    funding has increased the challenge of fielding this improvement in
    homeland defense against ICBMs in the 2020 timeframe. My additional
    concern is the impact of reducing funding for the SM-3 IIB will
    eliminate the only new interceptor design and development opportunity
    for our Nation's missile defense industrial base for the foreseeable
    future. The three SM-3 IIB industry teams lead by Lockheed Martin,
    Boeing, and Raytheon have shown rapid progress in developing very
    effective and feasible SM-3 IIB interceptor design concepts. To
    terminate, or slow down, the SM-3 IIB development effort will have a
    significant negative impact on missile defense aerospace industrial
    base at this time and risk our ability to cost-effectively respond to
    emerging regional ICBM threats to our homeland for decades in the
    future.
        This year, we will begin upgrading the clear early warning radar in
    Alaska for full missile defense capability by 2016. We will also
    continue operations of the Sea-Based X-band (SBX) radar and development
    of algorithms to improve its discrimination capability. We are
    requesting $347 million in fiscal year 2013 for BMDS Sensors
    development for homeland defense, including support of the Cobra Dane
    radar, the upgraded early warning radars at Beale AFB (California),
    Fylingdales (United Kingdom), and Thule (Greenland). We are requesting
    $192.1 million to operate and sustain these radars and $227.4 million
    to procure additional radars and radar spares. In fiscal year 2013, we
    will also place the SBX in a limited test operations status for
    affordability reasons, but we will be prepared to activate the SBX if
    indications and warnings of an advanced threat from Northeast Asia
    become evident. We will also continue to upgrade the GMD system
    software to address new and evolving threats, including enhancing EKV
    discrimination algorithms by 2015, improving GBI avionics, and
    increasing GBI interoperability with the command and control, battle
    management and communications (C\2\BMC) system.
                           enhancing regional defense
        This year, we will demonstrate integrated, layered regional missile
    defense in the largest, most complex missile defense test ever
    attempted. We will simultaneously engage up to five air and ballistic
    missile targets with an Aegis, THAAD, PATRIOT and Forward Based Mode
    AN/TPY-2 radar integrated C\2\BMC system operated by soldiers, sailors,
    and airmen from multiple Combatant Commands. This live-fire test will
    allow our war fighters to refine operational doctrine and tactics while
    providing confidence in the execution of their integrated air and
    missile defense plans.
        Last year, in addition to deploying EPAA phase 1, we successfully
    supported negotiations for host nation agreements to deploy Aegis
    Ashore batteries to Romania (Phase 2) and Poland (Phase 3); we
    successfully tested the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
    Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) Interim
    Capability with European Command (EUCOM) C\2\BMC to enhance NATO
    situational awareness and planning; we installed the Aegis BMD 3.6.1
    weapon system on three Aegis ships and upgraded one Aegis BMD ship to
    Aegis BMD 4.0.1 (increasing the Aegis BMD fleet to 22 operationally
    configured BMD ships); and we delivered 19 SM-3 Block IA interceptors
    and the first SM-3 Block IB interceptor. We continued SM-3 Block IIA
    system and component Preliminary Design Reviews. We delivered 11
    interceptors for THAAD Batteries 1 and 2 and flight test, and started
    production of Batteries 3 and 4. We also delivered the latest C\2\BMC
    upgrades to NORTHCOM, STRATCOM, Pacific Command, and Central Command.
    These software builds will improve situational awareness, sensor
    management, and planner functions.
        We also demonstrated critical BMDS regional capabilities in key
    tests over the past year. In April 2011, we conducted an Aegis BMD
    flight test (FTM-15) using the SM-3 Block IA interceptor launched using
    track data from the AN/TPY-2 radar passed through the C\2\BMC system to
    intercept an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) target (3,000
    km to 5,500 km) to demonstrate the EPAA phase 1 capability. This
    mission also was the first Launch-on-Remote Aegis engagement and
    intercept of an IRBM with the SM-3 Block IA. In October 2011, the BMDS
    Operational Test Agency, with the oversight of the Director,
    Operational Test & Evaluation, conducted a successful Initial
    Operational Test & Evaluation test (FTT-12) of THAAD's ability to
    detect, track, and engage SRBM and middle-range ballistic missile
    (MRBM) targets simultaneously.
        Enhanced Middle-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe by 2015
    (European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 2).--Our goal in this phase is
    to provide a robust capability against SRBMs and MRBMs by deploying
    several interceptors to engage each threat missile multiple times in
    its flight. The architecture includes the deployment of the Aegis BMD
    5.0 weapon systems with SM-3 Block IB interceptors at sea and at an
    Aegis Ashore site in Romania. When compared to the current SM-3 Block
    IA, the IB will be more producible, have an improved two-color seeker
    for greater on-board discrimination, and have improvements to enhance
    reliability of the SM-3 Block IB's divert and attitude control system.
    These improvements also provide an enhanced capability to
    simultaneously engage larger sized raids of threat missiles.
        We are requesting $992.4 million in fiscal year 2013 for sea-based
    Aegis BMD to continue development and testing of the SM-3 Block IB,
    continue outfitting of ships with the BMD 4.0.1 system as well as
    spiral upgrades to Aegis 5.0 to support the operation of the SM-3 Block
    IB and IIA interceptors and associated flight tests. We are requesting
    $389.6 million in fiscal year 2013 for the procurement of 29 SM-3 Block
    IB interceptors and $12.2 million to operate and maintain already
    deployed SM-3 Block IA interceptors. In fiscal year 2013, we are also
    requesting $276.3 million to develop and build the Aegis Ashore Test
    Facility at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii and $157.9
    million to construct the first Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System
    battery in Romania by fiscal year 2015. We request $366.5 million in
    fiscal year 2013 to operate and sustain C\2\BMC at fielded sites and
    continue C\2\BMC program spiral development of software and engineering
    to incorporate enhanced C\2\BMC capability into the battle management
    architecture and promote further interoperability among the BMDS
    elements, incorporate boost phase tracking, and improve system-level
    correlation and tracking. We will also continue communications support
    for the AN/TPY-2 radars and PAA-related C\2\BMC upgrades.
        In September 2011, we conducted FTM-16 to demonstrate Aegis BMD
    4.0.1 fire control and the first flight test of the SM-3 Block IB
    interceptor. While we did not achieve the intercept of the SRBM
    separating payload, we demonstrated critical system functions,
    including the exceptional performance of the kinetic warhead divert
    system, which allowed the Navy's partial certification of the Aegis BMD
    4.0.1 computer program. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2012, we
    will conduct FTM-16 (Event 2a) to demonstrate the resolution of the
    previous flight test issue and the SM-3 Block IB's Kill Warhead's
    capability. We will also demonstrate the ability of the SM-3 Block IB
    to intercept more complex SRBM targets in FTM-18 and FTM-19 later this
    summer. In the third quarter fiscal year 2013, we will conduct the
    first operational flight test led by the BMDS Operational Test Agency
    team involving a coordinated and simultaneous engagement involving
    Aegis BMD, THAAD and PAC-3 systems against three targets and two cruise
    missiles. Our fiscal year 2013 testing program continues to demonstrate
    the SM-3 Block IB and Aegis BMD 4.0.1 (FTM-21 and FTM-22), including a
    salvo engagement involving two interceptors against an SRBM.
        Enhanced Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile Defenses in Europe by
    2018 (European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 3).--The SM-3 Block IIA
    interceptor, being co-developed with the Japanese Government, is on
    schedule for deployment at Aegis Ashore sites in Romania and Poland,
    and at sea, in 2018 to provide enhanced protection for European NATO
    countries from all ballistic missile threats from the Middle East. This
    year we completed the SM-3 Block IIA preliminary design review, and
    continue shock and vibration testing of the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor
    canister, and development of Aegis BMD 5.1 fire control system. We also
    reduced the execution risk of the SM-3 Block IIA program by increasing
    the time between flight tests while maintaining the original initial
    capability date of 2018. The fiscal year 2013 request for SM-3 Block
    IIA co-development is $420.6 million.
        Expanded Interceptor Battle Space by 2020 (European Phased Adaptive
    Approach Phase 4).--The SM-3 Block IIB will provide a pre-apogee
    intercept capability against IRBMs and an additional layer for a more
    enhanced homeland defense against potential nonadvanced ICBMs launched
    from today's regional threats. This program is in the technology
    development phase, and its 7-year development timeline is consistent
    with typical interceptor development timelines according to Government
    Accountability Office data. Last year we awarded risk reduction
    contracts for missile subsystem components, including advanced
    propulsion, seeker, and lightweight material technologies. We also
    awarded concept design contracts for the SM-3 Block IIB interceptor to
    three aerospace industry teams. In fiscal year 2013, we are requesting
    $224.1 million to develop the Request For Proposal and begin source
    selection for the SM-3 Block IIB Product Development Phase, which we
    propose to begin in early 2014. The SM-3 Block IIB is leveraging
    advanced tracking and discrimination technologies planned for
    deployment during EPAA phase 4, as well as the entire sensor network,
    with PTSS and C\2\BMC upgrades to maximize homeland defense.
                    additional missile defense capabilities
        This year, we are procuring 42 THAAD interceptors for Batteries 1
    and 2, six launchers, and two THAAD Tactical Station Groups. We are
    requesting $316.9 million in RDT&E funding in fiscal year 2013 to
    enhance communications and debris mitigation, which will allow THAAD to
    be more interoperable with PAC-3 and Aegis BMD and connected to the
    BMDS, and $55.7 million for THAAD operations and maintenance. We also
    request $460.7 million to procure 36 THAAD interceptors. THAAD will
    complete delivery of the first 50 interceptors in June 2012,
    demonstrating the capacity of the contractor supply chain and the main
    assembly factory in Troy, Alabama to deliver interceptors. The next
    production lots are under contract, with delivery beginning this
    summer. We will maintain a production rate of four THAAD missiles per
    month through June 2012 due to components on hand and enhance the
    supply chain's production capacity to sustain a three missile per month
    production rate beginning in spring 2013. In late fiscal year 2012, we
    will demonstrate THAAD's ability to intercept an MRBM as part of an
    integrated operational test with PAC-3 and Aegis BMD.
        Additional BMDS improvements include expanded coordination of
    missile defense fire control systems and improvements in radar
    discrimination. We are requesting $51.3 million for the Space Tracking
    and Surveillance System (STSS) in fiscal year 2013. We continue to
    operate the two STSS demonstration satellites to conduct cooperative
    tests with other BMDS elements and demonstrate the capability of STSS
    satellites against targets of opportunity. These tests demonstrate the
    ability of a space sensor to provide high precision, real-time tracking
    of missiles and midcourse objects that enable closing the fire control
    loops with BMDS interceptors. In fiscal year 2013, we plan the first
    live intercept of a threat missile by the Aegis BMD system using only
    STSS data to form the fire control solution for the SM-3 IB
    interceptor. Additionally, lessons learned from the two STSS
    demonstration satellites inform Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS)
    design development decisions.
                          developing new capabilities
        We are requesting $80 million in fiscal year 2013 to continue
    development of fiscally sustainable advanced BMD technologies that can
    be integrated into the BMDS to adapt as threats change. Intercepts
    early in the battle space will provide additional opportunities to kill
    threat missiles, enlarge protection areas, and improve the overall
    performance of the BMDS.
        Last year, we accelerated our test campaign with the Airborne Laser
    Test Bed (ALTB) to collect data on tracking and atmospheric
    compensation, system jitter, and boundary layer effects on propagation
    for future directed energy applications. This year, in accordance with
    the funding reduction enacted by the Congress, we grounded the ALTB
    aircraft and are examining the technical feasibility of high-
    efficiency-directed energy technology for the next decade. In fiscal
    year 2013, we are requesting $46.9 million to pursue Diode Pumped
    Alkaline-gas Laser System and coherent fiber combining laser
    technologies, which promise to provide high-efficiency, electrically
    driven, compact, and lightweight high-energy lasers for a wide variety
    of missions of interest to MDA and the Department of Defense (DOD) and
    support concept development for the next generation of airborne missile
    defense directed energy systems.
        We request $58.7 million in fiscal year 2013 to continue support
    for research and development of advanced remote sensing technologies,
    demonstrate acquisition, tracking and discrimination of multi-color
    infrared sensors, and investigate techniques to improve the system's
    data fusion capability to further strengthen the Nation's missile
    defense sensor network. We have integrated our international and
    domestic university research programs into the same structure, allowing
    MDA to capitalize on the creativity and innovation within our small
    business and academic communities to enhance our science and technology
    programs.
        The greatest future enhancement for both homeland and regional
    defense in the next 10 years is the development of the Precision
    Tracking Space System (PTSS) satellites, which will provide fire
    control quality track data of raids of hostile ballistic missiles over
    their entire flight trajectories and greatly expand the forward edge of
    the our interceptors' battle space for persistent coverage of more than
    70 percent of the Earth's landmass. The need for persistent, full
    trajectory, tracking of ballistic missiles is one of the war fighter's
    highest development priorities as stated in the 2012 STRATCOM PCL. PTSS
    will enhance the performance of all missile defense interceptors at an
    operational cost significantly less (and with much greater ability to
    track large raid sizes of threat missiles) than forward based AN/TPY-2
    radars, based on MDA's experience with STSS program costs. The emerging
    concept design of the PTSS spacecraft is much simpler than STSS because
    it relies on the mature Air Force Space Based Infra-Red (SBIR)
    satellite system to acquire threat ballistic missiles, leverages PTSS's
    ability to provide precision tracks of the remainder of threat
    missiles' trajectories, and uses only satellite components with high
    technology readiness levels. Due to the intrinsic simplicity and
    component maturity of the PTSS design, the integration of concurrent
    developments is considered to be a low acquisition risk. Key to our
    acquisition strategy is MDA partnering Air Force Space Command and the
    Naval Research Laboratory with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
    Laboratory (APL), with participation of six aerospace corporations, to
    develop a fully Government-owned preliminary design and technical data
    package to enable full competitions by our aerospace industry for the
    production for the first and subsequent PTSS satellite constellations.
    MDA is requesting $297.4 million for PTSS in fiscal year 2013 to
    continue development of preliminary design requirements to create these
    multi-mission satellites (e.g., missile defense, space situation
    awareness, DOD and intelligence community support). APL has a
    noteworthy track record, dating back to 1979, for meeting planned
    development cost and schedule projections involving 17 significant
    spacecraft missions. We will complete final design and engineering
    models for the PTSS bus, optical payload, and communications payload in
    fiscal year 2013. PTSS project scope includes delivery of PTSS ground
    segments and launch of the first two PTSS spacecraft in fiscal year
    2017. We are fully cooperating in an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) of
    the development and 20-year life-cycle cost of the PTSS constellation
    by the Office of the Secretary of Defense of Capability Assessment and
    Program Evaluation (CAPE) to achieve a high confidence cost estimate of
    the development and 20-year life of the PTSS constellation. Of note,
    this ICE will provide great insight into the validity of the recent
    National Academy of Science (NAS) Boost Phase Intercept study cost
    estimate for the PTSS constellation that we believe is considerably
    higher than our estimates. Although the NAS study was critical of
    PTSS's ability to discriminate a re-entry vehicle (RV) from other
    objects accompanying a missile, the NAS did not benefit from an
    understanding of our sensor discrimination architecture concept nor our
    classified programs developing PTSS's future RV discrimination
    capability. However, the NAS study did benefit from understanding our
    disciplined systems engineering process that scrutinizes capability
    trades to achieve urgent, cost-effective, satisfaction of the war
    fighters BMD needs as documented in STRATCOM's PCL.
                           international cooperation
        As stated in the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, developing
    international missile defense capacity is a key aspect of our strategy
    to counter ballistic missile proliferation. A significant
    accomplishment of international cooperation in 2011 was the signing of
    the first Foreign Military Sale case for the THAAD system to the United
    Arab Emirates, valued at nearly $3.5 billion. In Europe, we
    successfully completed interoperability testing of our C\2\BMC system
    with the ALTBMD Interim Capability, demonstrating U.S. and NATO's
    ability to share situational awareness of missile defense execution and
    status and planning data. NATO plans to invest more than 600 million
    Euros for the ALTBMD capability. Moreover, we are working with our NATO
    allies on developing requirements for territorial NATO missile defense.
    We continue to pursue potential missile defense contributions of NATO
    countries such as the Netherlands' announcement that they are upgrading
    their maritime radars with missile defense surveillance and tracking
    capability. In East Asia, we are supporting the BMDR-based objective in
    leading expanded international efforts for missile defense through
    bilateral projects and efforts with Japan, the Republic of Korea, and
    Australia. And in the Middle East, we continue to work with long-term
    partners, such as Israel, and are pursuing strengthened cooperation
    with various Gulf Cooperation Council countries that have expressed
    interest in missile defense. MDA is currently engaged in missile
    defense projects, studies and analyses with more than 20 countries,
    including Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany,
    Israel, Japan, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia the United Arab Emirates,
    the United Kingdom, and NATO.
        MDA continues its close partnership with Japan on the SM-3 IIA
    interceptor (Japan is leading the development efforts on the SM-3 Block
    IIA second- and third-stage rocket motors and the nosecone), studying
    future missile defense architectures for defense of Japan, and
    supporting that nation's SM-3 Block IA flight test program, to include
    the successful intercept flight test in October 2010 involving a
    Japanese SM-3 Block IA. This test completed the first foreign military
    sale of Aegis BMD to a key maritime partner. Japan now has four Aegis
    destroyers equipped with Aegis BMD systems and a complement of SM-3
    Block IA interceptors.
        We also continue collaboration with Israel on the development and
    employment of several missile defense capabilities that are
    interoperable with the U.S. BMDS. Last year, at a U.S. test range off
    the coast of California, the Arrow Weapon System successfully
    intercepted a target representative of potential ballistic missile
    threats facing Israel today. This year, we plan to conduct several
    first time demonstrations of significant David's Sling, Arrow-2 block
    4, and Arrow-3 system capabilities. We are requesting $99.8 million for
    Israeli Cooperative Programs (including Arrow System Improvement and
    the David's Sling Weapon System) in fiscal year 2013 to continue our
    cooperative development of Israeli and United States missile defense
    technology and capability. MDA will conduct a David's Sling flight test
    to demonstrate end game and midcourse algorithms and initiate David's
    Sling and Arrow-3 Low Rate Initial Production.
                                   conclusion
        Our fiscal year 2013 budget funds the continued development and
    deployment of SRBM, MRBM, IRBM, and ICBM defenses while meeting the war
    fighters' near-term and future missile defense development priorities.
    We are dedicated to returning to successful GMD flight testing as soon
    as possible as well as developing an additional layer of homeland
    defense with the SM-3 IIB to ensure we have a robust and responsive
    ICBM defense for our Nation, during this decade and for many decades in
    the future. Additionally, we are committed to develop a persistent,
    space based, PTSS constellation to ensure always available, early
    tracking of large size raids of missiles to enable cost-effective
    homeland and regional missile defense. We are also dedicated to
    creating an international and enhanced network of integrated BMD
    capabilities that is flexible, survivable, affordable, and tolerant of
    uncertainties of estimates of both nation-state and extremist ballistic
    missile threats.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering the
    subcommittee's questions.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General.
        As I indicated in my opening remarks, we have been advised
    that including the ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability
    on Aegis ships is a critical element of the phased adoptive
    approach (PAA).
        Now, the Navy has, as I indicated, the possibility of
    decommissioning six of the cruisers. What impact would it have
    on the PAA?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, we support the Navy's technical
    assessments. They make the final decision, of course. I know of
    some factors that played into that consideration. Some of it
    was the stationing of ships in Rota, Spain, which has been
    agreed to, to reduce the transit time and increase the multi-
    mission ship presence in the Mediterranean.
        That was part of their considerations. Additionally, we
    continue to work with the Navy to perform functions in other
    ways than just using a ship for BMD. For example, for sensors.
        Can we deploy some of our sensors in locations and relieve
    the need for Aegis ships to be doing the surveillance mission
    which some of those ships are doing today.
        So, Sir, I defer the final answer to your question because
    that is a Navy decision, but we work very closely to ensure our
    technical programs are synchronized with their programs, and at
    the same time, they benefit from our technical analysis.
        Chairman Inouye. So the decommissioning is not finalized?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, I'm not in a position to answer that
    question. That's one where we have been supporting the Navy.
        Chairman Inouye. Can you tell us about Aegis Ashore?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, the Aegis Ashore System is a very
    cost-effective approach to take the proven capability we've
    seen at sea and move it effectively to the land. It is then a
    focused mission on missile defense. Instead of the more than
    270 sailors, for example, needed on a Navy ship, an Aegis
    Ashore System can operate the system with less than 35 sailors,
    and that includes multiple shifts.
        So it's a very cost-effective way of having Aegis BMD
    capability. Aegis BMD capability has the longest range of our
    regional systems. So it adds a layer of missile defense to the
    land that otherwise would be solely relying on THAAD.
        And, so, with Aegis Ashore and THAAD and Patriot and other
    international systems, we are able to achieve that multilayered
    effect with the dedicated and persistent presence of the Aegis
    Ashore system.
        Chairman Inouye. We've been told that these systems will be
    in Poland and Romania. When will this happen?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, we have selected the sites with
    their countries and the European Command, both locations, in
    Romania and in Poland. We have signed agreements with their
    countries for that.
        Romania will be fully operational in 2015, and Poland will
    be fully operational in 2018.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. General O'Reilly, the request before us
    proposes a reduction in the number of Aegis ships that are
    planned to be equipped with ballistic missile capability. The
    ships are going to be reduced under this budget request from 43
    to 36.
        How do these changes affect our missile defense mission,
    and are we putting at risk any important U.S. military assets
    by adopting this plan?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, that decision is made ultimately by
    the Chief of Naval Operations and the Joint Chiefs. As I said
    before, I provide technical support and things we can do to
    increase the capability of missile defense capable ships out
    there.
        An example of the type of capability I'm referring to is
    even though it still looks like the same Aegis ship of a year
    ago, several of our ships have now been upgraded with the
    capability to launch three times as many interceptors at once.
        We can use off board sensors. As I said last year, our
    system was designed to intercept missiles of about 1,000
    kilometers, and with the assistance of off board sensors (like
    AN/TPY-2 radar) we intercepted a missile of more than 3,000
    kilometers.
        So there are enhancements which MDA is developing for the
    Navy so that each ship can handle many more missiles at once,
    and also at much greater ranges.
        And that is the extent, that is the technical support I'm
    providing the Navy to make their final judgment on what's the
    right size of the fleet and how it's deployed.
        Senator Cochran. How would you describe the success of our
    testing program up to this point in our effort to deploy a GMD
    system? Could you explain what contingency plans we may be
    developing to provide homeland defense if there are test
    failures?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, the problems we've had in flight
    testing, and we've had two failures, were with the latest
    version of the front-end of the missile, the EKV.
        The older EKV is deployed today. It's been successful in
    five tests (three intercept tests and two other flight tests).
    We have never seen any indication of a problem on the ground
    with the older EKV. And we have a lot of confidence in that
    system today to protect the United States as they're fielded at
    Vandenberg Air Force Base and in Fort Greely, Alaska.
        However, we had obsolescence problems with continuing the
    older EKV design. We upgraded the design 4 years ago, and we've
    had two subsequent test failures. We have worked closely, and I
    firmly believe, with the best experts in the country, both
    government and industry, identifying where the problems were.
        We've addressed the problems. The first one was a quality
    control issue in the production plant. It has been validated
    that we have addressed that issue with the second test.
        And then the second problem, we literally found in space.
    We couldn't have identified it on the ground, and working with
    the best experts, including National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration and others, we believe we've addressed and
    resolved that issue. And we're out to prove it this year in our
    next flight test.
        Senator Cochran. You mentioned that you're going to
    increase the number of operational interceptors and accelerate
    the delivery of interceptor capabilities.
        Could you describe for us how this is going to be done, or
    what the timetable will be for accelerating the delivery of new
    sensors?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, from a point of view for the GMD
    system, we currently have production on hold until we prove
    we've resolved the production issues.
        But what I've done is use the work force and the supply
    chain to prepare for that production go ahead. So once we have
    a successful test, we can immediately go into refurbishing the
    missiles at Fort Greely and at Vandenberg, the ones that need
    it. Not all of them do.
        We have also enhanced the manufacturing capability at the
    site, the ability to upgrade missiles, so we can accelerate
    their upgrade without shipping them away from the missile
    fields.
        From the point of view of the delivery of our sensor
    systems, we have several of them that are ready today for
    operational deployment, and combatant commanders, we're in
    coordination with them. And we stand ready to support them and
    those in the Army and the Air Force who are associated with
    those deployments and the decisions made by the Joint Chiefs.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, I have a number of questions. We appreciate your
    service to the country and what you are doing as Director of
    the MDA.
        General O'Reilly, the State Department official, Ellen
    Tauscher, recently told a Russian newspaper that the
    administration was ``prepared to provide the Russian Government
    with written political guarantees regarding the U.S. and NATO
    Missile Defense Systems in Europe.''
        Have you been consulted regarding the form and substance of
    these guarantees, and, if so, what can you tell us about them?
        If not, do you think it would be advisable for the
    administration to consult with you and the Congress about any
    potential restrictions on the systems you're responsible for
    developing?
        Are you aware of this statement?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, we have been providing technical
    consultation to Secretary Tauscher and to the State Department.
    I am unaware of specific proposals.
        I will tell you that the nature of our work has typically
    been to address the Russian Government claims that we are
    building capability to upset the strategic balance.
        We've been able to analyze that and provide them data that
    show we are not, and the errors in their estimates, such as
    interceptor missiles flying faster than anyone's ever built,
    and so forth.
        So I am unaware, first of all, of what those specific
    proposals are, but also, I have never been given any
    instructions to consider limiting the development of our
    system.
        Senator Shelby. In other words, written guarantees that
    would limit our system?
        General O'Reilly. No, Sir. I'm not aware of any nor have I
    ever been given guidance to consider any ways of limiting our
    system.
        Senator Shelby. Do they have, to your knowledge, any--any
    is a big word I guess here--any technical capabilities that if
    shared through a cooperative arrangement could help you defend
    our homeland or our allies, or is that off the table?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, there are capabilities that we could
    benefit from. Primarily their sensors, their large sensors,
    that they have for their homeland defense or their protection
    in Russia.
        The location of Russia itself, looking through from Europe,
    all the way across through Asia, including Northeast Asia,
    would give us the opportunity to view threats very early in
    their flight.
        And, their ability to observe flight testing done by other
    countries would in fact provide us beneficial information.
        Senator Shelby. But you don't know of any information or
    promises that have been made to Russia that would compromise
    our ability to defend our interests in any way, do you?
        General O'Reilly. No, none whatsoever.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        In the GMD area, I know you face some challenges there.
    Does the MDA fiscal year 2013 budget request provide adequate
    funding to restore your confidence in all of the elements of
    the GMD system?
        In other words, under this budget, will the GMD industrial
    base remain robust enough to respond to unanticipated
    developments in the ICBM programs of our adversaries or
    potential adversaries?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, in our budget, we've requested the
    procurement of five additional GBIs, and one of the reasons is
    to ensure that our industrial base stays viable, and to leave
    open those options in the future if necessary.
        Also, our newest missile field has eight additional spare
    silos in it, so we are postured in a way, if we're supported in
    our budget request, to maintain our capability, our industrial
    base, and continue testing in order to validate our missile
    defense capability with GBIs.
        Senator Shelby. In the area of what we call the kill
    vehicle development, you referenced in your testimony some of
    the problems that we've experienced with this kill vehicle, EKV
    on the GMD system.
        I understand that you're working out some of those
    challenges, the problems most recently identified, and I hope
    that will be successful.
        But I'm sure this won't be the last problem, because this
    is something that's being developed. It's my understanding that
    EKV was never meant to be the permanent kill vehicle for the
    GMD, and that the current system is heavier, less capable, and
    less reliable than I think it can or should be.
        But with the cancellation in 2009 of the Multiple Kill
    Vehicle Program, we're locked into the current system for the
    foreseeable future; do you agree with that, or disagree?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, I do believe we can continue to
    improve the GMD EKV and make it a very viable, reliable system
    that we can rely on for decades.
        On the other hand, I also believe, as technologies have
    moved on, we haven't taken advantage of those technologies. I
    can----
        Senator Shelby. Could you talk more about the SM-3 IIB
    Program?
        General O'Reilly. Yes, Sir. The SM-3 IIB Program gives us
    the opportunity to continue supporting our aerospace industry
    to apply our latest technologies which, Sir, equates to smaller
    KVs and more capable KVs.
        Senator Shelby. It could possibly give you more than a
    single interceptor there, could it not?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, depending on the size of the
    booster, yes, it could, if you had a large booster and these
    small interceptors.
        Senator Shelby. In the area of THAAD--I know I'm touching
    on a number of subjects, but they're all in your domain----
        General O'Reilly. Yes, Sir.
        Senator Shelby. The administration's fiscal year 2013
    request included funding for production of 36 THAAD missiles
    annually. That rate is considerably below what the MDA had
    proposed in fiscal year 2012.
        Does that production rate, General, allow MDA to outfit
    THAAD batteries as they become available, or, on the other
    hand, will there be a lag time between when batteries are
    completed, and when the missiles to outfit them come off the
    assembly line?
        Will there be a gap there, or you're working to make sure
    there's not?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, at this time, we have realigned when
    the batteries will be available as well as the production of
    missiles for those batteries. And, no, there will not be a gap
    at this point in time.
        We have also increased the number of missiles in each THAAD
    battery. So, even with those higher numbers of missiles in each
    unit, we'll be able to make our delivery needs, and our foreign
    military sale also increases production capacity of THAAD.
        Senator Shelby. Can I get into the ship modifications of
    the Navy a little bit.
        Now, you believe that fielding the SM-3 IIB, it's a
    mouthful, SM-3 IIB, will require modifying the vertical launch
    system onboard the Aegis cruisers and destroyers?
        And, if so, is there currently a funded plan, since we're
    here in the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, is there a
    funding plan in place to make the necessary conversions, you
    know, if we have to do that?
        And will those preparations be complete for the arrival of
    the production of missiles? Same thing. Will there be a gap
    there? Will you have the money, and what do you need?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, for the SM-3 IIB is in concept
    development. The amount of progress that's been made by
    industry in the last year on that program indicates that they
    have a lot of engineering capability that they have now bring
    to bear.
        And we've seen many different proposals. There are
    proposals that would require a modification, but there are
    also, as with every contractor, proposals that do not require a
    modification to a ship's vertical launch system.
        So, they're at the point where they have not finalized what
    they're going to propose to us, but we've seen both options.
        Senator Shelby. How big an improvement is this new system,
    the SM-3 IIB?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, it would fly at a tremendously
    higher velocity than the current SM-3.
        Senator Shelby. That's a quantum breakthrough, isn't it?
        General O'Reilly. Yes, Sir, and the fact that it's mobile,
    that, as a long-range threat missile is launched, it's like
    playing hockey. You can get into the position where you can
    intercept with a smaller missile and still have the same
    effect.
        Senator Shelby. But, basically, does it make us--you're in
    charge of it--make us more agile?
        General O'Reilly. Tremendously more agile, and we can surge
    a lot of missiles into a region like we do our other military
    capabilities if the need arise.
        Senator Shelby. What's your thought regarding Korea? You
    know, they've been in the news lately, about they had a failed
    launch. Of course, at some time, they might work those problems
    out.
        They'll have to do it themselves. We'll all watch that with
    interest. I know the Chairman, coming from the State of Hawaii,
    had to be more than watchful of that, but we all are interested
    in that, as they build a more robust missile with longer legs,
    and a danger to Hawaii, Alaska, and perhaps others.
        General O'Reilly. Yes, Sir. At the point I can say here in
    this hearing----
        Senator Shelby. Yes.
        General O'Reilly [continuing]. They obviously failed early
    to demonstrate their capability in their flight, once again.
    Our experience has been you need a lot of ground testing and
    flight testing in order to validate and have reliance in a
    capability.
        They do not. And it's been evident every time they test.
    And their progress has not been made apparent in this latest
    flight test.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, General, and thank
    you for your service to the country.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        I have one more question. And, if I may, I would like to
    submit the rest for your careful consideration.
        Recently, there were rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel.
    And the Iron Dome performed remarkably well. In fact, we've
    been advised that the success rate exceeded 90 percent.
        My question, number one is, what is the current status of
    Iron Dome? And, second, in light of this recent attack, are we
    prepared to provide more Iron Domes?
        General O'Reilly. Sir, I do not develop them. I am not part
    of the development of the Iron Dome system like I am
    responsible for the development, co-development, with other
    Israeli programs.
        But I do oversee our funding of the manufacturing of the
    Iron Dome system for the Israelis. Our assessment is, it's a
    very effective system, and they are also adding improvements to
    it in the near term to make it even more effective.
        I know the Department is considering right now several
    options on how to enhance our support to the availability of
    Iron Dome to the Israeli Government.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have another question.
        I would like to know, General O'Reilly, what your
    assessment is of the testing of the Arrow 3 Interceptor? I know
    there are plans to have additional tests. I wonder if you could
    give the subcommittee some idea of what the status of this
    effort is and what capability this system will provide?
        General O'Reilly. The Arrow 3 Program will provide a
    significant increase over the current Arrow Program. In other
    words, it will be able to fly farther, faster, intercept
    earlier in the flight of a threat missile, and effectively add
    another layer of defense to Israel.
        We work very closely with the Israelis to set up this
    program so that we have very identifiable milestones to show
    their progress.
        While we felt their original schedule was optimistic, and
    although it is turning out to be optimistic--they're not on the
    original track that they set up--they have made significant
    progress. They are achieving those milestones.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        This year, we look forward to their first flight of their
    missile system. And so, we're very pleased with the progress
    they're making, and it's more along the lines of what we expect
    with our own programs.
        Senator Cochran. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                         pacific missile range facility
        Question. General O'Reilly, can you provide the subcommittee a
    schedule of Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) tests that will
    be conducted at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) over the next
    5 years?
        Answer. Now that THAAD is in production, the operation and
    development of test communities agree (as documented in Integrated
    Master Test Plan [IMTP] 12.1) that flight testing is limited to
    development capability increments (which there are two in the next 5
    years) and operational testing integrated with Aegis and PATRIOT. Thus,
    the developmental flight tests over the next 5 years are FTT-11a in the
    fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 (4QFY14) and FTT-15 in the second
    quarter of fiscal year 2017 (2QFY17) at PMRF.
        THAAD will also be extensively tested using models and simulations
    (hardware in the loop and distributed testing using actual THAAD
    batteries), which have been accredited based on the THAAD's highly
    successful flight test program.
        Question. What is the current schedule for Aegis Ashore testing at
    PMRF, and how has it changed from last year?
        Answer. The previous (IMTP 11.1) and current (IMTP 12.1) Aegis
    Ashore Flight Test Schedules are contained in the below table. The only
    change from last year is the acceleration of AAFTM-02 by two quarters
    (from the second quarter of fiscal year 2015 (2QFY15) to 4QFY14).

                        AEGIS ASHORE FLIGHT TEST SCHEDULE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date  (IMTP       Date  (IMTP
    Flight Test        Description         11.1)  Approved   12.1)  Approved
      (FY12-17)                                5/31/11           3/1/12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AACTV-01 E1 Aegis Ashore will                2QFY14            2QFY14
                 engage a simulated
                 Dynamic Test Target
                 and launch an SM-3
                 Controlled Test
                 Vehicle (CTV) to
                 check out the
                 installation of the
                 land-based Aegis
                 Weapon System and VLS
                 Launcher.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AAFTM-01 Aegis BMD Ashore will            4QFY14            4QFY14
                 detect, track and
                 engage an air-
                 launched MRBM target
                 with an SM-3 Blk IB
                 missile and track
                 data provided by an
                 up-range Aegis BMD
                 ship.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AAFTM-02 Aegis BMD Ashore will            2QFY15            4QFY14
                 detect, track and
                 engage an air-
                 launched MRBM target
                 with an SM-3 Blk IB
                 missile and track
                 data provided by an
                 up-range Aegis BMD
                 ship.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         FTO-02 This operational                 4QFY15            4QFY15
                 flight test event
                 will be executed
                 across two test
                 ranges in two
                 multiple simultaneous
                 engagements against
                 an SRBM and three
                 MRBMs. Aegis Ashore
                 will detect, track
                 and engage an MRBM
                 target with a SM-3
                 Blk IB missile. Aegis
                 BMD 5.0 ship will
                 detect, track and
                 engage an MRBM with a
                 SM-3 Blk IB missile.
                 THAAD will engage an
                 MRBM. Patriot will
                 engage the SRBM.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP)
                Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM)
                Short Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM)
                Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)

        Question. I understand that within a few seconds of an SM-3 missile
    launch from the test Aegis Ashore facility on PMRF, it must be
    determined that the missile is moving in the intended direction, and,
    if not, the missile must be quickly destroyed. For safety
    considerations, PMRF is likely to require an exceptionally fast
    capability that can accurately determine missile condition and location
    during the first few seconds of launch, something that radar alone may
    not be able to address. This is a critical requirement for PMRF and for
    safety considerations in any European country where the Aegis Ashore is
    deployed, since it will be in proximity to populated areas. Please
    provide an update on how the Navy and MDA will address this safety
    concern.
        Answer. The Pacific Fleet Command has agreed to allow test firings
    from the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex at PMRF only upon
    successful development, integration, and certification of the range
    flight safety upgrades. These upgrades provide PMRF with the
    independent capability to take a flight termination action as early as
    2.5 seconds after launch (confining hazards well within PMRF's launch
    hazard area).
        The flight safety upgrades include:
        --Modification to the SM-3 Block IB missile's flight termination
                system that allows a termination command to be received
                within one second after launch;
        --Procurement, integration and certification of two Early Launch
                Tracking Radars (ELTRs) that will provide missile position
                and velocity no later than one second after launch; and
        --Development, integration, and certification of a Safety
                Augmentation System that will use missile position data
                from the ELTRs and predetermined safety boundary conditions
                based on test mission scenarios to make a decision on
                missile heading and send a flight termination command if
                the missile is headed outside the predetermined safety
                boundaries.
        Status.--Acquisition contracts are in place, development plans are
    defined, designs have been approved, and certification test plans are
    in development for all flight safety upgrades. The ELTRs will be
    developed and delivered to White Sands Missile Range for initial
    testing and integration with targets of opportunity commencing in the
    second quarter of fiscal year 2013 (2QFY13). The radars will then be
    transported to PMRF for final range certification during 4QFY13, in
    time to support the first Aegis Ashore flight test (AA-CTV-01) in
    2QFY14.
        Fiscal year 2012 funds initiated the development of these safety
    upgrades. Fiscal year 2013 funding, necessary to complete these safety
    upgrades, was requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. All right. Thank you very much.
        On behalf of the subcommittee, I thank you for your
    testimony and for your exemplary service. We will be looking at
    your request very carefully, and we look forward to working
    with you, Sir.
        The Defense Subcommittee will reconvene at 10:30 a.m. on
    April 25 for a classified hearing on the national and military
    intelligence programs. We stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., Wednesday, April 18, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Harkin, Durbin, Feinstein,
    Mikulski, Kohl, Murray, Johnson, Reed, Cochran, McConnell,
    Shelby, Hutchison, Alexander, Collins, Murkowski, Graham, and
    Coats.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                 National Guard

    STATEMENT OF GENERAL CRAIG R. McKINLEY, CHIEF, NATIONAL
                GUARD BUREAU

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. This morning, the subcommittee meets to
    receive testimony on fiscal year 2013 budget of the National
    Guard and the Reserve components.
        From the National Guard, I'd like to welcome Chief of the
    National Guard Bureau, General Craig R. McKinley; the Director
    of the Army National Guard, General William Ingram; and the
    Director of the Air National Guard, Lieutenant General Harry M.
    Wyatt, III.
        Our witnesses from the Reserve include the Chief of the
    Army Reserve, General Stultz; the Chief of the Navy Reserve,
    Admiral Dirk Debbink; the Commander of the Marine Corps
    Reserve, General Steven Hummer; and the Chief of the Air Force
    Reserve, General Charles Stenner.
        And I would like to thank all of you for joining us today
    as the subcommittee reviews the fiscal year 2013 budget for the
    Reserve components.
        This year's budget proposes significant force structure
    changes for the Air National Guard, reducing end-strength by
    5,100 billets and aircraft inventory of 134 aircraft.
        This proposal has come under intense scrutiny from the
    Members of Congress, the Council of Governors, and many
    adjutant generals.
        And I would like to hear from you on how involved you were
    in the deliberative process that preceded the force structure
    announcement and what input you were asked to give.
        In addition, over the last several years, the Guard and
    Reserve have made important changes as they transition from a
    Strategic to an Operational Reserve. This shift requires you to
    have deployment ready units available at all times.
        As we draw down our military forces in Afghanistan, the
    Department will need to figure out how to best utilize this new
    Operational Reserve. Many challenges remain for the Guard and
    Reserve. Reserves and their families lack the support network
    provided for Active-Duty installations, so it is important that
    our Reserve families get the support they need during the
    deployments, and as reservists transition back to civilian
    life.
        The Guard and Reserves still face significant equipment
    shortfalls. The Congress has provided additional equipment
    funding for the Guard and Reserve in each of the last 32 years
    because year after year, the President's budget fails to
    sufficiently fund Reserve components.
        I'm certain that the witnesses here this morning agree that
    without this additional funding, our Reserve components would
    be woefully underequipped.
        It is our duty to our men and women of the Guard and
    Reserves who are called on to deploy in harm's way, just like
    their Active-Duty counterparts, to make certain they are
    adequately trained and equipped.
        So, gentlemen, I look forward to hearing your perspective
    on these issues and working with you this year in support of
    our guardsmen and reservists.
        And I would like to thank all of you for this testimony
    this morning. Your full statements will be made part of the
    record.
        We will begin our hearing with the National Guard panel.
    But first, I would like to call upon Mr. Alexander because our
    Vice Chairman has been slightly delayed. He has just called to
    say he'll be coming in shortly.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will
    condense my remarks.
        Welcome, gentlemen. We look forward to your comments.
        Re-equipping the Guard is one of the biggest challenges
    facing the Department of Defense. I think our Chairman has
    outlined that very adequately. And the President's proposed
    budget doesn't adequately support the Guard and Reserve.
        Each of us in our States are very proud of the role that
    our men and women have played. Our Army Guard, 278th Armored
    Calvary Regiment, about which I'll be asking some questions,
    has been deployed twice.
        Many are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, flying C-5
    missions, running airfield operations, installing fiber-optic
    communications, and getting wounded out of harm's way. So we're
    grateful to them and we're grateful for the efforts that have
    been made to modernize the Guard.
        And we've seen great changes in what men and women who join
    the Guard expect to do over the last 10, 15 years. And we need
    to be responsive to the changed conditions and the changed
    expectations of Guard members.
        So I'll be listening closely to the testimony, and I
    appreciate very much your service and your being here today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. May I now call upon the Vice Chairman,
    Senator Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    convening the hearing. I'm pleased to join you and other
    Senators in welcoming our panel of distinguished witnesses this
    morning.
        We thank you for your service to our Nation, helping
    protect the safety and security of our citizens and our
    interests around the world.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. May I recognize General McKinley.

                 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL CRAIG R. MCKINLEY

        General McKinley. Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you.
        It's an honor and a privilege to be here today with my two
    directors, Bud Wyatt on my right and Bill Ingram on my left, as
    well as the other Reserve Chiefs.
        We have a very close affiliation with each other, and it's
    a pleasure and an honor again to testify before you.
        I wanted to take this opportunity, as I always do, to thank
    you all for your dedication to the soldiers and airmen that we
    represent.
        Bud and Bill will make some brief statements after I do.
    Both of them, distinguished former Adjutants General, Bud Wyatt
    from Oklahoma and Bill Ingram from North Carolina.
        So, they have unique perspectives on the issues and
    concerns of our soldiers in the State Active-Duty status and in
    title 32 status.
        And we find ourselves, obviously, in the midst of
    constraint budgets and tough decisions. No doubt we must all
    curb spending but should not at the expense of our security.
    That is why I must tell you that sequestration would hollow the
    force substantially and devastate our national security.
        It would result in further, severe reductions to the
    National Guard, Reserve, and the Active component. The National
    Guard is already facing difficult budget cuts, as you've
    alluded to, cuts that impact equipment and personnel.
        Further reductions would significantly limit the Guard's
    ability to function as an operational force, decrease the Total
    Forces' overall capability, and reduce the departments'
    capacity to protect the homeland and respond to emergencies.
        The National Guard is a more ready, more capable, and more
    rapidly deployable force than ever in our Nation's history, as
    all of you know so well from your visits back home.
        We have, and will continue to answer the call for
    mobilizations and volunteer support of our combatant
    commanders. Today, more than 50 percent of our guardsmen have
    combat experience.
        As a part-time force, the National Guard is a proven,
    affordable defense option for America. During a time of
    constrained budgets, we should continue to be used as an
    operational force to ensure the Nation is getting the most
    defense capability at the lowest cost.
        As an operational force, the National Guard is ideally
    suited to meet the new strategic guidance, to meet steady State
    demands, and act as a strategic hedge for unforeseen world
    events. At any time, the National Guard can and will augment
    the Active Duty, both the Army and the Air Force, to surge and
    regenerate forces.
        The Nation also counts on the National Guard to protect the
    homeland, your home States, commonwealths, territories, and the
    District of Columbia. The National Guard is the best and
    primary military force to respond to complex catastrophes and
    contributes to our security by protecting our air space and
    borders.
        While representing only a small portion of the Guard's
    response capability, last year Federal and State authorities
    called on one of our 57 Civil Support Teams to use their unique
    weapons of mass destruction assessment skills almost twice a
    day, every day in our hometowns.
        The National Guard is crucial to our Governors. Over the
    past 3 years, guardsmen and women responded to an unprecedented
    string of disasters. We are poised and ready to provide that
    support again.
        According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
    Administrator Craig Fugate, speed is critical to domestic
    response. He has stated recently at the National Governors'
    Association Conference that aviation assets need to be organic
    to the National Guard. Other options, he added, may not provide
    the same speed and capacity.
        We're obviously located in more than 3,000 communities
    across the country, and the National Guard is positioned to
    respond quickly and efficiently and work very close with our
    civilian first responders to any domestic emergency.
        Our dual role requires that we continue to improve the
    quality and quantity of our equipment. The National Guard
    Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) has been, and will continue
    to be, crucial to that endeavor.
        The NGREA is vital to the Guard as I'm sure it is to the
    other Reserve Chiefs, as it provides the ability to meet
    requirements including homeland defense needs and modernization
    of legacy equipment.
        After 11 years of war, we continue to work closely with the
    United States Army, and the United States Air Force, to re-set
    our force to ensure our equipment levels meet the defense
    strategy.
        As citizen soldiers and airmen, guardsmen are able to blend
    their unique combination of military training, civilian
    acquired skills, to provide innovative approaches to support
    our Nation's security strategy.
        The State partnership program is a cornerstone of the new
    strategic guidance and demonstrates the Guard's versatility.
    Our partnership with more than 60 foreign countries has
    strengthened their military capacity and competence as well as
    our alliance, most recently demonstrated in Chicago with our
    National Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit.
        National Guard partner nations have reduced the demand on
    U.S. forces, 22 partner nations have provided 11,000 troops to
    Afghanistan, and 40 partner nations have provided more than
    31,000 personnel in support of United Nations peacekeeping
    operations.
        This year we will celebrate 20 years of the State
    partnership program, and we look forward to continuing to work
    with the Adjutants General, the Governors of our States,
    territories, commonwealths, and the District of Columbia to
    continue this innovative, low-cost, small footprint approach to
    security cooperation for the future.
        Each year, we continue to adapt our skills to better serve
    the Nation's strategy, and that is why this year we are
    instituting a threat-based resourcing model for our counterdrug
    activities. This will direct funding to States facing the most
    pressing narcotics threats to our communities. The breadth of
    our skills allows the Guard to take on new and emerging
    missions.
        I also would like to address our most important asset, as
    you have so aptly stated, our soldiers and airmen are the
    reason the National Guard has been so successful over the last
    decade. Indeed, for the last 375 years.
        Today, your National Guard is the most capable and
    competent in history, and that is because we are recruiting the
    highest quality soldiers and airmen.
        Our noteworthy enlistment and retention numbers since
    September 11, 2001, are proof that they join because they want
    to be used and expect to be used. This dedication would not be
    possible without the support of our families, communities, and
    the employers.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        That's why I'm dedicated to working closely with the Army
    and the Air Force to provide our servicemembers, their
    families, and employers with the best and most effective
    support available.
        Thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to appear before
    you today. I'd like to ask my wingman, Bud Wyatt, to speak,
    followed by Bill Ingram.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of General Craig R. McKinley
                                opening remarks
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee: I am honored to appear before you today,
    representing more than 460,000 citizen-soldiers and airmen in the Army
    and Air National Guard, an organization that is historically part of
    the foundation of our great democracy. America's National Guard remains
    ready, reliable, and accessible. As members of an operational force
    that's a critical piece of our Nation's military response both overseas
    and here at home, the soldiers and airmen of the National Guard
    contribute daily to our Nation's overseas and domestic security
    objectives.
                the national guard: security america can afford
        For 375 years, the National Guard has played a significant role in
    maintaining peace and security for our States, territories, the
    District of Columbia, and the Nation. I am very proud of our rich
    heritage and our present-day resolve as we continue our role preserving
    the ideals upon which our country was established.
        Today, we are faced with a historic opportunity as we stand at the
    confluence of a new fiscal environment, the transition from combat to
    stability operations and a new military strategy. This convergence is
    leading to new defense-wide budgetary realities and challenging our
    decisionmakers as they formulate difficult spending choices that are
    sustainable and keep America safe and secure.
        Today's global security environment is characterized as having
    asymmetric threats which pose danger to the United States. In light of
    this, we must remain vigilant and capable. The United States faces
    greater security challenges today than at the end of the cold war, the
    last time the military was significantly downsized. Therefore, we must
    look beyond simple cost accounting methods calling for across the board
    spending reductions. This method was used in the past, and it did not
    serve us well. The result was widely characterized as a hollow force.
    Our new military strategy ensures we will not risk a hollow National
    Guard in the future.
            an operational force for domestic and overseas missions
        The National Guard is well-suited to provide support to our new
    military strategy. The past 10 years brought vast improvements in the
    overall training, equipping, and readiness of our force. This reality,
    combined with significant combat experience, has created a ``dividend''
    in the National Guard. We have the most proficient, capable,
    accessible, and battle-tested National Guard in the history of the
    United States. Failure to continue the reliance on, and modernization
    of, the National Guard would squander a decade's worth of progress and
    result in an enormous loss of experience and capability.
        As a ready and rapidly deployable force, the National Guard has
    proven its value over the past decade. Both the Army and Air National
    Guard have contributed thousands of soldiers and airmen to Iraq,
    Afghanistan, the Balkans, Guantanamo Bay, Djibouti, the Sinai, and
    other locations across the globe. In 2011, more than 29,000 National
    Guardsmen were mobilized for operations around the world. An example of
    our ability to rapidly project United States power occurred on March
    17, 2011. As the United Nations Security Council debated the Libyan no-
    fly zone resolution, Air National Guard aircraft and air crews were
    already en route to forward operating bases to await orders. The
    National Guard offers America not only affordable defense but also a
    ``reversibility'' option--a strategic hedge for unforeseen world events
    which could dictate a change of course for our Nation's military
    strategy. At any time, the National Guard can augment the Active Duty
    to surge and regenerate forces.
        The National Guard is also a crucial component of the Department of
    Defense (DOD) primary mission to provide support to civil authorities
    and defend the homeland. Each year, the National Guard responds to a
    myriad of domestic emergencies. Last year alone, the Army National
    Guard performed more than 900,000 duty days (459,724 in State status
    and 447,461 in title 32 status) in response to wildfires, tornadoes,
    floods, Hurricane Irene, and other alerts and emergencies. Air National
    Guardsmen also fully participate in these missions including protecting
    American skies through the Aerospace Control Alert mission, critical
    infrastructure protection, and assisting their local communities with
    disaster recovery.
        The National Guard also brings innovative response capabilities to
    respond to major disasters including weapons of mass destruction
    incidents. The National Guard is home to 70 percent of the department's
    capability to respond to weapons of mass destruction. By the end of the
    2012, the National Guard will fully establish 10 Homeland Response
    Forces. These forces are part of an escalating capability that
    complements the National Guard's 17 Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
    Nuclear Enhanced Response Force Packages and 57 Weapons of Mass
    Destruction Civil Support Teams. Most importantly, time and distance
    equal lives saved. The National Guard is fully integrated into more
    than 3,000 communities across the country and the innovative response
    task forces are within 250 miles of 80 percent of the U.S. population.
        The National Guard Counter Drug Program (CDP) is leading the effort
    to engage in funding based on measurable metrics and threats. The
    implementation of the Threat Based Resource Model budget will
    strengthen the National Guard's national security capability by
    allocating resources to all States and territories based on the
    severity of the narcotics threat faced by each State. In an era of
    ever-changing global challenges, the CDP provides critical support to
    law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and combatant commanders with full-
    spectrum capabilities that helps our Nation detect, interdict, and
    disrupt transnational criminal organizations. CDP personnel helped LEAs
    seize almost $18.5 billion in drugs, property, weapons, and cash in
    fiscal year 2011. The CDP also operates five Counterdrug Training
    Centers located in Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and
    Washington; these centers trained 5,836 military personnel, 56,093 law
    enforcement officers, and 9,792 interagency partners in 2011.
               the national guard's value and unique capabilities
        The National Guard provides a cost-effective, proven solution to
    our country's budgetary crisis while helping to ensure our security.
    The National Guard allows the Nation to maintain a robust military
    capability at the least possible cost to the taxpayer and is a viable
    resource for reducing the Department's cost of doing business. In the
    Army National Guard, more than 50 percent of our soldiers are now
    seasoned combat veterans. The Air National Guard is similarly filled
    with combat veterans. To ensure reversibility, the experience these
    soldiers and airmen have gained over the past decade of conflict cannot
    be lost.
        As the Nation looks for innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint
    approaches to achieving our security objectives, the National Guard is
    providing a blueprint of success. Celebrating nearly 20 years of
    enduring relationships with 63 countries, the National Guard's State
    Partnership Program (SPP) provides unique military-to-military
    activities with partner countries using National Guard expertise.
    Participation in SPP events is designed to enhance partner
    capabilities, advance defense reform efforts, and achieve greater
    military interoperability to support U.S. security cooperation efforts.
        Among other benefits, SPP alignments have resulted in joint
    National Guard and partner country deployments in support of
    multinational operations in Afghanistan. These critical partner-country
    deployments reduce pressure on U.S. forces worldwide and hedge against
    the need for more direct and costly U.S. military involvement in future
    contingencies.
        DOD is also currently refining its framework to thwart cyber
    attacks in the future while defending our critical military networks
    today. The National Guard has access to a wealth of information
    technology talent within its ranks, including guardsmen working in
    numerous information technology companies. These soldiers and airmen
    have a unique blend of civilian and military skills across the
    information technology spectrum, making the National Guard a ready
    defense asset in the national cybersecurity mission.
                     support soldiers, airmen, and families
        Our soldiers and airmen are our greatest asset, and that is why we
    are committed to effectively responding to the needs of National
    Guardsmen and their families. The Army Guard currently has more than
    3,100 wounded warriors in Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) that are
    focused on healing each injured soldier as he or she either transitions
    back to military duty or leaves the military to assume a productive,
    responsible role in society. WTUs provide nonclinical support, complex
    case management, and transition assistance for soldiers of all
    components at medical treatment facilities on Active Army
    installations. The Air Guard's Wounded Warrior program provided
    awareness, identification, and information/referral to more than 160
    wounded airmen. The program's mission is to provide the best possible
    nonmedical care and professional support from the point of injury to
    life after separation or retirement.
        The National Guard has made suicide prevention a top priority by
    promoting resilience and risk reduction programs that will enhance
    coping skills in our soldiers, airmen, families, and civilians through
    leadership awareness, training, and intervention programs. As the
    foundation of each soldier's support network, Army Guard families and
    employers are being trained to assist in identifying high-risk
    individuals. States have capitalized on community-based resources and
    solutions to provide services outside of military installations.
        One of the many challenges that we face today is unemployment for
    our returning guardsmen. Based on the DOD Civilian Employment
    Information database, we estimate that 20 percent of returning National
    Guard soldiers and airmen are unemployed. The rate of unemployed gulf
    war era II veterans remains much higher than the national nonveteran
    rate. Gulf war era II veterans who have left military service in the
    past have an unemployment rate in January 2012 of 9.1 percent.
        The National Guard Bureau has been and remains deeply concerned
    with the employment status of our soldiers and airmen. They are our
    most important asset and their well-being and retention are essential
    for the National Guard as an operational force. As early as 2004, the
    National Guard Bureau funded a unique resource, titled ``Program
    Support Specialist,'' at each of the 54 State Joint Force Headquarters.
    This individual serves as the subject-matter expert for the Adjutant
    General regarding local issues with employers of Air and Army National
    Guard members.
        While initially focused on specific employer support issues and
    complaint resolution, the duties of the Program Support Specialist
    expanded to include employment facilitation. In addition to
    coordinating employment opportunity events and linking unemployed
    guardsmen with available resources, Program Support Specialists are
    serving as case managers for unemployed guardsmen by connecting them
    with local resources, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the
    Department of Labor. Last year, Program Support Specialists
    participated in more than 1,000 ``Yellow Ribbon Reintegration'' events
    nationwide--supporting units throughout the country returning from
    deployment by identifying employment opportunities and providing other
    requested assistance. We continue to develop metrics to measure the
    effectiveness of our program.
        The Program Support Specialists also work closely with our
    Transition Assistance Advisors in the State Joint Force Headquarters to
    ensure our Guard members are registered with Veterans' Affairs (VA) and
    can access their VA benefits, to include vocational and job training.
    Both of these programs are essential when developing and establishing
    community-based program networks in support of veterans,
    servicemembers, and families.
        The Army National Guard Directorate offers several national
    programs to assist the States with their local employment programs. The
    ``Job Connection Education Program'' (JCEP) is a Web-based program that
    interfaces with Facebook and provides the ability for guardsmen and
    their families to research, obtain, and retain civilian employment. The
    ``Guard Apprentice Program Initiative,'' in partnership with the
    Department of Labor and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, continues
    to build relationships with employers and colleges to facilitate
    civilian apprenticeship and employment opportunities for National Guard
    and other Reserve component members. ``Drive the Guard'' is a
    collaborative effort with the Commercial Driver Training Foundation,
    Inc. which links guardsmen with training and certification programs in
    their communities. Once completed, the guardsman has the potential to
    begin a career in the truck driving industry.
                                closing remarks
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, I look forward to
    your questions.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        General Wyatt.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY M. WYATT, III,
                DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
        General Wyatt. Chairman Inouye and Senator Cochran, thank
    you and the subcommittee very much for your support for the
    extraordinary men and women of the Air National Guard's, some
    106,700 strong.
        I'd like to open with a brief review of the events of 2011
    before looking to the future of the Air National Guard. Your
    Guard airmen continue to make significant contributions to our
    Nation's defense, both here at home and around the globe.
        Last year, Guard airmen filled approximately 54,000
    requests for manpower; 91 percent of these requests were filled
    by volunteers. Air National Guard's responsiveness and
    adaptability was clearly demonstrated a year ago when on March
    17, 2011, as the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1973
    authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya, Air National Guard KC-
    135s, from the 134th Aerial Refueling Wing, Tennessee, and the
    168th Aerial Refueling Wing, Alaska, were diverted enroute to
    forward operating bases.
        These Guard airmen began flying operational missions in
    support of Operation Odyssey Dawn 48 hours later, clearly
    demonstrating that the Air National Guard is both accessible
    and ready to serve.
        Last year, National Guard airmen spent more than 500,000
    man-days performing domestic, civil support missions, one-third
    of it on State Active Duty.
        This included assisting local authorities with explosive
    ordinance disposal, helping with security at special events,
    such as the Arkansas Governor's inauguration, and the Boston
    Marathon, done at State expense, not Federal expense, and
    helping victims of floods and other natural disasters and
    helping to save lives by assisting in search and rescue
    efforts.
        In addition to supporting civil authorities, Guard airmen
    spent an additional 1 million man-days in homeland defense.
    This included helping to defend U.S. air space and aerospace
    control alert missions, assisting U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection on our Southwest border and supporting America's
    counterdrug program.
        Your National Guard airmen and soldiers have spent
    countless volunteer hours in their local communities, aiding
    their fellow airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines through
    Yellow Ribbon and Wounded Warrior projects and volunteering for
    public service projects such as Youth Challenge and Habitat for
    Humanity.
        Congressional funding through the National Guard and
    Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) has been essential to the Air
    National Guard fulfilling both its Federal and State missions.
        Air National Guard F-16 and A-10 Squadrons deployed to
    Afghanistan with Litening Generation 4 Targeting Pods for the
    first time as a direct result of NGREA funding.
        Fiscal year 2011 NGREA funds were also used to procure and
    install equipment for a cyber critical infrastructure range
    allowing Air National Guard cyber units to train and develop
    tactics, techniques, and procedures for cyber warfare without
    disrupting networks used to accomplish day-to-day missions.
        While the fiscal year 2013 budget has challenges for the
    Air National Guard, it also has opportunities, and we adjusted
    our priorities to take full advantage of those opportunities.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Air National Guard's priorities in preparing this
    budget were, number one, posture the Air National Guard by
    aligning for size and composition to be flexible, agile, and
    ready with special attention to new missions such as the MC-12
    and remotely piloted aircraft.
        Number two, maintaining a combat ready force able to
    quickly surge and integrate seamlessly into joint operations.
    And, number three, repairing units broken by the previous base
    closure and realignment process and recent programming changes.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm grateful to be
    here, and I look forward to answering any questions that you
    and the subcommittee may have for me.
        Thank you very much, Sir.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Harry M. Wyatt, III
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    subcommittee: I am honored to appear before you today, representing the
    nearly 106,000 men and women of our Nation's Air National Guard.
        Every year at this time, I look back on the accomplishments of our
    Air National Guard and every year I am humbled by professionalism,
    dedication, patriotism, and hard work of the men and women who make up
    the Air National Guard family, including the Guard airmen, their
    families, and their civilian employers. This past year was no
    exception, as our Guard airmen--supported by their families and
    employers--have continued to defend and protect our Nation and its
    citizens both at home and abroad.
            an operational force for domestic and overseas missions
        The men and women of the Air National Guard continue to work as
    both an operational force, augmenting the Active Duty Air Force on
    operational missions, and a Reserve Force, providing combat-ready surge
    capabilities to respond to increased demands. The Air National Guard
    also continues to fulfill its dual-role as both a Reserve component to
    the U.S. Air Force (Federal mission) and Air component to the National
    Guard (State mission).
    Federal Mission
        The men and women of the Air National Guard continued to serve
    their Nation in record numbers--primarily as volunteers. Last year the
    Air National Guard filled 54,000 requests for Active service in support
    of the Air National Guard's Federal mission. Of those Guard airmen
    filling the requests, 91 percent volunteered to service on Active Duty.
    This makes a total of 510,408 filled mobilization requests since 9/11.
        Air National Guard responsiveness and adaptability was clearly
    demonstrated a year ago. On March 17, 2011, as the United Nations
    Security Council passed Resolution 1973 authorizing a no-fly-zone over
    Libya, Air National Guard KC-135s from the 134th Aerial Refueling Wing
    (Tennessee) and 168th Aerial Refueling Wing (Alaska) were diverted en
    route to forward operating bases and began flying operational missions
    in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn 48 hours later.
        In addition to those serving in support of overseas contingency
    operations, Guard airmen continue to serve the Nation on nearly every
    continent around the globe including Antarctica.
    Homeland Defense and Support to Civil Authorities
        Last year, National Guard airmen spent more than one-half million
    man-days performing domestic civil support missions, one-third of it on
    State Active Duty. This included assisting local authorities with
    explosive ordinance disposal, helping with security at special events
    such as the Arkansas Governor's Inauguration and the Boston Marathon,
    helping victims of floods and other natural disasters, and helping to
    save lives by assisting in search and rescue efforts. Air National
    Guard C-130s equipped with Aerial Modular Fire Fighting Systems dropped
    more than 675,000 gallons of fire suppressant assisting the U.S.
    Forestry Service in fighting wild fires across the country. Whether it
    is something small such as four Guard airmen helping local officials
    responding to a major car accident in remote Wyoming or 30,000 man-days
    assisting flood victims last April, the men and women of the Air
    National Guard prove their value to America every day.
        In addition to supporting civil authorities, Guard airmen spent an
    additional million man-days in Homeland Defense. This includes helping
    to defend U.S. airspace in aerospace control alert, assisting U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection on our Southwest border, and supporting
    America's counterdrug program.
        The Air National Guard's accomplishment of its Homeland Defense and
    Support of Civil Authorities missions continue to be accomplished
    primarily on the ``dual-use'' assumption, i.e., using equipment and
    training for its Federal mission, thus avoiding additional costs for
    the States or Air Force. However, this also means that changes in
    equipment or manpower for the Air National Guard's Federal mission may
    affect the Air Guard's homeland defense and civil support capabilities.
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account
        The Air Guard has used National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account
    (NGREA) funding to fulfill its Federal and State missions. Air National
    Guard F-16 and A-10 squadrons deployed to Afghanistan with LITERNING
    Gen4 targeting pods for the first time as a direct result of NGREA
    funding. Fiscal year 2011 NGREA funds were also used to procure and
    install equipment for a Cyber Critical Infrastructure Range allowing
    Air National Guard cyber units to train and develop tactics,
    techniques, and procedures for cyber warfare without disrupting
    networks used to accomplish day-to-day missions.
        In response to congressional concerns about management of the
    NGREA, the Air National Guard developed process improvements to enable
    longer-term, higher-confidence planning by Program Management Offices
    (PMOs), thus helping the Air Guard meet the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense (OSD) obligation rate standards for procurement funds. Each
    fall, 3-year investment plans are developed using ranges of potential
    funding levels, based on NGREA appropriations in recent years.
    Prioritizing procurement requirements in funding bands (highest
    likelihood of funding, significant likelihood of funding, and potential
    likelihood of funding) will enable program management offices to
    accomplish advanced planning to incorporate NGREA into planned
    contracts and separate NGREA-funded equipment purchases. Specifically,
    procurements with the longest contractual lead times will be
    prioritized in the band with the highest likelihood of funding. In this
    way, PMOs will plan for NGREA as if it was budgeted, and they can have
    confidence that resources invested in advance planning and preparation
    will not be wasted
                        support for airmen and families
        The men and women of the Air National Guard serve with pride and
    distinction, but 20 years of combat have taken a toll on our airmen and
    their families. In 2011, the Air National Guard had 17 members die by
    suicide. While a lower rate than in 2010, the overall rate has been
    slightly upward since 1992. The Air National Guard launched its
    Psychological Health Program last year by placing licensed mental
    health professionals in each wing, a peer-to-peer ``Wingman Project,''
    and other suicide awareness and prevention initiatives. The goal of the
    Wingman Project is multifaceted. First, the Air National Guard will
    ensure our airmen and their families are prepared psychologically for
    the traumas and stress of combat deployments. Following their
    deployments, we need to ensure our Guard airmen are welcomed home as
    the heroes they are and received the appropriate recognition for a job
    well done. Finally, we must make sure that the member and their
    families are aware of the potential after affects and the resources
    available to help them cope.
                      the future of the air national guard
        I have seen two major post-war draw-downs in my career. The first
    occurred in the 1970s as the Vietnam War was drawing to a close. The
    second was in the 1990s at the end of the cold war. In 1970, Secretary
    of Defense Melvin B. Laird put his faith in the Reserve components and
    created the Total Force that served the Nation through the end of the
    cold war.
        In 1990, our Air Force faced challenges not unlike those of today.
    And, the threats to national security and interest had not gone away
    with the fall of the Berlin Wall, in fact, the future looked just as
    unknown and ominous as it does today. First, there was a new strategy
    shifting focus from the Soviet Union to major regional conflicts. There
    was growing concern about the security implications of a possible
    breakup of the Soviet Union; economic, political, and geographic
    expansion of China; and new challenges in the Middle East. The United
    States was trying to get the budget deficit under control--at that time
    it was sequestration under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget
    and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Faced with significant
    budget cuts and amorphous but growing threats abroad, Secretary of the
    Air Force Donald Rice decided to follow Secretary Laird's lead from the
    1970s. As Secretary Rice wrote in his 1990 Report to Congress:

        ``The Air Force Total Force policy, formalized in 1973, has evolved
    to the current policy for a mix of Active and Reserve component forces,
    using all available assets, to ensure that maximum military capability
    is achieved at minimum cost. We intend to allow as much force structure
    growth in the Air Reserve Component (ARC) as possible while maintaining
    a realistic balance between the ability of the Guard and Reserve to
    absorb that growth and the ability of the Active Force to meet
    peacetime and contingency tasking.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The United States Air Force Report to the 101st Congress of the
    United States, fiscal year 1991.

        It was the Air Force that Secretary Rice built that maintained
    Northern and Southern Watch after Operation Desert Storm. This Air
    Force, built upon heavy reliance on the Air Force Reserve and Air
    National Guard, also responded to the crisis in Bosnia and Kosovo,
    fought Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Air
    Guard KC-135s were the first on the scene for Operation Odyssey Dawn
    protecting Libyan civilians. Secretary Rice's Total Air Force also
    responded to numerous humanitarian crises around the world including
    Pakistan, Japan, Haiti, and here at home.
        The Air National Guard's priorities in preparing the fiscal year
    2013 budget were:
      --Funding readiness accounts to include flying hours and Depot
            Purchased Equipment Maintenance;
      --Mission conversions included in the fiscal year 2013 President's
            budget; and
      --Modernization.
                                closing remarks
        I believe that working together we can emerge from these times a
    stronger, more capable Total Air Force. Thank you for the opportunity
    to be here today, I look forward to your questions.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General.
        General Ingram.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM E. INGRAM, JR.,
                DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
        General Ingram. Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran,
    and members of the subcommittee. It's an honor to be with you
    today representing the 358,000 citizen soldiers of the Army
    National Guard.
        The patriotism and sacrifice of these soldiers, their
    families, and their employers is a source of great pride for
    all Americans. We're now the best-manned, best-led, best-
    trained, best-equipped, and most-experienced force in our 375-
    year history.
        And it's congressional support for the Army National Guard
    that has contributed to our transformation and enhanced our
    readiness. As a result, the Army National Guard is a ready and
    reliable force, fully accessible for contingencies both at home
    and abroad.
        We provide equipped, trained soldiers, giving the President
    and the Governors maximum flexibility in times of crisis. We're
    an operational force and a full partner with the Active Army.
        Since September 11, 2011, the Army National Guard has
    completed more than 500,000 soldier mobilizations in support of
    domestic operations and overseas missions. We currently have
    29,000 Army National Guard soldiers mobilized.
        Last year, in fiscal year 2011, 45,000 Army Guardsmen were
    deployed in support of ongoing missions around the world. As an
    operational force, the Army National Guard provides a cost-
    effective solution to meet the new strategic guidance.
        For 12.3 percent of the Army's base budget, the Army
    National Guard provides 39 percent of the Army's operating
    forces. Our soldiers represent nearly every ZIP Code in the
    Nation. They play a vital role as the Department of Defense
    (DOD) first responder for natural disasters and terrorist
    attacks on our soil.
        Today's Army National Guard soldiers continue the proud
    tradition of service to their States and to our Nation. In 2011
    alone, it was the citizen soldiers who provided 900,000 duty
    days of support to communities across our Nation. That's the
    second largest domestic response since 9/11, since Hurricane
    Katrina.
        We are attracting skilled soldiers and future leaders. With
    the Nation at war as a backdrop, our year-to-date enlistment
    rate for fiscal year 2012 is in excess of 95 percent, but our
    retention rate exceeds 130 percent. So we are meeting our
    authorized end-strength of 358,000.
        The Army National Guard is equipping to meet 21st century
    challenges through your support of the necessary resourcing for
    modernization. Our 28 brigade combat teams that include 1
    Stryker brigade, our 8 combat aviation brigades, and our 2
    special forces groups are well-equipped.
        We understand our readiness level, however, is dependent on
    the level of resourcing that we receive. The overall Army
    National Guard equipment on hand for our deployable units is
    currently at 88 percent, an increase of more than 2 years ago
    when we were at 85 percent.
        Our critical dual-use equipment on hand is at 92 percent,
    an increase from 86 percent 2 years ago, and a significant
    increase from the 65 percent it was during Hurricane Katrina.
        From December 2011 through June 2013, the Army National
    Guard is programmed to receive more than 120,000 pieces of
    equipment from Army procurement funding.
        Army National Guard armories are actually the foundation of
    our readiness. We have facilities in 2,899 communities across
    the 50 States, the territories, and the District. Providing
    quality facilities, however, is an ongoing challenge.
        More than 46 percent of our armories are more than 50 years
    old. Many are unable to meet the needs of the 21st century
    operational force while failing to meet modern building
    standards and especially in terms of energy efficiency.
        The Army National Guard continues to make suicide
    prevention a top priority. Our soldiers are our most precious
    resource. We are addressing high-risk behaviors and suicidal
    tendencies through preventive measures, comprehensive training,
    and a range of intervention programs.
        In addition, we are addressing sexual harassment, and
    assault response and prevention through an aggressive training
    program executed at the State level. It's crucial that these
    behavioral health programs receive funding in our base budget.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, I acknowledge the continued support that you've
    demonstrated through the budget process in program planning for
    an operational National Guard through 2015.
        I want to express the Army National Guard's sincere
    appreciation of the critical role your subcommittee plays in
    resourcing and sustaining the most capable National Guard that
    our Nation has ever had.
        I appreciate the privilege of being here and invite your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General William Ingram, Jr.
                                opening remarks
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    subcommittee: I am honored to appear before you today, representing the
    nearly 360,000 citizen soldiers in the Army National Guard (ARNG). For
    375 years, ARNG has been central to how the Nation defends itself at
    home and abroad. Through resolve and readiness, our citizen soldiers
    deliver essential value to our Nation and its communities and
    contribute immeasurably to our national security. Since September 11,
    2001, through the end of fiscal year 2011, ARNG has completed more than
    495,000 soldier mobilizations in support of domestic operations and
    overseas missions.
        The Army National Guard of 2012 is the best-manned, best-trained,
    best-equipped, and most-experienced force in our history. We are an
    operational force and a full partner with the Active component. More
    than 50 percent of our soldiers are seasoned combat veterans. That
    statistic speaks to our overseas credentials. But we have been given a
    dual mission. Domestically, our soldiers represent every ZIP Code where
    they play a vital role and have earned the respect of hometown America.
            an operational force for domestic and overseas missions
        Our Nation has endured a decade at war relying upon an All-
    Volunteer Force. Despite the challenges this has presented, our young
    people still want to join the ARNG. Our recruitment rate for 2012 is
    93.7 percent of goal (as of January 31, 2012).
        Along with this positive trend is an impressive retention rate
    among those who are already serving. ARNG retention rate stands at
    131.2 percent of goal as of January 31, 2012. Today's Army Guard
    soldiers continue the proud tradition of meeting the needs of our local
    communities and our Nation at home and around the world. In 2011 alone,
    citizen soldiers responded to floods, wildfires, tornadoes, and
    hurricanes as well as providing key security forces along our Nation's
    Southwest border. Concurrent with these critical missions, ARNG
    continues to deploy overseas in support of peacekeeping, humanitarian
    disasters, and combat operations.
        For years, ARNG was viewed as a ``Strategic'' Reserve. The events
    of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent hostilities in Iraq and
    Afghanistan challenged all previous troop strength and deployment
    assumptions.
        The Army had to consider--and utilize--our citizen soldiers as an
    operational force. Now, when the Department of Defense (DOD) formulates
    war plans, ARNG is integral to the overall design and operations tempo
    (OPTEMPO). We realize this inclusion makes ARNG responsible for
    maintaining units trained to the highest standard of readiness. Funding
    is required to maintain this level of readiness. The result is that for
    the first time in 2013 the operational force is partially funded in the
    base budget request which supports additional duty days and OPTEMPO to
    facilitate rapid deployment of functional and multifunctional units
    required to deploy on a compressed timeline.
          ready and reliable deployments: the accessibility advantage
        In fiscal year 2011, ARNG soldiers were deployed for a total of
    58,903 tours in support of a multitude of ongoing missions around the
    world.
        The breakdown, by tour, includes the following:
      --32,752 tours in support of Operation Enduring Freedom;
      --24,552 tours in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn;
      --877 tours in support of Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo;
      --45 tours in support of Operation Noble Eagle;
      --2 tours in support of Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia; and
      --675 tours as part of Deployment Support Cell (DSC) operations.
        ARNG has continuously proven to be a ready and reliable force for
    both domestic and overseas missions. A determining factor in ARNG
    global deployments has been the change to title 10, U.S.C. section
    12304, which may have a direct impact on increasing the accessibility
    and rotational possibilities for the ARNG. ARNG has developed into a
    responsive, operational force, contributing to ``boots-on-the-ground''
    requirement for deployments. A change in the law (National Defense
    Authorization Act of 2011) has made ARNG more accessible for
    predictable, operational missions. With the implementation of the Army
    Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle as well as the new law, our leaders
    now have greater flexibility, predictability, and choice in how they
    deploy forces. Our soldiers and their families will now have the same
    type of predictability with more dwell time between deployments and
    additional time for training.
        Closer to home, ARNG provided more than 907,185 duty-days of
    support to communities across the Nation in 2011. This figure
    represents our commitment to the Nation in response to natural
    disasters and fulfills our enduring pledge to sustain local, State, and
    Federal law enforcement agencies. Notably, that number of duty-days
    nearly doubles that of 2010--and is three times greater than 2009. The
    Southwest border security mission along with an active year of flood,
    tornado, wildfire, and hurricane response operations accounts for the
    majority of this increase. However, I want to emphasize that the nearly
    1 million duty-days performed last year clearly exemplifies the unique
    capability of ARNG forces and the dedication of citizen soldiers who
    serve in our ranks.
              equipping an operational force for the 21st century
        In 2012, ARNG is better equipped than ever. We understand our
    readiness level is entirely dependent on our level of resourcing. So
    the challenge, as always, is to do everything efficiently.
        ARNG equipment on-hand (EOH) posture is evaluated and published
    twice a year. This important review process informs senior leaders and
    policymakers of ARNG fill levels for equipment supporting every
    mission. Modification table of organization and equipment (MTOE)
    authorizations and on-hand inventory are used to determine EOH for both
    contingency operations and domestic missions. In collaboration with
    Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), the ARNG identifies
    specific equipment on MTOE documents as critical to domestic response
    missions. This equipment is identified as critical dual use (CDU). The
    Department of the Army considers CDU items when prioritizing equipment
    procurement.
        The overall ARNG equipment on-hand (EOH) for MTOE units is
    currently at 88 percent, an increase from 85 percent 2 years ago.
    Overall CDU EOH is 92 percent, an increase from 86 percent 2 years ago
    and a significant increase from 65 percent during Army National Guard
    operations supporting the Hurricane Katrina response. From December
    2011 through June 2013 ARNG is programmed to receive more than 120,000
    pieces of equipment from Army procurement funding.
        Equipment modernization remains an area of concern. Despite
    significant progress improving EOH levels, ARNG continues to have
    critical shortfalls in UH-60 A-A-L modernization, CH-47F, HMMWV
    Recapitalization, and General Engineering Equipment.
        We are working closely with the Army to minimize any shortages with
    priority going to deploying units. ARNG continues to pursue equipment
    modernization, greater efficiencies and economies-of-scale through
    Department of the Army procurement and National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) funding.
        Sustaining ARNG as an Operational Force depends upon having the
    same equipment as the Active component, including rotary wing aircraft.
    ARNG currently has 1,277 rotary wing aircraft against an authorized
    fleet of 1,394 aircraft; 85 percent of ARNG aircraft authorizations are
    filled with the same modern and capable aircraft as the Active Army
    fleet. The inventory includes a mix of the most modern capabilities
    (AH-64D Block II Longbow Apaches, CH-47F Chinooks, UH/HH-60M Black
    Hawks and UH-72A Lakotas), older but capable airframes (AH-46D Block I
    Apaches, CH-47D Chinooks, UH-60A/L Black Hawks, and OH-58D Kiowa
    Warriors) and 98 legacy aircraft (OH-58A/C Kiowas and AH-64A Apaches).
        Programmed Army procurements will ensure ARNG fleets are modernized
    on pace with the other components, except in the case of the Black Hawk
    fleet. Even in 2020, only 25 percent of the ARNG Black Hawk fleet will
    be equipped with the new UH/HH-60M. Rotary wing aircraft remain a
    critical dual-use asset whether mobilizing for the warfight or
    responding to domestic emergencies.
                              domestic operations
        In 2011, citizen soldiers' support of the Southwest border mission
    spanned the 1,933-mile border of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and
    Texas. This critical mission called upon three ARNG capabilities.
    First, observation and reporting of border activities to U.S. Customs
    and Border Protection. The second capability is our analytical
    expertise which augments Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.
    Finally, the command and control of personnel within the ARNG of each
    Southwest border State ensures cohesive action and coordinated
    operations.
        In February 2012, the Southwest border mission transitioned from a
    ground-based force to an air-based force. The Southwest border
    transition reduced manpower requirements from 1,200 to no more than
    300. The continued Southwest border mission for calendar year 2012 will
    cost $60 million. The current Southwest border support focuses on
    criminal analysis and aerial detection and monitoring.
        During 2011, ARNG also provided support to law enforcement and
    special events. The law enforcement support required 60,636 duty-days
    of assistance and special events required another 2,685 duty-days of
    assistance.
        ARNG actively supported several environmental requests during 2011.
    Our winter storm response included 24 events in 18 States. The full
    scope of these actions required 11,152 duty-days of support.
    Firefighting support required 10,920 duty-days of support. Our flood
    response during 2011 totaled 201,866 duty-days of support. Hurricane
    and tropical storms demanded 67,795 duty-days of support. When twisters
    made their way across our Nation in 2011 ARNG responded with 14,775
    duty-days of support to devastated communities.
                     aviation's role in domestic operations
        ARNG Aviation flew more than 3,000 hours in response to domestic
    disasters in 2011. Domestic operations (DOMOPS) missions included
    response to hurricanes, wildfires, tornados, and floods; civil search
    and rescue (SAR) missions; and counterdrug support. Our Hurricane Irene
    response in August was a major domestic operation that included 37
    aircraft from seven States. These aircraft flew 540 hours in support of
    SAR, evacuation, commodity distributions, and support to local law
    enforcement agencies.
               the national guard's value and unique capabilities
        ARNG, with its unique range of skills, expertise, and experience
    level has structured itself for the future. As an operational force,
    our citizen soldiers are the most cost-effective means of calibrating
    capabilities in response to ever-changing demand from conventional and
    unconventional threats.
        The National Guard has the only DOD network that reaches all 54
    States and territories. GuardNet is a Nationwide information systems
    and mission command network that spans 10 time zones, 54 States, 3
    territories, and the District of Columbia, serving the Adjutants
    General of the States and the national capital region. GuardNet is the
    functional channel of communications for the National Guard Bureau
    (NGB) and is the mission command capability for the Adjutants General
    of the several States for non-federalized units in generating force and
    defense support for civil authorities. GuardNet reaches all of ARNG
    readiness centers in all of the States and territories and is a model
    of information technology efficiency and services.
        ARNG possesses the largest military intelligence force structure of
    any of the Reserve components of any of the services. This force
    includes all of the intelligence disciplines and more than 3,000
    linguists and cultural experts, provides the Nation with a robust,
    agile, and cost-effective responsive capability.
         army national guard installations--the foundation of readiness
        ARNG transformed from a Strategic Reserve to an Operational Force
    during a decade of deployments. This significant organizational shift
    has changed facility requirements. ARNG has facilities in more than
    3,000 communities; however, providing quality facilities across 54
    States and territories is an on-going challenge. Currently, more than
    46 percent of our readiness centers are more than 50 years old. Many
    fail to meet the needs of a 21st century operational force and the
    standards for modern buildings to include energy efficiency. Facilities
    are critical to readiness and support unit administration, training,
    equipment maintenance, and storage. They serve as platforms for
    mobilization during times of war and as command centers and often as
    shelters during domestic emergencies.
        This wide array of use makes military construction (MILCON) and
    sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) funding a critical
    issue directly impacting unit readiness and morale, continuity of
    operations and interagency partnership, community awareness, and family
    and employer involvement.
           innovative programs leverage our range of civilian skills
        Our State mission, combined with grass-roots community-based
    support of today's ARNG, position us to play a significant role in
    global security cooperation (SC). We are partner to creating an
    enduring stability presence in scores of countries. ARNG soldiers
    possess a wide variety of civilian, professional, and education
    experiences that are helpful when the soldiers are engaged in security
    cooperation activities.
        In 2011, the ARNG provided approximately 18,575 soldiers to support
    69 military exercises in 104 partner countries. The ARNG global
    presence for security cooperation expanded in the 1980s through
    overseas duty training opportunities.
        ARNG Security Cooperation programs are unique because of Guard
    soldiers' ability to forge these enduring relationships with key
    individuals over long periods of time. In some cases, the crucial bonds
    with foreign countries have been cultivated and maintained for more
    than two decades.
        ARNG partnership capacity-building activities serve to deepen and
    strengthen a foreign country or region's positive perception of the
    United States as a valued partner, which can serve to prevent future
    conflicts; one of our key objectives in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense
    Review (QDR).
        In 2011, 4,200 ARNG soldiers participated in the State Partnership
    Program that included 63 partnerships and 2 bilateral agreements with
    63 partner countries. This program promotes security cooperation
    activities such as emergency management, disaster response, border and
    port security, medical, and peacekeeping operations.
        Citizen soldiers exercise soft power. Each possesses a range of
    valuable professional skills and expertise acquired as civilians.
    Within the ranks of ARNG are 5,798 first responders (firefighters, law
    enforcement, emergency medical technicians, analysts); 3,655 medical
    professionals; 778 legal professionals; 2,655 engineers; 1,119
    agricultural specialists; 5,186 educators; 2,296 mechanics; 511
    plumbers; and 34,309 students (in a wide array of disciplines). That
    explains why guardsmen are frequently called upon to conduct soft power
    across the range of conflict. A prime example is the innovative
    Agribusiness Development Teams (ADTs) in Afghanistan.
        ADTs provide training and advice aimed at supplementing current
    Afghan farming practices by introducing advanced techniques and new,
    profitable crops. These teams are making significant contributions to
    Afghanistan's economy and achieving sustainable, yearly growth of the
    Nation's economic output.
        One of our most relevant National Guard missions is to impart
    knowledge and transplant economic recovery to the Afghan people. The
    Agribusiness Development Team combines 58 soldiers and airmen with
    backgrounds and expertise in various sectors of the agribusiness field.
    ADTs ensure that improvements are sustainable with local assets and
    within the context of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and
    Livestock (MAIL) abilities. ADTs conduct stability operations by
    building agricultural capacity, establishing a safe and secure
    environment, enhancing the rule of law, sustaining economic
    development, developing sustained governance, and fostering social
    well-being.
        Nine ADTs are deployed to Regional Command East and Regional
    Command South in Afghanistan. Deployed teams hail from Texas, Missouri,
    Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, Nevada, Iowa, and Arkansas. To
    date 28 teams operated in 15 provinces and contributed to more than 578
    agriculture projects generating more than $31 million in economic
    impacts for the people of Afghanistan. ADT soldiers bring their
    military capabilities and their civilian skills and education to work
    directly with the farmers of Afghanistan. These citizen soldiers
    leverage the assets and expertise of land-grant universities and
    cooperative services within their home States.
                     support of soldiers and their families
        ARNG continues to make suicide prevention a top priority.
    Mitigating high-risk behaviors and reducing suicidal urges ensures a
    ready and resilient force. Increased resilience and risk reduction
    leadership awareness, training, and intervention programs continue to
    enhance coping skills in our soldiers, families, and DA civilians. Due
    to limited comprehensive soldier fitness training seat allocations, and
    to better support the needs of Guard soldiers and families, ARNG
    established a Master Resilience Trainer Course (MRT-C) in Fort McCoy,
    Wisconsin in July 2011. By doing so, the number of Army National Guard
    Master Resilience Trainers are expected to exceed 1,000 by the in early
    fiscal year 2012. The Army National Guard also trained 334 Applied
    Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST) program trainers in fiscal
    year 2011. An additional 150 ASIST trainers are being trained in fiscal
    year 2012. These trainers will train approximately 35,000 gatekeepers
    in advanced intervention skills.
        ARNG recently teamed with the Office of the Secretary of Defense of
    Reserve Affairs, as well as the Air National Guard, to launch a highly
    successful peer-support line, Vets4Warriors. The peer-support line is
    designed to serve all ARNG and Reserve component members nationwide. As
    the foundation of each soldier's support network, ARNG families and
    employers are being trained to assist in identifying high-risk
    individuals. States have capitalized on community-based resources and
    solutions to provide services outside of military installations.
        The ARNG has been, and remains, deeply concerned with the
    employment status of our soldiers. They are our most important asset
    and their well-being is essential for the ARNG as an operational force.
    Furthermore, the ARNG's employment challenges extend beyond returning
    mobilized soldiers and we continue to work diligently to find solutions
    to assist our geographically dispersed population.
        New legislation was recently enacted to assist unemployed veterans.
    The Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 2011, to Hire Our Heroes,
    mandates the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for all soldiers
    separating from a title 10 Active Duty tour of more than 180 days. The
    ARNG is working closely with the Department of the Army and OSD to
    implement the transition mandates set forth in the legislation. The
    ARNG seeks to utilize these expanded transition services as a platform
    to enhance and increase participation in the myriad of employment
    assistance programs currently managed by the ARNG.
        The ARNG Directorate offers several national programs to assist the
    States with their local employment programs. The Job Connection
    Education Program (JCEP) is a high-touch employment approach assisting
    our soldiers and their family members in researching, obtaining, and
    retaining civilian employment.
        The Job Connection Education Program, a pilot program in Texas,
    provides support services such as job skills training, workshops, and
    job search assistance which expose soldiers and family members to jobs
    offered by more than 480 established business partners. To date, more
    than 720 soldiers and family members have connected to employment
    opportunities, earning an average hourly wage of $16.57.
        The Guard Apprentice Program Initiative (GAPI), in partnership with
    the Department of Labor and the Department of Veterans' Affairs,
    continues to build relationships with employers and colleges to
    facilitate civilian apprenticeship and employment opportunities for the
    ARNG and other Reserve components. As a pilot State, Maryland has six
    ARNG soldiers hired in the Independent Electrical Contractors
    Chesapeake (IECC) Apprenticeship Program. The IECC has progressive
    wages starting at $18 per hour with medical benefits. By the end of the
    5-year program commitment, participants will earn $23 per hour with
    benefits along with receiving a national certification as journeymen
    electricians. Drive the Guard (DTG) is a collaborative effort with the
    Commercial Driver Training Foundation, Inc. which links Army National
    Guard soldiers with training and certification programs in their
    communities. Once completed, the soldier has the potential to begin a
    career in the truck driving industry. Applicants seeking their
    Commercial Driver's License (CDL) are assisted through our DTG program.
    Upon completion, the soldier can begin a career in the trucking
    industry, with a salary varying between $35,000 and $45,000 annually.
    This is above the national starting salary of most college graduates
    with a bachelor degree.
                                closing remarks
        As the Nation enters an era of budgetary pressure, the ARNG has
    already structured itself for success in the future. We are an
    operational force; highly trained, experienced, and professional. We
    represent a scalable Army component that is far less expensive to
    engage and deploy than a full-time force. We are flexible and adaptable
    so we are ready to meet the wide array of 21st century security
    challenges.
        With committed citizen soldiers, our State and national leaders
    have the advantage of complete access to our forces and facilities.
    When employed judiciously, the Army National Guard presents cost-
    effective value to American communities where guardsmen live, work, and
    serve. This makes the Army National Guard not only trained, equipped,
    and ready defenders of our freedoms but also good stewards of taxpayer
    dollars.
        We stand ready, as always, to take on any mission. After all,
    America's minutemen have been successfully completing missions for 375
    years.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I welcome your
    questions.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General Ingram.

                                AIR FORCE BUDGET

        General McKinley and General Wyatt, as I indicated in my
    opening remarks, this past March the Air Force announced four
    structure changes and end-strength reductions. The greatest
    reductions were in the Air Guard, 5,100 billets lost. My
    question is, were you involved in reaching this final decision?
    Were you consulted? What was your involvement?
        General McKinley. Senator, I think I'll let Bud talk to the
    tactical process by which the Air Force works its corporate
    process. And, traditionally, in the National Guard, the two
    directors have been totally involved with their services in how
    the budgets are built and how they're briefed.
        I will tell you that, as Chief, I was involved in the final
    deliberations, discussions, in the December timeframe, at which
    time I expressed, certainly, our corporate view on behalf of
    the Adjutants General, on the outcome that the Air Force was
    pursuing.
        And then following the holidays, a number of meetings with
    both Secretary Panetta, Chairman Dempsey, General Schwartz, and
    Secretary Donley, to continue to work out the end-game
    strategies.
        I think you've had General Schwartz and Secretary Donley
    here to talk about their overall views of the size of the Air
    Force, that it's the smallest Air Force in history.
    Recapitalization is a major issue for our Air Force.
        And, as General Wyatt will tell you, and I'm sure General
    Stenner will tell you, that our Air Force and its strength
    cascades to its Reserve component, both the Air National Guard
    and the Air Force Reserve.
        So I'll let General Wyatt cover the corporate process that
    you're alluding to with your question, and then take any follow
    up questions you may have about our involvement.
        Bud.
        Chairman Inouye. General Wyatt.
        General Wyatt. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force decisionmaking
    process, as we put together budgets, is commonly referred to as
    the Air Force corporate process. And has several different
    steps along the way, beginning at the action officer, going up
    through the one-star, two-star level, which is the board level.
        The Council level is a three star, and then recommendations
    are presented to the Chief and the Secretary at the four-star
    level.
        I was able to participate. My staff was able to participate
    all along the way. We were encouraged to make our inputs, and
    we did so. In fact, we exercised that encouragement rather
    vociferously inside the Air Force corporate process.
        We did present alternatives to the Air Force, alternatives
    to the fiscal year 2013 President's budget (PB-13) as it
    officially came out. I think General Schwartz has accurately
    described the process when he said that there were very
    difficult decisions for the Air Force to make.
        He encouraged open debate. I engaged openly in that debate
    and made my inputs, but in the end, the final decision is left
    to the Chief and the Secretary. And many of the recommendations
    and alternatives that we proposed were not adopted.
        But we respect the difficult decisions that the Chief and
    the Secretary had to make. And once those decisions are made,
    as title 10 officers, we need to recognize that fact and salute
    and proceed forward.
        Chairman Inouye. But you were able to make an input?
        General Wyatt. We made several inputs, Sir, several
    alternatives, different ways of meeting the budget, and the
    operational demands of the Air Force, some of which were
    accepted, a lot of which were not.

                                    SUICIDE

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        General Ingram, during calendar year 2011, we were told
    that 98 guardsmen took their own lives. Can you tell us what's
    happening?
        General Ingram. Chairman, any soldier, or any person that
    takes their own life is a tragic experience.
        In the case of the Army National Guard, we're citizen
    soldiers. And I don't have the exact statistics of how many of
    the soldiers in the Army National Guard that committed suicide
    had never deployed, but there were quite a few.
        I'm not sure whether the citizen or the soldier committed
    suicide. In some cases, and we do a very thorough after-action
    look at each case, and in those cases, we take steps to prevent
    that from happening again.
        We use that in our training, and we've increased the level
    of training in suicide prevention. But it's an American problem
    as well as an Army problem, as well as an Army National Guard
    problem.
        And we're going to great lengths to prevent our soldiers,
    either having suicidal tendencies or actually committing the
    act.

                          RESERVE COMPONENT EQUIPMENT

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. May I call upon
    Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        General McKinley, the Air Force's restructure plan suggests
    that reductions in personnel and aircraft ought to be
    undertaken.
        You describe in your testimony the enhanced use of Guard
    forces that would provide capability in overseas missions.
    Looking at our recent experience in Libya, there were Air Force
    personnel and aircraft involved in the no-fly zone strategy.
        Tell us what your impressions were of those who were
    engaged in that operation. What changes, if any, need to be
    made in terms of support for funding of different activities or
    equipment, acquisition, in light of those experiences?
        General McKinley. You rightfully point out, Senator
    Cochran, that the Air Force is uniquely positioned to utilize
    its Reserve component effectively and efficiently.
        For the entire period of time that I've been in the
    National Guard, there's always been a close personal
    relationship between our Active Force and its Guard and its
    Reserve.
        That led to the capability that General Wyatt may want to
    discuss a little more intimately involved in the tanker mission
    and the mission that supported the no-fly zone in Libya.
        To rapidly get volunteers in our communities who are
    associated with the requirement, out of their civilian jobs, to
    their units, in a voluntary status so we didn't need to
    mobilize, and we got them overseas in record time. And they
    participated in the full unified protector mission as you
    allude to.
        And that's been a tradition. It's been a core competency of
    our Air Force, its relationship with its Guard and Reserve, for
    the last four decades. So I'm very proud of that.
        I don't think our Air Force can survive without the close
    cooperation and collaboration of its Reserve component. I've
    heard both Secretary Donley and General Schwartz make those
    statements in public.
        I'll let General Wyatt talk about the numbers, types of
    equipment that actually deployed, how quickly they deployed,
    and how effectively they were used by the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) command in the successful prosecution of
    the Libyan operation.
        Bud.
        Senator Cochran. General Wyatt.
        General Wyatt. Senator Cochran, I mentioned a little bit
    about the timeframe of the response early on. I will tell you,
    especially in the refueling portion of Odyssey Dawn, it was a
    joint effort with the Active component, the Guard and the
    Reserve.
        The Guard and Reserve actually had more than 50 percent of
    the refueling capability in theater. The expeditionary wing was
    commanded by an Air Guardsman out of Pennsylvania. The
    integration of the three components in the Air Force, I think
    is a model, primarily because we're trained to the same
    standards.
        We use the same equipment. That's the way we fight. That's
    the way we train and fight. As we go forward in the future, I
    think the key for the Air Force to maintain the capacity and
    capability and continue reliance upon the Reserve component,
    Guard, and Reserve, is a couple of things.
        Number one is, the Guard and Reserve have to be fielded the
    new equipment, at the same time, concurrently with the Active
    component and in representative numbers, so that we can
    continue to be an operational force that can be called upon on
    a moment's notice.
        I would remind everyone that there was no mobilization
    authority available for Odyssey Dawn for the Libya no-fly zone.
    One hundred percent of the guardsmen and reservists that showed
    up for that engagement were volunteers.
        The key, besides new equipment, fielded concurrently and in
    a balanced fashion, a proportional fashion across the Reserve
    components, the other key is in the baseline budget of the Air
    Force, there has to be sufficient military personnel
    appropriation (MPA) days to allow the operational use of the
    Guard and the Reserve.
        As an organize, train, and equip organization, I think
    General Stenner would back me up on this, the Air Force
    adequately funds us to organize, train, and equip. But to be
    able to use us in operational missions around the world, the
    Air Force needs to baseline budget sufficient MPA days so that
    we can continue to be the operational force that's available on
    a moment's call.

                                 FUNDING LEVELS

        Senator Cochran. Does the dollar amount requested for this
    subcommittee's approval meet those requirements?
        General Wyatt. Yes, Sir, I think it does in PB-13 for the
    title 10 fight. I'm a little bit concerned when I take a look
    at some of the domestic requirements for the Air National
    Guard.
        There is, you know, some pressures. Obviously, as the Air
    Force tries to do its part in reducing the deficit, I think the
    key is that as we go forward and we look at the number of
    required MPA days, that would allow the Air Guard and the
    Reserve to continue functioning, that we take a ``no kidding''
    look at what are the requirements, what are the demands that
    the combatant commands (COCOMs) are telling us would be
    forward, and then adequately budget for that, rather than just
    pick an arbitrary number and try to cut.
        Senator Cochran. General Ingram, Camp Shelby, Mississippi,
    Hattiesburg has been a site for Army Guardsmen, Reservists,
    others to mobilize and be deployed to areas of need.
        What is your impression of the funding requests for that
    facility, if there is money in there for any activities and
    programs there? And what needs exist that should be brought to
    our attention if they're not requested?
        General Ingram. Senator Cochran, Camp Shelby has been a
    very viable force projection platform for most of the war
    fight. There's been some improvements that have been made
    there. The Army funds those improvements out of the base
    budget.
        And as we continue down the road, I think the appropriate
    needs will be met by the Army budget for Camp Shelby and
    several other predominately Army National Guard post camps and
    stations that are used as power projection platforms.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander.

                                  C-5 AND C-17

        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    being here.
        I want to ask about the announcement in February about
    replacing C-5As with C-17s, which was part of the comprehensive
    reorganization of Air Force resources.
        The House Defense Authorization bill includes a provision
    that would put that restructuring plan on hold for a year, so I
    understand.
        And I want to try to understand from you, General Wyatt, if
    I can, what the consequences of that are?
        Specifically, I mean, the idea as you went through these
    difficult budget decisions, was to replace the C-5As, which are
    expensive to maintain and which are not, which aren't mission
    ready much of the time, with C-17s.
        The idea would be that would save a lot of money and
    produce a more efficient operation. Now, what does this 1-year
    delay do?
        What does it do in terms of the cost of maintenance, for
    example, of these C-5As that you know you're going to get rid
    of?
        What does it do to the schedule for retraining personnel?
    What does it do to the Guards' mission readiness?
        General Wyatt. Sir, those are great questions that what
    we're wrestling with right now.
        The transition at Memphis out of C-5s into C-17s was
    actually a fiscal year 2012 action, that is supposed to begin,
    but it continues into fiscal year 2013 as we retire C-5As out
    of Memphis, the C-17s come in. That requires training dollars
    to be spent to make the conversion.
        And you're correct. The reason, and I applaud that move on
    behalf of the Air Force, because it does bring the Air National
    Guard more into the relevant aircraft of the future. It's
    something we've been pushing for quite a long time in the Air
    National Guard.
        Senator Alexander. Well, we know, don't we, we're going to
    get rid of the C-5As, right?
        General Wyatt. Yes, Sir. We are.
        Senator Alexander. So why would we delay it a year?
        General Wyatt. I hope we don't.
        But that particular movement is one of the things in PB-13
    that I think is in the best interests of the country, and
    certainly, the Air Force and the Air National Guard, that we
    continue with that part of it.
        If the prohibition is to spend any fiscal year 2013 funds
    on fiscal year 2012 actions that need to be completed in 2013,
    then the dilemma is exactly as you have expressed. It would
    cause us to go back and take a look at what is the cost of
    maintaining the C-5As?
        Is there appropriations in the 2013 continuing resolution
    (CR) to do so, if that's where we're going? And it does cause
    us some uncertainty as we go forward, Sir.
        Senator Alexander. So at a time when dollars are short, and
    tight, and many of your recommendations weren't able to be
    accepted, you're saluting them.
        Maybe, say to Senator Coats, maybe we need a title 10
    salute in the United States Senate, we might get things done a
    little more quickly, if we did.
        But, so you're going to have to be spending money
    maintaining planes that you know you're going to get rid of,
    when you could be spending it on retraining Guard personnel.
    You could be spending it on other aspects of mission readiness.
    Is that not correct?

                           AIR FORCE FORCE STRUCTURE

        General Wyatt. Yes, Sir.
        The situation at Memphis is exactly as you have described
    it. That's one of the inputs in the Air Force corporate process
    that the Air National Guard made that was accepted by the
    United States Air Force.
        And I applauded that because it made a whole lot of sense.
    It still does make a whole lot of sense.
        But the dilemma that we're in right now, is how do you make
    that transition that we start this year, in fiscal year 2012,
    with the prohibitions on spending monies in 2013 to complete
    those actions.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I hope as we move through the
    process, and we're trying to respect your stewardship of scarce
    dollars, that we see what that delay would do is really waste
    money, or take money for planes that we know we're going to get
    rid of, to maintain them, and money that could be used in other
    places.
        In the same light, in Nashville, the Guard's preparing for
    a new unmanned aerial vehicle mission, which I understand the
    Air Force needs for that facility to assume.
        Now, how will this 1-year delay affect our military
    capabilities in the timeline for moving unmanned aerial
    vehicles (UAVs) into Nashville?
        General Wyatt. A very similar situation.
        Again, this was a fiscal year 2012 action that is
    beginning. Part of it involves the movement of C-130s from
    Nashville to the Puerto Rico Air National Guard which is losing
    C-130Es. So there's kind of a ripple effect that we're facing.
        I have to applaud General Haston, the Adjutant General for
    Tennessee, very forward looking, volunteered early on to
    transition into the remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) mission
    which we see as a sunrise mission in the Air National Guard,
    the one that will be around and keep the Tennessee Air Guard
    relevant well into the future.
        But we face the same challenges there as we need to
    continue on down that path toward transition. Delays do make
    the transition a little bit smoother, I mean, a little bit more
    difficult, and costly.
        Senator Alexander. And costly.
        General Wyatt. And costly.
        You know, the cost of maintaining those aircraft would move
    to Puerto Rico. But, if we're required to hold the Puerto Rico
    divestiture of C-130s, the E models, then we could have that
    expense that we would not normally have.
        Senator Alexander. I don't have much time left, but if I
    could ask, General Ingram.
        Toward the end of President Bush's administration, our
    National Guardsmen were deployed along the border to assist
    with immigration issues. You made a slight reference to that I
    believe.
        And I wonder if you could tell me how successful that was,
    whether some of that is still going on or not in terms of our
    border control activities. I think it was in support of those
    whose job it is to secure the border.

                       SOUTHWEST BORDER AND A-10 AIRCRAFT

        General Ingram. Senator, you are correct. It's in support
    of the Customs and Border Patrol. That mission has changed
    slightly.
        This year, that mission changed from 1,200 people to 300
    people. And it moved from a ground mission to an aerial mission
    where we're using 300 soldiers flying 19 helicopters and one
    fixed-wing aircraft along with analysts on the ground that help
    interpret the data for the Border Patrol from the information
    that's gained from those aircraft.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Coats.
        Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I just want to followup on Senator Alexander's question
    relative to the A-10. I mean, it's really a similar situation
    here where a decision has been made to retire a certain model
    of aircraft, and replace it with others.
        And I know there have been negotiations going on between
    the Guard and the Air Force, and then referencing the action
    that the House recently took to delay all this for a year.
        If you could apply that now back down to the A-10
    situation, what is the status of those negotiations? Is this a
    done deal? Has a final decision been made? Is there more
    consideration to be undertaken, General Wyatt?
        General Wyatt. A very similar situation to Tennessee, as
    with all the States, but a little bit different, well,
    significantly different input, from the Air National Guard.
        Our input in the corporate process was to suggest
    alternative ways to meet the emerging strategy with A-10s,
    which as you know, play a crucial role in close air support in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, we have Air Guard A-10s in
    theater right now as we speak.
        But some of those suggestions were not accepted by the Air
    Force as we went forward. Alternative missions were proposed
    for the unit at Fort Wayne, Indiana, and those are included in
    PB-13.
        The status of the negotiations between the Council of
    Governors and Secretary Panetta, I think have concluded,
    although at any point in time, obviously, the Secretary has a
    prerogative with the Council of Governors, a dialog, to re-
    engage.
        But I think that a counterproposal was made. It did not
    include anything related to the Indiana Air Guard or the A-10s.
    And my understanding is that the Council of Governors have
    respectfully declined the offer of Secretary Panetta to reach a
    compromise.
        So we're waiting to see what happens with PB-13, but, in
    the meantime, as I indicated, we need to start moving toward at
    least taking a look at implementing the PB as it has been
    proposed, unless we're told something different by the
    Congress.
        Senator Coats. Well, again, to follow on Senator
    Alexander's question. If what the House passed becomes law,
    what do you anticipate the status of current A-10 fleets being?
        I mean, are they going to be hangar queens and just sit
    there, and they have cost of maintenance, but no mission for
    them, just waiting out the year? Or, will they, what's your
    take on what will happen?
        General Wyatt. My take is that if that happens, we would
    hope there would be sufficient funds to continue operating
    because that's a great unit in Fort Wayne. They're already
    trained.
        As I've said, they've rendered great support to the
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our intention would be
    to continue with continuation training, keeping that unit
    operational for as long as possible.
        We may have to dial back or dial down the level of
    continuation training which would be very difficult to do and
    maintain our combat status, ready to go.
        So it would be a difficult thing to do, but we would give
    it our best shot depending upon the level of funding that came
    along with the House proposal.

                 INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE

        Senator Coats. But again, that's something that's going to
    have to be decided by the Secretary and the Chief of the Air
    Force.
        So I guess there's a possibility that they wouldn't be
    operational during that 1-year holding period. That would be my
    concern.
        General Wyatt. That is a possibility, Sir.
        Senator Coats. And then I wonder what effect that might
    have on the planned follow on for the intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft.
        General Wyatt. It would be, obviously, delayed.
        The part that I'm concerned about is the people, because as
    I go out and visit units, the thing that I'm hearing is concern
    about an indefinite future, about what, you know, what is the
    future of my unit?
        What is the future of my job? Is it going to be the same?
    Is it going to be different? Is it going to be here at all?
        And, you know, I mentioned a little bit about the
    volunteerism that we have in the Air National Guard. Our
    recruiting and retention continues to be strong even in spite
    of PB-13 and the operations tempo (OPTEMPO).
        But where I'm starting to see some stress on my folks is at
    our retention numbers. You know, we have great volunteerism,
    and our people stick with us a long time. But our retention
    numbers are beginning to drop. And I attribute that to the Air
    Force's PB-13.
        It has had a more detrimental effect on our retention
    numbers than 20 years of high operational combat has had. So I
    think that uncertainty is beginning to take a toll on our
    people wondering about their futures and, you know, do we have
    time to invest in a unit that may not be here next year or
    maybe changing to a mission that we don't know what that might
    be.

                   HIGH-MOBILITY MULTIPURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLE

        Senator Coats. Thank you.
        If I could shift to a ground vehicle. The humvee was
    mentioned, General McKinley, I think in your opening statement,
    60 percent, 20 years old or more.
        What is the take on what you need? I think you mentioned
    modernization. Some have mentioned upgrading existing fleet.
    Others say the cost, it's more cost effective to just go to the
    more modernized vehicle.
        I'm not sure if General Ingram, you, or General McKinley is
    the best one to answer this. But what's the story on this?
        General McKinley. Well, first of all, thanks for the
    question, Senator.
        I'm in receipt of letters from 17 Adjutants General in
    support of purchasing new humvees. I am the channel of
    communication between the States and the Department, so we have
    forwarded those letters of support.
        General Ingram can talk about the percentages. I would say,
    strategically, across both Air and Army Guard, this generation
    of soldier and airmen have joined our services and joined the
    Guard specifically to be used, to operate first-line equipment,
    to be part of the team that goes forward, either here at home
    for domestic emergencies, or to support our Army and our Air
    Force.
        And so recapitalization across our fleet to include ground
    vehicles, has got to be factored in, and we've got to fight
    hard with our services to make sure that the balance and the
    proportions are right.
        Or, some of these young men and women who've joined us
    since September 11, 2001, they're just not going to be as
    excited about their role in the National Guard.
        But I'll let Bill comment specifically on your question.
        General Ingram. Senator, on the humvee fleet. We have some
    of the oldest humvees in the inventory for the Army.
        And I guess the question at this moment is, do we
    recapitalize the ones that we have, or do we, as the Army buys
    the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), the next generation,
    we should get a proportional share of those vehicles?
        So the question is, do we keep a number of humvees
    unrecapitalized to trade in, or to turn in, as we gain the
    JLTV?
        And it's a balance. Obviously, we'd like to upgrade the
    fleet, but we want to be frugal with our resources and do the
    right thing.
        So, at the moment, there's a bit of a tradeoff there. The
    longer we wait, the older the vehicles become, and the more
    need there is for new vehicles or for recap.

                               SPORTS SPONSORSHIP

        Senator Coats. Just one last quick question, Mr. Chairman,
    if I could.
        My preference has always been that we direct money for
    recruiting to you, and you decide how best to utilize that
    money. There have been some efforts, I know you're sponsoring
    Indy cars and NASCARs and so forth.
        You see, you know, you tune in, you see the Air National
    Guard or Air Guard or Army Guard on the side of the car. And
    you do that in areas I think where the potential for recruiting
    is very high and a lot of attention to that sport.
        I don't like to micromanage and tell you, you should spend
    this here and that there. But, is this still of a value to you
    in terms of recruiting and whatever other gains that you might
    get from it, or is this something that its time has come and
    gone?
        General Ingram. Senator, it's really a matter of branding
    and being associated with a national brand. We do get recruits
    and we do run recruiting booths at sporting events, both motor
    sports and other sports.
        People don't necessarily buy Tide laundry detergent because
    of the race car that sports the Tide hood, but they do
    associate that product at a national level. And the Army
    National Guard, because of the target audience that we're
    looking at for our band of recruits, that is an interest to
    those people.
        And they see, when they watch sports on television, and
    they see Army National Guard, it's a national branding
    opportunity that is of great value.
        And the fact that the teams that the Army National Guard
    sponsors do some very, very good things for the Nation, and
    they are held in high esteem by that group of people, it does
    lead to recruits for the Army National Guard.
        Senator Coats. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we
    wouldn't micro-manage that process. Let the Guard decide how
    best to utilize whatever we give them for the branding, for the
    recruiting and so forth.
        But I think attempts to say, do this, or put on that
    commercial and not this commercial, or put it on this car and
    not on that car, ought to be left up to the people who are
    involved in the process and not those of us who have a
    preference.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        And now I'd like to recognize the chairman of the Senate
    National Guard Caucus, Senator Leahy.

                                AEROSPACE ALERT

        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        General Wyatt, we saw on the news where a plane diverted, a
    commercial jet had to land in Bangor, it was on its way to
    Charlotte.
        It said fighter jets were deployed. Were those Guard jets?
        General Wyatt. Yes, Senator, they were.
        Senator Leahy. Well, that sort of leads into a question I
    have. There's a couple of lesser-known cuts, not lesser cuts,
    but lesser-known cuts, that were proposed for the Air National
    Guard, an issue that concerned me deeply.
        Specifically, cuts to air controller alert locations and
    Air National Guard explosive ordinance. The air controller, I
    think it's safe to say from everything we've learned without
    going into anything in the classified briefings we get, it's
    safe to say that commercial airlines are still a target of
    terrorists. Is that not a fair statement?
        General Wyatt. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator Leahy. And, it would be one thing if we could say
    that our strategy for dealing with threats to the United States
    had changed, and thus would drive reductions. But I'm worried
    that we're just seeing a budget trail.
        I don't see the threat going down. I think we should have
    our air control alert locations, and the Air National Guard
    explosive ordinance disposal, I don't know if that falls into
    your purview, it looks to me like what they did was just hand
    you a bill to pay.
        And then you had to make State and local cuts, including
    bomb squad cuts, to meet those targets. Do you think the Air
    Force considered the State and local impact of getting rid of
    our Air Guard bomb squads which I know Governors all over the
    country use when they need bomb squads.
        I've certainly seen that in my own State of Vermont. Do you
    think that they thought that it impacts the States pretty
    badly?
        General Wyatt. I'll try to address the aerospace control
    alert (ACA) question first.
        Senator, you're correct. That threat is still there, and I
    think that probably the discussion was, you know, according to
    studies that you've referenced that are classified, you know,
    could the Nation assume a little additional risk by cutting two
    of the ACA units?
        That's a discussion I'd like to have with you in a
    classified----
        Senator Leahy. Well, what I worry about, General, is that
    the discussion is driven more by budgetary issues and not by
    reality.
        General Wyatt. Certainly, the budget does come into play.
        I mean, we have to talk about what we can afford to provide
    and, you know, are there opportunities or places where we could
    take additional risk. And whether this additional risk is worth
    the money, is a debate.

                                  BOMB SQUADS

        Senator Leahy. And I think you're going to find that on the
    question of bomb squads.
        General Wyatt. Yes, Sir.
        The bomb squads, what we did there is, we looked at the
    situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, recognizing that we would be
    coming home from those wars.
        We did have some budget bogeys to meet. We tried to take a
    look at those mission sets and capabilities that the United
    States needed, that could be supplied by the Air National
    Guard, and certainly, that's one of those capabilities that is
    a dual use.
        It has a function in title 10, but also for the Governors.
    I think the issue that has been highlighted with the Council of
    Governors involvement under the new process is that we have
    inside the Department of Defense (DOD), highlights the fact
    that we need to do a better job of communicating with the
    Adjutants Generals and the Governors to get the effect of title
    10 decisions on the Governors ability to respond to things like
    explosive ordinance disposal.

                         ROLE OF GOVERNORS AND ANALYSIS

        Senator Leahy. We also have the Air Force, considering cuts
    into the Guard and Reserves far more than the Army or the Navy.
    I worry that they're not listening to some of the concerns of
    the Governors.
        Certainly, I get that from Governors of both parties.
    Senator Graham, Lindsey Graham, does too. It makes me wonder,
    have you seen any analysis that persuades you that relying more
    on the Active component is going to save money, or provide the
    Air Force with more capability?
        General Wyatt. No, Sir, I'm not seeing that analysis.
        Senator Leahy. Have you asked to see that sort of analysis?
        General Wyatt. Yes, Sir, I have.
        Senator Leahy. Well, that kind of bothers me.
        You're the Air Guard Director. I think you should have been
    allowed to see analysis during budget preparation before the
    Air Force presented the budget proposal that substantially cuts
    your force based on the claims that they have, and they haven't
    shown you.
        General Wyatt. I agree, Sir.
        And, you know, as we've kind of gone through this process,
    the thing that I've, I guess, come to the conclusion is, that
    the analysis that I have been able to see, the answer is
    sometimes, I guess the answer is important, or the conclusion
    is important.
        But as important as the answer and the conclusion, are the
    initial going-in assumptions, and the methodology used in
    reaching that answer, and the metrics or what it is that you're
    trying to measure.
        And I don't think that just an answer is sufficient. I
    think you need to go back and you need to take a look at the
    processes, the methodology, the assumptions. And that's the
    thing that concerns me, not only is not seeing all the
    analysis, but how we got to some of that analysis.

                          FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

        Senator Leahy. I agree with you.
        I don't think that these cuts in the Air Guard and the
    Reserves are going to save us money. I think, in the long run,
    it's going to cost us a lot more.
        We saw how important they were to us during Iraq and
    Afghanistan. That's not a capability you can turn on and off
    like a switch. And that's without even going into the
    continental U.S. aspect required by that protection.
        And I share the concern of a lot of the Governors. They
    weren't listened to. But, we'll talk about that more, and I
    should note, you've always been very available to me and my
    staff when we have had questions.
        And, General McKinley, I thank you for your distinguished
    service as Chief of the National Guard Bureau. I think this is
    going to be our last hearing of this nature before your
    retirement.
        You and I have been good friends. We've visited both in
    Vermont and here. You're going to be the first Chief to wear
    four stars. A Chief who fought to get your folks a voice on the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff.
        And I know Senator Graham and I and the very large
    bipartisan coalition of Senators take pleasure in that, along
    with General Blum who made history by transforming the Guard
    into an operational force.
        I have the sense that since you're leaving, you can say
    whatever you want to say. And General Ingram is kind of
    smiling. I think he probably knows what my question is going to
    be.
        Do you think the Guard would be in a very good position if
    we in the Congress didn't keep the pressure on the way we do?
        You don't have to answer that, General Ingram, but I see
    the grin. Go ahead.
        General McKinley. Most of us in this room prefer not to
    build our own gallows. So, in order not to do that, I will
    reserve some of my comments for my meeting with you before I
    leave, Senator.
        But thanks to you and Senator Graham for steadfastly
    supporting the National Guard through the Senate Guard Caucus.
        Quite frankly, 375 years of history have seen the
    effectiveness of the National Guard ebb and flow. And I can
    only say to you, Senator, because you know it so well by
    visiting your members of the National Guard, as you all do, how
    capable and competent these folks are.
        And how well led they are by their Governors in State
    status, their Adjutants General. And quite frankly, the support
    we've had over decades from our two services, the Air Force and
    the Army.
        What I worry about most, to get to your specific question
    is, will the title 10 world find a way as it has not over past
    involvement in contingencies to include World War II, find a
    way to maintain a balance to keep the National Guard.
        And I would add probably the Reserve component in this, but
    they'll speak for themselves. How do we keep this magnificent
    capability, this low-cost, high-impact force of citizen
    soldiers and airmen, in our case, in the game?
        To keep their head in the game. To keep us viable. To keep
    the investment in our competency at a level that the Nation may
    need and sustain as a hedge for future operations.
        We have to find a way, all of us do, to convince our
    services and the Department that this investment has been a
    wise investment.
        And that this Nation, with less than 1 percent of its
    citizens serving its United States military, deserve to have a
    National Guard that's trained, equipped and well-led, because
    there will be significant challenges to our Nation in the
    future.
        But, Senator, to you and your colleagues, I can't thank you
    enough for what you've done to make us who we are today and
    we're very proud to serve the Nation. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy. Well, I can assure you, as long as I'm the
    co-chair of the National Guard Caucus, you're not going to be
    ignored, none of you will. And I applaud all three of you for
    the service you've given the country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski.

                        ALASKA AIR NATIONAL GUARD UNITS

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Generals, I join the rest of my colleagues in thanking
    you for your leadership on so many different issues in
    different areas.
        General Wyatt, I want to ask you about the recent Air Force
    proposal which would move the 18th Aggressor Squadron from
    Eielson down to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
        Right now, this proposal looks like it will have an impact
    on the 168th Air Refueling Wing to the extent that an operation
    that is currently a 24-hour-a-day operation, 365-days-a-year,
    that with this proposal, it may result in operations being
    diminished to effectively a 12-hour day, 5-days-a-week.
        Not necessarily banker's hours, but certainly not the kind
    of hours that will be required, that are required, for this
    pretty incredible, intensive refueling wing up there at
    Eielson.
        General Schwartz keeps reminding me of the significance of
    Eielson and the fact that we got 23 million gallons of gas up
    there. It's pretty important to the overall mission.
        My question to you is, how would this proposal, which would
    effectively reduce the operations there at Eielson, how will
    this impact the Guard's mission there?
        General Wyatt. Senator, I've asked that same question.
        You know, when you stop and think about the importance of
    that air refueling wing, its strategic location, when you think
    about some of the other activity that's happening over the
    Arctic, and as we look westward from Alaska, you can very
    quickly recognize the strategic importance of the 168th, and
    the role that it plays in the air control alert mission for
    Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) and that theater.
        That's one of the first questions I asked was, if the F-16s
    are moved, and the level of support at the airbase goes down,
    will there be sufficient capability at that airbase for the Air
    National Guard to continue functioning at the level that it is
    now?
        Because a lot of the dollar bills that are controlled for
    some of the base support that is required for my Air National
    Guard unit there, are not in my budget. So I don't get to make
    that call. They're in the Air Force budget.
        I have been assured that there will remain sufficient funds
    and sufficient services to keep the 168th playing the vital
    role that it does.
        The decision to, whether to go from a 24-hour alert, which
    they're currently on, to something less than that, is a call
    that is left to General North PACAF in consultation with NORAD
    and NORTHCOM.
        So I can't really get into the operational decisions. But
    my concern would be that we have in the future as competent and
    capable a wing as we do right now.
        And so I watch very closely any attempts that would
    diminish their ability to perform their mission. I wish I had a
    better answer for you than that.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me perhaps rephrase it.
        If, in fact, you did have to go to a reduced-hours
    operation, 12 hours, could you do the mission that you believe
    you have to do, or that you're required to do there in the
    Arctic, in the North Pacific?
        General Wyatt. Again, the mission requirements are set by
    the warfighters. If they were to make that conclusion that the
    12-hour alert would be sufficient for mission accomplishments,
    we could do that.
        But that's a judgment call again that will need to be made
    by the combatant commander that obviously would take into
    consideration the additional risk that not having that unit on
    alert for 12 hours out of a day might pose to the ACA mission.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you another, then.
        Because the 168th I think is, we recognize, is operating at
    its capacity. They've reported having to decline certain
    missions even within the 24-hour-a-day period that they're
    operating now.
        The 168th has asked for additional aircraft and an active
    association. They've been doing so for several years now, so
    that it can effectively do more for the mission.
        Can you give me the status of any of these requests?
        General Wyatt. Ma'am, part of the recent KC-46A basing
    criteria that was released to the Congress, evolved from what
    we call the Force Composition Analysis (FCA), for the entire
    refueling enterprise, not just KC-46s, but KC-135s and KC-10s.
        And one of the recommendations that came out of that study
    was that, as we go forward in the refueling enterprise, that
    all of the units, at some point in time, transition to either
    active associations, in the case of the 168th, or classic
    associations, where the Guard or Reserve would play the
    supporting role.
        So I think the future looks good for an active association
    there. The question will be the timing, and how robust that
    association would be.
        Would it bring additional airplanes as part of the active
    association, or would it bring additional Active Duty pilots,
    maintainers, to help robust the capabilities of the wing with
    the existing eight airplanes?
        Those are questions yet to be answered.
        Senator Murkowski. And no timeline within which to, that we
    might expect those answers?
        General Wyatt. No timeline that I'm aware of other than a
    push to go to active associations and classic associations
    across the air mobility fleet and PACAF.

                                      C-23

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, General Ingram, about
    the C-23s, or Sherpas.
        Last year, the Army proposed the elimination of the Sherpas
    with the belief that the C-27Js would replace that capability.
        Those C-27Js are now proposed to go away. Are we
    reconsidering the future of the C-23s?
        General Ingram. The Army has taken the funding away for the
    OPTEMPO, for the C-23 and the intent is to divest those
    airplanes by the end of fiscal year 2014.
        And, to my knowledge, there's no reconsideration of that.
        Senator Murkowski. What I'm told is that there's a wide
    number of Adjutant Generals that feel that the C-23 is
    important to the domestic missions. Air Force is looking at the
    C-130s to fill that mission.
        Are you satisfied that, in fact, that mission can be served
    with the C-130? Basically, is this the right thing to be doing?
        General Ingram. I feel that domestic airlift is a concern
    that should be addressed. I'm not sure that it's been
    adequately addressed for the domestic mission.
        For the away game mission, I know that the Army has taken
    the Air Force's position that the Air Force will support inter-
    theater airlift, which is the mission that the C-23 and the C-
    27 airframes were designed to do.
        Senator Murkowski. Any ideas or suggestions as to how we
    can address the domestic airlift?
        General Ingram. NORTHCOM is, in a recent discussion with
    General Jacoby, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, he
    views looking at the homeland as a theater of operations.
        And I think his perspective will be very important in
    determining requirements for all homeland defense, or homeland
    operations, inter-theater airlift in the homeland being one of
    those parameters.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Gentlemen, I thank you for your testimony this morning, and
    I thank you for your service to our Nation. Do you have further
    questions?

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Cochran. No, Mr. Chairman, I have no further
    questions. I do want to congratulate our panel for the
    leadership you're providing for our Armed Forces.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. I will be submitting some questions and
    ask for your response.
        [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
                  national guard and reserve equipment account
        Question. General McKinley, this subcommittee recognizes the
    importance of providing the Guard funding for necessary new equipment
    and modernization of aging equipment and have consistently done so
    through the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). How
    have these increases improved readiness, and what additional equipment
    challenges remain?
        Answer. NGREA is the life-blood of the National Guard and is
    critical to maintaining the operational force. NGREA is used to
    purchase dual-use equipment for both the Army and Air National Guard.
    According to the Fiscal Year 2012 National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Report, Army National Guard (ARNG) Equipment On Hand (EOH) for
    Modification table of organization and equipment (MTOE) units is
    currently at 88 percent, an increase from 85 percent 2 years ago. ARNG
    Critical Dual Use EOH for MTOE units is currently at 92 percent, an
    increase from 86 percent 2 years ago. Currently 71 percent of ARNG EOH
    is considered modern. Similarly, the Air National Guard (ANG) has 92
    percent (595,324 pieces) of all authorized dual-use items on-hand
    within the Essential 10 categories. The 92-percent equipment
    availability rate is comparable to the overall Air Force availability
    rate.
        NGREA funding has performed, and will continue to perform, a
    critical role in improving the ARNG's interoperability, modernization,
    and overall equipment posture in support of domestic and contingency
    operations. The ARNG's tactical wheeled vehicle and helicopter fleets
    will continue to require a long-term investment of funding over the
    next 10 years to adequately address shortfalls and modernization
    requirements. The ANG also relies heavily on NGREA. Because the Air
    Force's emphasis is on long-term recapitalization NGREA is to vital
    increases modernizing legacy Air Guard aircraft.
        Question. General McKinley, what remaining equipment shortfalls are
    you most concerned about?
        Answer. Through the unprecedented efforts of the Congress and the
    Department of the Army, ARNG is equipped and modernized at levels
    commensurate with the Army's Active component. Interoperability and the
    continued modernization of ARNG equipment are essential to successfully
    provide both domestic support at home and maintain an operational force
    for Federal missions abroad.
        Despite the improvements to equipment-on-hand levels for the ARNG,
    equipment modernization levels for several key systems remain an area
    of concern. The ARNG continues to have critical shortfalls in our
    rotary wing aircraft fleet, high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle
    (HMMWV) recapitalization and general engineering equipment. While the
    Army has made significant improvements to the ARNG rotary wing fleet,
    the ARNG would like to see further improvements made in the
    modernization of the AH-64 and the UH-60 fleets. The ARNG continues to
    pursue equipment modernization through Department of the Army
    procurement and NGREA funding.
        With regards to ANG, other than concerns about reductions in
    overall force structure, the ANG top ten equipment shortfalls are:
      --Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) for C-130H/J, EC-
            130J, KC-135;
      --A-10 Situational Awareness Data Link Upgrade;
      --C-130/KC-135 Real Time Information in the Cockpit (RTIC) data link
            and comm;
      --F-16 Situational Awareness Data Link Upgrade;
      --F-15 Radar and Warning Receiver (RWR);
      --HC-130 Navigation and Sensor Upgrade;
      --HH-60 Situational Awareness Data Link Upgrade;
      --Battlefield Airman Combat Equipment;
      --Domestic Disaster Response Equipment; and
      --Advanced Simulators for F-16, C-130, and KC-135.
        Additionally, the ANG is short of aviation support equipment;
    command and control capabilities, including communications; civil
    engineering; logistics and maintenance; medical; security equipment and
    vehicles. These shortages are covered in the Fiscal Year 2012 National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment Report (NGRER).
                 army and air guard--reserve component costing
        Question. General McKinley, in its April 2012 report, Avoiding Past
    Drawdown Mistakes to Enhance Future Total Force Capabilities, the
    Reserve Forces Policy Board recommended that the Department determine
    the full costs of an Active and Reserve component member in order to
    maximize deployment ratios to achieve the most cost-effective mix. Is
    the Department working on any such costing framework?
        Answer. The Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
    (Public Law 112-81) section 1080A required a report on the comparative
    costs of the Active and Reserve components. This report is due back to
    the Congress by the end of the year.
        Question. General McKinley, what metrics should be used to
    recognize the full costs of an Active and Reserve component member?
        Answer. There are many different methods to calculate the full
    costs of an Active and Reserve component member, one of which is to
    identify the peace time burdened cost and the life-cycle cost.
        The peace time burdened cost at the individual level may include
    the costs to man, train, and equip, and provide military members with
    benefits (example: commissaries, family support activities, and
    healthcare costs). Life-cycle costs include costs that span the career
    of a military member from initial entry to the end of survivor
    benefits. This methodology includes the burdened cost and cost elements
    covered by other agencies, including Veterans Affairs' benefits or
    expenses incurred after the completion of military service. Future year
    costs for medical and retirement benefits vary by member, and affect
    the overall costing. For example, ``gray area'' Traditional Drill
    Status Guard members who retire before age 60, also known as ``gray
    area'' retirees, are not eligible for retirement pay or TRICARE
    benefits until they reach age 60.
        Looking at a specific year of execution, one needs to consider the
    member's rank, years of service, duty status, dependent status, and
    career specialty to determine specific pay and entitlements. Certain
    career specialties--such as healthcare, pilots, and others--are
    entitled to special pays and bonuses.
        In addition, for National Guard members, duty status is important,
    as costs vary widely if a member is a Dual Status Military Technician,
    an Active-Guard Reservist, or a pure Drill Status Guardsman. The type
    of duty (Unit Training Assemblies, Annual Training, or Active Duty),
    and the length of time covered by orders directly impacts the costs of
    a Drill Status Guardsman.
        Finally, many Guard members serve on bases that do not have support
    functions regularly provided to Active Duty members, such as child care
    facilities, commissaries, exchanges, housing, and Morale Welfare
    Recreational facilities.
        For programming purposes, the National Guard uses cost models based
    on end strength, participation rates, and several of the factors
    mentioned above to develop future year budgets.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                       national guard civil support teams
        Question. General McKinley, can you tell the subcommittee what the
    cost savings are associated with the proposed reduction of two National
    Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs)? Is
    there any concern with the reduced response capability left available
    to the heavy populated areas of Florida and New York?
        Answer. The estimated savings to Department of Defense (DOD) by
    reducing the number of WMD-CSTs from 57 to 55 is $24 million over the
    Future Year Defense Program (FYDP).
        Regarding concerns about reduced response capability, some initial
    impacts will have to be addressed at the State and local level.
    Possible State concerns include longer in-state response times to
    support an immediate response mission, and a potential reduction in the
    number of State Special Security Events Stand-by missions that a single
    WMD-CST can conduct. The remaining WMD-CST will also have to
    reestablish liaison with local first responders, and habitual
    relationships developed overtime through various liaisons, training
    events, and actual operations will have to be re-established by the
    remaining WMD-CST. Some State-to-State interoperability and mission
    support issues will also have to be addressed, something which has not
    been a concern with two State WMD-CSTs. Also, once National Guard
    Bureau (NGB) implements the unit stand down process, the two designated
    WMD-CSTs will no longer be qualified to conduct operations and all
    equipment will be returned to the Consequence Management Support
    Center.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
        Question. What organization has directed the National Guard
    Bureau--Counter Drug Program (NG-CDP) to come up with a Threat Based
    Resource Model (TBRM)?
        Answer. NG-CDP established the TBRM in response to these
    recommendations and formal guidance from the Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of Defense for Counter Narcotics and Global Threats (DASD/CN>) in the
    Fiscal Year 2012 NG State Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities
    Plan. Specifically the DASD/CN> directed that ``. . . the NGB shall
    provide to this office by March 1, 2011, a threat based resourcing
    model for approval to be implemented in fiscal year 2012. This model
    should balance OSD and national priorities, funding and existing
    threats in its recommendations for distributing counterdrug
    resources.''
        Question. Does this organization have a Threat Based Resource Model
    that it uses to justify its activities, as well?
        Answer. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counter
    Narcotics and Global Threats aligns resources based on combatant
    commander requirements which are based on threats. In the same way, the
    TBRM identifies threats then distributes funds accordingly.
        Question. How much of the DOD-Counter Narcotic budget cut did the
    NGB-CD bear?
        Answer. The National Guard Counter Drug Program bore 10.5 percent
    of the overall reductions to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
    for Counter Narcotics and Global Threats Central Transfer Account in
    fiscal year 2013.
        Question. What is the impact of the Threat Based Resource Model
    (TBRM) on the States that have the historically highest seizure
    amounts, such as the Southwest border States, Florida, and Puerto Rico?
        Answer. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) guidance
    mandated a plus-up to the ``Big 6'' States from 2002-2010. These six,
    California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico,
    collectively received 39 percent of the annual Counterdrug budget, and
    an annual, OSD mandated, 2.8 percent cost-of-living increase, also
    resourced by the Counterdrug budget. Each of the remaining States in
    the Counterdrug program received less than 2 percent of the annual
    budget with no annual cost-of-living increase. In 2011, the DASD
    removed the mandatory plus-up to the Big 6 and instructed the National
    Guard Count Drug Program to implement a threat-based approach to
    funding.
        TBRM maintains 26 percent of funding in support of four States
    (California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico). Southwest border States
    garner 25 percent of the TBRM threat (California--10.8 percent, Texas--
    8 percent, Arizona--4.95 percent, and New Mexico--1.71 percent). Adding
    the remaining Big 6 States (Florida at 7.75 percent and Puerto Rico at
    0.94 percent) brings the Big 6 total to 34 percent, just 5 percent less
    than the historical average. The Big 6 States' rank overall are
    California #1, Texas #2, Arizona #6, Florida #3, New Mexico #18, and
    Puerto Rico #33.
        Question. If more Counter Drug funding is directed to the NGB, will
    this restore these States to their manning levels of fiscal year 2012?
    Why, why not?
        Answer. Manning levels are dependent on the amount of additional
    funding received. The TBRM will continue to allocate funding to the
    greatest national threats. The NG-CDP must continue to allocate
    increasingly limited resources where they will best contribute to our
    national strategies. The foundation of TBRM funding is to identify
    threats, which drive requirements that are met with resources. The
    techniques, tactics and procedures of transnational criminal
    organizations have transformed since NG-CDP was founded in the 1990s.
    The TBRM process identifies emerging threats then assigns resources as
    necessary.
        Question. Is the original intent of the Joint Counter Drug Task
    Force's mission still being accomplished?
        Answer. Yes. The NG-CDP continues to provide unique military
    resources to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that
    submit valid requests. The TBRM was developed with significant input
    from law enforcement agency partners to ensure NG-CDP support adapts to
    law enforcement requirements.
                                     ______

         Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Harry M. Wyatt, III
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                       air guard--force structure changes
        Question. General Wyatt, in March, the Air Force announced force
    structure changes and end-strength reductions. The greatest reductions
    were proposed for the Air Guard with a net loss of 5,100 billets in
    fiscal year 2013. Were you consulted during the deliberations over
    these force structure changes, and what input were you asked to
    provide?
        Answer. The National Guard Bureau (NGB) level of participation in
    the selection of force structure changes was to offer advice and
    options to Air Force leadership. Throughout process the Air Force
    generally provided direction to the NGB on how many, which type of
    aircraft and/or unit to offset. The NGB offered recommendations and
    options within the parameters of the decision required.
        In developing options for Air Force consideration during the
    Corporate Process, the NGB followed a set of capstone principles agreed
    to by the Adjutants General. The capstone principles included specific
    boundaries the Adjutants General requested the NGB observe as it
    advocated on behalf of the Air National Guard (ANG). At the conclusion
    of the Corporate Process deliberations, the Secretary and Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force made the final decisions on the size, shape, and
    content of the ANG.
        Question. Where do the negotiations between the Air Force and the
    Council of Governors stand?
        Answer. NGB was tasked to support the Council of Governors with
    programmatic data (Manpower authorizations, flying hour costs/
    requirements, and Primary Assigned Aircraft inventories). NGB
    involvement with the Council of Governors was limited to providing
    factual data only, and current status of negotiations between the Air
    Force and the Council of Governors is not known beyond open-source
    reporting.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                       national guard civil support teams
        Question. General Wyatt, could you describe for the subcommittee
    what capability is provided by the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil
    Support Teams (WMD-CSTs)? Does the reduction in manpower in the Air
    Guard impact the ability to support these missions?
        Answer. The proposed Air Guard manpower reduction will not impact
    the WMD-CST program. The National Guard WMD-CSTs provide high-priority,
    rapid response, full-time (title 32) National Guard units to civil
    authorities and local incident commanders. Our WMD-CSTs respond to
    actual--or suspected--terrorist WMD event/incidents, intentional, or
    unintentional releases of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
    Nuclear (CBRN) materials, or natural or manmade disasters in the United
    States. The WMD-CST enhances Local Incident Commanders emergency
    responder capabilities; do not replace the Incident Command System or
    functions normally performed by the civilian emergency first responder
    community.
        Currently, the National Guard has 57 WMD-CSTs, one in every State,
    one each in the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico,
    one in the District of Columbia, and two each in California, Florida,
    and New York. Every National Guard WMD-CST is certified by the
    Secretary of Defense as ``operationally ready'' for their designated
    mission:
      --support civil authorities at domestic Chemical, Biological,
            Radiological, Nuclear, and High Yield Explosive (CBRNE)
            incident sites;
      --identify CBRNE agents/substances, assess current and projected
            consequences, advise response measures; and
      --assist with State requests for additional support resources.
        Each WMD-CST is equipped with detection and identification
    equipment; a mobile analytical laboratory which can provide the
    complete characterization of chemical, biological, or radiological
    materials, as well as the ability to provide information to the
    Laboratory Response Network and the Centers for Disease Control. In
    addition, a sophisticated communications suite provides the WMD-CST
    with a broad spectrum of secure capabilities, allowing information
    integration between local, State, tribal, and Federal agencies.
        In fiscal year 2011, the Army National Guard (ARNG) WMD-CST units
    conducted 632 immediate response and stand-by missions to include
    response to the American Samoa Tsunami, stand-by operations during the
    Super Bowl in Texas, and operations to protect the homeland following
    the recent Tsunami in Japan. Through the first 8 months of fiscal year
    2012, WMD-CSTs conducted 433 immediate response and stand-by missions:
    numerous white powder and unknown substance missions, support to
    National and State political events, large sporting events, National
    Special Security Events, Special Event Assessment Rating activities,
    the 2011 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Hawaii, the 2012
    State of the Union Address, and the 2012 NATO Summit.
                             air force restructure
        Question. General Wyatt, the use of assets in title 10 status
    during hurricane relief in the homeland is well documented, but what
    about Air National Guard (ANG) efforts in a title 32 status? Can you
    tell us a little more about the Air Guard's aviation hurricane response
    which was in a title 32 status as compared to the response in a title
    10 status? Would the Air Guard be able to support title 32 missions in
    response to hurricane relief in the Gulf Region with the currently
    proposed Air Force budget submission?
        Answer. ANG has an inherent responsibility to support States and
    territories in their relief efforts during Homeland Defense and Defense
    Support to Civil Authorities (HD/DSCA) events; hurricane support being
    a historically significant piece of these efforts. ANG responses to
    hurricanes can happen under title 10, title 32, or State Active Duty
    (SAD) authorities. Often times, during a major catastrophic event, a
    state of Federal emergency is declared and once that occurs, Combatant
    Commands and Strategic Commands become heavily tasked. Reasons such as
    Active Duty capability gaps, Active Duty task saturation or closer
    proximity and quicker response times of ANG forces to the operating
    area deem it necessary for these commands to task ANG wings, units, or
    squadrons under title 10 authority. This usually occurs while ANG
    assets are already employed and responding to the affected states under
    title 32 and SAD. Regardless of the authority, it is important to
    realize that they are ANG assets being utilized to fill gaps, meet
    requirements and support demands.
        Air National Guard C-130s alone flew more than 2,500 domestic
    missions for hurricane relief during a span of 7 years that included
    Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ike, and Gustav. The 136th Airlift
    Wing, a Wing in Texas and slated to move to Montana under the fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission, flew 400 of those missions. The Air
    National Guard has and will continue to provide support during
    hurricanes regardless of the situation. Through the development of the
    Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), States impacted by
    hurricanes can quickly and efficiently call upon Air National Guard
    resources from their neighboring States and across the country. While
    EMAC guarantees the Air National Guard will always be there, speed is
    critical to domestic response. Federal Emergency Management Agency
    Director Fugate emphasized this during a speech to the National
    Governors Association. It is his opinion that aviation assets must be
    organic to the National Guard, and that other options may not provide
    the same speed and capacity.
                             air operations groups
        Question. General Wyatt, seven additional Air Operations Groups
    were activated post-Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 when the
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force Total Force Integration Phase IV memo
    recognized a need for additional augmentation units. Is there no longer
    a need for these units? If not, what has changed?
        Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) is a force provider whose
    mission is to provide the best trained and equipped forces possible to
    cover Air Force directed mission requirements. Any specifics on Air
    Operation Center (AOC) augmentation requirements need to be directed to
    Headquarters Air Force (HAF).
        Although the ANG will retain fewer AOC augmentation units, the ANG
    has retained the necessary capacity to ensure that the Air Guard can
    fulfill surge requirements, and sustain and/or augment essential
    command and control structures. Manpower reductions will drive changes
    to the way our forces are trained and postured. The luxury to align
    individual AOC units to specific Geographic Air Operation Centers will
    no longer be viable. The ANG envisions a scenario in the near future
    where our AOC augmentation units will be primarily aligned to one AOC,
    while being secondarily aligned to an additional AOC. While this will
    drive significant training challenges, the ANG stands ready to face
    future requirements and provide the best trained command and control
    forces in the Air Force.
                          601st air operations center
        Question. General Wyatt, how does the Air Force specifically plan
    to augment the 601st Air Operations Center and others without degrading
    the mission following proposed unit closures?
        Answer. ANG is a force provider whose mission is to provide the
    best trained and equipped forces possible to cover Air Force directed
    mission requirements. Any specifics on AOC augmentation requirements
    need to be directed to HAF.
        Critical missions exist throughout the Air Force and on-going
    missions, such as the one accomplished by the 601st, are always at the
    forefront of manning and augmentation decisions. During recent crises,
    a wide variety of talented individuals have augmented the 601st
    missions, and these individuals are drawn from across the spectrum of
    the Air Guard's Air Operation Groups (AOG). During the crisis in the
    Gulf of Mexico following the Deep Water Horizon oil rig explosion, the
    601st had volunteers from several different Guard Units, to include the
    152nd, 183rd, and 157th AOGs, manning critical positions. Specifically,
    the 101st AOG is the title 32 unit of the 601st and stands ready to
    address any crisis; no manpower reductions were proposed to the 101st
    AOG. Additionally, the ANG will have six fully qualified AOC
    augmentation units that are fully capable of augmenting the 601st AOC
    and any other geographic AOC.
        Although the ANG will retain fewer AOC augmentation units, the ANG
    has retained the necessary capacity to ensure that the Air Guard can
    fulfill surge requirements, and sustain and/or augment essential
    command and control structures. Manpower reductions will drive changes
    to the way our forces are trained and postured. The luxury to align
    individual AOC units to specific Geographic Air Operation Centers will
    no longer be viable. The ANG envisions a scenario in the near future
    where our AOC augmentation units will be primarily aligned to one AOC,
    while being secondarily aligned to an additional AOC. While this will
    drive significant training challenges, the ANG stands ready to face
    future requirements and provide the best trained command and control
    forces in the Air Force.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
        Question. I understand there are certain platforms that must be
    retired, aside from those exceptions, is the House language putting a
    1-year hold on the United States Air Force (USAF) plans for the Air
    National Guard (ANG) helpful?
        Answer. Delaying the USAF's fiscal year 2013 budget plans for the
    ANG would potentially afford all parties additional time to conduct
    further analysis, consider Council of Governors proposals, and review
    recent feedback from the Congress in greater detail. Without question,
    it is imperative that the USAF and ANG continue working together to
    ensure we make the most effective use of every U.S. tax dollar spent,
    especially given the Department of Defense's current fiscal
    environment.
        However, freezing any pre-fiscal year 2013 budget actions that
    require fiscal year 2013 funds to complete would have a negative impact
    to the USAF and ANG missions. The C-5 to C-17 conversion in Memphis,
    Tennessee and the F-15 transfer from Great Falls, Montana to Fresno,
    California are a few examples of such actions. If the Congress were to
    put a 1-year hold on the USAF's fiscal year 2013 budget plans for the
    ANG, the appropriation of fiscal year 2013 funds for previously
    approved pre-fiscal year 2013 actions would be essential to the ANG's
    combat readiness.
        Question. There was a C-130 Hurricane Season Exercise in Corpus
    Christi, Texas. Because hurricane season begins next month and Texas'
    C-130s are an integral part of the Gulf States' hurricane response, the
    Texas Guard is training to evacuate citizens to safety if need be. As
    you know those aircraft in the Texas Air Guard is so vital to the gulf
    coast region during natural disasters. If those Texas aircraft are not
    replaced, could title X aircraft have the same effect? In other words,
    could gulf coast regional governors call upon title X aircraft prior to
    a disaster at anytime and what is the criteria for those aircraft to be
    called up?
        Answer. The ANG is a sourcing option/solution to any title 10
    operation through United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM).
    For title 10 aircraft to be utilized, a Presidential Emergency Disaster
    must be declared. Without this declaration, title 10 status will not be
    granted and no military airlift will be used. If a State or regional
    request for Federal emergency assistance prior to or after a disaster
    is granted, USTRANSCOM would source title 10 status airlift through
    Active, Reserve, and Guard channels.
                                     ______

        Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General William E. Ingram, Jr.
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                            army guard suicide rates
        Question. General Ingram, 98 Army National Guard (ARNG) soldiers
    took their own lives in 2011. How is the Army Guard responding to this
    disturbing trend and addressing the mental health of soldiers beginning
    with recruitment and continuing throughout their entire service in the
    Guard?
        Answer. Suicide prevention, regardless of component, is a daunting
    challenge for leadership. For geographically dispersed ARNG forces,
    this is even more challenging. Unlike our Active component
    counterparts, traditional, part-time Guard unit leaders do not get the
    chance to interact with their soldiers on a daily basis. In calendar
    year 2011, the ARNG experienced 99 suicides. That number translates to
    14 fewer ARNG suicides than reported in calendar year 2010.
    Statistically, 47 percent of the ARNG suicide victims had never
    deployed, while 27 percent had deployed and committed suicide at least
    1 year after their deployment. In order to stem this disturbing trend
    and address the mental health of our soldiers throughout their entire
    service in the ARNG has a number of training and prevention programs.
        Suicide prevention is achieved by building resilient soldiers and
    families with well developed coping skills, providing a strong support
    network and accessible resources, supporting a process for post-
    traumatic growth, and providing support through other times of crisis.
    The foundation of the ARNG suicide prevention program is the ARNG
    Resilience, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention (R3SP) Task Force and
    the State Councils. The R3SP Campaign Plan redefines suicide prevention
    as an integrated part of a broader based resilience and risk-reduction
    framework, and guides State efforts to promote resilience, develop and
    enhance leader abilities to recognize and mitigate high stress and at-
    risk factors, and facilitate the long-term reduction in ARNG at-risk
    behaviors and suicidal actions.
        In support of the Chief of Staff of the Army's goal to have a
    Master Resilience Trainer (MRT) trained NCO in each line battalion, and
    an NCO and officer on each Brigade Combat Team staff, the ARNG
    established an MRT Training Center at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin in 2011.
    There, MRTs are taught proven resilience skills that they in turn
    provide to the Soldiers in their teams, squads, and platoons. These
    skills enhance both the individual and collective performance of a
    unit, and support increased resiliency. To date, the ARNG has trained
    1,372 MRTs.
        In addition, each State and Territory has a Director of
    Psychological Health to provide behavioral health support for Soldiers
    in crisis, develop the ARNG Leader's Guide on Soldier Resilience, and
    promote peer-to-peer programs in each State.
        The ARNG Recruit Sustainment Program (RSP) provides new soldiers
    with the skills required to successfully complete Basic Combat Training
    and return to their units fit, trained, and ready to deploy. The ARNG
    RSP resilience initiative compliments the current RSP curriculum and
    fosters a balanced, healthy, mentally tough, and self-confident soldier
    ready to succeed during initial entry training. Introducing resilience
    skills early in their training exposes new soldiers to the philosophy
    of how to ``bend, not break'' for the rest of their military careers.
        In fiscal year 2011, the ARNG also trained 387 trainers in the
    Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST) program and funded
    an additional 150 for fiscal year 2012. These trainers will train
    approximately 35,000 gatekeepers in advanced intervention skills. Other
    mitigation programs include Senior Review Group video teleconferences
    with State Adjutants General, sessions that allow the ARNG to work
    hand-in-hand with the States to develop best practices and participates
    in a review of each suicide and the lessons learned.
        Question. General Ingram, is the Army Guard properly training
    recruiters to evaluate not only the physical but also the mental
    fitness of new recruits?
        Answer. The Army National Guard Recruiting and Retention Non-
    Commissioned Officers receive training to identify triggers or
    potential issues for both physical and medical conditions. Recruiters
    rely on answers to moral and security suitability questions as a
    required part of the application process; however, ARNG Recruiters are
    not licensed to evaluate the mental fitness of a potential applicant.
    Only licensed, Department of Defense-approved medical professionals
    evaluate physical and mental fitness, as part of the overall enlistment
    physical conducted prior to accession at a local Military Entrance
    Processing Stations.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
        Question. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records has
    since corrected the soldiers' records to include the Post-Deployment/
    Mobilization Respite Absence (PDMRA) leave. The problem is that these
    soldiers are only allowed to use this leave after another deployment.
    If a soldier does not deploy again, they cannot access the paid leave
    that they have already earned.
        General Ingram, are you aware of this problem?
        Answer. Yes, I am aware of this problem.
        Question. Do you believe that soldiers who earn paid leave through
    the PDMRA program should be allowed to use this benefit?
        Answer. Yes. The Army National Guard wants every soldier to receive
    all the benefits to which they are legally entitled.
        Question. The House and Senate recently passed legislation (H.R.
    4045) authorizing payments of $200 for each day of PDMRA that
    servicemembers were not allowed to use because the rules were changed
    during their deployment. Previously, the Congress authorized similar
    payments for soldiers who came home from deployments after the PDMRA
    program had been announced, but before it was actually up and running,
    in section 604 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
    year 2010.
        Do you believe those payments that have already been authorized by
    the Congress were an appropriate way to handle cases where a soldier
    was unable to use the paid leave they earned through the PDMRA program?
        Answer. Yes. PDMRA program applies to all Army soldiers. Reserve
    component soldiers were most impacted by changes in the program, as
    individuals not on Active Duty are prevented from taking the extra
    leave days granted. Therefore, the cash payout provision was the only
    way to compensate this population. The Army National Guard published
    implementing guidance for all States and Territories to execute cash
    payments to soldiers denied PDMRA benefits due to the delay of
    implementing guidance for the program. As part of the coordinated plan
    to execute restitution under PDMRA, States/Territories developed an
    Action Plan.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                       national guard civil support teams
        Question. General Ingram, could you describe for the subcommittee
    what capability is provided by the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil
    Support Teams (WMD-CSTs)? Does the reduction in manpower in the Air
    Guard impact the ability to support these missions?
        Answer. The proposed Air Guard manpower reduction will not impact
    the WMD-CST program. The National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction/
    Civil Support Teams provide high-priority, rapid response, full-time
    (title 32) National Guard units to civil authorities and local incident
    commanders. Our WMD-CSTs respond to actual--or suspected--terrorist WMD
    event/incidents, intentional or unintentional releases of Chemical,
    Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) materials, or natural or
    manmade disasters in the United States. The WMD-CST enhances Local
    Incident Commanders emergency responder capabilities; do not replace
    the Incident Command System or functions normally performed by the
    civilian emergency first responder community.
        Currently, the National Guard has 57 WMD-CSTs, one in every State,
    one each in the Territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico,
    one in the District of Columbia, and two each in California, Florida,
    and New York. Every National Guard WMD-CST is certified by the
    Secretary of Defense as ``operationally ready'' for their designated
    mission:
      --support civil authorities at domestic Chemical, Biological,
            Radiological, Nuclear, and High Yield Explosive (CBRNE)
            incident sites;
      --identify CBRNE agents/substances;
      --assess current and projected consequences;
      --advise response measures; and
      --assist with State requests for additional support resources.
        Each WMD-CST is equipped with detection and identification
    equipment; a mobile analytical laboratory which can provide the
    complete characterization of chemical, biological, or radiological
    materials, as well as the ability to provide information to the
    Laboratory Response Network and the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention. In addition, a sophisticated communications suite provides
    the WMD-CST with a broad spectrum of secure capabilities, allowing
    information integration between local, State, tribal, and Federal
    agencies.
        In fiscal year 2011, ARNG WMD-CST units conducted 632 immediate
    response and stand-by missions to include response to the American
    Samoa Tsunami, stand-by operations during the Super Bowl in Texas, and
    operations to protect the homeland following the recent tsunami in
    Japan. Through the first 8 months of fiscal year 2012, WMD-CSTs
    conducted 433 immediate response and stand-by missions: numerous white
    powder and unknown substance missions, support to National and State
    political events, large sporting events, National Special Security
    Events, Special Event Assessment Rating activities, the 2011 Asia-
    Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Hawaii, the 2012 State of the
    Union Address, and the 2012 NATO Summit.
                                     ______

               Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
        Question. As part of this year's budget, the Army has submitted a
    request for approval to enter into a second multiyear procurement
    contract for the CH-47 Chinook helicopter. This multiyear contract
    would last for 5 years and produce 155 aircraft. Many of these would be
    assigned to the Army Guard, including 12 aircraft to be located at
    Grand Prairie, Texas. We've already had experience with a 5-year,
    multiyear contract for Chinooks; the first one expires this year. Given
    this experience, what do you see as the biggest benefits for the Army,
    the taxpayer, and especially the Army Guard, that would come from a
    second multiyear contract?
        Answer. Multiyear contracts (MYCs) provide cost savings because
    they stabilize contractors and subcontractors over a longer period of
    time. The cost savings from the CH-47 MYC is expected to be about 10
    percent or $373 million. This cost savings means more aircraft will be
    produced and made available to the Army and Army National Guard if
    funding is constant. Additionally, MYCs ensure consistent production.
    Thus, the Army and Army National Guard will receive aircraft faster
    because there are fewer production breaks due to time spent negotiating
    new contracts. All these factors help solidify fielding plans for the 5
    years associated with the CH-47 MYC.

                                    Reserves

        Chairman Inouye. And, now, the subcommittee asks General
    Stultz, Admiral Debbink, General Hummer, and General Stenner to
    come forward and present their testimony.
        Gentlemen, I thank you for joining us this morning. And may
    I advise you that your full statements will be made part of the
    record. And so, we shall start with Admiral Debbink.
    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DIRK J. DEBBINK, CHIEF, NAVY
                RESERVE, UNITED STATES NAVY
        Admiral Debbink. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran,
    thank you for the privilege to speak with you again this
    morning about the capabilities, the capacities and the
    readiness of our now 63,988 dedicated men and women who are
    serving in our Navy Reserve today.
        In the decade since 9/11, the Navy Reserve has performed
    nearly 64,000 year-long mobilizations to Active Duty, truly on
    the front lines of freedom. The Navy Reserve sailors exemplify
    our Navy core values of honor, courage, and commitment.
        As our motto and our sailors both proudly claim, we are
    ready now, anytime, anywhere.
        In his Sailing Directions, the Chief of Naval Operations
    (CNO) Admiral Greenert, established three tenets for the Navy:
    Warfighting First, Operate Forward, and Be Ready.
        Today's Navy Reserve is fully aligned with the CNO's
    Sailing Directions, and our sailors are eager to do their part
    to ensure the Navy remains the world's premier maritime
    service.
        Reserve sailors provide both full- and part-time
    operational capabilities and, importantly, also provide
    strategic depth for maritime missions to ensure the Navy is
    always ready to respond globally to crisis situations while
    maintaining fiscal efficiency across our whole spectrum of
    operations.
        Thanks to the work of this Congress in the National Defense
    Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, Service Secretaries now
    have assured access to Reserve component units. This will allow
    the Navy to confidently assign missions to the Navy Reserve
    from peace to war.
        While we'll first have the opportunity to budget for such
    use of assured access in fiscal year 2014, I wanted you all to
    know how important your efforts were to our future force while
    I had the opportunity to do so.
        I'm also appreciative of your support for the purchase of
    our 14th C-40A this year for our Navy Unique Fleet Essential
    Airlift (NUFEA). Congressional support for our Navy Reserve C-
    40A program is enabling our critical intra-theater lift
    capability today to be more cost effective and flexible and
    thus more operationally relevant well into the future.
        Our fiscal year 2013 budget request will enable the Navy
    Reserve to continue supporting current operations while
    maximizing the strategic value of the Navy Reserve, a force
    valued for its readiness, innovation, agility, and
    accessibility.
        The true prize for our sailors and the Navy alike will be
    the real and meaningful work as part of America's Navy: A
    Global Force for Good.
        And, as an example of this work, the Navy Reserve has once
    again assumed 100 percent of the Navy's Individual Augmentee
    commitment to the overseas contingency operations (OCO) for
    fiscal year 2013 and beyond.
        I believe the Reserve components, all of us in the National
    Guard, must be asked and even required to do those missions we
    are able to do so that the Active component can focus on the
    missions that they must do for our national security.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        As you know, this is my fourth and final year appearing
    before your subcommittee. I'm proud of the accomplishments of
    our sailors and the Navy Reserve and the Navy, and I'm truly
    thankful for the support of this Congress in providing our
    quest to become a true, Total Force.
        On behalf of our sailors and their families and civilians
    of our Navy Reserve, thank you for your continued support and
    your commitment to our Navy Reserve.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Dirk J. Debbink
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and distinguished members of the
    Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee: thank you
    for the opportunity to speak with you today about the capabilities,
    capacity, and readiness of the 63,988 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.
        The U.S. Navy is globally deployed, persistently forward, and
    actively engaged. America's Navy, year after year, in peace and war,
    carries out the core capabilities of forward presence, deterrence, sea
    control, power projection, maritime security, and humanitarian
    assistance and disaster response. Defense strategy establishes naval
    power as an enduring concept, and Navy leadership recognizes the Force
    must constantly evolve and innovate to face emerging and future
    challenges. These two concepts inform our efforts as we review where we
    have been and consider our future.
        The Navy is critical to our national security and this Nation's
    economic prosperity. With a global economy and global responsibilities,
    the United States of America is and must remain a maritime Nation. Some
    facts will not change:
      --70 percent of the globe is covered by water;
      --80 percent of the world's population lives on or near the coast;
            and
      --90 percent of our commerce travels via the oceans.
        The Navy will continue protecting the interconnected systems of
    trade, information, and security that underpin American prosperity and
    global stability. We will continue to be at the front line of our
    Nation's efforts in war and peace with a proud heritage of success in
    battle on, above, and below the sea.
        This Nation's Navy derives its strength from the Active and Reserve
    sailors and Navy civilians who comprise our Total Force. We operate as
    America's Navy, a Global Force for Good, one Navy force with an Active
    component (AC) and Reserve component seamlessly integrated in pursuit
    of the most effective and efficient way to deliver naval capabilities
    to deter foreign aggression and, if deterrence fails, win our Nation's
    wars.
        A capable Navy Reserve is an operational and warfighting necessity.
    As stated in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report,
    ``prevailing in today's wars requires a Reserve component that can
    serve in an operational capacity--available, trained, and equipped for
    predictable routine deployment. Preventing and deterring conflict will
    likely necessitate the continued use of some elements of the RC--
    especially those that possess high-demand skill sets--in an operational
    capacity well into the future.'' The Navy--Active and Reserve--will
    work together to ensure the right capabilities are available to the
    Nation at the best value to the taxpayer.
                                first principles
        In his CNO's Sailing Directions, the new CNO, Admiral Jonathan
    Greenert, established these first principles for the Navy:
        Warfighting First.--Be ready to fight and win today, while building
        the ability to win tomorrow.
        Operate Forward.--Provide offshore options to deter, influence, and
        win in an era of uncertainty.
        Be Ready.--Harness the teamwork, talent, and imagination of our
        diverse force to be ready to fight and responsibly employ our
        resources.
        Today's Navy Reserve is fully aligned with the CNO's Sailing
    Directions, and we are ready to accept new missions as necessary. The
    Navy is organized, trained, and equipped to deter, fight, and
    decisively win wars; the Navy Reserve is eager to do our duty to ensure
    our Navy remains the world's preeminent maritime force.
        Navy missions are executed by the AC, the RC, or a combination of
    both. As the CNO stated, ``capabilities and missions can be assigned to
    the Navy Reserve with confidence because the Navy Reserve is ready,
    innovative, and agile and is fully aligned with Navy mission
    requirements.'' Depending on the mission, the Navy RC can mirror or
    complement the AC. We mirror the AC and provide additional rotational
    forces for those missions where it makes operational and fiscal sense.
    We complement the AC by providing unique capabilities in other areas,
    such as in the Intra-Theater Fleet Logistics Support, Naval Cooperation
    and Guidance for Shipping, and Navy Special Warfare Helicopter Support
    missions. The correct AC/RC force allocation varies with each of Navy's
    wide variety of missions and required capabilities. As new missions
    emerge and current missions evolve, AC/RC mix solutions are carefully
    and continually examined. RC sailors provide full- and part-time
    operational capabilities, and strategic depth, for maritime missions to
    ensure the Navy is always ready to respond globally to crisis
    situations while maintaining fiscal efficiency across the spectrum of
    operations. These broad missions are not mutually exclusive; the Navy
    Reserve can operate anywhere across the full spectrum of operations.
    Thanks to the work of this Congress in the National Defense
    Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, Service Secretaries have
    assured access to RC units which allow the Navy to confidently assign
    missions to the Navy Reserve anytime from peace to war.
        While Reserve support for ongoing operations is vital to the Navy's
    success, about two-thirds of the Reserve Force performs an equally
    important role--building and maintaining our capacity through its part-
    time service. Capacity held in the RC provides our Nation a wide range
    of options at an affordable cost. Risk is no longer an all-or-nothing
    proposition. Rather than completely abandoning a capability, the part-
    time service of our sailors preserves capabilities at a lower cost in
    exchange for a calculated level of risk. The value of these sailors is
    a function of readiness, accessibility, and capacity. It is not enough
    for our sailors to be trained; we must be able to deliver the right
    amount of required naval warfighting capabilities when and where needed
    by the combatant commanders, including the option to restore or revert
    them to full-time status if and when needed. This ``reversibility''--
    the ability to regenerate capabilities that might be needed to meet
    future demands (maintaining intellectual capital and rank structure
    that could be called upon to expand elements of the force)--is a key
    part of Department of Defense (DOD) decision calculus.
        The Navy Reserve is, as our motto states, ``Ready Now, Anytime,
    Anywhere.'' We have made great strides in improving the planning and
    notification process for sailors selected to mobilize in support of
    Navy or Joint requirements. Every year, our Ready Mobilization Pool
    (RMP) is published to identify sailors and units with the potential to
    mobilize. This allows commanders to focus our resources on the
    readiness levels of the right sailors and units. Those RC sailors not
    on the list can be fairly confident that they will not mobilize in the
    next 12-18 months. Our Volunteer Portal helps identify those sailors
    who desire to be mobilized, and to match qualified volunteers with
    validated mobilization requirements. Feedback from the Force has been
    very positive regarding both the RMP and the Volunteer Portal.
        Longer notification time directly translates into readiness. Our
    Navy families can plan for impending mobilizations, and our sailors can
    prepare themselves medically, physically, and administratively. It also
    allows employers more time to prepare for the absence of mobilized
    employees and eases tension in the workplace.
        Through improvements to our procedures, policies, and systems, we
    have reduced the time it takes for a RC sailor to transition to Active
    Duty from weeks to days. Longer lead time plus shorter processing time
    results in ready sailors, ready families, supportive employers, and
    capability quickly delivered.
                                    sailors
        The mission of the Navy Reserve is to provide strategic depth and
    deliver operational capabilities to our Navy and Marine Corps team and
    Joint forces, from peace to war. Our Navy Reserve is relevant and
    capable today because we have invested in our people and our equipment,
    we have assigned them real and meaningful work, and we have honored the
    support of our families and our employers.
        The success of the Navy Reserve Force is due first and foremost to
    the professionalism of the sailors who volunteer to serve in a wide
    array of environments. The Navy Reserve is a healthy force, manned with
    sailors of diverse backgrounds that are dedicated to providing for the
    defense of the Nation's citizens and the global good. As a workforce,
    we are becoming leaner and more versatile, utilizing new technologies
    adapted to the Defense environment. The success of the Force is due to
    the dedication, sacrifices, and service of our sailors, and the support
    they receive from their families and employers, and I believe Navy
    policies reflect that same level of commitment from Department
    leadership to our sailors.
        Navy Reserve leadership continually reviews policies and laws,
    ensuring our sailors are afforded the greatest opportunity to
    participate in Navy's Total Force while also ensuring each sailor's
    family and employer are appropriately recognized for their sacrifices
    on behalf of the servicemember. The fiscal year 2013 budget request of
    $1.938 billion (including overseas contingency operations (OCO)
    funding) for Reserve personnel, Navy will continue to support the
    manpower needs and policies of the Navy Reserve. I thank you for your
    support of our many programs, several of which will be described in
    this testimony.
        In the decade since 9/11, the Navy Reserve has performed nearly
    64,000 mobilizations to Active Duty. Today, more than 3,000 Reserve
    sailors are forward, combating terrorism around the globe--truly on the
    front lines of freedom. Mobilized Navy Reserve Hospital Corpsmen are
    embedded with ground units in Afghanistan with their Marine platoons.
    Reserve Seabees are building critical infrastructure to stabilize
    Afghanistan's fragile but determined democracy, as well as
    participating in Southern Partnership Station activities in South
    America. And many sailors are Individual Augmentees (IAs) bringing
    their expertise to Army, Joint, and Combined commands. These IAs are
    performing intelligence, information technology, logistics, and other
    specialized missions.
        Our mobilized sailors are not only talented, they are motivated.
    When I visit our deployed and returning sailors, they state that while
    the work is hard and separation from family is challenging, they are
    proud to serve and the capabilities they bring are essential. We cannot
    thank them enough for their honorable and faithful service.
        I am particularly humbled by the fact that every Navy Reserve
    sailor serving today has enlisted, reenlisted, or reaffirmed their oath
    of office in the decade since 9/11. They make this commitment knowing
    mobilization is not only possible but probable. Our Navy Reserve
    sailors exemplify our Navy core values of Honor, Courage, and
    Commitment.
        One of the Navy Reserve's strategic focus areas is to enable the
    Continuum of Service (CoS). CoS is not a program but a concept that
    will enable us to increase the return on investment in our people, and
    give our sailors more opportunities for a lifetime of Service. CoS is a
    transformational approach to personnel management that provides
    opportunities for seamless transition across service status categories
    to meet mission requirements and encourage a lifetime of service.
    Enabling the CoS philosophy by fully incorporating opportunities unique
    to the Reserve, 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.
        There were many important accomplishments associated with our CoS
    efforts in fiscal year 2011. Our Continuum of Service Working Group
    (CoSWG) is fully engaged, with representation by all key stakeholders
    of Navy uniformed personnel. The purpose of the CoSWG is to provide
    policy, managerial, and technical advice to the Chief of Navy Personnel
    (CNP) and the Chief of Navy Reserve (CNR) on all matters related to the
    development and implementation of a true Continuum of Service for the
    Navy. The CoSWG Charter was signed by CNP and CNR in February 2011. The
    CoSWG meets via teleconference every 2 weeks to facilitate the exchange
    and leveraging of information, ideas, expertise, and capabilities;
    share technological solutions and jointly participate in CoS planning
    efforts. The CoSWG engages DOD and the other Services to socialize
    initiatives and to achieve support and leverage for programs needing
    joint concurrence and legislative changes in order to implement.
        The Career Transition Office (CTO) in the Navy Personnel Command
    continues to be one of the most exciting developments for CoS. The goal
    of the CTO is to counsel sailors before they leave Active Duty and help
    them to take advantage of the opportunities in the Navy Reserve. By
    engaging with our fully qualified, world-wide assignable personnel
    before leaving Active Duty, this becomes a retention transaction that
    complements Navy recruiting efforts. In September 2011, the CTO
    completed Spiral 3, a pilot program that developed and tested
    Indefinite Recall processes and procedures for sailors to transition
    from RC to AC. The CTO transitioned five sailors from RC to AC during
    the pilot, thoroughly validating the process.
        To transition sailors from RC to AC, we have developed policy that
    will allow temporary Active Duty recalls for enlisted Reserve sailors,
    increasing their opportunities to serve and allowing AC greater access
    to RC capabilities and resources. An effective enlisted recall policy
    will increase Navy Reserve operational mission support and enhance
    overall manpower utilization. It will also provide our Reserve sailors
    with meaningful work as they take on challenging operational AC
    assignments in support of the Navy Total Force.
        To provide our Reserve sailors with more efficient workforce
    support tools, Navy Reserve became the first of all the Reserve and
    Guard components to integrate the Defense Travel System (DTS) with the
    Reserve Order Writing System. This system integration shortens time to
    book and modify travel when Reserve sailors request orders to perform
    Active Duty. The integration accelerates processing and payment of
    travel claims (5-6 days vs. 30-45 days), reduces the number of orders
    and claims manually processed by Personnel Support Detachments and
    NOSCs by up to 120,000 annually (thereby eliminating backlogs),
    improves Government Travel Credit Card repayment rates reducing bad
    debt and the need for related disciplinary action.
        The new Variable Participation Unit (VPU) allows sailors in key
    specialties to perform fewer drills than traditional Reserve sailors
    while remaining engaged with the Navy and available for duty. This
    gives the Navy access to individuals whose circumstances wouldn't allow
    them to serve otherwise.
        Building on our CoS efforts is one of our enduring priorities. We
    are currently engaged in a project to develop and introduce Fleet
    Rating Identification Engine (Fleet RIDE), a Web-based program that
    electronically pairs a sailor's career interests and qualifications
    with the needs and requirements of the Navy, into the Selected Reserve
    (SELRES) to support the CoS for the Navy by providing RC sailors with
    the same career counseling capability that is available to their AC
    shipmates. Fleet RIDE will provide SELRES sailors with comprehensive
    rating information as well as both RC and AC career opportunities based
    on the Navy demand signal balanced with the sailors interest and
    aptitude. This integrated information will help sailors make better
    informed career decisions regarding rating conversions and RC to AC
    lane change options. Fleet RIDE will optimize Force Fit by improving
    rating manning and will enhance individual sailors' career progression
    by streamlining RC to RC rating conversion processes and facilitating
    timely RC to AC transition requests and approvals.
        The Navy Reserve has strengthened all phases of the deployment
    cycle to take the best possible care of sailors and their families.
    Deployment Readiness Training, Command Individual Augmentee Coordinator
    Program, Returning Warrior Workshops, the Psychological Health Outreach
    Program, and the Navy's Family Readiness programs, all minimize risk to
    Navy missions assigned to Navy Reserve sailors. These programs reassure
    servicemembers that their families will be cared for while they are
    away. Through advance preparation they also allow servicemembers to
    focus on the mission while deployed, and then assist with reintegration
    after deployment.
        The Navy Reserve is committed to providing world-class care for our
    sailors; especially, for those wounded in support of OCO. We continue
    to provide exceptional service to sailors assigned to Navy's Medical
    Hold (MEDHOLD) units. These units provide necessary medical case
    management and administrative support to Navy's RC wounded, ill, and
    injured (WII) population. Also in support of WII sailors, the Navy Safe
    Harbor program is Navy's lead organization for coordinating nonmedical
    care for seriously WII sailors and Coast Guardsmen and their families.
    Safe Harbor provides individually tailored assistance designed to
    optimize the successful recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration of
    our shipmates.
        All sailors returning from overseas mobilizations are encouraged to
    attend a Returning Warrior Workshop (RWW), Navy's ``signature event''
    within the DOD's Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP), supported
    by the Bureau of Navy Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) as part of
    psychological health services for RC sailors. The RWW is a dedicated
    weekend designed to facilitate reintegration of sailors returning from
    combat zones with their designated representatives. 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 to
    address postcombat stress and the challenges of transitioning back to
    civilian life. Defining resilience as more than just simply returning
    to former levels of functioning, these events help servicemembers
    recognize what is called ``post-traumatic growth''--positive changes
    made as a result of going through the deployment experience. A total of
    87 RWWs have been held to date, attended by 5,937 military personnel
    (including members of other Services) and 4,758 guests, with 12
    additional events scheduled in fiscal year 2012. Pioneered by the Navy
    Reserve, these workshops are available for all Navy Individual
    Augmentees, AC and RC. RWWs are a true success story in honoring our
    sailors and their families. It is important 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 venue for utilization of the BUMED Navy Reserve
    Psychological Health Outreach Program (PHOP). The PHOP employs
    dedicated teams of mental health professionals to provide psychological
    health assessments, outreach, and education, including Operational
    Stress Control and Suicide Prevention training for the Navy and Marine
    Corps Reserve Communities. Regularly scheduled encounters are held at
    Deployment Readiness Training (DRT) events to screen servicemembers
    prior to and after deployment. The program is designed to identify
    potential stress disorders, facilitate early intervention, and provide
    access to psychological health support resources. The availability,
    quality, and effectiveness of psychological services utilized by Navy/
    Marine Corps Reserve sailors and marines and their families are closely
    monitored. In fiscal year 2011, the Navy Reserve deployed a user-
    friendly Webpage providing both sailors and their family members an
    easy-to-access database of PHOP points of contact.
        During fiscal year 2011, 714 RC sailors were referred for PHOP
    services; 668 of these sailors became ongoing clients. The PHOP teams
    also attempted calling 3,815 recently demobilized Reserve sailors. Of
    these 2,173 were successfully contacted and given the support they
    needed. PHOP team members also made 193 visits to NOSCs and 129 visits
    to NMPS sites in Norfolk, Virginia and San Diego, California, where
    they received referrals and conducted mental health screenings. They
    also provided briefings to 30,246 Navy Reserve sailors, unit staff/
    leadership and family members during DRT events.
        PHOP continually reviews the delivery mechanism for their audience
    to increase exposure to the program. The Northwest Region PHOP team is
    participating in a pilot project supporting case management for our
    wounded warriors. If effective, the project will expand to all Navy
    Regions.
        Navy continues sexual assault prevention programs while providing
    compassionate support for victims. A cornerstone of this program is the
    clear and consistent message from leadership at all levels that sexual
    assault will not be tolerated in the United States Navy--and I thank
    you for your emphasis on sexual assault prevention programs in the
    fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that help amplify
    this message.
        Navy has a comprehensive strategy to combat suicide, incorporating
    four pillars--education and awareness; operational stress control;
    intervention; and postintervention support. Navy's Suicide prevention
    approach builds combined sailor, family, and command resilience with a
    goal of changing behavior through personal resilience; peer to peer
    support; leadership intervention throughout the chain of command;
    enhancing family support; and fostering a command climate where help-
    seeking behaviors, when required, are expected in order to restore
    personal readiness.
        Programs focused on enhancing the quality of life for Navy Reserve
    sailors have paid dividends with regards to the end strength of the
    Force. Fiscal year 2011 ended with a Navy Reserve inventory of 64,792,
    or 98.9 percent of congressional end-strength (65,500). Most of the
    shortages were confined to SELRES officer inventory due to our
    increased focus on fit rather than fill, and a reduction in potential
    recruiting population due to high-Active component retention. FTS
    enlisted also under executed with historically low, though higher-than-
    planned losses. The Navy Reserve continues to focus on fit and a
    positive tone of force while applying policies to remain within
    strength and fiscal controls.
        For enlisted sailors the Selective Reenlistment Bonus is used to
    affect retention in targeted specialties, while the affiliation and/or
    enlistment bonuses are used to recruit targeted ratings.
        The Officer Accession Bonus, Affiliation Bonus, and Special Pays
    (to include Special Pay for the Retention of Healthcare Professionals)
    are used to maintain/increase inventory by targeting undermanned pay
    grades in critical and undermanned skill sets. Additionally, Navy is
    requesting additional SELRES Officer skills receive ``critical''
    designation from Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel
    and Readiness), allowing for a Critical Skills Retention Bonus to begin
    in fiscal year 2012 in an effort to further reduce attrition.
        In fiscal year 2012, the Navy Reserve expects high-retention and
    low-attrition rates to continue, due to our ``Stay Navy'' campaign, the
    ability to provide real and meaningful work, as well as the effects of
    the current economy. Our close management of planned accessions and
    losses, coupled with current force-shaping and personnel policies, will
    ensure we retain the most qualified capable sailors while adjusting our
    force towards the fiscal year 2013 end-strength of 62,500 sailors.
                         ready now--and into the future
        The administration recently published ``Sustaining Global
    Leadership: Defense Priorities in the 21st Century'', in which the
    requirements of the Joint Force of 2020 are described. The document
    explicitly makes clear that the RC will be a valued participant of that
    Joint Force in stating ``Over the past decade, the National Guard and
    Reserves have consistently demonstrated their readiness and ability to
    make sustained contributions to national security. The challenges
    facing the United States today and in the future will require that we
    continue to employ National Guard and Reserve forces.'' The Force of
    the future is described as versatile, reversible, ready, and cost-
    efficient--all traits of today's RCs generally and the Navy Reserve
    specifically. The document speaks to an opportunity for the RC to
    leverage the gains of the last decade in capability and readiness and
    apply them to a Defense environment where agility, on-demand expertise,
    and innovation are placed at a premium. Navy Reserve leadership must
    provide a Force ready to perform those missions it is able to do, as
    efficiently and effectively as possible, in order for the AC to focus
    on those missions where the AC must provide the solution. At the same
    time, Navy must plan and program for RC use of the ``Assured Access''
    authority to ensure the best Total Force Navy response and support of
    combatant commander mission sets.
        Our Navy Reserve is relevant and capable today because we made
    conscious decisions to invest in our people and our equipment, we have
    assigned them real and meaningful work, and we have honored the support
    of our families and our employers. In the future, we need to ensure our
    sailors continue to have the training and equipment they need to
    maintain their readiness, and that our families have the tools needed
    to remain resilient.
        Upon assuming the office of Chief of Navy Reserve, I authored a
    memo to Navy leadership detailing how I thought the Navy Reserve would
    look when the Navy Total Force is ``winning.'' Some of the concepts I
    envisioned included:
      --There would be seamless transitions (to include pay and personnel
            records) from AC to RC and back again;
      --There would be expanded service options to allow sailors to ``stay
            Navy'' while achieving true life/work balance;
      --Navy Reserve sailors would continually have real and meaningful
            work to be performed during Active-Duty periods;
      --Navy Reserve would be known for world-class customer care and
            support for all members and their families;
      --Navy Reserve would be valued by Navy leadership for efficiently and
            expeditiously providing expert capabilities for new Navy
            requirements;
      --Navy Reserve would establish and maintain a high state of
            readiness;
      --Navy would implement RC-to-AC transition policies and use our
            presence throughout the country to assist Navy in meeting
            recruiting goals;
      --The Navy Reserve would be recognized as an integral part of the
            Navy Total Force by all sailors and AC leaders; and
      --Navy Reserve would become leaders in distributive work using
            technology and best practices.
        These initial ideas served as a roadmap for success in supporting
    and improving the Total Force, and were the impetus for developing
    Ready Now: The Navy Reserve Strategic Plan. The strategic plan has
    driven process improvements in each of the past 3 years that have
    enabled our sailors to serve more effectively while ensuring a more
    seamless integration of the Navy Reserve with the Navy as a whole. The
    Strategic Plan is updated every year with new ``strategic initiatives''
    that help prioritize and coordinate the efforts of key stakeholders
    throughout the Force. We have achieved many successes with our
    strategic initiatives--as a Navy Reserve Force, as a Navy Total Force,
    and as a DOD force.
        The Navy Reserve's fiscal year 2013 Operations and Maintenance
    (OMNR) budget request of $1.303 billion (including OCO funding) will
    continue to provide the Joint Force with the readiness, innovation, and
    agility to respond to any situation. In doing so, the true prize for
    our sailors and the Navy alike will be real and meaningful work as part
    of ``America's Navy: A Global Force for Good.''
        The Navy Reserve is a force for innovation across all spectrums,
    but it is especially evident in the area of information technology
    (IT). IT is critical to everything we do as a Navy, and the Navy
    Reserve has led the Navy in several IT efficiency initiatives. For
    example, the cost-per-sailor for IT support for the Reserve Force has
    been reduced by 43 percent since 2008--a total cost savings of $62
    million. The Navy Reserve executed these efficiencies while leading the
    Navy in legacy network reduction, data center consolidation, and
    account management.
        The Navy Reserve is progressing with the first DOD/DON-approved
    wide-scale commercial Wi-Fi access deployment to all Navy Reserve
    facilities. This project provides SELRES the capability to complete
    their Navy Reserve training and readiness requirements at a fraction of
    the expense of equipping each member with hardware workstations while
    simultaneously improving sailor satisfaction. The updated technology
    employed in the new Navy Reserve Homeport will maximize the efficiency
    and effectiveness of the force through easier and more secure
    information management and sharing. As a result of previous efforts to
    explore new network access methodologies, Secure Remote Access is now
    available to the entire Navy. This initiative empowers the workforce to
    quickly and securely access their digital resources from any location,
    using any computer, at any time. Also, to mitigate mission degradation
    due to budget marks, cost-saving measures have been maximized in
    several areas, including contracted network services. These measures
    enabled Navy Reserve to successfully operate under the substantially
    decreased budget with minimal impact to the mission effectiveness of
    the Reserve Forces.
        The Navy Reserve continues to modernize the Navy Reserve Data
    Warehouse. To date, requirements analysis have optimized and
    streamlined 191 existing reports in the current system to 23 reports in
    the new system, while the technology modernization effort will expand
    the number of connections to authoritative data sources from 4 to 12
    systems. This will increase the breadth and depth of data available to
    support headquarters comparative and predictive analysis needed to more
    efficiently and effectively support readiness efforts for our Reserve
    sailors.
        Ensuring our Reserve Force has the proper equipment to bring our
    military acumen to bear is one of my ongoing priorities. I thank the
    Congress for the support they provide the Navy Reserve in the many
    appropriations for the Force. In particular, the Navy and the Joint
    Forces benefit greatly from the Congress's support for recapitalizing
    Fleet Logistics aircraft by procuring C-40A airframes. The C-40A
    ``Clipper'' is a Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift (NUFEA) aircraft
    that provides flexible, time-critical inter- and intra-theater air
    logistics support to Navy Fleet and Component Commanders as well as
    providing logistical support for the Navy Fleet Response Plan. The C-
    40A is a medium lift cargo aircraft, equipped with a cargo door and
    capable of transporting up to 36,000 pounds of cargo, 121 passengers,
    or a combination of each. The C-40A is the designated replacement for
    the Navy Reserve's legacy C-9B and C-20G aircraft. Aircraft
    recapitalization of the C-9B and C-20G is necessary due to increasing
    operating and depot costs, decreasing availability, inability to meet
    future avionics/engine mandates required to operate worldwide, and
    continued long-term use of the C-20G in the harsh desert environment.
    The C-40A has significantly increased range, payload, and days of
    availability compared to the C-9B and C-20G, and has the unique
    capability of carrying hazardous cargo and passengers simultaneously.
    Navy C-40A detachments are forward-deployed 12 months per year to
    provide around-the-clock support to the U.S. Pacific Command, U.S.
    Central Command, and U.S. European Command Areas of Responsibility.
    Additionally, these cargo airplanes are an integral first-responder in
    emerging Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief core mission sets.
    Three additional aircraft are required to complete the minimum, risk-
    adjusted C-40A procurement plan of 17 aircraft which will complete the
    divestiture of the C-9Bs and C-20Gs. I am greatly appreciative of this
    Congress's support for the purchase of a 14th C-40A for the NUFEA
    Fleet. Congressional support for the Navy Reserve C-40A program has
    placed the VR fleet closer to realizing a more robust and cost-
    efficient NUFEA capability.
        The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) also
    funds equipment for the Navy Reserve. Unlike most other appropriations,
    NGREA provides important, in-execution year flexibility to address
    equipment needs of the Force. NGREA has allowed us to purchase
    expeditionary warfighting equipment for the Naval Expeditionary Combat
    Enterprise in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, essential
    training upgrades in support of the adversary mission, and warfighting
    and personal protection equipment for Navy Special Warfare units. For
    example, NGREA funding allowed for the procurement of 10 Surface
    Amphibious Navy maritime prepositioning force utility boats (MPFUBs).
    These boats replaced the LCM-8s utilized for Joint Logistics Over the
    Shore (JLOTS) Navy Beach Group Surface Reserve training missions,
    providing an essential training upgrade. We augmented these purchases
    with additional OMNR funding to provide for spare parts, etc., for the
    boats life-cycle maintenance.
        While Navy Reserve recognizes recent challenges regarding the
    execution of NGREA funding, we pledge continued emphasis to utilize
    this valuable appropriation to address the needs of the Force. We will
    continue to demonstrate a superior level of stewardship of these
    important taxpayer dollars. I thank you for all the support you have
    provided to the Navy Reserve through this appropriation in the past.
        The readiness, innovation, and agility of the Navy Reserve keep RC
    sailors at the leading edge of Fleet operations. For example, Selected
    Reserve sailors are literally writing the book on the shipboard
    operation and tactical employment of the MQ-8B Fire Scout, a vertical
    takeoff and landing unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV). In 2011, Reserve
    sailors took part in the Fire Scout deployment with helicopter
    antisubmarine squadron light (HSL) 42 aboard USS Halyburton (FFG 40), a
    dynamic and successful deployment from start to finish. Currently,
    Reserve sailors from HSL-60 are participating in a Fire Scout
    Deployment with USS Simpson. Also, sailors from HSL-60 are deployed
    with USS Elrod to provide a Navy ``proof of concept'' for Night
    Airborne Use of Force, a law enforcement mission under tactical control
    of the United States Coast Guard. As more capabilities are brought to
    the fleet for employment, Navy Reserves' ``can-do'' attitude and legacy
    provide Navy leadership with important options for critical force
    allocation decisions.
                                   conclusion
        This is my fourth year appearing before your subcommittee. I am
    humbled by the accomplishments of the sailors in our Navy Reserve and
    the Navy, and I am truly thankful for the support the Congress has
    provided in our quest to achieve a true Total Force. On behalf of the
    sailors, civilians, and families of our Navy Reserve, thank you for the
    continued support within the Congress and your commitment to the Navy
    Reserve.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Admiral.
        General Stultz.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JACK STULTZ, CHIEF,
                ARMY RESERVE, UNITED STATES ARMY
        General Stultz. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran.
        First of all, it's an honor to be here, and thank you for
    all the support that you continue to give our soldiers and our
    families and our Nation.
        On behalf of the 205,000 soldiers in the Army Reserve that
    are serving our Nation, what I refer to as a national treasure.
    And I think what epitomizes what those soldiers are all about
    is a young soldier that I brought with me today.
        So, instead of being very eloquent in an opening statement
    and everything, I just wanted to introduce him to you. Seated
    to my left is Sergeant Daniel Burgess and his wife, Jeanette.
        Sergeant Burgess is from Twinsburg, Ohio, which is in the
    Cleveland area, and belongs to a psychological operations unit
    up there. Sergeant Burgess was in Afghanistan last year, and he
    was in southern Afghanistan attached to the Marines.
        Out on a mission as a psychological operations (PSYOPS)
    sergeant, helping work with the local Afghans to get them to
    show the Marines locations of improvised explosive devices
    (IEDs) and other dangers to protect them, while doing that, he
    himself stepped on an IED and he lost his leg with severe
    wounds to the rest of his body and mild traumatic brain injury
    (TBI).
        And Jeanette said the first thing he said when she
    contacted him when he got to Germany was, I'm not getting out.
    I'm staying in.
        And today, he is down in Fort Sam Houston, at the warrior
    training brigade rehabbing, so he can get back in the force.
    That epitomizes what, why we're here. We're here because of
    them.
        And we're here to say, we've got to make sure we're doing
    everything within our power, in an era where we are looking to
    save money and reduce debt, but we cannot afford to shortchange
    these great soldiers. Because they are protecting our Nation
    and they are our first line of defense.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And as Admiral Debbink said, they are indispensable because
    our Army can't do what it does without our Army Reserve. We are
    an indispensable force for them.
        And so, I just use him as the symbol of why I'm here, and I
    look forward to your questions, Sir.
        [The information follows:]

             The United States Army Reserve 2012 Posture Statement

        The annual Army Reserve Posture Statement is an unclassified
    summary of Army Reserve roles, missions, accomplishments, plans, and
    programs. The 2012 Army Reserve Posture Statement also addresses the
    support required by the Army Reserve to continue its transition to an
    operational force during fiscal year 2013.
        Unless otherwise noted, all statistics and facts are current
    through March 2012.
        This document is available on the Army Reserve Web site at:
    www.usar.army.mil.

                                                            March 2012.
            providing indispensable capabilities to the total force
        Never before in the history of our Nation has the United States
    Army Reserve been more indispensable to the Army than it is today.
    Forged through 10 years of persistent conflict across the globe, the
    Army Reserve has out of necessity evolved into an indispensable part of
    the operational force. Steady demands for Army Reserve enabler
    capabilities introduced a new paradigm of interdependence within the
    Total Force that changed the structure of our defense strategy,
    ushering in an era of reliance on an Operational Reserve as part of our
    national security architecture.
        The Army Reserve is a foundational element providing operational
    and strategic depth to our military. As a key component of the Total
    Force, the Army Reserve provides key enabler capabilities to the Army;
    including 100 percent of the Army's Theater Engineer and Civil Affairs
    Commands, Training Divisions, Biological Detection Companies, Railway
    Units, and Replacement Companies. Our professional men and women
    support Army needs in many other fields such as transportation,
    logistics, supply chain management, law enforcement and public safety,
    healthcare, telecommunications, information technology, finance, legal
    services, and human resources.
        Continued investment in the Army Reserve as an enduring operational
    force places it on a solid path to support combat operations and
    theater security cooperation missions worldwide. As operations draw
    down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is essential that we maintain the
    right mix of forces and professional personnel with operational
    experience and relevant skill sets. The Army Reserve Forces provide
    critical enablers to the Active component (AC) as a complementary and
    essential capability--not a redundant force--allowing the AC structure
    to focus around more complex formations.
        In years past, we allowed our most seasoned and best-trained
    soldiers to leave the Army during postconflict drawdowns. In the
    current security environment this is not an option. One of our key
    initiatives this year is to work with the Army to create a continuum of
    service program to retain this pool of experienced, talented soldiers
    through continued service in the Reserve components. Our goal is to
    inspire soldiers to a lifetime of military service, which includes
    seamless transitions between Active and Reserve statuses, as well as
    between Reserve categories and civilian service, providing variable and
    flexible service options and levels of participation consistent with
    Department of Defense manpower requirements.
        Everything we do within the operational and institutional Army
    Reserve supports the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model. We
    progressed from a demand-based, theater-request dependent, reactive
    ARFORGEN, to a 5-year supply-based ARFORGEN, providing much needed
    predictability to our soldiers, their families, and their employers.
    Today, every soldier knows his unit's available force pool date and has
    the expectation that they will be used to support ongoing operations or
    theater security cooperation missions worldwide.
        Our biggest challenge is manning. We need the Congress's support
    for our fiscal year 2013 budget request for recruitment and retention
    incentives, and transition incentives for soldiers leaving the Active
    component during the drawdown, to allow us to shape the force with less
    reliance on cross-leveling to offset our mid-grade strength imbalances.
    Our current full-time support model remains a Strategic Reserve legacy.
    We need the support of the Congress for key policy modifications to
    change personnel support processes. We are currently working with the
    Army to create additional full-time support capability to provide much
    needed continuity in operational units and generating force units.
    These policy modifications will allow eligibility for enlistment and
    reenlistment bonuses, education loan repayment, and other incentives.
        One area where our focus will remain steadfast is our support
    programs for soldiers and family members, especially in remote
    locations without access to installation-based support. The past decade
    has taught us a lot about the physical and emotional needs of soldiers
    and families, and we have taken steps to reduce stress on the force.
    We've implemented a Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program to train our
    soldiers, civilians, and family members to both maximize their
    potential, and prepare them for the physical and psychological
    challenges of sustained operations. We have taken a holistic approach
    to suicide prevention Army-wide, integrating educating the force with
    efforts to reduce the stigma of seeking behavioral healthcare.
        We are also reaching out and providing resources to geographically
    dispersed soldiers and family members and involving family members in
    suicide prevention training. Not only have we established the Fort
    Family 24/7 hotline for soldiers and family members to access services
    at remote locations, we continue to establish Army Strong Community
    Centers (ASCC) in remote locations to allow soldiers, family members,
    retirees, and veterans access to installation-like support at remote
    locations.
        Working together, with the continued support of the Congress, we
    can meet the challenges we face in implementing a continuum of service
    and ``Soldier for Life'' concept, a sustainable ARFORGEN cycle for the
    Army Reserve, and demonstrate the positive investment that our Nation
    makes in its Army Reserve. A relatively small investment in the Army
    Reserve provides security to the homeland and supports the full range
    of military operations at home and abroad. The value added of the Army
    Reserve and its critical enabler capabilities is that the Nation pays
    the full cost for a Reserve component soldier only when he/she is
    mobilized.
        As we look to the future, our commitment is steadfast and the focus
    is clear: the Army Reserve is an essential part of the Total Force, and
    we will do all we can to ensure this combat seasoned, highly skilled
    force of warrior citizens remains ready to support a full range of
    military operations well into the future. We provide a solid,
    experienced foundation for expansibility. The strategic decisions and
    direction chosen now will set the framework for the next decade. With
    your help and the help of those who support America's operational Army
    Reserve, we will put this organization on a solid path to success for
    our soldiers, civilians, and family members; our future leaders; and
    our national security.

                             Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz,
                                     Chief, United States Army Reserve.
                     Command Sergeant Major Michael D. Schultz,
                    Command Sergeant Major, United States Army Reserve.

                                  achievements
    Human Capital
        Personnel.--A new Automated Senior Enlisted Promotion Board Process
    that uses standardized criteria ensures the best-qualified soldiers are
    selected for Master Sergeant, First Sergeant, and Sergeant Major
    positions. Implementation of the Army Reserve Theater Individual
    Replacement Operations policy and procedures more effectively achieves
    the Army Reserve goal for individual replacements to report to theater
    within 60 days of the initial request. Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN)
    Manning Strategy focuses on ``unit'' rather than individual manning,
    thereby allowing a unit to train and proceed through the ARFORGEN cycle
    as a cohesive unit. This shift in strategy allows commanders and
    noncommissioned officers to focus on leading and developing their
    organizations without the distraction of constant cross-leveling. Since
    force structure defines the needs of individual units, this approach
    brings personnel and force structure closer to one another.
        Surgeon.--The Medical Management Activity in 2011 reviewed more
    than 6,000 medical profiles, of which 50 percent were amended and 20
    percent were sent for an administrative retention board, allowing these
    soldiers to remain in the Army Reserve. Since the establishment of the
    Reserve component Medical Support Center in 2011, the Army Reserve now
    has better visibility of soldiers progressing through the Medical
    Evaluation Board process, with more than 540 packets submitted for
    review and adjudication.
        Chaplain.--The Army Reserve Strong Bonds program continues to be a
    success story as 12,500 individuals participated in more than 300
    events. The curricula expanded to provide more skills training to
    soldiers, their spouses, and their children. The program provides the
    tools to enable families to not just survive but thrive in the current
    environment of high operations tempo and multiple deployments.
        Employer Partnership of the Armed Forces Program.--Launched a
    state-of- the-art Career Portal in November 2010. The portal grew from
    zero to nearly 30,000 registered users and the number of Employer
    Partners more than doubled to 2,500 through September. The Army Reserve
    has also launched a partnered soldier training program with GE
    Healthcare.
        Family Programs.--Opened a fourth Army Strong Community Center
    pilot site in conjunction with Clackamas Community College in Oregon
    City, Oregon. The Fort Family Support and Outreach Center responded to
    multiple crisis and disaster situations while maintaining contact with
    the families of deployed Army Reserve soldiers. During fiscal year
    2011, Fort Family had 28,340 successful contacts with soldiers and
    families, providing information and assistance for many issues,
    including TRICARE, legal matters, retirement, the GI Bill, and child
    and youth programs.
    Materiel
        New Equipment Fielding Facilities enabled the Army Reserve to issue
    more than 3,800 trucks/trailers and 63,700 support items, allowing the
    Army Reserve to have 91 percent of equipment on hand, with 67 percent
    modernized, putting us on par with the Active component. In support of
    equipping missions, the Army Reserve has executed more than 19,500
    commercial movements of more than 340,000 pieces of equipment. The Army
    Reserve combined its Fleet Management System and its Logistics
    Information Systems Support Contract into one product, thereby reducing
    costs from $18.4 million to $14.4 million--a 22-percent savings.
    Additional savings were achieved by relocating the tactical computers
    system for new equipment fielding in a leased facility from Hopewell,
    Virginia, to Gaithersburg, Maryland, in a Government-owned facility--
    realizing an additional savings of $288,000 a year.
        In addition, we equipped the first unit in the Army with the new
    Palletized Load System and the new M915A5 Line Haul Tractors and
    executed Operation Clean Sweep to improve the inventory of equipment
    through the Army Reserve, re-establishing property book control of $105
    million of equipment.
    Readiness
        The Army Reserve has transitioned to an Operational Force within
    the Army by implementing a Supply Based Army Force Generation process
    in order to provide needed capabilities to the Army's Mission Force
    each year, while providing predictability to soldiers, families, and
    employers. The result is an integrated, rotational force that achieves
    cyclic unit readiness for all Army Reserve rotational units over a
    defined, predictable planning horizon.
        A wide array of missions in the unit's available year can include
    deployments in support of named operations, theater security
    cooperation (TSC) missions, humanitarian assistance, or domestic
    response missions. The Army Reserve continues to provide approximately
    19,000 soldiers annually in organized units to the Army for worldwide
    named operations as well as contingencies. Many of these units satisfy
    joint capability requirements for types of organizations only found in
    the Army Reserve. One such unit is an aviation task force established
    in October 2011 from the 11th Theater Aviation Command to provide the
    medium lift, heavy lift, and MEDEVAC capability required to support
    NORTHCOM in the Defense CBRN Response Force mission.
        The Army Reserve continues to stand ready to provide forces on an
    as-required basis in support of the Nation. As we continue to sharpen
    our focus on providing the proper force, appropriately trained, at the
    right time and place throughout the world, we will move ever closer to
    our strategic vision--the Army Reserve as a cost effective, trained,
    ready, and relevant enabling security force for the Nation.
    Services and Infrastructure
        Services and Infrastructure Core Enterprise (SICE) is the Core
    Enterprise that underpins all of the platforms and provides the support
    services that enable an operationalized Army Reserve. The fiscal year
    2011 focus centered on the completion of all assigned 2005 Base
    Realignment and Closure (BRAC) tasks to construct 125 facilities and
    close and consolidate 176. Through this significant effort, the Army
    Reserve facilities portfolio achieved a 17-percent improvement in
    facility age, modernization, and operational capability that directly
    supports training, equipping, and manning strategies in support of
    ARFORGEN.
        To achieve efficiencies in Army Reserve funded training
    installations (Fort McCoy, Fort Hunter Liggett, Fort Buchanan, Army
    Support Activity--Dix) the Army Reserve consolidated Director of
    Logistics activities under Army Materiel Command, as well as the
    consolidating and transferring Information Management activities under
    NETCOM.
        All challenges to our infrastructure (Army Reserve Centers,
    Installations, and Communications Networks) to include tornadoes,
    hurricanes, and flooding were met with a determination that restored
    facilities and communications quickly and ensured mission
    accomplishment. As a participating partner at the Department level, the
    Army Reserve is very close to achieving a developed and synchronized
    Facility Investment Strategy and is a leader in environmental
    conservation and energy sustainability. The Army Reserve continues to
    maintain Military Technician strength at levels mandated by law and is
    actively working toward transforming the civilian workforce to support
    the Operational Army Reserve.

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

                            army reserve priorities
      --Create an enduring operational force.
      --Sustain readiness in our deployable units to ensure they are ready
            to deploy as part of the Army's Mission Force.
      --Continue to provide the best trained, best led, best equipped
            soldiers and units to Combatant commanders to achieve U.S.
            objectives and ensure national security.
      --Grow an integrated Human Capital Strategy (Continuum of Service)
            that facilitates the movement of soldiers between Active and
            Reserve service, and civilian employment over a lifetime of
            service.
      --Recruit and retain the best and brightest warrior-citizens;
            transition the same from the Active component during the Army
            drawdown; sustain a robust and capable operational Army
            Reserve.
      --Provide citizen-soldiers and their families with the best care,
            support, and services to ensure the best quality of life,
            health, and vitality of the All Volunteer Force.
      --Build and maintain partnerships with industry to facilitate
            warrior-citizen contributions to both a prosperous economy and
            a skilled, experienced, and capable Army.
        To advance these priorities the Army Reserve must: Obtain from the
    Congress full support and necessary authorities, in accordance with the
    Army Reserve fiscal year 2012 budget request.

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

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

                             the president's budget
        The President's budget will allow the Army Reserve to:
      --Continue Army Reserve Internal Transformation to an Enduring
            Operational Force.
      --Shape Army Reserve end-strength by recruiting new soldiers,
            retaining the best and brightest, and transitioning Active
            component soldiers into an Operational Army Reserve Force.
      --Equip units and soldiers to train and fight in a full range of
            military operations to achieve U.S. objectives and ensure
            national security.
      --Provide quality medical and dental services and support to soldiers
            and their families.
      --Sustain quality Army Reserve installations and facilities.

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

                        the posture of the army reserve:
                     today's readiness and strategic agenda
        The Army Reserve is a trained, experienced, resilient force of
    warrior-citizens supported by strong families and employer
    partnerships. Forged through the persistent conflicts across Iraq and
    Afghanistan, the Army Reserve is an indispensable provider of essential
    enabler capabilities to the Total Force. The Army Reserve is prepared
    to provide the Nation with both versatile support to the Joint Fight
    and flexible response options to contingencies at home and abroad. The
    Operational Reserve is essential for building expansibility within the
    Total Force. The Army Reserve's 205,000 citizen soldiers across the
    Nation form the Army's best connection to hometown America. These
    warrior-citizens are the best ambassadors for the Army in their
    communities across this great country.
        Having reconfigured organizationally and functionally to adapt to
    the demands of sustained operational deployment, the Army Reserve must
    now focus on sustaining its operational capacity to meet diverse and
    unpredictable threats--while operating in an era of fiscal austerity.
    Together, the Army and the Army Reserve will leverage the tremendous
    benefits of the multicomponent Total Force and make the most of all
    available opportunities to preserve the investment in trained and ready
    soldiers and units. The Army cannot accomplish its mission without the
    Reserve component. Much of the support capability and critical
    specialties reside predominantly or exclusively in the Army Reserve.
    Such units include civil affairs, medical, transportation, engineer,
    and military information support operations. These are indispensable
    capabilities to the Total Force.
    Strategic Agenda
        The Army Reserve Strategic Agenda reflects the most essential
    objectives the Army Reserve must achieve based on both Army and Army
    Reserve Leadership guidance and direction. Nested within the Army
    Reserve 2020: Vision & Strategy, the Army Reserve Strategic Agenda
    identifies specific priorities to optimize the application of
    collective effort and fiscal resources. The fiscal year 2012 Strategic
    Agenda focuses on key components of an operational force.
    Access
        The Total Army Force relies on critical enabler capabilities
    provided by trained and equipped Army Reserve soldiers and units that
    are ready to respond to global and domestic requirements. An ongoing
    collaborative effort across the Department of Defense has resulted in
    the addition of expanded access to the Reserve components. New
    authorities contained within the 2012 National Defense Authorization
    Act allow for access to the Reserve component for missions other than
    war, with the proper planning, programming, and budgeting. With access,
    Army Reserve personnel can mobilize in support of specified missions,
    such as Theater Security Cooperation. This allows the Total Force to
    leverage the unique cost benefits of using a seasoned, exceptional
    Reserve Force in a sustained operational role.
    Funding for Operational Reserve
        As military forces withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and overseas
    contingency operations (OCO) funding is significantly reduced,
    continued use of the Army Reserve in an operational role is contingent
    upon adequate and assured funding in the base budget. With adequate and
    assured funding, the Army Reserve will continue to provide the required
    enabler capabilities to support the Army's ARFORGEN readiness cycle.
    Funding in the Base Budget is crucial for the required training events
    and supporting costs necessary for use of the Army Reserve operational
    capabilities. Without assured funding in the base budget, Army Reserve
    Forces cannot be a full participant in ARFORGEN--thus degrading
    readiness levels. Over time, the hard-won operational expertise of Army
    Reserve soldiers will be lost. The Army Reserve will not be ready for
    planned or contingency operations at home or abroad. As a result,
    critical Army Reserve enabler availability as part of the Total Army
    Force will be limited to use as a strategic Reserve. In today's
    security environment, the Army and the Nation cannot afford anything
    less than an operational force. Therefore, the Army Reserve will
    continue to work with the Army to ensure adequate and assured funding
    in the Army base budget and Program Objective Memoranda for planned use
    of Army Reserve operational capabilities.
    Continuum of Service
        Continuum of Service (CoS) is an integrated Human Capital
    management strategy for the Total Army. The future of retaining the
    extraordinary capabilities and experience of our soldiers now resides
    in how well we can implement change in the way we manage our soldiers
    in the face of constrained resources. Creating a management strategy
    that facilitates and supports the transparent movement of individuals
    between the Active component, the Reserve components, and civilian
    careers is essential to preserving a cost effective, expansible
    foundation of talent and experience for the future.
        The intent of a continuum of service is to not just allow but to
    encourage and incentivize soldiers to continue serving the Army while
    preserving the Army's investment. We must offer and manage varying
    levels of participation from the Active component to the traditional
    Reserve or to the Individual Ready Reserve. It is a paradigm shift to
    attempt the management of one force across the Total Army. This will
    require considerable transformation to the current, rather inflexible,
    human capital management system in each component. However, this shift
    will poise us to best meet the impact of anticipated fiscal
    constraints. CoS provides an efficient and cost-effective solution to
    retaining the investment and experience of our best soldiers, building
    the foundation of expansibility and reversibility into our force in the
    future.
        There are many aspects to this initiative and it will require
    perseverance to change each institutional process that creates barriers
    or separation. This ranges from the creation of an Individual Ready
    Reserve (IRR) Affiliation Program and Army Transition Process
    transformation. These forward-thinking institutional policy changes
    will provide an underpinning to the best, most efficient practices in
    human capital management.
    Institutionalize Army Force Generation
        Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) is a cyclic process the Army uses
    to man, equip, and train all units to meet combatant commander
    requirements. ARFORGEN is designed to focus training, training support,
    and other limited resources for units in a timely, predictable manner
    as they prepare for operational employment using a common set of
    standards. Approximately one-half of Army capabilities are in the
    Reserve component. This includes the Combat Support and Combat Service
    Support units of the Army Reserve. The Total Army Force relies upon
    these Army Reserve enablers to be ready and fully integrated as part of
    an expeditionary force within the time frame when they are needed. To
    the Army Reserve, ARFORGEN goes beyond process and policy adaptation,
    it includes cultural change both within the Army and the Army Reserve.
    Full-Time Support
        Full-time support (FTS) is an essential element of the Army
    Reserve's ability to conduct training, personnel, and administrative
    functions and leading Army Reserve units in the operational force.
    Historically, the Army Reserve has been under resourced in full-time
    support. This has been mitigated by the use of overseas contingency
    operation funding and leveraging the use of volunteers to bring
    operating units to required readiness levels. Despite the war time
    demands placed on our Nation's ground forces throughout the last
    decade, FTS manning levels in the Army Reserve have remained, on a
    percentage basis, the lowest among the service branches. To increase
    readiness of operational units in the future, assets and personnel
    policy will be shifted to direct support to the Operational Army
    Reserve. Note: FTS was compared by totaling all AGR, Military
    Technicians, and other civilian positions.
                            army reserve commitments
    19,156 Army Reserve Soldiers are Currently Mobilized and Deployed
            Around the World \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ As of February 24, 2012. Does not include Individual Ready
    Reserve and Individual Mobilization Augmentee Soldiers. (Source: MDIS
    Mobilization and Deployment Tracking Information System)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Army Reserve continues to provide critical enabling
    capabilities worldwide, supporting the Total Force across a range of
    military operations. Missions include theater security cooperation,
    humanitarian assistance, and contingency operations. Army Reserve
    Theater Commands are uniquely capable of providing global support--
    addressing specific and emerging geographical and political issues as
    they arise. Missions include theater security cooperation, humanitarian
    assistance, and contingency operations.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            the fiscal year 2012 budget request: where we are going
                                 human capital

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

       critical human capital programs that sustain an operational army
                                    reserve
      --Manning on Operational Army Reserve.
      --Medical Non-Ready Initiative.
      --Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.
      --Medical and Dental Readiness.
      --Medically Not-Ready Soldiers for Case Management/Referral.
      --Post Deployment Health Reassessments.
      --Strong Bonds.
      --Manpower for Family Programs Mission Requirements.
      --Communication and Outreach to Soldiers and Families.
      --Family and Soldier Support thru Responsive and Relevant Services.

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

    Personnel Management
                Manning an Operational Army Reserve
        The mission of our incentives program, according to the Army
    Reserve Manning Strategy, is to focus our funds in support of the
    supply-based ARFORGEN. This will focus the use of incentives to ensure
    that ARFORGEN cycle Aim Points for unit required strength are met. We
    will tailor our incentives programs and priorities, as specified on the
    Selected Reserves Incentives Program (SRIP) List, to enable pinpoint
    manning in the Recruit Quota System (REQUEST). This occurs by
    diversifying types of incentives to meet a myriad of personnel
    requirements for the current Army Reserve operational environment. This
    will reduce overall costs and increase the readiness posture of the
    Army Reserve.
    Healthcare
                Medical Non-Ready Initiative
        The Medical Non-Ready Initiative aggressively expedites medical
    board evaluations to minimize hardships to both soldiers and families
    and return our most valuable resources back to our formations. The
    Initiatives places emphasis on leader education and involvement,
    coupled with the processes to gain rapid, unconstrained, and inclusive
    treatment through the medical system for our wounded, ill, and injured
    soldiers. As for the way ahead, the Army Reserve will leverage the
    following medical readiness programs Reserve Health Readiness Program,
    Army Selected Reserve Dental Readiness System, The Psychological Health
    Program, Medical Management Activity, Reserve Component Soldier Medical
    Support Center (RCSMSC). We will also use case managers to monitor the
    medically non-ready population, coordinate with the soldier and the
    command for required/requested medical evaluations, and gather
    information for review by the Medical Management Activity or the
    Regional Support Command (RSC) Surgeons for appropriate profiling.
    Soldiers who have medical conditions that warrant permanent profiles
    are issued one, and then referred to the Regional Support Command
    Personnel Health Service Branch for medical boarding action.
                Medical and Dental Readiness
        The Army Reserve is an enduing operational force, and as such must
    be medically ready to respond to immediate global requirements across
    the full range of military operations. Sixty-three percent of the Army
    Reserve is medically ready; numbers have been increasing from 24
    percent since October 1, 2008. Seventy-four percent of Army Reserve
    soldiers are dentally ready; numbers that have been positively
    increasing from 52 percent on October 1, 2008. Programs such as the
    Army Selected Reserves Dental Readiness System (ASDRS) have made a
    difference in improving baseline dental readiness. The ASDRS program
    covers examinations and dental treatment cost to convert an Army
    Reserve soldier to a deployable status.
                Medically Non-Ready Soldiers
        The Army Reserve's fully medically ready status means that more
    than one-third of our soldiers are not medically ready, meaning they
    cannot deploy to support worldwide missions if needed and are deficient
    in 1 of 5 measures (dental, periodic health assessment, routine adult
    immunizations, no deployment limiting conditions, or medical
    equipment). Fifteen percent of these soldiers are available but must
    complete a periodic health assessment or a dental screening in order to
    be deemed medically ready, and 11.3 percent have a medical condition
    that renders them temporarily or permanently nondeployable and either
    need additional care or are awaiting medical board determination on
    their ability to continue to serve.
        In 2011, the Army Reserve moved aggressively to reduce the number
    of medically nondeployable soldiers. The Army Reserve Surgeon, working
    with members of the Office of the Surgeon General and the Department of
    the Army, implemented two initiatives to review medical profiles and
    prepare soldiers for medical evaluation boards. First, the Medical
    Management Activity was established on January 3, 2011, to support the
    rapid evaluation of permanent medical profiles and improve the
    identification process of those soldiers who are not ready through
    increased use of the Medical Protection System (MEDPROS) and the
    electronic profile. Since the inception of the Medical Management
    Activity in 2011, more than 6,000 medical profiles have been reviewed,
    of which 50 percent were amended and 20 percent were sent for an MOS
    administrative retention board, allowing these soldiers to remain in
    the Army Reserve. The number of profiles requiring review decreased
    from 16,758 in January 2011 to 9,913 in November 2011. The number of P3
    and P4 profiles not requiring a medical evaluation board has steadily
    increased from 2,065 in January 2011 to 3,298 in November 2011.
        Second, the RCSMSC was established January 18, 2011, to review
    Medical Evaluation Board Packets and improve the medical boarding
    process. Since the establishment of the RCSMSC in 2011, the Army
    Reserve has better visibility of soldiers entering the Medical
    Evaluation Board process, with more than 540 packets submitted to
    military treatment facilities.
                Post-Deployment Health
        Repetitive deployments have significantly increased the strain on
    the Army Reserve Force. To assess post-deployment needs and to protect
    the health and well-being of soldiers who have redeployed from combat,
    our soldiers complete the Post-Deployment Health Reassessment.
        The Army Reserve is moving out aggressively to mitigate the effects
    of persistent conflict and build a strong resilient force. On March 4,
    2011, the Army Reserve Psychological Health Program concept plan was
    approved, and four Directors of Psychological Health began working in
    2011 to better meet the behavioral health needs of Army Reserve
    soldiers. Our case management program is expected to begin within the
    Army Reserve this fiscal year as well.
    Family Support
                Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
        The Army Reserve promotes soldier and family resiliency through the
    Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program that proactively reaches out with
    information, education, services, and referrals through all phases of
    the deployment cycle to more than 22,400 soldiers and 25,500 family
    members. Our ability to provide services and support resources to the
    Total Army Reserve Family (soldiers, family members, retiree recalls,
    civilians, and wounded warriors) is challenging due to the Army Reserve
    geographic dispersion. Yellow Ribbon events, of which there were more
    than 550 in 2011, allow units to build cohesion, morale, and
    camaraderie. We strive to ensure each family is healthy while preparing
    for, during and after a deployment. Attendance at Yellow Ribbon events
    helps build the networking and communication opportunities for
    geographically dispersed families of those deploying Army Reserve
    soldiers, and it maintains contact between them and their unit rear
    detachment personnel. We can identify and assist any at-risk family
    members easier through this method of gathering them together during
    the deployment. Yellow Ribbon events also provide a platform to
    demonstrate the energy, enthusiasm, and impact of local, regional, and
    national community and businesses leaders' support of our commands and
    individual soldiers who deploy.

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

        Attendance at Yellow Ribbon events helps build the networking and
    communication opportunities for geographically dispersed families of
    those deploying Army Reserve soldiers and maintains contact between
    them and their unit rear detachment personnel.

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

                Manpower for Family Programs Mission Requirements
        Army Reserve families continue to bear the challenges of a nation
    at war and adjust to the realities of an operational force. Army
    Reserve Family Programs must maintain a baseline level of skilled and
    quality professionals to provide responsive services and mitigate the
    corollary effects of family separations due to ongoing conflicts,
    humanitarian missions, and theater security cooperation missions. A
    skilled and quality family programs force directly affects the ability
    to maintain the infrastructure of programs and services that support
    geographically dispersed soldiers and families. Our family programs
    workforce must be robust enough to provide program standardization and
    stability; adaptive, full-spectrum staffing support; and responsive
    services that meet the complexities of supporting Army Reserve soldiers
    and families.
                Strategic Communication Outreach to Soldiers and Families
        An important family programs function is disseminating information
    and timely alerts about programs and services available 24/7, closest
    to where soldiers and families reside. The overarching family programs
    communication strategy employs a ``top-down/internal-to-external''
    model, which deploys clearly articulated, aligned messages to the
    appropriate audiences through multiple delivery systems and events.
    This strategy includes a suitable mechanism for measuring program
    efficiency, while gaining a heightened awareness of customers' needs
    through feedback via surveys, one-on-one exchanges, and social media.
    The endstate is a consistent method of determining success in
    delivering the services that mean the most to soldiers and families.
                Family and Soldier Support Through Responsive and Relevant
                        Services
        Family Programs is synchronizing its requirements for staffing,
    resourcing, and training with the ARFORGEN model. Programs focus on the
    command/unit and family partnerships to support soldiers' readiness and
    mitigate risk. The intent is to proactively establish a collaborative
    readiness pattern focused on geographically dispersed soldier and
    family programs support, training, and services to ensure families are
    resilient and prepared to meet the challenges of an operational force.
    Spiritual Care
        Strong Bonds provides relationship skills training for married
    couples, families, and single soldiers. The various events empower
    soldiers to more fully connect with their loved ones. It is a holistic,
    preventive program committed to the restoration and preservation of
    Army families, even those near crisis. Strong Bonds is an Army program
    led by Army chaplains. More than 90 percent of those who have attended
    the program rate it positively. As a direct result, soldier and family
    readiness, resiliency, and retention increases. Availability of Strong
    Bonds programs is a required part of deployment cycle support plan for
    soldiers and families. Currently OMAR funding in the President's budget
    will provide for training materials, sites, and travel costs for
    soldiers and family members. The Strong Bonds events are continually
    being updated to meet the needs of our soldiers and families throughout
    the ARFORGEN cycle. These programs and events are critical to soldier
    and family readiness during and long after current deployments.
    The Employer Partnership of the Armed Forces
        The Employer Partnership of the Armed Forces (EPAF) connects
    capability with opportunity. Our skilled servicemembers bring skills,
    reliability, and capability to the civilian workplace while the
    program's Employer Partners provide career opportunities.
        The Program is operated and funded primarily by the Army Reserve
    but supports the civilian employment and career advancement needs of
    members of all seven Reserve components, their family members, wounded
    warriors, and the Nation's veterans. The Army Reserve has dedicated
    staff, continual maintenance and upgrading of the Career Portal:
    (www.Employerpartnership.org). Army Reserve funding supports the Career
    Portal as well as the program support managers dispersed across the
    United States who provide direct assistance to both employer partners
    and job seekers.
        Employers recognize the benefits of the EPAF program. The program
    now has more than 2,500 employers participating, and the number is
    steadily growing. These Employer Partners are military-friendly and
    value the skills, experiences, and work ethic of those who serve.
        The Reserve components also benefit. Best practices and experience
    with cutting-edge technology and medical procedures flow between
    military and civilian organizations through EPAF's training
    partnerships. Access to career opportunities and partnered training
    initiatives also provide tangible reasons for separating Active
    servicemembers to continue serving in a Reserve capacity.
        In the next few years, thousands of Army Reserve and National Guard
    soldiers will de-mobilize and tens of thousands of Active Duty
    personnel will leave the military. The program's ability to connect
    these imminent job seekers with employment can make a positive impact
    on unemployment rates among our newest veterans. Accordingly, the
    Program is working with both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
    the Department of the Army to formally incorporate EPAF into transition
    programs for the Active and Reserve members of all branches of service.
    EPAF strengthens our military, our economy and--most importantly--
    strengthens our servicemembers and their families.

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

    Army Reserve Chaplains
        Army Reserve chaplains come from our neighborhoods and communities;
    they reflect the culture and demographics of our Army Reserve. They,
    too, are warrior-citizens bringing civilian-acquired skills to the Army
    from their parish, hospital, and prison ministries. Army Reserve
    chaplains truly enhance the spiritual care of their civilian
    congregations due to their military service and understand the demands
    of such service on themselves and their own families.
        The chaplaincy has made great strides in reducing the number of
    shortages within our battalions and brigades. A fully manned Army
    Reserve chaplaincy allows for more regular and timely spiritual support
    through unit and area coverage. Much of this can be attributed to the
    affiliation and accession bonuses available to new Army Reserve
    chaplains as well as to tuition-assistance monies that help pay for
    seminary schooling.

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

                              continuum of service

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

        Continuum of Service is a Human Capital Management strategy that
    facilitates the movement of soldiers between the Active and Reserve
    service and civilian employment.
    Who is Involved?
        A Continuum of Service Working Group is pursuing numerous
    initiatives, including potential changes to current policies to allow
    for more flexible service options.
    Why Now?
        The Continuum of Service initiative seeks to retain a pool of
    experienced, talented soldiers through continued service in the Reserve
    components, thereby allowing the Army to reserve and expand its end
    strength as required.
    What is Being Done?
        The Army Reserve has identified those policies that impede the ease
    of movement between components and has embarked on a strategy of
    implementing a new personnel management paradigm that meets the needs
    of an enduring operational force.

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

    Continuum of Service is right for:
      --The Army: Allows the Army to retain a pool of talented and
            experienced soldiers to support potential expansibility of the
            Army in the future.
      --The Soldier: Offers opportunity to continue serving with varying
            levels of participation over the course of a lifetime of
            service.
      --The Times: Provides a cost-effective personnel management system
            for the Army.
    The flexibility of the Continuum of Service Human Capital Management
            Strategy will:
      --Help retain a reservoir of talent and experience through incentives
            and access to transitioning Active component personnel.
      --Ease movement between components and civilian employment by
            incentivizing transition to the Army Reserve and expanding
            support for civilian career opportunities.
      --Flexible Service Options--IRR Affiliation to Reserve unit,
            Volunteer Only IRR options or Traditional Reserve service.
    Integrated Human Capital Strategy:
        Focus is on change to Army regulations, policies, and procedures
    that can be acted on now.
                Policy
      --Modifications to existing policy and directives to manage the Army
            as a Total Force.
      --Joint education programs.
                Processes
      --Integrated processes and systems for seamless transitions, along
            with portability of benefits.
                Culture
      --Requires a culture change in the way the Reserve component is used
            as an indispensable part of the Total Force.
    Varying Levels of Participation:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Acronyms:
    RC = Reserve component    IMA = Individual Mobilization Augment
      IRR = Individual Ready Reserve    TPU = Troop Program
    Unit
                                   readiness

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

    Critical Readiness Programs That Sustain an Operational Army Reserve
      --Sustain an Operational Army Reserve.
      --Sustain modern training equipment, facilities, and installations
            that support rapid mobilization capabilities.
      --Protect the force, physical security, management of the Physical
            Security Program.

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

    Sustain an Operational Army Reserve
        The Army Reserve provides operational capabilities and strategic
    depth to the Army to meet national defense requirements across the full
    range of military operations. The Army Reserve participates in a full
    range of missions that support force generation plans. Units and
    individuals participate in an established cyclic or periodic cycle of
    readiness that provides predictability for combatant commands, the
    Total Force, servicemembers, their families, and employers. In their
    strategic roles, units, and individuals train or are available for
    missions in accordance with the national defense strategy. This force
    provides strategic depth and is available to transition to operational
    roles whenever needed. Accordingly, it is critically important that the
    Army Reserve provide capabilities and generate a force that is
    available to support Army needs. Properly sustaining the Army Reserve
    as an operational force means success in ongoing operations in which
    the Army Reserve now plays a vital role, as well as in future
    contingencies in which it will play a critical role.
                Mandays To Support an Operational Reserve
        The Army Reserve was successful in obtaining an approved training
    strategy to provide trained companies and brigade and battalion staffs
    to combatant commanders upon mobilization.
                Homeland Operations
        Homeland Defense, Homeland Security and Defense Support of Civil
    Authorities: These important missions require the unique enabler
    capabilities resident in the Army Reserve. Today, the Army Reserve
    provides seven aviation units in support of the Defense Chemical
    Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Response Force (DCRF). These
    units work directly with their Active Duty counterparts as the initial
    title 10 response force for CBRN or terrorist incidents. The Army
    Reserve provides an additional 12 units as part of the Command and
    Control CBRN Response Element.
        Responding to Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA)
    situations, the Army Reserve provides all of the Army Emergency
    Preparedness Liaison Officer (EPLO) capability. These soldiers conduct
    valuable operations at various Federal, State, and local emergency
    operations centers during all phases of incident management operations.
    The Army Reserve provides the potential for additional incident
    response forces including, but not limited to, the following types of
    units:
      --medical aviation;
      --transportation;
      --engineer;
      --communications; and
      --civil affairs.
        These capabilities can be packaged with the appropriate command and
    staff structure to facilitate assistance to civil authorities. This
    packaging also provides necessary command and control of title 10
    Department of Defense resources in a defined joint environment. With
    approval of NDAA 2012 the Army Reserve can provide significant
    resources to support civil authorities in domestic disasters and
    emergencies.
        The Army Reserve's fiscal year 2013 budget request properly funds
    the Operational Reserve to ensure the force structure required for
    homeland operations. The requirement to maintain a specific portion of
    our soldiers on orders to support DCRF mission response time is
    critical to mission accomplishment and success. National level response
    goals to save lives and conduct search and rescue operations in the
    first 72 hours of an incident, requires immediate access to Army
    Reserve forces for these critical missions. Resourcing to purchase and
    maintain specialized commercial off-the-shelf equipment allows
    interoperability between the Army Reserve forces employed at an
    incident location with Federal, State, and local first responders.
    Sustain Modern Training Equipment, Facilities, and Installations That
            Support Rapid Mobilization Capabilities
        Sustaining modern training equipment, facilities, and installations
    is critical to successful mobilization of the Army Reserve within
    established timelines when needed. Army Reserve soldiers and units need
    to train on the same modernized equipment the Army uses in the field as
    well as access to modern facilities designed and maintained to
    sustainable standards. Timely deployments of forces with the skills
    needed for success in 21st-century engagements depends on congressional
    support.
                Mission Training Complexes
        Mission Training Complexes (MTCs) provide the training for Army
    Reserve leaders and battle staffs in support of mobilization. This is
    essential to meet ARFORGEN readiness goals and metrics used to evaluate
    the readiness of the force. The Army Reserve successfully negotiated
    for upgrading three of our five MTCs and the new construction of one
    MTC.
                Simulations and Simulators
        Simulations and simulators (weapons and systems simulators)
    programs are critical in supporting an operational force as well as for
    collective and individual training. Training for the full range of
    military operations and for contingencies is evaluated using the aim
    points in ARFORGEN. To ensure the Total Force is properly trained, the
    Army Reserve has a simulation requirement and is programmed to maximize
    funding from the President's budget.
                Electronic-Based Distance Learning
        The Army is allowed to provide discretionary payments for selected
    Reserve soldiers, not in Active service or on Active Duty, who are
    directed by their commanders to complete Department of the Army-
    approved training requirements by means of electronic-based distributed
    learning (EBDL).
                Equipment Fills for Training Unit Table of Distribution and
                        Allowances
        The Army Reserve has Table of Distribution and Allowance (TDA)
    equipment funding, which is an area of risk within the strategy for
    training facilities. Modernized pieces of equipment are required to
    conduct training during various stages of the force generation model.
    The use of training simulators and equipment loans mitigates equipment
    shortages.
                Transient Training Facilities (Operational Readiness
                        Training Complex) Fort Hunter Liggett
        Transient training facilities are critical for requirements for our
    Army Reserve platforms to support our units as they progress through
    the ARFORGEN cycle. These facilities provide the barracks, classroom,
    motor pool, and administrative space for units to conduct effective
    institutional and collective training on our installations. Sufficient
    resources are included in the Army Reserve's budget to ensure the
    construction and modernization of transient training facilities for an
    operational force.
                Protect the Force, Physical Security, Management of the
                        Physical Security Program
        The Army Reserve faces unique challenges and vulnerabilities when
    it comes to Physical Security. The Army Reserve span of control
    includes personnel at more than 950 stand-alone facilities across the
    continental United States (CONUS). Physical security inspectors and
    antiterrorism assessment specialists in the field mitigate these
    challenges.
                The Army Reserve Manages the Risk of Damage, Destruction or
                        Loss of Personnel, Weapons, or Equipment to
                        Criminals or Terrorists by Having the Intrusion
                        Detection System
        The intrusion detection systems (IDS) monitor arms rooms at Army
    Reserve facilities 24 hours a day. The monitoring program notifies
    authorities immediately should an arms room at a remote facility be
    breached. These systems require technology upgrades and maintenance
    because Army Reserve facilities are distinctive as stand-alone
    facilities in remote parts of the country.
                Provisioning for Antiterrorism Officers at All Major
                        Subordinate Commands Enables Commanders To Protect
                        the Force
        Antiterrorism assessment specialists are the key component to the
    Antiterrorism Program. They conduct vulnerability assessments and
    program reviews of Army Reserve commands and facilities across the
    Nation. Antiterrorism programs detect, deter, and defeat threats
    against Army Reserve personnel, equipment, and facilities. The scope of
    this mission has grown and requires capable individuals to manage and
    enact commanders' programs. Antiterrorism officers provide the
    expertise and ability to synchronize command protection-based programs,
    which further promotes unit readiness.
                Law Enforcement
        Adequate resources are required for law enforcement functions on
    all five Army Reserve installations:
      --Fort Buchanan;
      --Fort Devens;
      --Fort McCoy;
      --Fort Hunter Liggett; and
      --Camp Parks.
        Law enforcement focuses on protecting Army Reserve equities, both
    human and material, from criminal offenders, as well as assisting and
    serving the community. The resources provide installation commanders a
    fully trained and responsive cadre of Army civilian police, support the
    Military Working Dog (MWD) Program at Fort Buchanan, and provide
    support to missions in the Caribbean and South America. Funding also
    assures criminal deterrence, protection, and safety of soldiers, family
    members, and civilians who work, train, and live on Army Reserve
    installations.
                          services and infrastructure

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

    Critical Facilities Programs That Sustain an Operational Army Reserve
      --MILCON & MILCON Tails
      --Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
      --Energy Security and Sustainability
      --Army Reserve Communications

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

    Facilities
        The Army Reserve has completed its transition from a strategic
    Reserve to an operational force through reorganization, realignment,
    and closure of some organizations. With this came greater efficiencies
    and readiness but also the need for sufficient facilities to meet
    mission requirements at the least cost, with acceptable quality and
    quantity, and at the right locations. Therefore, Services and
    Infrastructure Core Enterprises (SICE) is poised to anticipate and
    respond appropriately to emerging requirements to provide training
    platforms, maintenance facilities, and enhanced capabilities to meet
    army mission requirements.
        Today's ARFORGEN is a supply-based rotational model. ARFORGEN
    builds a structured progression of readiness over time to produce
    trained, ready, and cohesive units. Last year's move to a supply-based
    model creates a cultural shift in the way we provide services and
    installation infrastructure at Reserve Centers and training sites. The
    ``Reserve Center'' is no longer an administrative facility but an
    Operations Complex that supports preparation, training, maintenance of
    equipment and family support activities crucial to the health, welfare,
    and morale of soldiers and families.
        In today's economic environment--the Nation as well as the Army
    Reserve--is required to become even more efficient in the use of our
    scarce resources. The Army, in concert with the Army Reserve, is
    developing a Facility Investment Strategy, which focuses on
    incorporating the major acquisition of units and equipping programs,
    that serves to advise the Construction Requirements Review Committee
    and the overall Army Military Construction (MILCON) program
    prioritization and review process. More importantly, this strategy will
    ensure our planning is proactive, efficient, and capable of supporting
    long-term mission requirements in both CONUS and OCONUS.

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

    the army reserve facility investment strategy increases efficiency and
                                  reduces cost
    Cornerstones
        Construct: Build out critical shortfalls.
        Sustain: Repair, improve, and sustain existing facilities.
        Dispose: Reduce inventory and cost through an aggressive disposal
    system.
        Enhance: Improve existing facilities.

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

    MILCON and MILCON Tails
        Under Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR), we have MILCON &
    MILCON Tails as our number one budget priority. Sufficient MILCON
    resources support new Organizational Readiness Training Centers (ORTCs)
    requirements. Older Reserve centers in the Northeast/Midwest areas of
    the country no longer support 21st-century recruiting markets, now
    burgeoning in the southern and western parts of the United States.
    While base realignment and closure (BRAC) facility construction efforts
    improved 17 percent of our facility portfolio, the average age remains
    at 40 years, down from an average age of 43 years prior to BRAC. With
    adequate resources for MILCON, we can avoid a continuous cascading
    effect of project implementation setbacks. Procurement and installation
    of fixtures, furniture and equipment, National Environmental Protection
    Act requirements, information technology and security equipment are
    additional costs that must be factored in.
    Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
        Sustainment, the cornerstone of facilities stewardship, inhibits
    deterioration, improves building systems quality and prevents
    sustainment migration. Continued support for sustainment activities
    helps us achieve the 60 years of average facility service life that
    supports Army Reserve future operational requirements. Restoration and
    modernization enhancements are increasingly advantageous for the Army
    Reserve as we anticipate increased efficiencies in military
    construction.
                Energy Security and Sustainability
        The Army Reserve included in its fiscal year 2013 budget request
    Energy security and sustainability funding to meet the minimum
    congressional and Federal energy sustainability mandates. This includes
    energy metering; green house gas emission reductions; energy
    consumption and security; expanding our use of renewable energy
    sources; achieving ``Net-Zero'' in water, waste and energy; and
    operational energy requirements to enhance the safety of our soldiers,
    family members, and Army Reserve civilians.
    Army Reserve Communications
        The Army Reserve Network (ARNet) Management/Security/Defense
    encompasses three Management Decision Execution Packages (MDEPs):
      --Base Information Management Operations;
      --Defense/Information Assurance; and
      --Long Haul Communications.
        Army Reserve operations depend on ARNet functionality, agility,
    reliability, and security of critical mission information. ARNet
    defense denies adversaries and others the opportunity to exploit
    vulnerabilities. Long Haul Secure Communications are critical for
    mission command along with mobilization support.
        An uninterrupted information flow is a combat multiplier by
    synchronizing other joint capabilities. Continued funding included in
    the Army Reserve's budget request supports the information environment
    with global access, standard infrastructures and common policies that
    provide information services from the generating force to the tactical
    edge. Adequate resourcing allows normalization of ARNet defense,
    tactics, techniques, and procedures. Secure Internet Protocol Router
    Network (SIPRNet) and Secure-Video Teleconferencing (S-VTC) access for
    battalion and above are vital for pre-mobilization training and
    readiness requirements. Continued support for these programs permits
    secure communications and defends the ARNet from compromise.
                                    materiel

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

    Critical Equipping Programs That Sustain an Operational Army Reserve
      --Equipment Refresh/Life Cycle Replacement.
      --Standard Army Management Information Systems and Logistics
            Automation Systems.
      --Second Destination Transportation of Equipment.
      --Five-Year Reviews of Resource Management Manpower, Training, and
            Hiring Practices.

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

    Army Reserve Materiel
        The Army Reserve has reached a level of logistics readiness unseen
    in its history, enhancing its ability to execute assigned missions for
    the Army and the Nation. There are critical areas where the momentum
    must be maintained to sustain our current level of readiness and
    capability--Equipment Refresh/Life Cycle Replacement, Second
    Destination Transportation and Surface OPTEMPO Tactical Maintenance
    Shops.
                Equipment Refresh/Life Cycle Replacement
        The Army Reserve works closely with Software Engineer Center--Lee
    (SEC-Lee) to ensure that all systems migrating to the Global Combat
    Support System-Army (GCSS-Army) have the latest technology upgrades.
    This ensures that Army Reserve logistics information technology systems
    are replaced by GCSS-Army and are robust enough to operate the new
    system. GCSS-Army fielding does not have hardware associated with it so
    it is essential that legacy systems are capable of operating the new
    software platform. GCSS-Army is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
    solution that creates a single, integrated logistics information system
    across the Army. When finished, the Army will have a single logistics
    information and management system with an integrated data warehouse
    across all components. The system will provide management tools to
    enable the Army to implement and sustain the ARFORGEN model more
    efficiently.
                Second Destination Transportation
        Second Destination Transportation (SDT) is essential to
    implementing and sustaining ARFORGEN in the Army Reserve. First, it is
    needed to support the ``bridging'' strategy of moving equipment from
    units in Reset and the early years of the ARFORGEN cycle to units in
    the later years of ARFORGEN. Second, it is needed to execute the Army
    Reserve's equipping strategy of reducing fleet management and inventory
    costs by concentrating equipment where it is needed, with the prospect
    of later cost savings from reduced transportation costs and more
    efficient management of equipment and maintenance resources.
                Surface Operations Tempo Tactical Maintenance Shops
        The appropriate level of resourcing will allow Regional Support
    Commands to continue contract maintenance labor in their Area
    Maintenance Support Activities and Equipment Concentration Sites.
    Contract labor addresses manpower shortages in shops as they are
    currently manned at only 56 percent of requirements. Additionally,
    actions taken under Grow the Army have increased maintenance intensive
    equipment by more than 18 percent. Once the requirements are documented
    to maintain this increase in equipment, the maintenance structure of
    the Army Reserve will only be filled to 39 percent of requirements. As
    the Army continues to field more equipment to the Army Reserve, these
    shortfalls will continue to grow.
    Resource Management
                Five-Year Periodic Reviews of Resource Management Manpower,
                        Training, and Hiring Policies
        Funding for periodic reviews (every 5 years) and authority within
    available funding allows the Army Reserve to implement changes in
    Resource Management Manpower Authorizations, Training, Hiring Policies,
    and Procedures unique to the Army Reserve, execute fiduciary
    responsibilities, and support the Army Reserve mission. This review
    includes a comprehensive examination of the distinctive systems/
    software used by the Army Reserve to conduct its core business
    processes (the Reserve Level Application System (RLAS), is one primary
    example) and provides the ability to fund changes necessary due to
    advances in technology.
                     conclusion: the force is in good hands
        The Army Reserve provides trained, cost-effective and ready units,
    that enable the Total Army Force to meet and sustain global and
    domestic requirements. As military force draw down and overseas
    contingency operations (OCO) funding diminishes, continued use of the
    Army Reserve in an operational role is contingent upon congressional
    support of the fiscal year 2013 base budget request.
        The greatest asset the Army Reserve has today is the high quality
    and devotion to country of our warrior-citizens. The skills they bring
    to the fight and the leadership they bring back to their jobs and their
    communities is remarkable. Establishing a continuum of service that
    enables soldiers to meet the needs of serving their Nation, their
    families, and their civilian careers is paramount. Their dedicated
    service to the Nation should never be hindered by outmoded bureaucratic
    complexity. We need to think in terms of cultivating a ``Soldier for
    Life'' to retain the quality, highly experienced soldiers needed to
    sustain the expansible/reversible Army Reserve as an enduring
    operational force.
        With the impending downsizing of Army strength in the coming years,
    the Army Reserve will focus on retaining mid-grade enlisted and
    officers in key specialties required by the Army Reserve. We will
    increase our presence at Active component transition points and reach
    out to soldiers well before they are due to transition to help them
    recognize the value of continued service to their Nation in the Army
    Reserve.
        We will promote the Army Reserve managed Employer Partnership of
    the Armed Forces program as a tool for transitioning Active component
    soldiers, leveraging the program to develop the careers of soldiers
    through extensive internship and externship programs with key
    organizations. A great example of this is the Army Reserve's
    partnership with GE Healthcare to provide civilian training and
    certification of our Army Reserve xray technicians. We see this part of
    the program expanding as we move to share training and resources with
    our industry partners to our mutual benefit.
        We seek continued funding of recruitment, retention, and transition
    incentives to allow us to shape the force with less reliance on cross
    leveling to offset our mid-grade strength imbalances. Future recruiting
    efforts will target incentives to more prior-service military
    personnel, who bring more experience than first-term soldiers into the
    Army Reserve. These experienced soldiers are critical in filling
    shortages among mid-level commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
        Realization of a 5-year supply-based ARFORGEN Cycle means all of
    our operational units now have an ``available force pool'' date, which
    will allow us to build progressive readiness throughout the cycle and
    tailor our manning, equipping and training strategies, and our soldier
    and family support programs to best sustain the force throughout
    deployment cycle.
        Why an enduring operational force? Army Reserve capabilities are
    well-suited to support and participate in security cooperation
    activities and peace operations worldwide. Security cooperation builds
    relationships that promote specified U.S. interests, develops allied
    and friendly and capabilities for self-defense and coalition operations
    and provides U.S. forces with peacetime and contingency access. The
    extensive operational experience and relevant civilians skill-sets
    resident within the Army Reserve are essential in meeting Combatant
    Command requirements for international engagement activities that
    improve infrastructure, security, and institutions within foreign
    nations of strategic interest to the United States.
        We take our commitments to our Nation, to our Army, and to our
    soldiers, families, and our employer partners seriously. We are
    effective stewards of our Nation's resources. America's sons and
    daughters serve with an unwavering commitment, willingly answering the
    call to duty in a time of war or national emergency. As we position
    ourselves as an essential provider of combat support and combat service
    support to the United States Army, we look to the Congress and our
    fellow citizens for strength and support as our partners in maintaining
    an enduring operational Army Reserve for the 21st century.
                               your army reserved
        The United States Army Reserve provides trained units and qualified
    soldiers available for Active Duty in the Armed Forces in time of war
    or national emergency, and at such other times as the national security
    may require. Throughout the United States, the Army Reserve has four
    Regional Support Commands that provide base support functions, and 13
    Operational and Functional Commands available to respond to homeland
    emergencies and expeditionary missions worldwide.
             army reserve soldiers and economic impact by the state
                             [dollars in millions]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Economic impact consists of the payroll for Select Reserve Soldiers and
    Civilian support, Army Reserve military construction (MILCON) projects,
    leases, utilities, municipal services, engineering services, fire and
    emergency services, maintenance and repair, minor construction,
    environmental compliance, environmental conservation, and pollution
    prevention.
                             army reserve snapshot
        Mission.--The Army Reserve provides trained, equipped, and ready
    soldiers and cohesive units to meet global requirements across the full
    spectrum of operations.
        Vision.--As an enduring operational force, the Army Reserve is the
    premier force provider of America's citizen-soldiers for planned and
    emerging missions at home and abroad. Enhanced by civilian skills that
    serve as a force multiplier, we deliver vital military capabilities
    essential to the Total Force.
    Key Leaders
        Secretary of the Army: The Honorable John M. McHugh
        Army Chief of Staff: General Raymond T. Odierno
        Chief, Army Reserve and Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve
    Command: Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz
        Assistant Chief, Army Reserve: Mr. James Snyder
        Deputy Commanding General, (Operations): Major General Jon J.
    Miller
        Deputy Chief Army Reserve, Individual Mobilization Augmentee: Major
    General Marcia M. Anderson
        Deputy Chief Army Reserve/Human Capital Enterprise: Brigadier
    General James V. Young
        Deputy Commanding General (Support)/Chief of Staff: Major General
    Keith L. Thurgood
        Director for Resource Management/Materiel Enterprise: Mr. Stephen
    Austin
        Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7/Force Programs Division/Readiness
    Enterprise: Brigadier General Scott L. Donahue
        Chief Executive Officer/Director, Services and Infrastructure
    Enterprise: Mr. Addison D. Davis
        Command Chief Warrant Officer: Chief Warrant Officer 5 James E.
    Thompson
        Command Sergeant Major: Command Sergeant Major Michael D. Schultz
    Army Reserve Basics
        Established: April 23, 1908
        2011 Authorized End Strength: 205,000
        Selective Reserve Strength: 204,647
        Accessions Goal for Fiscal Year 2011: 19,000
        Accessions Achieved Fiscal Year 2011: 19,608
        Accessions Goal for Fiscal Year 2012: 16,000
        Reenlistment Goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 10,990
        Reenlistment Goals Achieved for Fiscal Year 2011: 11,719
        Reenlistment Goals for Fiscal Year 2012: 13,106
        Soldiers Deployed Around the World: 19,156
        Soldiers Mobilized Since September 11, 2001: 200,148
        Number of Army Reserve Centers: 1,100
    Distinctive Capabilities
        The Army Reserve contributes to the Army's Total Force by providing
    100 percent of the:
      --Theater Engineer Commands
      --Civil Affairs Commands
      --Training Divisions
      --Biological Detection Companies
      --Railway Units
      --Replacement Companies
    . . . more than two-thirds of the Army's:
      --Medical Brigades
      --Civil Affairs Brigades
      --PSYOPS Groups
      --Expeditionary Sustainment Commands
      --Dental Companies
      --Combat Support Hospitals
      --Army Water Craft
      --Petroleum Units
      --Mortuary Affairs Units
    . . . and nearly one-half of the Army's:
      --Military Police Commands
      --Information Operations Groups
      --Medical Units
      --Supply Units
    Army Reserve Demographics

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

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ethnicity (in percent):
        Caucasian..............................................        57.9
        Black..................................................        21.9
        Hispanic...............................................        13.4
        Asian..................................................         4.0
        Pacific Islander.......................................         1.0
        Native American........................................         0.7
        Other..................................................         1.1
    Average Age................................................        32.1
        Officers...............................................        40.5
        Enlisted...............................................        30.3
        Warrant................................................        43.0
    Married (in percent).......................................        45.2
        Officers...............................................        66.2
        Enlisted...............................................        40.7
        Warrant................................................        73.3
    Gender (in percent):
        Male...................................................        76.9
        Female.................................................        23.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Army Reserve Budget Figures

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

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total fiscal year 2012 enacted budget.................      $8.8 billion
        Operations and maintenance........................       3.3 billion
        Military Personnel................................       5.2 billion
        Military Construction.............................       281 million
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Army Reserve Installations
        Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
        Fort McCoy, Wisconsin
        Fort Devens, Massachusetts
        Fort Hunter Liggett, California
        Fort Dix, New Jersey
        Camp Parks, California

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

        I am an American Soldier.
        I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the
    United States and live the Army Values.
        I will always place the mission first.
        I will never accept defeat.
        I will never quit.
        I will never leave a fallen comrade.
        I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained, and
    proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms,
    my equipment and myself.
        I am an expert and I am a professional.
        I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the
    United States of America in close combat.
        I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
        I am an American Soldier.

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

        Chairman Inouye. Sergeant, thank you for your service to
    our Nation. We are very proud of you, so please be recognized.
    And I think an important partner is your wife.
        And I'll call upon the General of the Marines, General
    Hummer.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL STEVEN A. HUMMER,
                DIRECTOR, RESERVE AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES
                MARINE CORPS
        General Hummer. Thank you very much, Chairman Inouye, Vice
    Chairman Cochran, and members of this subcommittee.
        It's an honor and a privilege to speak with you here today
    on behalf of your United States Marine Corps Reserve.
        Mr. Chairman, we welcome your leadership and your support.
    The subcommittee's continued unwavering support for Marine
    Corps Reserve and its associated programs enables marines and
    sailors to professionally and competently perform in an
    operational capacity, and it is greatly appreciated.
        With me today, and I'd ask them to stand up, are my two
    senior enlisted advisers and leaders, Sergeant Major James E.
    Booker, and Command Master Chief Eric E. Cousin.
        These gentlemen epitomize the Navy-Marine Corps team, and
    proudly represent our services' enlisted marines and sailors
    who collectively form the backbone of Marine Forces Reserve.
        The Marine Corps is as strong today as ever in its 236-year
    history. Our marines have been doing what they have done best
    since 1775, standing shoulder-to-shoulder to fight our Nation's
    battles.
        I'm pleased to report to you today that today's Marine
    Corps attends to its commitments as a Total Force, and as such,
    the Marine Corps Reserve is integrated in all areas of the
    Marine Corps as never before.
        Since 2001, this great Nation required the Marine Corps
    Reserve to be continuously engaged in combat operations in Iraq
    and Afghanistan as well as in regional security cooperation and
    crisis prevention activities in support of various
    geographical, combatant commanders.
        Almost 80,000 reservists have been activated or mobilized
    since September 11. This operational tempo has built a momentum
    among our warfighters and a depth of experience throughout our
    ranks that is unprecedented in the generations of Marine Corps
    Reservists.
        This operational tempo has enabled the Marine Forces
    Reserve to evolve from a Strategic Cold War Reserve to an
    operational force capable of simultaneously filling both roles,
    both the strategic and the operational role.
        In the operational role, Marine Forces Reserve has sourced,
    pre-planned, rotational and routine combatant commander and
    service requirements across a variety of military operations.
        Marine Forces Reserve continues to perform its strategic
    role with combatant commander exercise involvement and focused
    readiness that coherently enables a rapid transition to
    operational roles or support to major contingency operations.
        As I sit here today, we have almost 1,500 marines and
    sailors deployed on five continents in support of six
    geographic combatant commanders, which includes conducting
    combat operations in Afghanistan, to theater security
    activities by a special Marine Air Ground Task Force in Eastern
    Africa.
        As the Active component Marine Corps reshapes from 201,000
    marines, to a force of approximately 182,100, the diverse depth
    and range of the Marine Corps Reserve will be leveraged to
    mitigate risk and maximize opportunities where available.
        I am highly confident that the authorized Marine Corps
    Reserve end-strength of 39,600 is appropriate for providing us
    with the personnel required to support the Total Force during
    Active component build down.
        Accordingly, our manpower bonus and incentive programs for
    Reserves are essential tools in achieving 100 percent of our
    authorized end-strength, and the continued use of these
    programs is critically important as we rebalance the Total
    Force.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        It's a privilege to serve during these very important and
    challenging times in our Nation's defense, especially as a
    leader of our All-Volunteer Reserve Component Force.
        With your continued support, I'm highly confident that your
    Marine Corps Reserve will remain a ready, relevant and
    responsive force that continues to be fully vested in the Total
    Force Marine Corps.
        Thank you for your demonstrated support for our reservists,
    their families and their employers, and from your Marines,
    semper fidelis.
        Chairman Inouye and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Steven A. Hummer
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member 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 and our reservists, who
    enthusiastically and professionally contribute to the balanced air-
    ground-logistics team that underscores America's Expeditionary Force in
    Readiness--the U.S. Marine Corps. We are extremely grateful for your
    continued support of programs like tuition assistance and transition
    assistance, Manpower Retention Incentives, and the Yellow Ribbon
    Reintegration Program, as well as the recently approved section 12304b
    in chapter 1209 of title 10. These help to sustain us as an Operational
    Reserve and as a crucial part of the Total Force.
                                  introduction
        The Marine Corps is as strong today as ever in its 236-year
    history. That's a bold statement, but it's backed by equally bold
    Active and Reserve component marines who are experienced in taking the
    fight directly to the enemy. Our marines have been doing what they have
    done best since 1775--standing shoulder-to-shoulder to fight and win
    the Nation's battles. We don't differentiate; all marines--whether
    Reserve or Active component--are disciplined, focused, and lethal. We
    are a Total Force, and as such, the Marine Corps Reserve is integrated
    in all areas of the Marine Corps as never before.
        I continue to be humbled on a daily basis in my interactions with
    our magnificent reservists. Like their Active Duty brothers and
    sisters, they sacrifice so much of their time--and so much of
    themselves--to protect and serve this great Nation. The way they
    balance their family responsibilities, civilian lives, and
    occupations--and still stay marine--continues to amaze 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. I am reminded daily about the seriousness of the
    environment in which we operate and the uncertain times that lay ahead
    in this fiscally constrained environment. That said, I remain highly
    confident in the ability of the Marine Corps Reserve to meet these
    challenges due to the tremendous talent that fills our ranks and the
    incredible support by this subcommittee and the American people who
    sustain us.
        The four priorities outlined by the Commandant of the Marine Corps
    in his 2012 Report to Congress on the Posture of the United States
    Marine Corps will continue to ensure the Total Force is able to meet
    the demands of the future. They are:
      --Provide the best trained and equipped marine units to Afghanistan.
            This will not change and remains our top priority;
      --Rebalance our Corps, posture it for the future and aggressively
            experiment with and implement new capabilities and
            organizations;
      --Better educate and train our marines to succeed in distributed
            operations and increasingly complex environments; and
      --Keep faith with our marines, our sailors, and our families.
        The priorities I've outlined for Marine Forces Reserve are nested
    within the Commandant's priorities to ensure today's Marine Corps
    Reserve is a nimble, fully engaged part of the Total Force that is
    necessary for modern combat. I believe Active component Marines and
    senior leadership at all levels appreciate a fully engaged Operational
    Reserve Force. As an integral element of the Total Force Marine Corps,
    our marines and sailors share the culture of deployment and
    expeditionary mindset that has dominated Marine Corps culture, ethos,
    and thinking since our service's beginning more than 2 centuries ago.
    Accordingly, the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve is organized, manned,
    equipped, and trained, like our Active Duty brethren, to provide a
    professionally ready, responsive, and relevant force as a Marine Corps
    solution to enable joint and combined operations. We are, and will
    remain, a key component in the Corps' role as America's Expeditionary
    Force in Readiness.
                             an operational reserve
        Since 2001, this great Nation required its Marine Corps Reserve to
    be continuously engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as
    well as in regional security cooperation and crisis prevention
    activities in support of the various geographical combatant commanders.
    This operational tempo has built a momentum among our war fighters and
    a depth of experience throughout the ranks that is unprecedented in
    generations of Marine Corps Reservists.
        As of February 1, 2012, 61,123 marines from the Ready Reserve have
    executed a total of 79,420 sets of mobilization orders. This
    operational tempo has enabled Marine Forces Reserve to evolve from a
    strategic to an operational force, capable of simultaneously fulfilling
    both roles. In the operational role, Marine Forces Reserve has sourced
    preplanned, rotational, and routine combatant commander and service
    requirements across a variety of military operations. We have routinely
    supported operations in Afghanistan and Iraq while sourcing combatant
    commander requirements, such as Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task
    Force in support of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM); Black Sea Rotational
    Force in support of U.S. European Command (EUCOM); Unit Deployment
    Program (UDP) in support of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM); and Southern
    Partnership Station in support of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
    Additionally, Marine Forces Reserve continues to perform its strategic
    role with combatant commander exercise involvement and focused
    readiness that coherently enables a rapid transition to operational
    roles or support to major contingency operations.
        During the previous year, Marine Forces Reserve operations
    continued on a high-operational tempo as we supported all of the
    geographical combatant commanders across the globe. Our force-level
    units and major subordinate commands--the 4th Marine Division, 4th
    Marine Aircraft Wing, and 4th Marine Logistics Group--were called upon
    to provide 3,227 marines to support Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)
    and plan to deploy 788 marines this fiscal year. Marine Forces Reserve
    also deployed marines to a multitude of theater-specific exercises and
    cooperative security efforts, which were designed to increase
    interoperability with our Partnership For Peace NATO allies as well as
    for developing Theater Security Cooperatives in countries such as
    Morocco, South Africa, Romania, Georgia, the Black Sea region and with
    our partners throughout the Pacific Rim.
        Marine Forces Reserve's operational focus will continue to directly
    support the geographical combatant commanders this year in various
    roles that includes multiple bilateral exercises, such as African Lion
    in Morocco, Key Resolve and Ulchi Freedom Guardian in South Korea, Cold
    Response in Norway, Tradewinds in Barbados, and Agile Spirit, which is
    an ongoing effort with the Georgian Army in and around Tbilisi. The way
    ahead for Marine Forces Reserve includes continued support to OEF while
    also maintaining a high operational tempo by deploying forces to meet
    high-priority combatant commander requirements. Principle among these
    deployments is the support to an AFRICOM Special Purpose Marine Air
    Ground Task Force, forward deploying an Artillery Battery to Okinawa,
    Japan, as part of the Unit Deployment Program, and the building of
    partner capacity in the Black Sea region on behalf of the geographical
    combatant commander by providing Marine Reservists to conduct
    operations of various sizes and complexities throughout the region to
    assure stability and sustainability in this high priority geopolitical
    region. Like our Active Duty counterparts, our training and exercise
    support will incorporate amphibious operations and a refocused
    concentration on our Naval heritage. During January, our personnel
    participated in Bold Alligator, the largest amphibious exercise the
    Navy and Marine Corps have conducted in more than a decade.
        In addition to operational requirements, Marine Forces Reserve
    personnel and units conduct community relations events nationwide. Due
    to the command's unique geographical dispersion, Marine Forces Reserve
    personnel and units are advantageously positioned to interact with the
    American public, telling the Marine Corps story to our fellow citizens
    who typically have little or no contact with the Marine Corps.
    Therefore, for the preponderance of the American public, their
    perception of the Marine Corps is informed by dialogue with our
    reservists during the myriad of community relations events that occur
    throughout the year across the country.
        During the previous year, Marine Forces Reserve supported more than
    10 significant community relations events, which included among others
    Marine Week St. Louis, Armed Forces Bowl in the Dallas/Fort Worth area,
    New York City Fleet Week, Baltimore Fleet Week, and Public Service
    Recognition Week and Joint Service Open House in the District of
    Columbia area. Marine Forces Reserve also supported more than 50
    community relations events of a lesser scale that included various air
    shows, memorials, and assorted flyovers across the Nation.
    Additionally, more than 380 community events of a routine nature were
    supported across the Nation, such as color guard details, vehicle and
    weapon static displays, and speaking engagements.
        The significant community relations events required a footprint of
    Marine Forces Reserve assets that mirrored an operational Marine Air-
    Ground Task Force. Of note is the Marine Week concept, which is a
    Headquarters Marine Corps strategic engagement activity that was
    initiated during 2009. This strategic engagement initiative was created
    to articulate to the American public what the U.S. Marine Corps stands
    for, what we do, who we are, and what the Corps aspires to accomplish
    in the future. This week-long event generally encompasses a series of
    more than 60 smaller events, which may include formal ceremonies,
    various static displays of aircraft, vehicles and weapons, and other
    outreach events such as sports demonstrations, concerts, and tactical
    demonstrations. However, months prior to the event, key leaders from
    throughout the Marine Corps interact with the local community through
    leadership panels and discussion groups covering topics such as
    diversity, roles and opportunities for service by women, and general
    leadership principles. Marine Forces Reserve was the lead element for
    Marine Week since its inception, sourcing the Marine Air Ground Task
    Force command element and the preponderance of the subordinate units
    for Marine Week Chicago in 2009, and has done so for subsequent Marine
    Weeks: Boston in 2010 and St. Louis in 2011. Marine Forces Reserve will
    take the lead once again for Marine Week Cleveland this June and is
    likely to be the Force of Choice to form the command element on behalf
    of the Marine Corps for all Marine Weeks hereafter due to our national
    footprint, deep connection with local communities, and integration of
    Active and Reserve component personnel at our Reserve centers across
    this great Nation.
        I would be remiss if I didn't include veterans as key components to
    our continued success in communities across the country. Veterans
    provide our personnel, Active and Reserve, with unsurpassed support.
    Veterans often serve as a communication conduit between our marines and
    local leaders and business owners. They are also instrumental in
    assisting with community engagement, such as Marine Week and the Marine
    Corps Reserve Toys for Tots program.
        In addition to participating in operational requirements across the
    globe and in community relations events here at home, our Active Duty
    marines who are assigned to our Inspector--Instructor and Reserve Site
    Support staffs steadfastly and diligently execute the significant
    responsibility of casualty assistance. Continued operational efforts in
    Afghanistan have required that these marines remain ready at all times
    to support the families of our fallen marines in combat abroad, or in
    unforeseen circumstances at home. By virtue of our geographic
    dispersion, Marine Forces Reserve personnel are well-positioned to
    accomplish the vast majority of all Marine Corps casualty assistance
    calls and are trained to provide assistance to the families.
    Historically, our personnel have been involved in approximately 80
    percent of all Marine Corps casualty notifications and follow-on
    assistance calls to the next of kin. During calendar year 2011, our
    Inspector--Instructor and Reserve Site Support staffs performed 83
    percent of the total casualty calls performed by the Marine Corps (310
    of 375). There is no duty to our families that we treat with more
    importance, and the responsibilities of our Casualty Assistance Calls
    Officers (CACO) continue well beyond notification. We ensure that our
    CACOs are well trained, equipped, and supported by all levels of
    command. Once a CACO is designated, he or she assists the family
    members 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 long-lasting bridge between the Marine
    Corps and the family while providing assistance during the grieving
    process. The CACO is the family's central point of contact and support,
    and he or she serves as a representative or liaison to the funeral
    home, government agencies, or any other agency that may become
    involved.
        Additionally, Marine Forces Reserve units and personnel provide
    significant support for military funeral honors for our veterans. The
    Inspector--Instructor and Reserve Site Support staffs, with
    augmentation from their Reserve Marines, performed 91 percent of the
    total funeral honors rendered by the Marine Corps during calendar year
    2011 (15,366 of 16,943). We anticipate providing funeral honors to more
    than 16,000 marine veterans during calendar year 2012. Specific
    authorizations to fund Reserve Marines in the performance of military
    funeral honors have greatly assisted us at sites such as Bridgeton,
    Missouri, 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 honors
    support.
        The upcoming implementation of the Marine Corps' Force Structure
    Review (FSR) of the Total Force--Active, Reserve, and civilian--will
    not impede our operational excellence, community involvement, casualty
    assistance, or funeral honors. The FSR initiative evaluated and refined
    the organization, posture, and capabilities required of America's
    Expeditionary Force in Readiness in a post-OEF security environment. It
    was further informed by the Department of Defense budget that was
    developed and incorporated in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget.
    Throughout the implementation plan, Marine Forces Reserve is prepared
    to work with any personnel affected by this initiative to locate a
    suitable opportunity. In some cases, the servicemember may be afforded
    an opportunity for inactive duty training travel reimbursement or
    additional training to obtain a new military occupational specialty. I
    appreciate in advance your support as we move forward to seamlessly
    implement the FSR plan.
                                 predictability
        Our Force Generation Model is one of the most important planning
    mechanisms for facilitating the operational use of the Marine Corps
    Reserve. The Model, which was implemented in October 2006, continues to
    provide long-term and essential predictability of future activations
    and deployments for our reservists. The Model provides our reservists,
    their families, and their employers, the ability to plan for upcoming
    duty requirements in their lives 5 or more years out. This empowers
    servicemembers and their families to achieve the critical balance
    between family, civilian career, and service to the Nation while
    enabling employers to plan for and manage the temporary 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.
        The Force Generation Model is a simple management tool that is
    based on 1-year activations followed by 5 years in a nonactivated
    status. This allows for a continued and sustainable 1:5 deployment-to-
    dwell ratio for our reservists as well as the ability to support
    unplanned requirements. In fact, the Marine Corps Reserve can
    potentially source 3,000 marines per rotation and 6,000 marines
    annually at a 1:5 deployment-to-dwell ratio as programmed in the Force
    Generation Model. Furthermore, projecting predictable activation dates,
    mission assignments, and geographical destination years in advance
    enables units to focus training on core mission requirements early in
    the dwell period, then transition the training to specific mission
    tasks when the unit is 12-18 months from activation.
        The fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that was
    signed into law by the President on December 31, 2011, greatly advances
    this predictable employment of the Reserve component as an operational
    Force. Specifically, the Reserve involuntary activation authority
    delegated to the Service secretaries to order Reserve component members
    to Active Duty for not more than 365 consecutive days for preplanned
    and budgeted missions promotes our ability to proactively plan for and
    provide well-equipped, trained, and competent Reserve Forces to the
    various geographic combatant commanders to fulfill their Theater
    Security Cooperation requirements.
        Title 10, chapter 1209, section 12304b, provides the appropriate
    authorities to ensure Marine Forces Reserve's continued level of
    support to geographic combatant commanders' Theater Security
    Cooperation and Phase 0 shaping operations as well as maintain
    readiness across the Total Force. Of particular note, this authority
    facilitates a Total Force sourcing solution to meeting global
    requirements by allowing the Secretary of a military department to
    determine when to use the Reserve component. This amendment provides
    for the flexibility Service planners need to determine force sourcing
    solutions based on Force Generation Models and policies. Over the last
    decade, the Services have seen an increasing demand signal from the
    geographical combatant commanders to support their Theater Security
    Cooperation and Phase 0 shaping operations. We certainly expect this
    demand will continue to increase in the post-OEF environment as
    geographic combatant commanders increase engagement activities across
    the globe.
                                   personnel
        Marine Forces Reserve consists of Force-level units, such as
    Intelligence Support Battalion and Civil Affairs Groups, and our major
    subordinate commands--4th Marine Division, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing,
    and the 4th Marine Logistics Group. Marine Forces Reserve comprises a
    large percentage of the Selected Marine Corps Reserve's authorized end-
    strength of 39,600. Additionally, Marine Forces Reserve administers
    approximately 57,000 marines who serve in the Individual Ready Reserve.
    The Selected Marine Corps Reserve is comprised of marines in Reserve
    units and the Active Reserve program as well as Individual Mobilization
    Augmentees and those in initial training. The Selected Marine Corps
    Reserve and the Individual Ready Reserve form the Ready Reserve.
        We continue to enjoy strong accessions and an increase in retention
    over the historical norm, which greatly enhanced our ability to improve
    manning to our end strength during fiscal year 2011. Our bonus and
    incentive programs for Reserves were essential tools in achieving 100
    percent of our authorized end strength. The continued use of these
    programs is a critical enabler for us as we rebalance the Force during
    the upcoming implementation of the Force Structure Review. Our
    authorized end-strength of 39,600 is appropriate for providing us with
    the personnel we require to support the Total Force while achieving the
    Secretary of Defense's goal of a 1:5 deployment-to-dwell for Selected
    Marine Corps Reserve units.
        I am pleased to report that the Marine Corps/Navy Reserve team is
    as strong as ever. During calendar year 2011, the Navy ensured Marine
    Forces Reserve units were fully manned and supported with Program 9--
    U.S. Navy personnel in support of Marine Forces--and Health Service
    Augmentation Program personnel during all deployment phases. Four
    hundred eighty-six U.S. Navy personnel were sourced to staff Marine
    Forces Reserve units that deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as
    numerous joint and/or 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 my major subordinate commands, to source 100 percent of all
    requirements.
        Manning to authorized end strength requires an institutional
    approach. The Marine Corps is unique in that all recruiting efforts
    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, Marine Corps
    Reserve units rely primarily upon a first-term enlisted force. Marine
    Corps Recruiting Command achieved 100 percent of its recruiting goal
    for nonprior service recruiting (5,730 enlisted marines and 96
    officers) and prior service recruiting (4,058) for fiscal year 2011. As
    of February 29, 2012, 2,216 enlisted nonprior service and 1,242
    enlisted prior service marines have been accessed, reflecting 38.8
    percent of the nonprior service and 49.7 percent of the prior service
    annual enlisted recruiting mission for the Selected Marine Corps
    Reserve. We fully expect to meet our Selected Marine Corps Reserve
    recruiting goals again this fiscal year.
        Officer recruiting remains our most challenging area. Historically,
    the Active component Marine Corps has been the exclusive source of
    senior lieutenants and captains for the Marine Corps Reserve, and it
    remains a source of strength in meeting our company grade requirements.
    Through our transition assistance and educational outreach programs, we
    continue to ensure that each transitioning Active component marine is
    educated on continued service opportunities in the Marine Corps
    Reserve. To compliment the Active-to-Reserve component company grade
    accessions, we continue to offer three Reserve commissioning
    initiatives that focus exclusively on the most crucial challenge of
    manning the Marine Corps Reserve with quality company grade officers.
    These Reserve commissioning initiatives are the Reserve Enlisted
    Commissioning Program (RECP), which was expanded to qualified Active
    Duty enlisted marines in addition to qualified Reserve enlisted
    marines; Meritorious Commissioning Program--Reserve (MCP-R), which is
    open to individuals of the Active and Reserve components who have
    earned an associate's degree or equivalent in semester hours; and
    Officer Candidate Course--Reserve (OCC-R). Since 2004, these three
    programs have produced a total of 456 lieutenants for the Marine Corps
    Reserve. The OCC-R program has been the most successful of the three
    Reserve commissioning initiatives, producing 422 officers. It focuses
    on ground billets with an emphasis on ground combat and combat service
    support within specific Reserve units that are scheduled for
    mobilization. Thus, the priority to man units with these officers is
    tied to the Force Generation Model. These programs, combined with our
    prior service recruiting efforts, are projected to provide at least 90
    percent manning of critical combat arms and engineer company grade
    officer billets by September 30, 2015.
        As the Marine Corps begins to draw down Active component end
    strength to 182,100, the option to continue to serve in the Reserve
    component will undoubtedly be increasingly appealing to young marines
    leaving Active Duty. Those approaching the end of their current
    contracts--Active or Reserve component--receive more focused counseling
    on the tangible and intangible aspects of remaining associated with, or
    joining, the Selected Marine Corps Reserve. All commanders and senior
    enlisted leaders across Marine Forces Reserve are tasked to retain
    quality marines through example, mentoring, and information and
    retention programs. This takes place across the marine experience, not
    just in the final days of a marine's contract. Your continued support
    regarding enlistment, affiliation, and re-enlistment bonuses along with
    other initiatives that promote service to this great Nation greatly
    influences my ability to gain and retain the very best servicemembers.
    I greatly appreciate the continuance of these programs, especially
    since they are most likely to prove instrumental in aligning the right
    people to the right place as we rebalance the Force.
                                   equipment
        The Commandant of the Marine Corps signed the Service's Ground
    Equipment Reset Strategy on January 1, 2012. This strategy resets the
    Force in support of the Commandant's reconstitution objectives. As the
    executive agent for the execution of this strategy, Marine Corps
    Logistics Command will ensure the timely and responsive reset of the
    Reserve component equipment to maintain a high state of readiness
    across the Force. The unique geographic dispersion of our Reserve units
    and their limited capacity to store and maintain the total war fighting
    equipment set onsite underscores the unique relationship between Marine
    Corps Logistics Command and our Reserve units. This relationship
    assures high training readiness by using a specific training allowance
    at Reserve Training Centers while maintaining the remainder of the war
    fighting requirement in enterprise-managed facilities. This strong
    relationship, which is necessary for a viable operational Reserve, is
    inherent in the service's reset strategy. I am confident that Marine
    Forces Reserve will continue to meet the Commandant's first priority--
    provide the best trained and equipped Marine units to Afghanistan--
    while protecting the enduring health of the operational Reserve.
        Although we have been engaged in combat operations for more than a
    decade, our equipment readiness rates remain above 97 percent. To be
    sure, this last decade has demonstrated the need to maintain a
    significant Reserve Force readiness posture, even during periods of no
    or low conflict. However, our current 97-percent readiness level has
    only been attained and sustained by the availability of contingency
    funding. As the contingency funding draws down and on-hand assets
    increase as a result of the Reset, we will rely solely on our
    Operations and Maintenance, Reserve appropriation. Additionally,
    equipment preventive maintenance and organizational maintenance
    programs have also become more developed due to increased training
    associated with mobilizations over the past decade. Thus, the
    requirement to maintain them will still exist as the contingency
    funding that supports these capabilities decreases.
        Several resources and programs combine to form the basis to the
    Marine Corps Reserve approach to maintenance. Routine preventive and
    corrective maintenance are performed locally by operator and organic
    maintenance personnel. This traditional approach to ground equipment
    maintenance was expanded to include an increasing reliance on highly
    effective contracted services and depot-level capabilities, which were
    provided by the Marine Corps Logistics Command. Over the past year, we
    experienced significant success with the Marine Corps Logistics
    Command's ``Mobile Maintenance Teams'' that have provided preventive
    and corrective maintenance support to all 183 Marine Corps Reserve
    centers across the United States. This maintenance augmentation effort
    has directly improved our equipment readiness as well as provided
    valuable ``hands on'' training to our organic equipment maintainers.
        Additionally, the Marine Corps Logistics Command's ``Enterprise
    Lifecycle Maintenance Program'' provides for the rebuilding and
    modifying of an array of principal end items, such as the light armored
    vehicle, the amphibious assault vehicle, and our entire motor transport
    fleet. Finally, we continue to reap significant benefits from the
    Marine Corps Corrosion Prevention and Control Program. Dollar for
    dollar, this program has proven highly effective in the abatement and
    prevention of corrosion throughout the Force. Collectively, these
    initiatives and the hard work and dedication of our marines and
    civilian marines across Marine Forces Reserve sustain our ground
    equipment readiness rates at or above 97 percent.
        The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) has
    been used to modernize and equip the Reserve component. It has funded
    equipment that provides both maximum interoperability and balance
    between the Active and Reserve components. Building on the $65 million
    and $45 million that we received in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to
    supplement baseline procurement dollars and accelerate the fielding of
    various programs throughout the Marine Air Ground Task Force, fiscal
    year 2011's $70 million in NGREA support was used to procure 10 light
    armored vehicle logistics variants, which completed our light armored
    vehicles requirement. The funds were also used for the procurement of
    satellite network packages for command and control, Raven Unmanned
    Aerial Vehicle systems, various combat vehicle training and
    marksmanship systems, and virtual convoy trainers and simulators
    enhanced Reserve component modernization programs.
        As articulated in our fiscal year 2013 National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Report (NGRER), the Marine Corps' Total Force fielding policy
    is accentuated by a methodology of horizontal fielding of equipment to
    enable the Service concept of ``mirror imaging'' between the Active and
    Reserve components. Accordingly, as the Marine Corps incorporates
    modernization programs to posture our capabilities to meet the ever-
    changing character of current and future operations, we have identified
    five modernization priorities that could be funded with the fiscal year
    2012 NGREA that have been already provided.
        The first three priorities relate to the incorporation of aircraft
    flight training devices (FTDs) and their linkage via the Aviation
    Virtual Training Environment (AVTE). These devices will not only allow
    aircrews to conduct more sorties via the simulators/training devices
    but will also allow the Reserve component to train with other units and
    aircrews as a way to reduce costs in a resource-constrained
    environment. The first priority is to procure a CH-53E FTD, which will
    enable aircrew refresher and proficiency training along with AVTE
    linkage to other FTDs. The second and third priorities are to procure 2
    UH-1 and 1 MV-22 FTDs, respectively, allowing for both aircrew
    refresher and proficiency training, as well as conversion training
    prior to the UH-1Y and MV-22B aircraft delivery to the Reserve
    component.
        The fourth and fifth priorities involve the modernization of the
    KC-130T, which will remain in service in the Reserve component beyond
    the year 2020. Procurement of the Digital Engine Indicator Panels will
    mitigate parts obsolescence issues and the Electronic Prop Control
    Systems will increase the mean time between failures for the KC-130T
    community's top degrader. The modernization of the KC-130T will serve
    as a bridge to the KC130J, which may not be fielded to the Reserve
    component until 2020.
                                    training
        For the fourth year in a row, Marine Forces Reserve will sponsor
    exercise Javelin Thrust stateside this July, which will focus on Marine
    Air Ground Task Force core competency training. Javelin Thrust 2012
    will be conducted aboard installations throughout the Western United
    States with both virtual and real world aspects to the exercise. This
    year, Javelin Thrust has been designated as Large Scale Exercise 1 for
    the Marine Corps and will serve as an aid-to-construct for future Large
    Scale Exercises. Javelin Thrust 2012 will be executed as a Marine Air
    Ground Task Force deployment vice a compilation of numerous annual
    training events, with units participating based on their future
    deployment schedule according to the Force Generation Model. Javelin
    Thrust will provide all elements of the Marine Air Ground Task Force
    with the opportunity to complete some of the training necessary to
    expeditiously forward-deploy in any operational environment.
    Additionally, individuals serving on the exercise's Marine Air Ground
    Task Force staffs will receive training that will enable them to
    competently perform as individual augments on a Marine Air Ground Task
    Force and/or joint staff overseas. The Large Scale Exercise will be an
    assessed Marine Air Ground Task Force exercise at the Marine
    Expeditionary Brigade level composed of Marine Forces Reserve units
    from Force-level units and all three major subordinate commands and an
    integrated Active and Reserve component headquarters. This aspect of
    the exercise is aimed at validating the Total Force approach with an
    emphasis on interoperability of Active component and Reserve component
    Marine forces.
        One of the most exciting areas where we continue to transform the
    depth and scope of our training remains the cutting-edge arena of
    Training Simulation. We continue to maximize our efficiencies by
    utilizing our training simulators wherever possible in order to
    preserve our fiscal resources. Marine Forces Reserve continues to field
    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. These simulators make it possible for the
    Marines to ``employ'' a variety of infantry weapons--pistol through
    heavy machinegun--in rifle squad scenarios.
        The Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer-Reconfigurable Vehicle System
    provides invaluable predeployment training for the drivers of all makes
    and models of tactical vehicles. This trainer provides various
    conditions of terrain, road, weather, visibility and vehicle condition
    as well as various combat scenarios, which includes routine movement,
    ambush, and IED, among others. The Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer-
    Reconfigurable Vehicle System 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. Incorporation of this training system is attributed with
    saving countless lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and upwards of $37
    million a year in training dollars. We are now preparing to accept the
    fourth generation of this system and have doubled student throughput.
        The HMMWV Egress Assistance Trainer and the Mine-Resistant Armor
    Protected (MRAP) Egress Trainer are mechanical simulation trainers that
    familiarize Marines with the techniques and procedures to egress a
    HMMWV or a MRAP vehicle that has overturned. Both Trainers are training
    tools that provide Marines with the opportunity to experience vehicle
    roll-over conditions to enable them to rehearse actions and physically
    execute the steps necessary to survive a vehicle rollover. These
    systems support the U.S. Central Command requirement for all marines to
    complete vehicle roll-over training prior to deploying to designated
    combat zones.
        Language and culture training is available to all Marine reservists
    and is delivered via a variety of techniques from live instruction to
    portable media to Web-based tutorials and applications. Our Afghanistan
    culture training leverages academia, utilizes Afghan-American
    expertise, and includes Web-host detailed and tailored courses of
    instruction. These courses can be accessed by any computer and have the
    added functionality of being iPod compatible to download for
    transportability and accessibility by our marines. We beta-tested our
    first Pashtu language course for an infantry battalion that deployed to
    South Asia. This was an 18-week, 108-hour course that was a Webinar-
    linked program, which allowed geographically separated marines and
    instructors to ``meet'' in a virtual classroom that consisted of using
    course-provided computing systems. It was synonymous with the program
    Special Operations Command has been running for a number of years. This
    course was directed to provide Pashtu language capability down to the
    squad level with participants at the rank of lieutenant, sergeant,
    corporal and below. In comparison to some of the resident training
    programs offered within the Joint and larger DOD community, this course
    yielded better results on the proficiency exam. Additionally, our
    marines also participated in introductory Pashto immersion training,
    which was conducted in 5- and 8-week blocks of instruction and was
    supported by the Partner Language Training Center Europe (PLTCE)
    Garmisch, Germany, and the Language Acquisition Resource Center at San
    Diego State University. Last, given that our Marines deploy throughout
    the globe, we access a variety of other sources of language and
    cultural training, such as the Marine Corps' Center for Advanced
    Operational Culture and Language, the Defense Language Institute, and
    Regional Language Centers. Your continued support of these enhanced
    language and culture learning opportunities critically enables our
    competence in the current fight in Afghanistan and global Theater
    Security Cooperation requirements.
        Last, Marine Forces Reserve has integrated safety programs in
    training to maximize Force preservation. Of particular note is our
    Center for Safety Excellence aboard Naval Air Station Joint Reserve
    Base New Orleans in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, where we address the
    current lead cause of death of our personnel--motor vehicle accidents.
    At the Center, personnel receive training in the safe operation of
    their motor vehicles, which includes both cars and motorcycles. I'm
    pleased to report that anecdotal evidence suggests this program was
    instrumental in the reduction of fatal motorcycle mishaps by 33 percent
    from fiscal year 2010 to 2011. Coupling these results with a renewed
    emphasis on personal responsibility, I directed leaders at all levels
    to establish a culture among our personnel that promotes making
    responsible choices.
        Responsible choices are the foundation of our Corps Values. In
    calendar year 2012, Marine Forces Reserve implemented the Culture of
    Responsible Choices program, which is really a change in mindset vice
    an actual new formal program. This mindset pertains to all Marines and
    people in Marine Corps organizations who are asked to rethink how they
    do business and conduct their lives to ensure their decisions lead to
    safe and healthy outcomes. The Culture of Responsible Choices program
    emphasizes personal responsibility and accountability for
    decisionmaking and behavior--not only within our fence lines and work
    centers but at home, in leisure activities, and in our personal lives.
    The program addresses a wide range of unhealthy and healthy human
    behaviors, such as alcohol misuse, drug use, tobacco use, physical
    fitness, sound financial management, vigorous suicide prevention,
    effective sexual assault response and prevention, and safe practices at
    work, at home, and on vacation. Alcohol misuse is our first target.
    Anecdotal evidence suggests alcohol misuse has been the common
    denominator for many poor choices and negative decision events across
    the behavioral health spectrum.
                                   facilities
        Marine Forces Reserve has facilities in 48 States, the District of
    Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These facilities include 32-owned sites, 151
    tenant locations, three family housing sites, and a marine barracks.
    Although some Reserve centers are located on major DOD bases and
    National Guard compounds, many of our centers are openly located within
    civilian communities. Therefore, the condition and appearance of our
    facilities informs the American people's perception of the Marine Corps
    and the Armed Forces throughout the Nation. Our facilities' efforts
    focus on maintaining the physical resources to support ideal
    operational training that enables Marine Forces Reserve to support
    Service and combatant command operational requirements. The largest
    part of the budget for facilities is used to maintain the existing
    physical plant at diverse sites.
        Ninety-three of our 183 Reserve centers are more than 30 years old
    and 54 are more than 50 years old. Through recent increases in Marine
    Forces Reserve facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization
    (FSRM) support and $39.9 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act (ARRA) funding, we have improved the overall readiness of our
    facilities inventory and corrected facility condition deficiencies. The
    FSRM funding was used to complete more than 150 projects during fiscal
    year 2011. Eighty-four FSRM projects are scheduled for fiscal year
    2012. The ARRA funding was applied to 25 projects across 11 States,
    which accomplished much needed repairs and renovations, while enhancing
    energy efficiency. Eight of those ARRA projects are still under way.
    Projects funded by ARRA include upgrades to meet antiterrorism force
    protection standards as well as building access compliance requirements
    of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
        The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 enabled us to
    consolidate and replace Reserve centers across the country, which
    included replacement of 22 centers. Under BRAC 2005, Marine Forces
    Reserve executed 24 of the Marines Corps' 47 directed actions, and
    successfully completed all its remaining relocations during fiscal year
    2011. Of these 24 BRAC actions, 21 were shared with Army and Navy
    military construction projects. Our BRAC plans were tightly linked to
    those of other Services and government agencies as we developed
    cooperative agreements to share Reserve centers and joint bases. Marine
    Forces Reserve units are aboard 8 of the 12 joint bases that were
    created under BRAC 2005. The accomplishments of BRAC 2005 represent the
    largest movement and upgrade in memory for the Marine Corps Reserve
    with 17 projects completed in 2011.
        The Marine Corps' Military Construction--Naval Reserve (MCNR)
    construction program focuses on new footprint and recapitalization of
    our aging facilities. The construction provided by BRAC 2005 and the
    annual authorization of MCNR funding have been important factors in
    moving Marine Forces Reserve forward in its facilities mission and
    taking our number of inadequate or substandard-sized Reserve centers
    significantly below the 50-percent level. Continued annual funding for
    our MCNR program will keep us moving in a positive direction, which
    will enable Marine Forces Reserve to constantly improve the physical
    infrastructure that supports and reinforces the mission readiness of
    our units.
        To address the implementation of sustainable design principles,
    Marine Forces Reserve has adopted the U.S. Green Building Council's
    (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green
    Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovation. LEED
    is a performance-oriented system based on accepted energy and
    environmental principles where credits are earned for satisfying
    criteria designed to address specific environmental impacts inherent in
    the design, construction, operations, and maintenance of buildings.
    During fiscal year 2011, we completed our first LEED Silver-certified
    rehabilitation project in Baltimore, Maryland.
        There are significant opportunities to improve the energy and water
    efficiency of Reserve facilities and expand the use of renewable
    resources. During 2010 and 2011, we completed energy assessments at our
    32-owned sites and are implementing the recommendations from those
    assessments, initially targeting the sites that are the biggest energy
    users nationally. In addition, we have a contract in place and are well
    on our way to having advanced meters installed at our 32-owned Reserve
    centers across the country to measure building electrical usage and are
    on track for completion by the October 1, 2012, deadline. Since 2010,
    eight solar/photovoltaic energy and lighting projects have been
    completed at Reserve centers in California and Louisiana, and we have
    three more projects scheduled for completion during fiscal year 2012.
    The 225kw Louisiana project that was completed in August 2011 is the
    largest photovoltaic project in State history. Four small wind turbines
    are scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2012 with at least three
    more planned for fiscal year 2013. Our investment in these technologies
    provides energy security, efficiency, and cost avoidance for our
    geographically dispersed sites.
        Our environmental program continues to excel. I consider
    environmental compliance a priority for the command, and reinforce
    environmental compliance by directing continual training for our
    Marines and Sailors at each unit and site. Furthermore, our
    environmental program supports our FSRM and MCNR programs by ensuring
    compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act for each
    project and action.
        Of special note, this year is the movement of my headquarters and
    consolidation of our major subordinate commands in New Orleans. This
    unique BRAC project, which integrated State, local and Federal efforts,
    was completed on time. The State of Louisiana provided construction
    dollars for the new headquarters facility, saving the Federal
    Government more than $130 million. The Department of the Navy provided
    the interior furnishings, information technology, and security
    infrastructure. This building incorporates multiple energy and
    environmentally friendly processes that meet LEED-certifiable
    standards. We were assisted by Department of Energy's Federal Energy
    Management Program in identifying future projects for maximizing the
    sustainability and energy efficiencies of the buildings and the
    compound. This building and its surrounding acreage is the newest
    Marine Corps Installation: Marine Corps Support Facility, New Orleans.
        Last, implementation of the Force Structure Review provides an
    opportunity to better align mission changes with facilities
    infrastructure capabilities. As the process moves forward, the total
    impacts will be analyzed to gain efficiencies and reduce the backlog of
    unfunded MCNR projects, allowing targeted investment in those sites
    that provide the best operational return on investment.
                     health services and behavioral health
        Our Marines, sailors, and their families remain our highest
    priority. Therefore, we remain keenly attentive to their health and
    resiliency. During dwell, our health services priority is to attain and
    maintain the DOD goal of 75 percent ``Fully Medically Ready.'' In
    fiscal year 2011, Marine Forces Reserve individual medical and dental
    readiness rates were 56 percent and 83 percent, respectively. We are
    aggressively working to improve the medical readiness of the Force to
    achieve the goal of 75 percent ``Fully Medically Ready.''
        Healthcare for the Reserve component integrates many diverse
    programs across the spectrum of the deployment cycle--premobilization,
    deployment, and postdeployment--and is categorized into two areas: unit
    medical readiness and behavioral health. Unit medical readiness
    programs include the Reserve Health Readiness Program and TRICARE
    Reserve Select. Behavioral health programs include the Post Deployment
    Health Reassessment and the Psychological Health Outreach Program.
        The Reserve Health Readiness Program is the cornerstone for
    individual medical and dental readiness. This program funds contracted
    medical and dental specialists to provide healthcare services to units
    not supported by a military treatment facility. During fiscal year
    2011, the Reserve Health Readiness Program performed 12,398 Periodic
    Health Assessments, 781 Post-Deployment Health Reassessments, and 7,685
    Dental Procedures. TRICARE Reserve Select, a premium-based healthcare
    plan, is also available to our marines, sailors, and their families.
        Behavioral health has increasingly become an integral part of
    medical readiness over the past few years. Navy medicine continues to
    address this complex issue through various independent contracted
    programs, such as the Post-Deployment Health Reassessment and the
    Psychological Health Outreach Program. The Post-Deployment Health
    Reassessment identifies health issues with specific emphasis on mental
    health concerns, which may have emerged since returning from
    deployment. The Psychological Health Outreach Program addresses
    postdeployment behavioral health concerns through a referral and
    tracking process. These programs have proven effective in the overall
    management of identifying those marines and sailors who need behavioral
    health assistance and have provided an avenue to those servicemembers
    who seek behavioral health assistance.
        The Commandant of the Marine Corps directed that we more fully
    integrate behavioral health services to help reduce redundancies and
    ultimately improve the overall quality and access to care. The Marine
    Corps integrated its behavioral health programs in order to provide an
    integrated service delivery of innovative, evidence-based practices to
    commanders, servicemembers, and their families. This service delivery
    will be woven into the larger support network of our command structures
    and health and human services across the Marine Corps to better build
    resilience and strengthen marines and families. This efficiency
    initiative successfully integrates our Combat and Operational Stress
    Control, Suicide Prevention, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response,
    Substance Abuse Prevention, and Family Advocacy Programs and will be
    instrumental in synchronizing our prevention efforts. In regard to
    Combat and Operational Stress Control, training for leaders on this
    program was incorporated throughout Marine Forces Reserve at all
    levels. The training provides knowledge, skills, and tools required to
    assist commanders to prevent, identify, and manage combat and
    operational stress concerns as early as possible. This training is
    provided to servicemembers of units that are deploying for more than 90
    days during predeployment training.
        Given that the signs of operational and combat stress and suicide
    can manifest long after a servicemember returns home from deployment,
    there are unique challenges posed for Reservists who can be isolated
    from the daily support network inherent in one's unit and vital medical
    care. Encouraging marines to acknowledge and vocalize mental health
    issues is also a ubiquitous challenge facing our commanders. We are
    actively combating the stigma associated with mental healthcare through
    the immersion of key programs in the demobilization and reintegration
    processes of our Reserve Marines following deployment, such as the
    Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. Your continued support of these
    programs is greatly appreciated.
        There are six suicide prevention initiatives that we leverage for
    our Reserve marines and sailors:
        In-Theater Assessment.--Reservists who exhibit or are struggling
        with clinically significant issues should be seen by competent
        medical authorities and evaluated for postdeployment treatment with
        follow-up decisions made prior to their return home.
        Post-Deployment Health Reassessment.--It is important that if any
        issues emerge during the Reservist's Post Deployment Health
        Reassessment (PDHRA) that they are immediately evaluated and
        referred for treatment by the clinician interviewer. This includes
        referral recommendations based on the available local resources,
        such as the Veterans Administration, MilitaryOneSource, or private
        mental health providers.
        Psychological Health Outreach Program.--I enthusiastically
        recommend continued delivery of the Psychological Health Outreach
        Program (PHOP), which is an essential program for treatment
        referral and follow up to ensure they are receiving the appropriate
        behavioral health services.
        Care Management Teams.--This suicide prevention initiative includes
        the Veterans Administration's OIF/OEF care management teams that
        are a readily available resource for our reservists. The VA assigns
        a Primary Care manager, who is responsible for referral and follow-
        up, to any Reservist who has a healthcare issue.
        Never Leave a Marine Behind Suicide Prevention Course.--We continue
        to implement the Marine Corps' Junior Marine, Non-Commissioned
        Officer, Staff Non-Commissioned officer, and Officer modules of the
        Never Leave a Marine Behind (NLMB) Suicide Prevention Course. The
        NLMB series provides the best skills and tools available to
        marines, sailors, and their leaders so that they can better cope
        with the challenges of combat and the rigors of life both deployed
        and in garrison. Marine Forces Reserve has trained hundreds of
        Marines who can deliver the Course at more than 130 different
        Reserve sites around the country.
        Telemedicine.--Telemedicine initiatives enable us to ensure there
        are effective mechanisms available to identify reservists in need
        and a way to treat those who may sometimes be geographically
        isolated from the TRICARE networks.
        Additionally, any Reservist and their family can access Marine
    Corps installations behavioral health programs through Marine Corps
    Community Services programming while they are on any type of Active
    Duty orders. When they are not on Active Duty orders, MilitaryOneSource
    provides counseling, resources, and support to Reserve servicemembers
    and their families anywhere in the world. The DSTRESS Line will also be
    available to all Reserve marines, sailors, and family members. The
    DSTRESS Line is a by-Marine-for-Marine anonymous counseling and
    referral line, manned by veteran Marines and licensed behavioral health
    counselors who have been specifically trained in Marine Corps culture
    and ethos. Its mission is to foster resilience and build coping skills
    and includes a Web site with chat capability and interactive resource
    directory.
        Another resource Marine Forces Reserve utilizes to ensure the
    health and resiliency of our marines, sailors, and their families is
    our Chaplain Corps, which is composed of Active and Reserve Component
    chaplains. Specifically, my chaplains deliver the Chaplain Religious
    Enrichment Development Operations (CREDO) Marriage Enrichment Retreats,
    which focuses on strengthening the wellness of the Force by addressing
    the stressors on a marriage that may result from military service. That
    is, these retreats offer an opportunity for marines and sailors
    throughout our 183 Reserve centers to enrich and enhance their marriage
    in the presence of high-operational deployment cycles and the
    corresponding challenges that may ensue due to family separation.
    During fiscal year 2011, 166 couples participated in these retreats.
    Anecdotal evidence suggests that these retreats were effective in
    strengthening their marriages, which in turn, enhanced the readiness of
    our Force.
        Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) continues to be a
    priority throughout the Force. A Force-wide 24/7 Help Line is available
    to Reserve and Active component servicemembers. The Help Line is
    staffed by marines who are trained to discretely respond to victims of
    sexual assault and refer them to services available throughout the
    United States. The Help Line is periodically assessed by my SAPR
    office, as well as Headquarters Marine Corps and the Naval Audit office
    for process improvement. Every Marine Reserve center has a Uniformed
    Victim Advocate (UVA) who is readily available to assist a victim
    whenever necessary. Developing a functional 24/7 response in the
    Reserves has required that our leaders research and develop
    relationships with other military and civilian behavioral health
    resources. Accordingly, many of the site's UVAs have created networks
    with Rape Crisis centers in their local areas in order to provide the
    best care available to victims whenever required. Sexual assault
    prevention and response training has been updated and includes the
    ``Take A Stand'' video-based, bystander intervention curriculum. This
    3-hour annual training requirement began in January and is mandatory
    for all noncommissioned officers. The objectives of the course are to
    reduce the number of sexual assaults and to increase reporting. The
    course stresses the responsibility of noncommissioned officers to one
    another, as well as to one of the Marine Corps' most at-risk
    populations--junior marines. ``Take A Stand'' also stresses the
    importance of stepping in to prevent sexual assault through bystander
    intervention. Similar training will be provided to all ranks during
    fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The command climate within Marine Forces
    Reserve and throughout the Marine Corps fully supports sustaining an
    environment where sexual assault is not tolerated in any capacity on
    any level, which is essential in eradicating interpersonal violence
    from the Marine Corps.
                                quality of life
        We are devoted to ensuring an appropriate balance and effective
    performance of our quality-of-life programs and services to ensure our
    programs and services meet the needs and expectations of our Active
    Duty personnel and reservists, including those Reserve servicemembers
    in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). In doing so, we continue to
    operate Family Readiness Programs, revitalize services, and proactively
    reach out to and keep faith with our marines, sailors, and their
    families.
        To meet the challenge of deployments, and to maintain a constant
    state of readiness, the Marine Corps continues to enhance family
    support through our full-time Family Readiness Officer (FRO) program.
    This program is staffed by either civilians or Active Duty Marines and
    collateral duty uniformed Deputy FROs at the battalion/squadron level
    and above. Additionally, modern communication technologies, such as the
    recently launched e-Marine Web site, expanded our ability to better
    inform and empower family members--spouses, children and parents--who
    often have little routine contact with the Marine Corps and oftentimes
    live considerable distances from large military support facilities.
        We fully recognize the strategic role our families have in mission
    readiness, particularly mobilization preparedness. We prepare our
    families for day-to-day military life and the deployment cycle by
    providing predeployment, deployment, postdeployment, and follow-on
    educational opportunities at unit Family Days, Pre-Deployment Briefs,
    Return and Reunion Briefs, and Post-Deployment Briefs. This is
    accomplished through unit-level Family Readiness programs that are the
    responsibility of the local commanding officer, and is managed by the
    full-time, nondeploying FRO who is supported by trained volunteers and
    Force-level programs that are provided by a professional staff at
    Marine Corps Family Team Building (MCFTB).
        The MCFTB programs provide educational resources and services to
    foster personal growth and enhance the readiness of Marine Corps
    families. The program's core training is available to marines and their
    families and consists of Readiness and Deployment Support Trainer
    (RDST); Family Readiness Program Training (FRPT); Lifestyle Insights,
    Networking, Knowledge, and Skills (L.I.N.K.S.); and LifeSkills. During
    fiscal year 2011, 176 MCFTB training events were conducted across the
    United States at various Marine Corps Reserve units, which resulted in
    7,710 marines, sailors, and family members receiving critical and vital
    information and support.
        The goals of RDST and FRPT are to prepare marines, sailors, and
    their families for the unique challenges of deployment, in addition to
    maintaining a constant state of readiness independent of deployment.
    Each Marine Corps installation and Marine Forces Reserve are staffed
    with trainers who coordinate and deliver program trainings, pre-, mid-,
    and post-deployment briefs and support at the unit level for
    servicemembers and their families.
        The L.I.N.K.S. program is a training and mentoring program designed
    by marine spouses to help participants thrive in the military lifestyle
    and adapt to challenges, which includes those challenges that are
    presented by deployments. The program offers an orientation to the
    Marine Corps lifestyle by helping spouses, marines, children, teens,
    parents, and extended family members understand and adapt to the unique
    challenges that military life often presents.
        The objective of our LifeSkills training and education initiatives
    is to offer an opportunity for our marines, sailors, and their families
    to grow both personally and professionally by participating in
    workshops that cover a broad spectrum of life competencies in areas
    such as communication, relationships, and wellness. Online versions of
    all MCFTB trainings are slated to be available this year, which should
    make these valuable tools more readily accessible to families of our
    geographically dispersed servicemembers who are not in close proximity
    to Marine Corps installations.
        The Marine Forces Reserve Lifelong Learning Program continues to
    provide educational information to servicemembers, families, retirees,
    and civilian employees. More than 1,700 Marine Forces Reserve personnel
    (Active and Reserve component) enjoyed the benefit of tuition
    assistance, utilizing more than $4.5 million that funded more than
    5,500 courses during fiscal year 2011. Tuition assistance greatly eases
    the financial burden of education for our servicemembers while enabling
    them to maintain progress toward their education goals. Additionally,
    our partnership with tutor.com offers our marines, sailors, and their
    families access to 24/7 no-cost, live online tutoring services for K-12
    students, college students, and adult learners.
        Our Semper Fit program is fully engaged to deliver quality,
    results-based education and conditioning protocols for our marines and
    sailors. The program includes hands-on strength and conditioning
    courses, online physical fitness tools and recorded webinars, and
    instruction on injury prevention, nutrition, and weight management. Our
    marines' and sailors' quality of life is also increased through various
    stress management and esprit de corps activities, such as unit outings
    and participation in competitive events. These programs are key to unit
    cohesion, camaraderie, and motivation. Also, through the DOD contract
    with the Armed Services YMCA, the families of our deployed Reservists
    enjoy 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 the
    ability to access these services as well.
        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 servicemembers and their families in selecting child care, before,
    during, and after a deployment in support of overseas contingency
    operations and planned deployments. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America
    provide outstanding programs for our Reservists' children between the
    ages of 6 and 18 after school and on the weekends. Under our agreement
    with BGCA, Reserve families can participate in more than 40 programs at
    no cost. Our off-base child care subsidy program helps families of our
    reservists locate affordable child care that is comparable to high-
    quality, on-base, military-operated programs. This program provides
    child care subsidies at quality child care providers for our Reservists
    who are deployed in support of overseas contingency operations and for
    those Active Duty marines who are stationed in regions that are
    geographically separated from military bases and stations.
    Additionally, our marine families (Active and Reserve) who are enrolled
    in the Exceptional Family Member Program are offered up to 40 hours of
    free respite care per month for each exceptional family member. This
    allows our families the comfort that their family member will be taken
    care of when they are in need of assistance.
        Marine Forces Reserve has fully implemented the Yellow Ribbon
    Reintegration Program at each of the five stages of deployment to
    better prepare our servicemembers and their families for activation and
    return to civilian life after mobilization. During fiscal year 2011, we
    took proactive steps to maximize participation while minimizing costs
    by hosting Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events at Reserve centers. This
    step lowered the average cost per participant to $340 per training
    session and I anticipate additional cost savings this fiscal year
    because of these efforts. More importantly, this enables our units to
    proactively plan around the operational and unique individual needs of
    their marines, sailors, and families in addition to keeping unit
    leadership in the forefront of the issues that affect their
    servicemembers. In fiscal year 2011, we executed 155 events in which
    6,264 servicemembers--including marines in the Individual Ready
    Reserve--2,399 family members, and 3,673 nondependent family members
    and/or designated representatives participated for a total of 12,366
    persons served by our program. Additionally, we are particularly
    supportive of Military OneSource, which provides our marines, sailors,
    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. Your support of these programs enables
    Marine Forces Reserve to keep faith with our servicemembers and their
    families.
        Managed Health Network (MHN) is an OSD-contracted support resource
    that provides surge augmentation counselors for our base counseling
    centers and primary support at sites around the country to address
    catastrophic requirements. This unique program is designed to bring
    counselors on-site at Reserve centers to support all phases of the
    deployment cycle. Follow-up services are scheduled after servicemembers
    return from combat at various intervals to facilitate on-site
    individual and group counseling.
        Marines, sailors, and their families, who sacrifice so much for our
    Nation's defense, should not be asked to sacrifice quality of life. We
    remain a forceful advocate for these programs and services and continue
    to transition and align our programs and services to meet current and
    future challenges. The combined effect of these programs is critical to
    the readiness and retention of our marines, sailors, and their
    families, and your continued support of these programs is greatly
    appreciated.
      supporting our wounded, ill, and injured marines and their families
        The nonmedical needs of our wounded, ill, and injured (WII) marines
    and their families can be extensive and vary in type and intensity
    depending upon the phase of recovery. There is no ``one size fits all''
    approach to WII care. The Marine Corps' Wounded Warrior Regiment (WWR)
    strives to ensure there is one standard of care for all WII marines--
    whether they are Active component or Reserve component. The WWR holds
    high levels of subject matter expertise with regard to the unique
    challenges faced by Marine Reservists and has set up component of care
    accordingly. For example, the WWR has dedicated staff--the Reserve
    Medical Entitlements Determinations Section--to specifically maintain
    oversight of all cases of reservists who require medical care beyond
    their contract period for service-connected ailments. Additionally, the
    WWR has Recovery Care Coordinators who provide one-on-one transition
    support and resource identification required to support WII reservists
    and families who are often living in remote and isolated locations away
    from the support resident on bases and stations. Another significant
    support component of the WWR that makes a positive difference in the
    lives of our WII reservists is the Sgt. Merlin German Wounded Warrior
    Call Center. This 24/7 Call Center provides support on numerous issues
    that includes referral for psychological health matters, pay and
    entitlement questions, financial assistance resources, awards, and
    information on benevolent organizations. The WWR also uses the Sgt.
    Merlin German Wounded Warrior Call Center to conduct important outreach
    calls to various populations to check on their well-being and update
    them on changes in benefits and entitlements. Finally, the WWR has
    District Injured Support Coordinators (DISCs)--geographically dispersed
    Mobilized Marine Reservists--who assist Reserve Marines throughout the
    country, which includes face-to-face contact.
                                   conclusion
        Marine Forces Reserve is well-positioned to be the Force of Choice
    for augmentation to the Active component, reinforcement for Service
    priorities, and sustainment as a relevant force now and for the future.
    Aligned with the middle weight force of America's Expeditionary Force
    in Readiness, Marine Forces Reserve provides options to Active
    component leaders and combatant commanders, from being ready for
    immediate use in support of disaster relief to providing strategic
    depth through sustained augmentation for major contingency operations.
    We live in a world of increasingly complex security challenges and
    uncertainty. Marine Forces Reserve is a learning organization that has
    institutionalized training, personnel management, and the Force
    Generation process to effectively and efficiently mobilize and deploy
    combat ready forces. We are well-postured to meet the current
    operational requirements and rapidly respond to future emergent
    contingencies. Your continued unwavering support of the Marine Corps
    Reserve and its associated programs enables our marines and sailors to
    professionally and competently perform in an operational capacity and
    is greatly appreciated. Semper Fidelis.

        Chairman Inouye. All right. Thank you very much, General
    Hummer.
        Now, may I recognize General Stenner.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES E. STENNER,
                JR., CHIEF, AIR FORCE RESERVE, UNITED
                STATES AIR FORCE
        General Stenner. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, thank you
    for the opportunity to appear here before you today.
        And I'd like to introduce my newest Command Chief of the
    Air Force Reserve Command and have her stand, please, Chief
    Master Sergeant Kathleen Buckner.
        Sir, I strongly believe today's Air Force Reserve is an
    operationally essential component of the Total Force because of
    our capability, capacity, and accessibility as a title 10
    resource.
        Air Force Reserve airmen are seamlessly integrated into
    every service core function across the full spectrum of
    operations.
        The Air Force Reserve is responsive to national security
    needs and is an effective, efficient, and affordable component
    of your Air Force, a ready force deployable within 72 hours.
        The Reserve is able to do this because of the depth of
    experience among our citizen airmen. Our Air Force Reserve
    personnel, most of whom come to us from the Active Force,
    average 7 years of additional experience over our Active Duty
    counterparts, and our equipment mission capability rates
    reflects that every day.
        Without a doubt, the Reserve is uniquely positioned to
    retain the Air Force's vast investment in human capital and
    maintain a cost-effective hedge against unanticipated
    requirements.
        The Reserve has experience from over 20 years of continuous
    operational engagement in both combat and humanitarian
    missions, and we've balanced this operation tempo (OPTEMPO)
    while maintaining our Nation's critical, strategic, surge
    capability.
        Our Air Force Reserve succeeds at being operationally
    engaged and strategically prepared due to our focus on
    maintaining the right balance. The correct Reserve, Guard, and
    Active Force mix is adaptable to circumstances, and I believe
    today's fiscal and security environments require increased
    reliance on the Reserve, and that our Air Force resourcing
    priorities should reflect such.
        The President and Secretary of Defense are clear about the
    need for reversibility of resources. The Air Force Reserve is
    their leverage to make this happen. The Nation can trust that
    the Air Force Reserve will be there when called, prepared,
    trained, and equipped to the same standards of the Active
    component.
        But there are challenges to maintaining this capability.
    The Air Force Reserve is forecasted to reduce by 900 personnel.
    However, that figure is just the proposed fiscal year 2013
    President's budget request and is the tip of the iceberg.
        Our Reserve is losing trained personnel and taking on new
    missions. The personnel losses are in specialties that are
    still essential to the Total Force, and at the same time, don't
    easily transfer to newly assigned mission areas.
        For instance, an aircraft maintainer with 17 years of
    experience cannot become a cyber warrior, with 17 years of
    experience, overnight.
        With that perspective, the Air Force is actually losing the
    capability of 5,000 to 6,000 experienced and trained personnel,
    and that loss could seriously affect the strategic reserve
    posture.
        The alternative to these losses once again is to focus on
    the correct balance, to adjust all three components mix, to
    better suit reversibility and maintain crucial capacity. I
    believe the Active component should be an advance force that is
    reactionary in nature, globally fielded in smaller numbers and
    highly responsive.
        In addition to the advance forces, the Air Force Reserve
    should be a more robust Reserve component as a projection
    force, based on the predictability of steady state and surge
    operations.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Air Force Reserve is engaged today and poised for the
    future. With the right mix of Guard, Reserve, and Active
    components, we can support the President's reversibility plan,
    contribute to the Nation's economic recovery and ensure the
    security of our Nation and its interests.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran,
    I am honored to have served the last 4 years as Chief of the
    Air Force Reserve and Commander of the Air Force Reserve
    Command.
        I sincerely appreciate this subcommittee's enduring support
    of our Nation's citizen airmen, and I stand ready to respond to
    your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Charles E. Stenner, Jr.
         We live in a time of increasingly limited resources, where
    efficiencies and reduced budgets will dominate the foreseeable future--
    the Air Force Reserve is not immune from the implications of this
    issue; rather, we stand ready as an operationally effective and cost-
    efficient solution. Today, your Air Force Reserve, partnering with the
    Active component and Air National Guard, is committed to providing a
    Total Force solution for the Nation that is second to none. Air Force
    Reserve airmen are seamlessly integrated into every service core
    function across the full spectrum of operations, supporting missions in
    every area of responsibility with the full flexibility that a title 10
    force provides. We carry out missions across the globe as an effective
    and cost-efficient solution for America's defense: 69,141 citizen
    airmen have deployed since September 11, 2001, and we currently have
    approximately 5,700 personnel serving on Active Duty.
        The Air Force Reserve of today is a ready force, deployable within
    72 hours. We train to the same standards on the same equipment as the
    Active and the Air National Guard; offering a plug-and-play capability
    that cannot be matched by any other service. The most recent large-
    scale example was the Air Force response to coalition operations during
    Operation Odyssey Dawn. Within 45 hours of notification a blend of
    Active and Reserve personnel and equipment deployed and began executing
    missions with resounding success. We have not always been able to
    respond so effectively, and with the continued support of the Congress,
    we will never return to the days of a ``hollow force.''
            operational command while maintaining strategic reserve
        Sustained operational taskings over more than two decades, combined
    with recent policy changes, have institutionalized the operational
    capability of the Air Force Reserve. Our operational capacity supports
    growth, sustainability, and an affordable balance among the Active and
    Reserve components. This operational capability results in increased
    force readiness while ensuring our ability to provide strategic depth.
        The Air Force continues to leverage the skills and expertise of our
    citizen airmen as we grow in mission areas deemed vital to supporting
    our National Defense Strategy: Space Superiority, Cyber Superiority,
    Global Integrated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance,
    Special Operations, Nuclear Deterrence Operations, and Agile Combat
    Support. We offer a flexible method to rapidly increase these critical
    capabilities.
        In order to maintain our high level of support, Air Force Reserve
    Command (AFRC) must be adequately resourced and have the same
    authorities as our partner major commands (MAJCOMs). We have numerous
    steady-state missions requiring military personnel appropriations (MPA)
    execution. These include Reserve-specific missions like hurricane
    hunters, aerial firefighting, and aerial spraying as well as our
    baseline support of instructors and daily operations across the Air
    Force. We currently rely on our partner MAJCOMs to provide the MPA
    budget to fund these AFRC steady-state missions.
        Under the proposed force structure, the Air Force Reserve is
    forecast to retire 82 aircraft and reduce end-strength by 900
    personnel. This manpower reduction is misleading since we are losing
    trained personnel in legacy missions while taking on new missions where
    the experience does not easily transfer. For example, an experienced
    aircraft maintainer cannot become a cyber-warrior overnight. Based on
    this reality, the Air Force Reserve is actually losing a capability of
    5,000-6,000 personnel and risks breaking the Strategic Reserve.
                           cost-effective capability
        National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) funds are
    critical for ensuring readiness through execution year funds. Our
    modernization strategy has consistently focused on providing our force
    with the most up-to-date systems possible, protecting airmen while they
    defend our Nation, equipping them for Irregular War Operations, and
    providing a common picture of the battlefield. Our strategy intends,
    first and foremost, to alleviate critical mission capability shortfalls
    that potentially cause mission failure or loss of life. Upgrade of
    defensive systems, communications equipment and data links, precision
    engagement capabilities to include target identification, and
    replacement of obsolete mission equipment are just a few examples of
    recent modernization efforts. All of this is due to the hard work of
    the members of this subcommittee and your staffs supporting the
    administration's budget requests.
        Military Construction (MILCON) is not a luxury; it is a necessity
    that impacts readiness. In addition to funding new facilities, we rely
    on MILCON as we repurpose existing buildings for use in new missions.
    The Air Force MILCON Program is based on mission-required construction
    priorities and distributes funds across installations based on their
    respective plant replacement value percentages. Using these
    calculations the Air Force Reserve should receive 4 percent ($17.7
    million) of the Air Force MILCON budget ($442 million); however, we are
    projected for only 2.5 percent ($11 million) of the program. The Active
    component and Guard both exceeded their equitable share at the expense
    of the Air Force Reserve.
        The Air Force Reserve provides our Nation cost-effective and
    efficient combat capability. We provide 3.5 combat-ready reservists for
    the cost of 1 Active-Duty airman. Our Air Force Reserve is rich with
    combat veterans and highly skilled reservists who average 4-5 years
    more experience than their Active Duty counterparts. In fact, more than
    56 percent of Air Force Reserve airmen have prior military experience--
    representing an immense pool of talent that our Nation otherwise would
    have lost were it not for our Reserve component. The proposed Air Force
    Reserve budget is about 4.6 percent of the Air Force's $110.1 billion
    allocation. This includes more than $5 billion in funding for citizen
    airmen who fulfill title 10 or Federal roles and missions in time of
    war or national emergency. Our people and programs are created
    exclusively for the Nation's strategic capabilities that reach all the
    States as well as worldwide.
        In these times of constrained budgets, it is prudent to rebalance
    the force with a goal of maintaining to the fullest extent, the
    capability and professionalism that already exists in today's force to
    meet the challenges of the future. The American taxpayer has spent
    trillions of dollars training and equipping our airmen, and the Air
    Force Reserve is well-positioned to capture and preserve that
    investment. This is consistent with the principle of ``reversibility''
    from the most recent strategic guidance.\1\ Assigning resources to the
    Air Force Reserve maintains the ability to generate capabilities that
    might be needed to meet future, unforeseen demands, maintaining
    intellectual capital and frontline experience that could be called upon
    when required.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Presidential and Secretary of Defense strategic guidance,
    Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,
    January 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Force rebalancing should be based on carefully considered analysis
    produced by all three of our components. As the Air Force works through
    this tough decisionmaking process, it is imperative that we ensure
    roles, missions, and force balance of all the components are
    appropriately considered. Trading away highly experienced Reserve
    personnel to invest in future Active component operations is a sub-
    optimal choice that exchanges trained and available combat capability
    in the Air Force Reserve for recruiting and training new personnel in
    the Active component. A recent study found that Reserve component wings
    generally provide mission-ready aircraft, aircrews, and maintainers at
    lower annual cost when compared to the Regular Air Force.\2\ Operating
    characteristics of the Reserve, such as highly experienced aircrews
    that require fewer sorties to maintain proficiency, and lean
    infrastructure at many of our operating locations are contributing
    factors. This cost advantage means that Reserve resources provide surge
    capacity for less cost than other Air Force components.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ RAND Project Air Force, Comparing Costs: Active and Reserve
    Component Flying Units, PAF-1P-84, February 6, 2012, Al Robbert.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our force is agile and responsive to uncertainty and rapid changes
    in national priorities. We are ready, available, and accessible to
    fulfill operational requirements. And based on the force generation
    model, we can sustain operations at significantly lower cost than
    Active Forces.
                                 citizen airmen
        In addition to their military obligation, citizen airmen balance
    the needs of their families and civilian employers--what we like to
    call ``The Reserve Triad.'' Our policies and actions must continue to
    support the viability of these relationships, especially as we adjust
    to meet the requirements of new strategic guidance. The Triad is
    foundational to our continued ability to provide a sustainable and
    effective fighting force. Openly communicating expectations,
    requirements, and opportunities provides predictability and stability
    within the Triad.
        The Air Force Reserve continues to recruit and retain the most
    qualified personnel available. We have met or exceeded our recruiting
    goals for the past 11 years and are able to select the best of the best
    by accessing just 26 percent of the qualified candidates. Similarly,
    our retention rates are at record highs, allowing us to maintain our
    depth of experience.
        The Air Force leverages the expertise of the Reserve component
    through associate constructs in which units of the three components
    share equipment and facilities to carry out a common mission. We have
    established a wide variety of associate units throughout the Air Force,
    combining the assets and manpower of all three components to establish
    Total Force units that capitalize on the strengths of each individual
    component. In 2011, the Air Force announced the stand up of three
    active Associations in the Combat Air Forces (CAF): one at Homestead
    Air Reserve Base, Florida; another at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve
    Base Fort Worth, Texas (formerly Carswell); and a third at Whiteman Air
    Force Base, Missouri. Today, the Air Force is leveraging more than 103
    associations and capitalizing on more than four decades of the
    associate experience, from which we have garnered countless successes.
        We thank this subcommittee for your continued support in funding
    our Yellow Ribbon Program. The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Office
    provides support to 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 the program in
    August 2008, more than 21,000 reservists and 15,000 family members have
    attended these events. From exit surveys and through formal and
    informal feedback, attendees feel ``better prepared, (and) confident
    following events.''
                                   conclusion
        I am honored to have served the last 4 years as Chief of Air Force
    Reserve and Commander of Air Force Reserve Command. I take pride in
    leading the world's best Air Force Reserve, one-third of a Total Force
    that is fully trained and ready to defend our Nation. In a time of
    constricted budgets, thorough analysis is required to prioritize our
    requirements and ensure we meet our assigned missions. We must do so
    while keeping in mind the importance of our role in supporting joint
    and interagency operations.
        My top priority is to ensure that we fulfill our commitments as the
    title 10 Reserve component of the Total Force. We recruit and retain
    reservists in every Air Force career specialty in order to fulfill the
    Nation's need for cost-effective and efficient daily operations as well
    as a ready global surge capability.
        We will concentrate our resources to ensure maximum return on
    investment, while providing our citizen airmen the tools they need and
    the predictability their families and employers deserve.
        I sincerely appreciate the enduring support of this subcommittee. I
    look forward to continuing our work and ensuring the Air Force Reserve
    remains the finest in the world.

          TRANSFORMATION OF ARMY RESERVE FROM STRATEGIC TO OPERATIONAL

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, General Stenner.
        May I now call upon General Stultz. During your tenure as
    Chief of the Army Reserve, you were called upon to transform
    the Reserve from strategic to operational.
        Can you give us an update on where you are at this moment?
    And also, how do you think your Operational Reserve can be used
    in Afghanistan?
        General Stultz. Yes, Sir.
        Coming into this job 6 years ago, which I only planned to
    stay for 4, that was really the task I had at hand, is how can
    you transform the Reserve from a strategic footing to an
    operational footing, and put them on a rotational employment
    basis, and do that at the same time while we're trying to fight
    a war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, and lesser
    contingencies down in the Horn of Africa.
        I can report to you today, Sir, that that has been a
    success. Over the last 10 years, during the period of Operation
    Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the
    Army Reserve has mobilized more than 200,000 of our soldiers
    and put them into support missions, both in Iraq, Afghanistan
    and here at home.
        We have continually kept on Active Duty somewhere between
    20,000 and 30,000 soldiers every day since that inception.
    Those soldiers are doing critical missions.
        As I mentioned earlier, I say our force is an indispensable
    force because we are what we call the enablers for the Army. We
    are the engineers, the medical structure, the logistics,
    transportation, military policemen, all those kind of
    capabilities that the Army, over time, has shifted more and
    more into the Reserve component.
        As an example, today, if you look at the transportation
    capability, critical capability as we're looking at trying to
    reduce our force footprint in Afghanistan, that transportation
    ability to get soldiers and get equipment out of there, is
    critical.
        Eighty-five percent of that capability for the Army rests
    in the Guard and Reserve. Seventy percent of the medical
    capability rests in the Guard and Reserve. Eighty-five percent
    of civil affairs and psychological operations, like Sergeant
    Burgess here, rest in the Reserve.
        And so the Army can't do what they do without us. So that
    transformation has been hugely successful. And I'll tell you,
    in my opinion, why. It's not the leadership that I've given.
    It's the dedication our soldiers have given.
        The culture of the Army Reserve has changed. Soldiers that
    are in the Army Reserve today either have joined our force or
    re-enlisted to stay in our force while this Nation's at war.
    They know what they signed up for.
        And that culture says, I'm joining to go and do something
    to serve my country. I'm not joining to be a weekend warrior,
    the Strategic Reserve.
        The challenge we've got, Sir, is how do we keep them? And
    it's critical that we have the right training, the right
    equipping and all to make sure that we retain that force and
    keep them ready because we're not very good at predicting the
    future.
        We don't know where the next conflict will be, but there
    will be one, and the Army is going to have to call upon us on
    short notice to get there and to get into the theater of
    operations and to sustain combat operations.
        And that's why things like the NGREA that you give us is so
    critical to me. That allows me flexibility to buy equipment
    that I need now, that is not programmed yet. That allows me to
    go and buy simulations equipment that I can use to train our
    soldiers to maintain that edge and keep them ready.
        So the NGREA, the OCO to Base money that we're transferring
    around $200, $250 million to provide extra training days for
    these soldiers in their fourth and fifth year of that rotation
    cycle, is critical.
        But I can report to you today, Sir, the Army Reserve is an
    operational force. And it's highly successful, and it's
    successful because of soldiers like Sergeant Burgess and
    others.
        Chairman Inouye. We've been advised that you have equipment
    shortfalls. How does that impact upon your mission?
        General Stultz. What I can tell you, Sir, is if you look at
    the figures that says equipment on hand for the Army Reserves,
    we're better than we've ever been, 86 percent. However, we're
    66-percent modernized.
        The equipment we have, as was discussed earlier with the
    National Guard, in a lot of cases, is old equipment that is
    substitute items for the modern equipment.
        Now, as far as our soldiers being able to do their job in
    Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places, not an issue because we
    make sure they're using modernized equipment in those theaters.
    We give them the best training, the best equipment, before we
    put them in harm's way.
        Where it impacts me is back home. It impacts me back home
    because now, and especially now that we've drawn out of Iraq
    and we're going to start drawing down out of Afghanistan, I'm
    focusing on home station training.
        How do I keep these soldiers trained at home so they're
    ready to go when I need them? And I need that modernized
    equipment back here.
        It's a morale factor. If you're a young soldier and you've
    been trained and equipped to the best standards, and you come
    home and you go to your weekend drill in your Army Reserve
    unit, and there's a piece of old equipment that you know we
    don't use anymore in a war time environment, it does have an
    impact on a soldier saying, well, why aren't we training with
    what we just had in Afghanistan?
        And so to me, the modernization of that equipment is
    critical for our retention, and it's critical for our readiness
    because to be ready, I've got to train on the right equipment.

                           ARMY RESERVE MODERNIZATION

        Chairman Inouye. Are you satisfied that the pace of
    modernization is sufficient?
        General Stultz. Say again?
        Chairman Inouye. Are you satisfied that the modernization
    program, as we have now, is adequate?
        General Stultz. I have some concerns, Sir.
        My concern, I guess, would be that as the Army is going
    through restructure, and as the Army has already announced,
    they're drawing down their end-strength over a period of years,
    I think that's going to lead us to make some equipping
    decisions for the future that might say we can delay some
    modernization until we decide what the force structure looks
    like.
        And I can't afford to wait because my soldiers need
    equipment today. And it's probably a smart thing to do in some
    cases. If we're going to draw down units in the Active Force
    that have modern equipment, then it would cascade to me, and I
    would have that modern equipment.
        So the Army might say, we're not going to buy some more.
    We'll just give you what we have in the Active when we do away
    with those units. However, that's going to be several years
    down the road, and I can't afford to wait.
        That's why the NGREA funding that you give us is so
    critical, because if the Army says, we're not going to buy any
    more modernized trucks, for instance, because we're going to
    probably take some of the active trucks and give them to you in
    2016, I can go ahead and buy some today and put them in my
    units, and then when the other ones come, fill out the rest of
    the units.
        So I'm not satisfied that our modernization strategy is
    going to meet my needs for the immediate future, no, Sir.

       ACTIVE FORCE END-STRENGTH REDUCTIONS AND POTENTIAL TRANSITION TO
                                 RESERVE FORCES

        Chairman Inouye. I'd like to ask a question of all of you.
    The strategic plans for the next 5 years call for drastic
    reduction in end-strength, which gives you an opportunity to
    get Active Duty people transitioned into the Reserves.
        Do you have any plans to bring this about?
        Admiral Debbink. Chairman Inouye, we certainly do in the
    Navy.
        In our primary office that we've set up a couple of years
    ago, we call it the career transition office in Millington,
    that it now is handling all of these transitions.
        We're also very proud of the work that they've done to
    reduce the time it takes to make the transition, what used to
    literally be 4 to 6 months, down to somewhere 2 or 3 days by
    analyzing the process and making it smoother.
        We do believe that as we look forward here in the next
    couple of years that the Active component, a lane that's been
    so full and stayed full, just starts to transition, that we'll
    have an opportunity to bring those sailors into the Reserve
    component.
        And we want to make that transition as seamless as
    possible. And most of that we've discovered has been our
    regulations and policies within the department. There have been
    several things over the last several years that you all have
    been very helpful with in making that happen.
        I would say, the most important thing that we need to do,
    as I mentioned earlier, is to have what we call real and
    meaningful work for those sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines,
    coastguardsmen to do when they get to the Reserve component.
        And, again, that's why assured access and other provisions
    are going to be very important to us moving forward.
        Chairman Inouye. What about the Marines?

                             TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

        General Hummer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The commandant has recently, since he's taken over as the
    commandant, General Amos, has revamped the transition
    assistance program from the Active component.
        And he has various aspects. Used to be, it would be
    bringing the Marines together for a couple of days, give them
    some fast and furious education and training, and then, they'd
    be out the door.
        Now, there's a couple times in their transition, a year
    before they get out, right before they get out. And then, all
    this information is put on the Web so that they can get access
    to it, for that legendary marine who wants to get out and go
    surfing in Mexico for 6 months before we wants to get a job or
    go to school.
        In the meantime, along that, there's four tracks that are
    provided. One, is an educational track, so it's focused and
    customized for them. A trade skill track, if they're going to
    go to school, for a trade school.
        A business track, if they want to get into business, or if
    they want to start a business, there's an entrepreneurial
    track.
        With regard to the Reserves, we have room for them in our
    39,600 with our latitude. We do see the Individual Ready
    Reserve (IRR) increasing. Right now, we're about 57,000. An
    estimate would be up to perhaps 75,000.
        But those are marines that we also pay attention to and
    take care of as much as we can even though they're not drilling
    reservists. So, there is a plan.
        We are tightly integrated with the Active component in that
    continuum, in that Marine for Life program, that brings them
    in, trains them, and then gives them the opportunity to join
    the Reserves if they want to.
        And then continue to be valuable citizens throughout their
    life. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you. How about the Air Force?
        General Stenner. Mr. Chairman, we too have a robust
    program, and we have worked very closely with our Active
    component over the last couple of years, as they have worked
    aggressively to downsize.
        The critical skills that we're short in are the ones we're
    focusing on, and we have in-service recruiters that interview
    every single person that is leaving the Active Force and offer
    them the opportunity to continue to serve in those particular
    areas where we have the needs.
        We try to match the critical skills to where the needs are.
    We also offer cross training to the folks that might be
    interested in continuing to participate in a different career
    field.
        Just as importantly, I think the Active Force has used some
    very significant tools to include volunteer early retirement,
    and some of the other kinds of options to depart the Active
    Force, which does, in fact, put some folks into what General
    Hummer mentioned, in the Individual Ready Reserve.
        We're also working on musters inside those IRR members,
    once a year, at several different locations, very much
    targeting the skills that we need, and mustering folks in.
        Because we've found that within that first year after
    somebody leaves, they may not be just as satisfied as they
    thought they were going to be, and we have found a very
    lucrative recruiting ground from some of those folks who come
    back to us in the Reserve component out of the IRR.
        So we're working aggressively with our Active and Guard
    partners to keep the critical skills that have been trained. We
    can't afford to retrain, and we must keep that capacity and
    capability.
        Chairman Inouye. So you're satisfied with your program?
        General Stenner. Yes, Sir, we are.
        Chairman Inouye. General Stultz.

                     TRANSITION FROM ACTIVE TO ARMY RESERVE

        General Stultz. Yes, Sir.
        It is a critical part of our strategy for the future, our
    human capital strategy. And we have learned from my good
    friend, Steve Hummer, here in the Marine Corps, that the
    marine-for-life mentality needs to be in the Army also. A
    soldier for life mentality.
        We're doing several things, Sir. We are putting, I am
    putting manpower on the Active Duty installations to start
    working more aggressively with the transition process much
    further out than we have in the past.
        That soldier that decides he's going to leave the Army from
    an Active status, we're telling him he's not getting out. He's
    transitioning. He's transitioning into Reserve status. Whether
    it's Active or Inactive Reserve status, he's still going to be
    a soldier.
        But we need to start talking to him 6 to 9 months before he
    leaves, not 2 weeks. We need to start talking to him, first of
    all, about what he's going to do for civilian work. And we need
    to help him get a job.
        And so, one of the cornerstones of our program is our
    employer support program that we've developed over the last 4
    years, where we now have more than 3,000 employers across
    America that have partnered with us.
        We have 700,000 jobs on the Web portal that are available
    out there in those employers, and we have program support
    managers on the ground, contractors that we've hired, to help
    facilitate between the employer and that soldier.
        And we want to facilitate that before he ever leaves Active
    service. We want to have a smooth transition where he can come
    off of Active Duty, go right into a civilian job, if that's
    what he chooses to do. And we can also facilitate him coming
    into the Reserve whether he comes in an Active Reserve status
    or whether he says, I just want to take a break for a while and
    be in the IRR.
        Okay. Fine. You're still going to belong to us, and when
    you're ready to come back and start drilling with us, we'll
    bring you back.
        But it's that employer piece that's critical because if I
    bring a soldier into the Reserve, and he doesn't have a job,
    I'm at risk, because he's got to pay his mortgage. He's got to
    pay for the kids to go to college. He needs civilian employment
    and he needs a good, comfortable career.
        So we're putting forces on the installations. We're putting
    forces out there with the employers, and we're going to make
    that as a cornerstone of our program.
        I can tell you today, it's working. In the past couple of
    years, we've already put at least 1,000 soldiers that we know
    into civilian jobs in our force. There's many thousands others
    that we know have already, using the portal and the Web, gotten
    jobs.
        And the employers are telling us, and we didn't even know
    the soldier, because the soldier just used the technology
    themself to do it. But the program is working. Soldiers are
    happy. The employers are happy. We've got a good force.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        I'll be submitting a few other questions for your
    consideration, so expect that.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        General Stenner, I've given to your staff some questions
    about reassigning aircraft that are now based at Keesler Air
    Force Base, Biloxi, and I hope you can take a look at those and
    address a response to the subcommittee as soon as reasonably
    possible.
        What we're concerned about is the readiness, of course, of
    an Operational Reserve, and how that may be affected by the Air
    Force's restructure decisions.
        Do you have any comments that you can make as a way of
    introduction to what you're thoughts are on that subject?
        General Stenner. Senator Cochran, I can do that.
        And let me just refer to the previous panel's remarks,
    especially those of General Wyatt, as he was discussing some of
    the same kinds of issues as we look at downsizing some of the
    fleets that we have as a result of age, or as a result of
    requirements.
        And that's the tricky part of this is, how do we look at
    this across the systems, in the C-130s in this example, and
    ensure that we meet the requirements of the combatant
    commanders which, if we do that, will allow us to reduce the
    numbers that we currently have.
        We did have a very rigorous process that we went through,
    and there are four very major tenets of kinds of things that we
    looked at that include, no negative impact to the combatant
    commanders, make sure the movements don't create any new bills,
    increase mission capable rates as a requirement when we do
    this.
        And then, we need to look at all the locations that we've
    got out there, apply that criteria, and in some cases, there is
    judgment that needs to go into it at the end.
        But we will certainly come back to you very quickly with
    the questions that you've asked.
        I use that as a prelude, and we work that through our
    corporate structure that General McKinley and General Wyatt
    mentioned in their testimony, to come to the realization that
    we have in the fiscal year 2013 projection, that those are the
    kinds of things that need to be done to ensure we meet, and
    don't become hollow, in other parts of this force as well.
        So, we'll get back to you, Sir, soon.
        Senator Cochran. I'm looking forward to going down to the
    Mississippi gulf coast for the christening of the USS
    Mississippi, the newest submarine that will be joining the
    fleet. That will be an exciting occasion for all of our State.
        We identify very closely with the Navy's presence down
    there, and the shipbuilding capability along that gulf coast.
    And, personally, serving in the Navy, I'm a little biased about
    the importance of the U.S. Navy.
        But, what is the prospect for this budget if we approve the
    schedule for ship construction, and maintenance, and adding new
    ships to the fleet?
        Is it robust enough to take care of the responsibilities
    for national defense that falls exclusively onto the
    jurisdiction of the Navy?

                         SHIP BUILDING PROGRAM ADEQUACY

        Admiral Debbink. Yes, Sir.
        And I would respectfully like to defer that question, if I
    could, primarily because in the Navy Reserve, which is my
    responsibility, obviously, we do have a Navy Reserve fleet of
    now nine frigates.
        And as we're retiring those frigates, we're bringing active
    frigates into the Reserve Fleet to replace them until we then
    will retire all of our Navy Reserve frigates.
        As I look forward in the future, our involvement in the
    Navy Reserve, once those frigates are retired, will primarily
    be with littoral combat ship program, which as you know, is
    ramping up.
        And we're in very active discussions with the Navy on where
    we, in the Navy Reserve, will play into that.
        The larger question of the entire shipbuilding program, I
    think, is probably one that I would like to defer, obviously,
    to the Secretary and the CNO.
        I will say, from my own perspective, having been in the
    Navy for 35 years, that our fleet today, and the Mississippi is
    a great example of it, is far more capable than any fleet that
    we've ever had in the past, regardless of numbers.
        And, if we had to use that fleet, I would rather use the
    fleet that we have today in looking into the near future than
    any fleet we've had in the past, both for the capabilities of
    those platforms, as well as for the training and the dedication
    and the honor, courage, and commitment of the sailors that
    serve in that fleet today.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for conveying the hearing. And let
    me say to all of the panel, we appreciate your dedication and
    your commitment to helping strengthen and maintain the best
    Reserve components of our military establishment. Thank you
    very much.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Chairman Inouye. I'd like to join my Vice Chairman in
    thanking all of you for your testimony, and for the service to
    our country.
        I would also like to note, as General Stultz pointed out,
    the critical role that you play, and continue to play, in the
    Middle East. Most people in the United States don't realize
    this. They think it's just the Active components. But the role
    that the Reserves and Guards play is very, very important. This
    subcommittee appreciates that 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 Dirk J. Debbink
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              continuum of service
        Question. Gentlemen, in accordance with the new defense strategy as
    well as fiscal constraints, the Active components will significantly
    reduce their end strengths over the next 5 years. This seems to create
    an opportunity for the Reserve components to recruit servicemembers
    coming off of Active Duty to continue their military service in the
    Reserves. How are the Reserve components planning to leverage this
    opportunity to retain these skilled and experienced personnel?
        Answer. In addition to the reductions programmed for the Active
    component, significant end-strength reductions are planned at this
    point for the Navy Reserve over the next 5 years. Although there will
    be an increased pool of personnel leaving Active Duty, reduced Reserve
    end-strength may limit the opportunity for transition to the Navy
    Reserve for some sailors. In order to maximize this opportunity, the
    Navy Reserve has implemented the following programs to ensure desired
    skills and expertise are retained to the maximum extent:
        Career Transition Office.--The Career Transition Office (CTO)
        supports rapid and seamless transitions across Active and Reserve
        Components (AC/RC) that will encourage a lifetime of Navy service.
        The CTO Transition Assistants provide NAVET Officers and Enlisted
        with counseling and guidance on the benefits of the Navy Reserve,
        and assists sailors transitioning from AC to RC. Through
        centralized processing, CTO has reduced transition processing time
        from months to days. The CTO has reduced the necessary paperwork
        and time required to transition a sailor from AC to RC, and
        increased direct transition rates to more than 50 percent.
        Perform-to-Serve With Selected Reserve Option.--Perform-to-serve
        (PTS) gives enlisted Active component and full-time support sailors
        the option of requesting a Selected Reserve (SELRES) quota, in-rate
        or a rating conversion quota, as they approach their Expiration of
        Active Obligated Service. PTS streamlines the application,
        evaluation, approval and notification process for sailors
        requesting SELRES affiliation. SELRES PTS quota approvals are
        linked to the Career Management System/Interactive Detailer (CMS/
        ID), which further eases the AC-to-RC transition process.
        Career Management System/Interactive Detailer.--Career Management
        System/Interactive Detailer (CMS/ID) allows sailors with approved
        SELRES PTS quotas to select the Navy Operational Support Center
        (NOSC) where they will conduct their Reserve drills after their
        transition. PTS approvals are linked to the CMS/ID system, only
        allowing approved sailors to access the system. CMS/ID gives
        sailors greater predictability in their future Reserve career, and
        is linked to the Assignment Information Systems that can generate
        Intermediate Stop (I-Stop) Orders for sailors who request them.
        Intermediate Stop Orders Generation.--This process allows Active
        component and full-time support sailors transitioning to the
        Selected Reserve to receive funded separation orders that include a
        3-day I-Stop at their requested Navy Operational Support Center
        (NOSC). This intermediate stop during the critical 72-hour
        transition period allows the sailor to complete their release from
        Active Duty (separation) processing and Reserve affiliation at
        their new drilling location. Under this process sailors affiliating
        with a NOSC greater than 50 miles from their residence are
        authorized up to 3 days per diem while completing their Active Duty
        to SELRES processing at the NOSC. I-Stop orders smooth the
        transition process, allowing the sailor to get familiar with their
        new community sooner while facilitating immediate Navy Reserve
        leadership engagement through Command Sponsorship and Command
        Indoctrination.
        Mobilization Deferment Program.--Current policy allows all Navy
        veteran (NAVET) and other Service veteran (OSVET) personnel who
        affiliate with the Navy Reserve within 6 months (183 days) of
        release from Active Duty to qualify for a 2-year deferment from
        involuntary mobilization, commencing on the date they affiliate
        with the Navy Reserve. All personnel who affiliate between 7 and 12
        months (184-365 days) of release qualify for a 1-year deferment
        from involuntary mobilization commencing on the date they affiliate
        with the Navy Reserve. Members may still volunteer for
        mobilization.
        Enlisted Early Career Transition Program.--Early Career Transition
        Program (ECTP) provides opportunities for Active component (AC) and
        full-time support (FTS) enlisted sailors to transition into the
        SELRES more than 90 days prior to their Expiration of Active
        Obligated Service (EAOS). Eligible sailors may submit requests up
        to 15 months prior but no later than 3 months prior to desired
        transition date (not EAOS). If approved, members will incur
        mandatory drilling Reserve obligation equal to the remaining Active
        portion of their current contract. The minimum obligation will be
        for 1 year if remaining in-rate; 4 years if converting.
        SELRES Affiliation Bonuses.--Navy veterans and other service
        veterans are eligible to receive affiliation bonuses when
        affiliating with the Navy Reserve in targeted officer designators,
        enlisted rates, and specialties. There are 16 officer designators
        and 11 subspecialties that are eligible for affiliation bonuses of
        up to $10,000; in fiscal year 2012 execution, 451 officers have
        taken the affiliation bonus. There are 27 enlisted rates and 33
        Navy Enlisted Classification codes that are eligible for
        affiliation bonuses of up to $20,000; in fiscal year 2012
        execution, 169 sailors have taken the initial affiliation bonus and
        500 sailors will receive an anniversary bonus payment.
        Navy Reserve Support for Reserve Component Accessions.--SELRES are
        conducting NAVET outreach and engagement in all Navy enterprises to
        support Navy Recruiting Command (NRC) and the Career Transition
        Office (CTO) efforts to meet RC accession goals. Navy Reserve
        Sailors occupy a unique position by residing in communities all
        across the country, and are leveraging this position as well as
        their Navy and civilian experiences to communicate with and mentor
        RC candidates and support recruiting. Through SELRES outreach at
        all leadership levels (Flag Officer, Senior Officer, Junior
        Officer), NAVETS will know that they are valued for their service
        and will make better informed affiliation decisions based on
        knowledge of Reserve benefits and pay, drilling requirements, NOSC
        and billet locations. SELRES recruiting and mentorship helps RC
        candidates understand better what a SELRES actually does and
        answers questions that range from Reserve community missions and
        capabilities to managing the AC to RC transition and associated
        lifestyles changes. Better informed NAVET affiliation decisions
        will help achieve Navy Reserve meeting accession goals, and also
        have direct impact on reduced RC attrition and increased overall
        Navy Total Force readiness through the retention of trained and
        experienced sailors.
        Question. Have you developed programs to allow for ease in
    transition for servicemembers going from Active Duty to the Reserves?
        Answer. Yes. Navy has developed numerous programs, and continues to
    improve processes, to assist sailors transitioning from the AC to the
    RC. Specific initiatives include:
      --Updating Navy's automated reenlistment/career management tool to
            facilitate affiliation in the SELRES and NOSC selection before
            leaving Active Duty.
      --Intermediate Stop (I-Stop) program allows Sailor's affiliating with
            the RC to transfer on Active Duty orders from their current
            command to an approved NOSC.
      --Mobilization Deferment Program allows Navy Veteran (NAVET) and
            other Service Veteran (OSVET) personnel affiliating with the RC
            within 6 months of release from Active Duty to qualify for a 2-
            year deferment from involuntary mobilization.
      --Enlisted Early Career Transition Program (ECTP) provides
            opportunities for AC enlisted sailors to transition to the
            SELRES more than 90 days prior to Expiration of Active
            Obligation Service (EAOS).
      --Career Transition Office (CTO) supports rapid and seamless
            transitioning between AC and RC to encourage a lifetime of Navy
            service while reducing costs and manpower hours associated with
            recruiting NAVETS.
      --Navy Reserve Support for RC Accessions: SELRES are conducting NAVET
            outreach and engagement in all Navy Enterprises to support Navy
            Recruiting Command (NRC) and Career Transition Office (CTO)
            efforts to answer questions and aid in affiliation.
      --SELRES affiliation bonuses: NAVETS and OSVETS in targeted officer
            designators, enlisted rates, and specialties are eligible for
            Navy Reserve affiliation bonuses.
      --Finalizing plans for a Delayed Affiliation Program (DAP) that will
            allow AC enlisted sailors who desire a delay in affiliation, or
            are unable to obtain a SELRES in-rate Perform to Serve (PTS)
            quota, to delay in-rate affiliation through a quota reservation
            system.
                          reserve equipment shortfalls
        Question. Gentlemen, over the last several years, the Reserve
    components have transitioned from a Strategic to an Operational
    Reserve, but annual budget requests have not adequately addressed the
    additional equipment requirements associated with this new role. The
    Congress has consistently added money to the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) to try to alleviate this problem. How
    have these increases improved your ability to train and deploy?
        Answer. The additional funding appropriated through NGREA has given
    the Navy Reserve the ability to procure and upgrade technical systems
    such as the Night Vision Device ``Heads Up Displays'' and Forward
    Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensors on our helicopters. These advanced
    systems have given our helicopter crews the ability to search, detect,
    track, and engage surface vessels of interest in challenging night-
    time, low-light conditions. Due to a shift in drug trafficking tactics
    to exploit the night regime, this new and enhanced capability has
    allowed our Navy crews and USCG Law Enforcement Teams to be more
    effective against narco-terrorists, smugglers, and pirates. Just
    recently, the USN-USCG team on board the USS Elrod has captured a
    record-breaking amount of narcotics, mostly attributable to these new
    equipment additions through NGREA funding. Additionally, the NVG-HUD
    and FLIR add another layer of safety for our crews and law enforcement
    while flying under difficult environmental conditions.
        Within our Fleet Logistics community, the Navy Reserve C-130Ts are
    currently undergoing Electronic Prop Control System (EPCS), GPS and
    Engine Instrument Display System (EIDS) modifications. The EPCS
    modification replaces a legacy hydro-mechanical prop control system
    with a more simple and reliable electronic system--addressing and
    mitigating one of the C-130's biggest maintenance degraders while
    increasing crew safety and aircraft reliability. The forecasted impacts
    of this modification are a 4-percent increase in mission capable (MC)
    rate, 15-percent decrease in propeller nonmission capable (NMC) hours,
    15-percent decrease in propeller maintenance man-hours (MMH), and a 7-
    percent reduction in overall system cost. The ROI for this modification
    is 6 years and is 1:1 per aircraft. The Garmin GPS modification
    provides crews with a global navigation system certified for primary
    navigation and instrument approaches. This capability allows Navy C-130
    crews to fly more direct, efficient routes while complying with new,
    more stringent air traffic management mandates. Additionally, it
    provides crews with greater situational awareness and increases safety
    margins by reducing aircrew workload during critical phases of flight.
    As part of the GPS modification, the EIDS upgrade replaces the entire
    cluster of 36 mechanical engine gauges and replaces them with a single
    digital display and is expected to reduce maintenance man-hours and
    supply chain delays while providing crews greater engine status
    awareness. The result of these NGREA-funded modifications is a safer,
    more efficient airlift fleet that is reliable and postured for
    longevity.
        Additionally, the Navy Reserve has used NGREA to invest heavily in
    its Adversary Air Program. In an effort to provide Fleet Aviators with
    the most effective training possible, improvements to both the airframe
    and avionics suites of our aircraft have been necessary. The F-5 has
    undergone numerous structural sustainment and safety upgrades to ensure
    this low cost, but capable, airframe remains viable for the foreseeable
    future without sacrificing safety. Similarly, the incorporation of the
    Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and external jamming pods
    bring enhanced tactical capabilities. JHMCS gives the Reserve F/A-18s
    additional capability to meet COCOM requirements when called upon.
    These enhanced capabilities also offer more dynamic air to air
    scenarios, and allow us to keep pace with the technological advances of
    potential threat aircraft. It is these upgrades which allow us to
    provide training that very closely mirrors what pilots can expect to
    see in any engagement around the world.
        NGREA has allowed the Navy Reserve Force to purchase expeditionary
    warfighting equipment for the Naval Expeditionary Combat Enterprise
    (NECE) in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, essential
    training upgrades in support of the adversary mission, and warfighting
    and personal protection equipment for Navy Special Warfare units. For
    example, NGREA funding allowed for the procurement of 10 Surface
    Amphibious Navy Maritime Prepositioning Force Utility Boats (MPFUBs).
    These boats replaced the LCM-8s utilized for Joint Logistics Over the
    Shore (JLOTS) Navy Beach Group Surface Reserve training missions,
    providing an essential training upgrade. We augmented these purchases
    with additional OMNR funding to provide for spare parts and associated
    items for the boats life-cycle maintenance. Additional equipment
    purchases for NECE included loader vehicles, concrete mixers, cargo
    trucks, fork lifts, and rapid response kits to enhance the Navy's rapid
    engineering response capability. Naval Special Warfare units also
    benefitted from personal and squad level tactical equipment items such
    as night vision optics and dive gear. Unlike most other appropriations,
    NGREA provides important, in-execution year flexibility to address
    equipment needs of the Force, which makes it an invaluable resource.
        Question. Gentlemen, how much additional funding would you need to
    fully equip your component?
        Answer. The current dollar amount of Navy Reserve equipment
    shortfalls is $5 billion and is published in table 8 of the National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment Report. Recent funding increases have
    bolstered recapitalization of critical RC equipment and enabled
    aviation modernization upgrades and table of allowance equipment buys
    that maintain our capability. The Navy Reserve's top equipment
    priorities continue to be aircraft procurement and the outfitting of
    special warfare units.
                   family support and yellow ribbon programs
        Question. Outreach efforts such as the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
    Program (YRRP) are particularly important for guardsmen and their
    families who are geographically dispersed across the country. Please
    update the subcommittee on your Service's Yellow Ribbon efforts and
    their effectiveness.
        Answer. The YRRP has consistently received praise for its ability
    to smooth the process for Reserve servicemembers transitioning from
    mobilized service to the civilian sector. Specific programs under the
    Yellow Ribbon program include:
        Deployment Readiness Training.--Navy Reserve's Pre-Deployment
        Yellow Ribbon and family readiness event, Deployment Readiness
        Trainings (DRTs) provide our members and families with education
        about the rigors of a deployment and the challenges of family
        separation and accessing family programs. The Navy Reserve
        Psychological Health Outreach Program (PHOP) teams of licensed
        mental health professionals embedded in each Reserve Region are
        also available for support and screening and to provide
        psychological health training at these events.
        During-Deployment Support.--During-deployment support is provided
        using the Ombudsman, family readiness programs, and U.S. Fleet
        Forces' IA grams. Command Individual Augmentee Coordinators (CIAC)
        have monthly contact with both the deployed sailor and his/her
        family. The PHOP teams are also available to support the Ombudmen,
        family readiness program staff, CIACs and families during
        deployments.
        Post-Deployment Events.--Included in this category are the Warrior
        Transition Unit in Kuwait, the CONUS Navy Mobilization Processing
        sites (NMPS), Returning Warrior Workshop (RWW), and the Post-
        Deployment Health Reassessment Program (PDHRA). PHOP teams provide
        training and support to the NMPS. RWWs are Navy's 60-day
        Reintegration Event for sailors and their guests. RWWs provide
        education, facilitate discussions, seek to improve psychological
        health and resiliency, and honor sailors and their guest. The PDHRA
        is the 90-day post-mobilization event and completes YRRP. PDHRAs
        are conducted online, with follow up phone conversation with a
        healthcare provider, and help to provide mental health distress
        symptom warning and identification. The PHOP teams also make
        contact with demobilized reservists to assess needs and provide
        support to reservists and their families during reintegration. They
        can also help to find local resources for any needs identified
        during the PDHRA and the annual Periodic Health Assessments (PHA).
        PHOP teams also support the Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC)
        medical department representatives with Line of Duty (LOD)
        determination packages, and the Reserve Force Surgeon, medical case
        managers and Safe Harbor nonmedical case managers with finding
        local care and resources for wounded warriors.
        Question. Are family support programs fully funded in the fiscal
    year 2013 budget request? From your perspective, are there programs
    that could be improved?
        Answer. Navy family support programs received funding for all known
    requirements in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request. Family
    Support programs are continually evolving, so there is a possibility
    for growth or program expansion after the budget request is submitted.
    For example, the Veteran's Employment Initiative Program (VEIP) has
    grown in scope since submission of the fiscal year 2013 request. In
    some cases, family support programs are managed by the Active Force,
    but cover all eligible populations, Active and Reserve. In other cases,
    particularly those in which the needs of Active and Reserve component
    sailors differ, there are separate Active and Reserve programs.
    Regardless of the program management approach, Navy's goal is to ensure
    the needs of both Active and Reserve families are met.
        With regard to improving programs, Navy is using social media and
    virtual learning platforms to expand the knowledge base. While this has
    greatly extended awareness and support to most families, providing
    support to remotely located families remains a challenge and focus for
    improvement.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
        Question. During your tenure as the Chief of Navy Reserves, what
    efforts have you initiated to increase the number of officers
    completing Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase I? During
    your tenure by year, what were the number of Commanders and Captains
    who had completed JPME Phase I? How do these numbers and percentages
    compare to their Active Duty counterparts/running mates? Why the
    difference? What more can be done?
        Answer. Increasing the number of Reserve component (RC) officers
    who complete JPME has been a priority for the Navy Reserve since 2008.
    As the table below depicts, the number of RC officers with JPME 1 has
    doubled through increased in-residence opportunities and via distance
    learning.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Inventory    Percentage   Inventory    Percentage
                             Fiscal year                           of RC JPME  of RC CDRs/   of AC JPME  of AC CDRs/
                                                                  I Graduates     CAPTs     I Graduates     CAPTs
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2008............................................          415          6.5        2,105         21.0
    Fiscal year 2009............................................          568          9.0        2,398         23.5
    Fiscal year 2010............................................          704         11.1        2,631         25.3
    Fiscal year 2011............................................          793         12.5        2,732         25.6
    Fiscal year 2012............................................          827         13.0        2,755         27.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From 2010 to 2012 Navy Reserve in-residence opportunities increased
    from 12 to 40, however, a majority of our officers must complete JPME 1
    via distance learning. Navy Reserve Officers are enrolled in every
    distance learning program offered by the services.
        The Active Duty Navy continues to offer resident and nonresident
    opportunities to our highly capable, board screened officers. We
    continue to publicize JPME opportunities by releasing ALNAVRESFOR
    messages and publishing on a dedicated Navy Reserve Web site JPME Web
    page and CNRFs Facebook Page.
        Question. During your tenure by year, what were the number of E-8
    and E-9 who had completed the Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA)? How do
    these numbers and percentages compare to their Active Duty
    counterparts/running mates? Why the difference? What more can be done?
        Answer. Please see the table below for year-by-year statistics.
    Approximately 20 percent of both the Reserve component (RC) and Active
    component (AC) Senior Enlisted population have attended the Academy.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Fiscal year                           Total RC SEA graduates    Total AC SEA graduates
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2008............................................                       90                       461
    Fiscal year 2009............................................                       79                       382
    Fiscal year 2010............................................                       54                       296
    Fiscal year 2011............................................                       39                       300
    Fiscal year 2012............................................                       38                       145
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Totals................................................                      300                     1,584

                                                                       (21.7 percent of RC  E8/  (19.6 percent of AC  E8/
                                                                           E9 population)            E9 population)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Navy Reserve is committed to increasing Senior Enlisted Academy
    attendance by our eligible sailors who have not attended the Academy.
    Navy Reserve Force Senior Enlisted Leadership developed and implemented
    a Force-wide communication strategy employing Facebook, the Navy
    Reserve Web site, and Chief's Mess calls to emphasize the benefits of
    the Academy and encourage more Reserve component attendance. Since
    implementing this strategy in 2011, Reserve applications have doubled.
    Additionally, Navy Reserve leadership continuously reviews faculty
    assignments to ensure an appropriate amount of facilitators are
    available to meet fleet demand.
        Question. In 2015, the Navy Reserve will celebrate its 100th
    anniversary. What efforts are underway to capture and write of the
    history and contributions of the Navy Reserve over this 100-year
    period? How do you plan on commemorating this important anniversary? Do
    you have a full-time historian on your staff? If not, why not?
        Answer. Navy Reserve is coordinating with the Naval History and
    Heritage Command's Office of Commemorations in preparation for the
    100th anniversary of the Navy Reserve. The work of this joint effort
    will include a written history that identifies and illustrates notable
    contributions of the Navy Reserve to the Navy and Joint Forces during
    the last century. Although exact plans are not yet finalized, there
    will be a series of 100th anniversary recognition events and ceremonies
    throughout the year at Reserve units and facilities across the country.
        In lieu of a full-time historian on staff, Navy Reserve employs a
    full-time Public Affairs Officer, supported by a Strategic
    Communications team.
        Question. What are the unfunded requirements of the Fleet Historian
    program?
        Answer. The fleet historian program is currently staffed by Reserve
    sailors and covers 16 commands including numbered fleets, with the
    exception of the 4th fleet. As of early March 2012, 33 of the 35
    Reserve billets allocated were filled. Additionally, 12 civilian
    positions were approved in the fiscal year 2012 budget, and are
    currently being filled. The Navy is assessing the total requirement in
    order to ensure the Fleet Historian Program is adequately sized given
    current pressures in funding and personnel.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Jack Stultz
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              continuum of service
        Question. In accordance with the new defense strategy as well as
    fiscal constraints, the Active components will significantly reduce
    their end-strengths over the next 5 years. This seems to create an
    opportunity for the Reserve components to recruit servicemembers coming
    off of Active Duty to continue their military service in the Reserves.
    How are the Reserve components planning to leverage this opportunity to
    retain these skilled and experienced personnel?
        Answer. The Army Reserve is setting the conditions early in order
    to be prepared for the Active Army drawdown and support of the
    continuum of service. In order to satisfy the force structure
    requirements established for the Army Reserve through the Total Army
    Analysis process, the Manpower Balancing Strategy is designed to:
      --Increase Prior Service Accessions;
      --Decrease reliance on Non Prior Service Accessions to fill
            shortages;
      --Reduce Shortages in Mid-Grade Officers and NCOs; and
      --Make Space Available for Increased AC Transitions by removing
            unsatisfactory participants from our rolls.
        Question. Have you developed programs to allow for ease in
    transition for servicemembers going from Active Duty to the Reserves?
        Answer. Yes. The U.S. Army Reserve is establishing 16 Transition
    Assistance Teams (TAT) located at various Army Active Duty installation
    transition points in the United States and overseas. The TAT consists
    of 2-3 full-time support soldiers from the Army Reserve Careers
    Division (ARCD) and 1 contract civilian employee from the Employer
    Partnership Officer at each transition point. The contractor will serve
    as the Transition Point Employment Liaison (TEL). The TEL will assist
    soldiers with registering on accepted jobs portal, resume development/
    enhancement, application process, interview assistance, and jobs skills
    translation. The TEL will track soldiers' progress and assist soldiers
    as necessary. Together, the TAT will counsel soldiers considering a
    career in the Reserve component, find them a unit of assignment, and
    assist them in obtaining employment in the area/State of the soldier's
    choice. The TEL will assist soldiers in finding employment
    opportunities even if they decide not to affiliate with the Reserve
    component. Case management of a soldier is handed to another TEL or
    Army Career Employment Specialists (ACES) if a soldier chooses to
    relocate to an area or State outside of the current TAT's
    responsibility. All soldiers transitioning from Active Duty are
    provided briefings on the benefits of affiliation with the Reserves and
    they are also afforded an opportunity to actual sign-up prior to
    separation from Active Duty. All soldiers transitioning from Active
    Duty are provided briefings on the benefits of affiliation with the
    Reserves and they are also afforded an opportunity to actual sign-up
    prior to separation from Active Duty.
                          reserve equipment shortfalls
        Question. Gentlemen, over the last several years, the Reserve
    components have transitioned from a Strategic to an Operational
    Reserve, but annual budget requests have not adequately addressed the
    additional equipment requirements associated with this new role. The
    Congress has consistently added money to the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) to try to alleviate this problem. How
    have these increases improved your ability to train and deploy?
        Answer. NGREA is an invaluable tool for the Army Reserve (AR). It
    enables the AR to procure modernized equipment not resourced in the
    Army's budget. NGREA assists with mitigating critical equipment
    shortfalls. NGREA helps fill the resourcing gap to meet the Army
    Campaign Plan objective of transforming to an Operational Army Reserve.
    NGREA greatly enhances the AR's ability to procure modern equipment to
    improve readiness and modernization capability.
        Question. Gentlemen, how much additional funding would you need to
    fully equip your component?
        Answer. The funding shortfalls for fiscal year 2013 is $9 billion.
    This funding would support equipment modernization systems such as
    tactical wheel vehicles, general engineering and combat mobility, field
    logistics, liquid logistics. Our major equipping challenges include;
    equipment modernization for critical systems, critical dual use
    equipment for national response, and institutional training equipment
    requirements.
                   family support and yellow ribbon programs
        Question. Outreach efforts such as the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
    Program (YRRP) are particularly important for guardsmen and their
    families who are geographically dispersed across the country. Please
    update the subcommittee on your Service's Yellow Ribbon efforts and
    their effectiveness.
        Answer. Army Reserve Soldiers will continue to mobilize, deploy,
    fight, and then return home to their loved ones. I cannot adequately
    express both the tangible and intangible benefits derived from the YRRP
    for our soldiers and their families. The Army Reserve's Yellow Ribbon
    program is an integral part of our efforts to build resilient families
    and Army Strong Soldiers who can endure the mobilizations, separations,
    and sacrifices we ask of them as part of their selfless service. We
    continue to work to provide the soldiers and families, their employers
    and the local communities where they live some stability and
    predictability. This allows our Reserve component soldiers
    opportunities to pursue both their military and civilian careers
    fulfilling their soldier-citizen role. The YRRP program provides
    deployment support and services never afforded to the Reserve component
    before 2009. Participation in Yellow Ribbon events provides attendees
    with sufficient information and services, opportunities for referral
    and proactive outreach from our commands and our communities build
    self-reliant and resilient families and soldiers. Our events rely on
    the support and involvement of command staffs, employers, community
    partners, and a host of volunteers. Yellow Ribbon events also provide a
    platform for and rely on the energy, enthusiasm, and impact of local,
    regional, and national community leaders and businesses (employers,
    educational institutions, Veterans' organizations, community
    healthcare, and so on) who are rallying to support our commands and
    individual soldiers who deploy. There is nothing else like a Yellow
    Ribbon event to help soldiers and families prepare for and endure the
    challenges of their deployment and reintegration. We help families
    network together, connect with each other and keep the families in
    touch with their unit/command and Family Programs' Office/staff during
    the deployment of their soldiers. This has been important to get
    soldiers and families connected and keep them connected despite their
    geographical dispersion. Family members get to understand the
    sanctioned military benefits, entitlements and the resources available
    to them. The Reserve components' ``new normal'' battle rhythm for pre-
    deployment, deployment, redeployment, and reintegration have recurring,
    yet different stress points for both the soldier and their family
    members. We are committed to providing our soldiers and families a
    level of benefits and quality of life that is commensurate with their
    service to the Nation. The geographic dispersion and numbers of Army
    Reserve families and soldiers, combined with the challenges that may
    exist with a civilian employer or educational pursuits, is unparalleled
    by any other service or service component.
        Question. Are family support programs fully funded in the fiscal
    year 2013 budget request? From your perspective, are there programs
    that could be improved?
        Answer. Army Reserve Family Programs are fully funded in fiscal
    year 2013 budget request to deliver the baseline programs and services
    designed to sustain soldiers and families through the soldier's
    lifecycle. The funding supports the both the Family Programs and the
    Child, Youth and School Services delivery models that reach the
    geographically dispersed. Yellow Ribbon Program: Yellow Ribbon
    Reintegration Program (YRRP) funding is separate from family readiness/
    family support funds. The Yellow Ribbon program has been funded to meet
    the mission expected in fiscal year 2013. Overseas contingency
    operations (OCO) funding has been used to perform all tasks associated
    with program execution. The Army Reserve continues to be able to put
    soldiers and family members on travel orders to attend appropriately
    conducted events and receive access to services and resources that help
    prepare each for and through a deployment; as well as, receive reunion
    and reintegration assistance and support. The Army Reserve supports
    full implementation of the YRRP and is actively involved with the
    Department of Defense, other Services, the Army National Guard, and AR
    staffs at all levels of command to provide the most effective and
    efficient program for soldiers and their families.
                       utilizing the operational reserve
        Question. General Stultz, during your tenure as Chief of the Army
    Reserve, you have led the effort to transform the Army Reserve from a
    strategic to an Operational Reserve. As you prepare to retire, can you
    update the subcommittee on how this transition is going and how you
    think this new Operational Reserve can be best utilized as we draw down
    the mission in Afghanistan?
        Answer. Given our extensive participation in the conflicts in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, as well as our active preparation for homeland defense
    missions and to exercise our new authority from the 2012 Authorization
    Act to assist with disaster response, I would say that the Army Reserve
    is already fully functioning as an Operational Reserve. As the mission
    in Afghanistan draws down we will be seeking new opportunities and
    predictable, recurring missions to leverage the rich skills of the
    citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve and hopefully forestall the need
    for robust deployments like those that we are just completing. In this
    regard we hope to be able to actively utilize the newly enacted 10
    U.S.C. 12304b authority to support preplanned missions of our combatant
    commanders.
        Question. General Stultz, do you believe the Army is adequately
    resourcing the Reserve to make this transition?
        Answer. Yes. The current level of resourcing is acceptable and does
    not require us to assume undue levels of risk. That might not be the
    case should resourcing drop, for example, should we have to contend
    with sequestration. We are actively engaged to ensure that any
    essential resources that flow from overseas contingency operation
    funding find their way into the base budget. We are monitoring reset
    and retrograde operations closely to make sure that they fully take our
    equipping needs into account and will be prepared to advise the
    Congress how this is going. We are ready and available to augment the
    Force when required as authorized by U.S.C. 12304b.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Steven A. Hummer
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              continuum of service
        Question. Gentlemen, in accordance with the new defense strategy as
    well as fiscal constraints, the Active components will significantly
    reduce their end strengths over the next 5 years. This seems to create
    an opportunity for the Reserve components to recruit servicemembers
    coming off of Active Duty to continue their military service in the
    Reserves. How are the Reserve components planning to leverage this
    opportunity to retain these skilled and experienced personnel?
        Answer. The Marine Corps intends to leverage opportunities to
    retain qualified servicemembers leaving the Active component over the
    next 5 years with a number of programs designed to recruit skilled and
    experienced personnel. One such program is the fiscal year 2012 pilot
    program dubbed ``Active Component (AC) to Selected Marine Corps Reserve
    (SMCR) Direct Affiliation.'' The Direct Affiliation Program focuses on
    highly qualified candidates recruited to fill available Reserve
    assignments with grade and military occupational specialty (MOS)
    matches at a Select Marine Corps Reserve unit. The program will begin
    with marines on their initial contract and company grade officers.
    Affiliation bonuses or prior-service MOS retraining (if requested and
    available) can also be offered through direct affiliation. The marine
    leaves Active Duty but ``stays Marine'' by joining the new Reserve unit
    within 60 days of their end of Active service (EAS) date, without a
    break in service. Upon affiliation, the Reserve unit welcomes and
    sponsors the new direct affiliate and assists in the marine's
    transition. One benefit associated with this program is an automatic 6-
    month extension of existing TRICARE medical coverage, to include
    dependents, for participation as a direct affiliate.
        Another retention tool is the 60 Composite Point Bonus Program.
    Active component and Reserve component corporals can elect to receive
    60 points towards their promotion cutting score for a 12-month
    commitment to a Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) unit. This bonus
    is intended to incentivize prior service corporals to affiliate with a
    Selected Marine Corps Reserve unit and aid in the retention of existing
    Reserve component corporals. Released earlier this fiscal year, more
    than 240 Corporals have accepted this bonus and roughly one-half have
    been promoted as of June 1, 2012.
        Finally, each month, Marine Corps Reserve Affairs communicates via
    email with all Active component Marines approaching their EAS date.
    This email communication provides a summary of Reserve opportunities
    and key Reserve transitional points of contact. Reserve Transition
    Coordinators at Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station New River, Camp
    Pendleton and Okinawa provide ongoing education on Reserve
    opportunities to Active component career planners. These educational
    engagements inform career planners so that the career planner community
    can better counsel transitioning marines on service in the SMCR.
        Question. Have you developed programs to allow for ease in
    transition for servicemembers going from Active Duty to the Reserves?
        Answer. Our transition assistance programs will be integrated into
    the lifecycle of a Marine from recruitment, through separation or
    retirement, and beyond as veteran Marines. Once implemented, this will
    assist marines as they transition from the Active Duty ranks back to
    their civilian lives, which may include time in the Marine Corps
    Reserves.
        Our first step is our revised Transition Readiness Seminar (TRS),
    which now gives Marines a choice of focusing on one of four pathways
    during this program:
      --College/University education;
      --Employment;
      --Vocational or technical training; or
      --Entrepreneurialism.
        Marines receive information on the Reserves during TRS that
    highlight the benefits of a Reserve career including educational
    opportunities, promotions, and certain commissary and exchange
    privileges. This revised seminar requires marines to complete
    assignments beforehand in order to maximize the seminar's efficiency
    and effectiveness. This tailored approach reduces information overload,
    targets individual needs of the marine and the Marine Corps, and
    promotes effective military skills translation.
        The Marine for Life Program, with its nationwide network of
    Hometown Links, will support improved reach-back and outreach support
    for those veteran marines who require localized support in their
    hometowns with information, opportunities, or other specific needs.
    These assets help veterans develop and maintain local networks of
    marine-friendly individuals, employers, and organizations.
                          reserve equipment shortfalls
        Question. Gentlemen, over the last several years, the Reserve
    components have transitioned from a strategic to an Operational
    Reserve, but annual budget requests have not adequately addressed the
    additional equipment requirements associated with this new role. The
    Congress has consistently added money to the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) to try to alleviate this problem. How
    have these increases improved your ability to train and deploy?
        Answer. Reserve equipment inventory levels continue to rise to meet
    Reserve training and deployment requirements. The NGREA remains a
    significant force multiplier for the Reserve component (RC), allowing
    the Marine Corps flexibility to balance requirements based on a Total
    Force perspective. Affording the Marine Corps the ability to purchase
    or accelerate the fielding of mission essential items for the Reserves
    directly impacts the RC's ability to train. The RC has been able to
    ensure units augmenting and reinforcing the Active component (AC) are
    as proficient as their AC counterparts. The NGREA has been a critical
    resource solution towards training and readiness for the RC in the
    following areas:
        Training and Simulators.--The Marine Corps Reserve strives to
        incorporate the latest technological innovations to create cost-
        effective training and education opportunities for Reserve Marines,
        increasing their ability to perform at the same level as their AC
        counterparts. Fielding modern, state-of-the-art training systems is
        part of this effort. Through the use of NGREA, the Marine Corps has
        procured the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement--Operator Driving
        Simulator (MTVR-ODS), Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer--Marine (VCCT-
        M), Deployable Virtual Training Environment--Reserves (DVTE-R), and
        other training systems. Additionally, the incorporation of aircraft
        Flight Training Devices (FTDs) and their linkage via the Aviation
        Virtual Training Environment (AVTE) will not only allow aircrews to
        conduct more sorties via the simulator/training device but the FTDs
        will also allow the RC to train with other units and aircrews as a
        way to reduce costs in a resource-constrained environment. The
        Marine Corps continues to evaluate new training and simulation
        technologies to identify cost-effective training options.
        Combat Equipment Procurement and Modernization.--The Marine Corps'
        various combat equipment modernization programs funded with NGREA
        are providing the RC with the latest generation of warfighting
        capabilities. These programs include the Logistics Vehicle System
        Replacement (LVSR), M1A1 tank suspension upgrades, and the A2
        upgrade to the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) family. The majority of
        the Marine Corps' modernization programs are already in the
        fielding phase or within the final phases of acquisition. NGREA
        funds were also utilized for the procurement of Support Wide Area
        Network (SWAN) satellite network packages for command and control,
        and RQ-11B Raven unmanned aerial vehicle systems
        Aviation Modernization.--The RC is also included in the Marine
        Corps Aviation Plan. During this Future Year Defense Program
        (FYDP), Reserve squadrons will begin transition from the KC-130T to
        the KC-130J, the CH-46E to the MV-22B, and the UH-1N to the UH-1Y.
        The RC has used NGREA funding to provide upgraded capabilities to
        existing aircraft.
        Question. Gentlemen, how much additional funding would you need to
    fully equip your component?
        Answer. As discussed in the fiscal year 2013 National Guard and
    Reserve Equipment Report (NGRER), the projected fiscal year 2013 delta
    between the on-hand quantities of the RC and the wartime requirements
    is $819 million. Excluded from this requirement is the fielding of the
    KC-130J airframe. While the KC-130J has been fielded to the Active
    component Marine Corps, the first Reserve component KC-130J is not
    scheduled for delivery until 2015, and currently only 5 of the 28
    airframes are programmed within the FYDP. The cost to procure the
    remaining 23 KC-130J airframes is $2.1 billion.
                   family support and yellow ribbon programs
        Question. Outreach efforts such as the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
    Program are particularly important for guardsmen and their families who
    are geographically dispersed across the country. Please update the
    subcommittee on your Service's Yellow Ribbon efforts and their
    effectiveness.
        Answer. We continue to ensure our geographically dispersed
    Reservists and their families are cared for through our various
    outreach efforts, which includes the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
    Program. Marine Forces Reserve has fully implemented the Yellow Ribbon
    Reintegration Program at each of the five stages of deployment to
    better prepare our servicemembers and their families for activation and
    return to civilian life after mobilization. During fiscal year 2011, we
    took proactive steps to maximize participation while minimizing costs
    by hosting Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events at Reserve centers. This
    step lowered the average cost per participant to $340 per training
    session, and we anticipate additional cost savings this fiscal year
    because of these efforts. More importantly, this enables our units to
    proactively plan around the operational and unique individual needs of
    their marines, sailors, and families in addition to keeping unit
    leadership in the forefront of the issues that affect their
    servicemembers. In fiscal year 2011, we executed 155 events in which
    6,264 servicemembers, which include marines in the Individual Ready
    Reserve, 2,399 family members, and 3,673 nondependent family members,
    and/or designated representatives participated for a total of 12,366
    persons served by our program. We'll continue to build these events
    around the operational needs of our units as well as the individual
    needs of our marines, sailors, and their families by giving unit
    leadership flexibility in selecting venue, resources, and agenda in
    accordance with current Department of Defense policy and guidance.
        Question. Are family support programs fully funded in the fiscal
    year 2013 budget request? From your perspective, are there programs
    that could be improved?
        Answer. The Marine Corps family support portfolio focuses on
    sustaining and enhancing essential programs that support the health,
    welfare, and morale of our marines and their families. We continually
    seek improvement and have been working hard to ensure our family
    support programs properly address the needs of our marines and
    families.
        In the fiscal year 2013 President's budget, the Marine Corps
    ensures that family support programs are efficient while meeting all
    mission-critical needs. The Marine Corps family support budget reflects
    a balanced approach that is designed to enhance those elements of
    support that are the most critical to marines and their families.
    Funding for Marine Corps family programs in the fiscal year 2013
    President's budget maintains the required level of family support
    throughout the Marine Corps (Active Duty and Reserves). On the whole,
    it provides the necessary funding to ensure the health and well-being
    of our marines and their families. There were no significant
    programmatic reductions to family support programs in fiscal year 2012.
    Some aspects of Morale, Welfare and Recreation and family support
    programs are reduced in fiscal years 2013-2016, but these reductions
    are primarily a function of the drawdown in Marine Corps end strength.
    The fiscal year 2013 budget has increased funding in several family
    support areas in order to enhance essential programs that support our
    marines and their families.
        The fiscal year 2013 President's budget is designed to preserve and
    enhance the quality of life for marines and their families and
    continues to provide the appropriate level of services in this mission
    critical area.
                                     ______

       Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Charles E. Stenner, Jr.
                Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
                              continuum of service
        Question. Gentlemen, in accordance with the new defense strategy as
    well as fiscal constraints, the Active components will significantly
    reduce their end strengths over the next 5 years. This seems to create
    an opportunity for the Reserve components to recruit servicemembers
    coming off of Active Duty to continue their military service in the
    Reserves. How are the Reserve components planning to leverage this
    opportunity to retain these skilled and experienced personnel?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve's first choice to fill our ranks are
    those members leaving Active Duty. We have In-Service Recruiters at
    nearly every base personnel office to catch and educate members
    separating from Active Duty on the benefits of serving in the Air Force
    Reserve. While Active Duty Force shaping provides a great opportunity
    to add to our ranks, several factors influence an airman's decision
    including location, position availability, and career field. Another
    hindrance is that the career fields where the preponderance of our
    shortages exists are usually those career fields not targeted during
    force shaping thus, the career fields being downsized are usually not
    what we need. Nonetheless, we strive to place every eligible member to
    allow for continuum of service and retain these experienced airmen in
    the Air Force inventory.
        Question. Have you developed programs to allow for ease in
    transition for servicemembers going from Active Duty to the Reserves?
        Answer. Accessing separating Regular Air Force Active Duty members
    is a vital part of the Air Force Reserve strategic plan to meet end
    strength each year. In fact, approximately 30 percent of all Air Force
    Reserve gains over the last 5 years have been transitioning Regular Air
    Force members. Our success can be attributed to an aggressive, fully
    integrated In-Service Recruiting program that focuses on helping
    transitioning Airmen wade through their continuum of service options.
    In-Service Recruiters work with members once a date of separation is
    projected to provide briefings on Air Force Reserve membership and
    benefits, assist with assignments, and ensure transition processing is
    complete.
                          reserve equipment shortfalls
        Question. Gentlemen, over the last several years, the Reserve
    components have transitioned from a strategic to an Operational
    Reserve, but annual budget requests have not adequately addressed the
    additional equipment requirements associated with this new role. The
    Congress has consistently added money to the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) to try to alleviate this problem. How
    have these increases improved your ability to train and deploy?
        Answer. The Congress has been extremely generous in allocating
    greater amounts of NGREA over the last several years. Without these
    funds, modernization of Air Force Reserve systems would have clearly
    been inadequate. The Air Force Reserve uses these resources to not only
    modernize its systems but to procure equipment and vehicles needed to
    sustain the readiness of our Operational Reserve Force. Our
    modernization strategy focuses on upgrading defensive systems,
    communication and data links, and precision engagement capabilities.
    Continuing to upgrade our legacy systems provides not only the ability
    to train alongside our Active Duty counterparts but also enables the
    interoperability so vital in today's fight. Air Force Reserve Security
    forces and Civil Engineers have received the equipment and training
    needed to deploy with minimum spin-up time and be ready to operate
    immediately in the area of operations. Air Force Reserve aircraft are
    continuing to receive upgrades like C-130J large Aircraft Infrared
    Countermeasures, C-130H Secure Line-of-Sight/Beyond Line-of-Sight, and
    F-16 Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting which provide the combatant
    command with capabilities to complete the mission and keep our forces
    safe. In addition to the needs of the combatant command, NGREA is
    currently being used to purchase new modular area spray system
    equipment for Air Force Reserve C-130's that proved so vital in the
    Gulf of Mexico oil spill and are the only spray-capable aircraft in the
    Department of Defense.
        Question. Gentlemen, how much additional funding would you need to
    fully equip your component?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve is currently scheduled to lose up to
    82 aircraft in fiscal year 2013 due to force structure reductions. As
    good stewards of the Nation's dollars, we are currently re-shaping our
    modernization strategy so no funds are wasted on aircraft scheduled for
    removal from the inventory while preserving options pending final
    congressional action on force structure levels. Pending congressional
    action, our backlog of equipment requirements to support the current
    force structure is approximately $2.2 billion, excluding re-
    capitalization. The Air Force Reserve requires a minimum of $100
    million a year to fully equip and modernize its forces, exclusive of
    re-capitalization costs. These funds will be used to upgrade the
    systems we have remaining as well provide units with modern equipment.
    Air Force Reserve vehicles are some of the oldest in the Department of
    Defense and need to be replaced along with a great deal of support
    equipment and infrastructure. We also continue to focus on
    modifications to increase aircraft survivability, improve precision
    engagement and enhance interoperability with our Active Duty partners.
                   family support and yellow ribbon programs
        Question. Outreach efforts such as the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
    Program are particularly important for guardsmen and their families who
    are geographically dispersed across the country. Please update the
    subcommittee on your Service's Yellow Ribbon efforts and their
    effectiveness.
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve has conducted 51 Yellow Ribbon
    Reintegration Program events at 17 venues during fiscal year 2012.
    There are 27 additional events planned at 9 venues for this fiscal
    year. From our postevent surveys, we are experiencing a satisfaction
    rating of 4.5 points on a 5-point scale with 92 percent of attendees
    agreeing that the event information was useful to the member and their
    families. Approximately 52 percent of attendees submitting surveys
    decide they will seek further financial counseling after hearing the
    information presented at the program.
        The Air Force Reserve Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program is funded
    through overseas contingency operations funding. Our fiscal year 2013
    requirement is $25.5 million.
        Question. Are family support programs fully funded in the fiscal
    year 2013 budget request? From your perspective, are there programs
    that could be improved?
        Answer. The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program is funded 100
    percent through the overseas contingency funds (OCO). Air Force Reserve
    has requested $25.5 million for fiscal year 2013. We are concerned that
    if OCO funding goes away, sustaining the Yellow Ribbon Program would be
    extremely difficult. As for improving current programs, we are
    reviewing funding of Air Force Reserve family programs as the demands
    have traditionally increased during harsh economic times. However, at
    this point, there are no significant deficiencies in Air Force Reserve
    family programs.
                   air force reserve--force structure changes
        Question. General Stenner, in March, the Air Force announced force
    structure changes and end strength reductions. The Air Force Reserve
    was impacted far less than the Air Guard in these proposed changes,
    which reduce Reserve end strength by 900 billets in fiscal year 2013.
    What input were you asked to provide during the deliberations over
    these force structure changes?
        Answer. To say the Air Force Reserve was impacted far less than the
    Air National Guard is misleading. Although 900 manpower billets is the
    net amount of the force structure reduction, the actual drawdown of
    Selected Reserve equals 1,800 positions in fiscal year 2013, which is
    offset by a pre-programmed growth of 900 positions from fiscal year
    2010. In fact, the total programmed reduction for the future years'
    defense program is 3,000 positions. The Air Force Reserve is certainly
    taking its fair share of reductions relative the Active Duty and Air
    National Guard.
        The Air Force leveraged our Total Force Enterprise proportionately
    to present our enduring capabilities to the Joint warfighter and we
    have successfully met the demand of increased operations tempo over the
    last two decades through a combination of volunteerism, selective
    mobilization, and the creation of Active, Reserve, and Guard
    Associations. Over the years, we have adjusted the mix between Active
    and Reserve components to ensure we maintain a ready and sustainable
    force and can meet our surge and rotational requirements.
        Senior leaders from each component worked closely together to
    submit a budget that:
      --Shifts focus toward Asia-Pacific region, continues presence in
            Middle East, and maintains the ability to adapt to evolving
            strategic posture in Europe;
      --Establishes an Active component/Reserve component mix based on
            readiness, rotational requirements and sustainable deploy-to-
            dwell ratios;
      --Retains required Active component seasoning base to sustain Total
            Force;
      --Provides an Operational Reserve component engaged in enduring and
            evolving missions;
      --Meets required budget reductions while seeking to avoid a hollow
            force--prioritized readiness over force structure; and
      --Produces a smaller, but flexible, agile, and ready force.
        Maintaining an appropriate and equitable Active/Reserve mix will
    remain critical to sustaining Air Force capabilities for forward
    presence and rapid response and meeting overseas rotational demands
    with a smaller force. We were driven to consider reductions in fiscal
    year 2013 as a Total Force, and I carefully considered the ratio
    between the Active and Reserve components and made choices that:
      --Ensures the Total Force could fulfill the Air Force's surge
            requirements as directed by the force sizing construct of the
            new strategic guidance;
      --Maintains the balance between Active and Reserve components
            required to fulfill continuing rotational requirements at
            deployment rates and personnel tempos that are sustainable for
            both the Active and Reserve components;
      --Makes sure the Active component retained the recruiting, training,
            and operational seasoning base required to sustain the Active
            Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve into the
            future; and
      --Ensures the Reserve component remains relevant and engaged in both
            enduring and evolving missions.
        The Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Chiefs were involved
    in all analysis and decisions, and I employed the following realignment
    strategies in selecting specific locations for aircraft reductions and
    re-missioning plans:
      --Ensure aircraft reductions do not negatively impact operational
            support to the Combatant Commands;
      --Ensure force structure movements do not create any new Air Force
            bills;
      --Ensure risk is minimized by optimizing crew ratios to exploit
            expected increase in mission capability rates; and
      --Consider locations that continued to have an Air Force mission due
            to the presence of another Air Force component.
        Question. Is the Air Force Reserve well-positioned to drawdown 900
    billets in fiscal year 2013, and how will this affect readiness?
        Answer. To clarify, 900 manpower billets is the net amount of force
    structure reduction in fiscal year 2013. The actual drawdown of
    Selected Reserve equals 1,800 positions, but is offset by a pre-
    programmed growth of 900 positions from fiscal year 2010 augmenting new
    and emerging missions, including new associations.
        Air Force Reserve manpower reductions that are included in the
    fiscal year 2013 President's budget request are almost completely tied
    to the retirements in primary assigned aircraft. Wherever C-130, A-10,
    or KC-135 airframes were programmed for retirement, the corresponding
    aircrew, operations staff and maintenance manpower that will no longer
    be utilized were drawn down. Our new strategy requires us to balance
    risk across force structure, modernization, readiness, and people
    programs across all mission areas. Since the reduction of the aircraft
    is deemed congruent to the strategy, there is no offset to readiness.
    The reduction in manpower is excess to need and aligned with primary
    assigned aircraft reductions. The Air Force Reserve will continue to
    maintain the manpower necessary to ensure readiness does not suffer.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. This subcommittee will reconvene on
    Wednesday, June 6 at 10 a.m. to receive testimony from outside
    witnesses.
        And now we will stand in recess subject to call of the
    Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., Wednesday, May 23, the
    subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June
    6.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 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 our witnesses this
    morning to the Department of Defense subcommittee to receive
    public testimony pertaining to various issues related to the
    fiscal year 2013 Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations
    request. Due to the number of witnesses who wish to present
    testimony this morning, I'd like to remind each witness that
    they will be limited to no more than 4 minutes. However, your
    full statements will be made part of the official record, and I
    look forward to hearing from each of you today on the many
    important and serious subjects that you will address.
        But before I do, I'd like to recognize the Vice Chairman of
    the Committee, Senator Cochran, for any comments he may wish to
    make.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join you in
    welcoming our witnesses to the hearing today reviewing the
    fiscal year 2013 DOD request for appropriations. We appreciate
    the witnesses' interest in the subject and we look forward to
    hearing your testimony and hearing from each one of you.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Our first witness represents the Air Force
    Sergeants Association (AFSA), former Command Master Sergeant
    John R. ``Doc'' McCauslin.
    STATEMENT OF CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT JOHN R. ``DOC''
                McCAUSLIN, U.S. AIR FORCE (RETIRED), CHIEF
                EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS
                ASSOCIATION
        Sergeant McCauslin. Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member
    Cochran, and distinguished members of the Department of Defense
    subcommittee: On behalf of the 110,000 members of the Air Force
    Sergeants Association, thank you for this opportunity to
    present the views of our members on the military personnel
    programs that affect those serving and who have served our
    Nation. Your continuing efforts toward improving the quality of
    lives have certainly made a real difference.
        In the interest of time, I will briefly touch on four
    specific funding goals for this subcommittee. Those goals are:
    military pay; healthcare; Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC); and Guard and
    Reserve GI Bill. Three others of great importance to us--
    tuition assistance, final pay, and sequestration-were covered
    in my written testimony to you.
        Thanks to the great work of your subcommittee, the Congress
    has made significant strides to restore military pay
    comparability over these past 12 years, including a statutory
    change that explicitly ties military pay raises to the
    Employment Cost Index growth. Past history has regularly and
    consistently demonstrated that significant problems occur when
    those pay and benefits are reduced or eliminated.
        The very top of all discussion about earned benefits is
    TRICARE. Healthcare and the immediate receipt of retirement pay
    are the only incentives that DOD can offer to entice someone to
    volunteer 20 or more years of their youth to our Nation just to
    be eligible. Despite acknowledging this long-term commitment,
    DOD again re-introduced plans, rejected by the Congress in the
    past, to force military dependents and retirees to either pay
    more for their healthcare coverage or to opt out of TRICARE
    entirely.
        AFSA considers it a supreme breach of faith to force those
    who serve to sacrifice even more. It denigrates the years of
    up-front service and the unlimited liability required of career
    military and their families. And if breaking faith with those
    currently serving is wrong, so is imposing a major bait-and-
    switch change on those who already completed a 20- or 30-year
    career induced by promises of current benefits.
        Recent public statements speak to the conundrum we
    presently think of. President Obama has said, ``As a Nation,
    we're facing tough choices as we put our fiscal house in order.
    But I want to be absolutely clear: We cannot and we must not
    balance the budget on the backs of our veterans.'' All of our
    military retirees are those veterans.
        An appropriate quote by Senator Jim Webb recently was,
    ``You can't renegotiate the front end once the back end is
    done. This is an obligation that has been made to people whose
    military careers are now done.'' Senator Webb understands that
    very few join the military intent on making it a career.
        I am pleased to note that the 2013 National Defense
    Authorization Act approved by the Senate Armed Services
    Committee 2 weeks ago rejects many of those planned increases
    and the bill now awaits action on your Senate floor. I urge you
    to support their efforts with the necessary appropriation.
        AFSA endorses the view that surviving spouses with military
    survivor benefit plan annuities should be able to concurrently
    receive earned SBP benefits and DIC payments related to their
    sponsor's service-connected death. We would like to thank
    Senator Bill Nelson for introducing S. 260 and the 50 Senators
    who have co-sponsored this important repeal legislation.
        Arguably, the best piece of legislation ever passed by the
    Congress, and thanks to the efforts of many of you here, the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill, is providing unprecedented educational
    opportunities for thousands of men and women who served in
    uniform since 9/11. Regrettably, benefits for joining the
    Selective Reserve were not included in that bill. AFSA strongly
    recommends the Congress work to restore basic Reserve
    Montgomery GI Bill benefits to the historic benchmark of 47 to
    50 percent of active-duty benefits. In conclusion, on behalf of
    all AFSA members, we appreciate your efforts and, as always,
    we're ready to support you in matters of mutual concern.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        AFSA contends that it is of paramount importance for a
    Nation to provide quality healthcare and top-notch benefits in
    exchange for the devotion, sacrifice, and service of our
    military members. To quote Bob Woodward from his book ``The War
    Within'', ``Those who serve and their families are the
    surrogates of all Americans. They bear the risk and strain of a
    year or more in a foreign land. So many have spent their youth
    and spilled their blood in a fight far from home. What do we
    owe them? Everything. And what do we give them? Much less than
    they deserve.''
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant John R. ``Doc'' McCauslin
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the Department of Defense subcommittee: On behalf of the 110,000
    members of the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), thank you for
    this opportunity to present the views of our members on the military
    personnel programs that affect those serving (and who have served) our
    Nation. This hearing will address issues critical to those serving and
    who have served our Nation.
        Your continuing efforts toward improving the quality of their lives
    have made a real difference, and our members are grateful. In this
    statement, I have identified specific funding goals we hope this
    subcommittee will consider for fiscal year 2013 on behalf of current
    and past enlisted members and their families. AFSA represents Active
    Duty, Guard, Reserve, retired, and veteran enlisted Air Force members
    and their families. The content of this statement reflects the views of
    our members as they have communicated them to us. As always, we are
    prepared to present more details and to discuss these issues with your
    staffs.
                       proposed fiscal year 2013 funding
        The administration requested $525.4 billion for Department of
    Defense (DOD) base budget for fiscal year 2013, a $5.2 billion or 1-
    percent reduction from this year's spending level. We understand a plan
    recently approved by the House Appropriations Committee provides an
    increase of $1.1 billion more than the fiscal year 2012 level and $3.1
    billion more than the President's request. AFSA encourages you to
    follow their lead to ensure the Department has sufficient funds to meet
    the needs of our Nation's defense.
                              military pay raises
        Thanks to the great work of this subcommittee. The Congress has
    made great strides to restore military pay comparability over the past
    12 years, including a statutory change that explicitly ties military
    pay raises to Employment Cost Index (ECI) growth. The current formula
    provides military servicemembers with a 1.7-percent pay raise in fiscal
    year 2013, and we urge you to set aside the necessary funding to make
    certain this is so. That said, we are very concerned that the
    administration plans break the tie to civilian pay growth in future
    years by limiting military raises to 0.5 percent, 1 percent, and 1.5
    percent for 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. Past history has
    clearly shown that significant retention problems will occur when pay
    and benefits are reduced or eliminated. Recent calls to cut back on
    military raises, create a new comparability standard or substitute more
    bonuses for pay raises in the interests of deficit reduction are
    exceptionally short-sighted in view of the extensive negative
    experience with military pay raise caps. AFSA urges the subcommittee to
    fully fund these important pay increases not just this year, but in
    future years, based on the ECI as specified in current law.
                                 sequestration
        Our members are deeply concerned with the prospect of sequestration
    and how it could undermine proper defense funding in the coming years.
    As a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, DOD now faces the
    specter of another $500 billion in defense cuts beyond $490 billion in
    reductions previously agreed to. That is, of course, unless the
    Congress intervenes. Military leaders from the top down have made it
    quite clear that an additional $500 billion of cuts would do
    catastrophic damage to our military, hollow out the force, and degrade
    its ability to protect the country. America's military strength exists
    to secure the blessings of ordered liberty for the American people. We
    sincerely hope Members of Congress can find an alternative to punitive
    reductions mandated by sequestration which would force across-the-board
    cuts to defense programs including pay and benefits which would
    threaten the future viability of the all-volunteer force. Less than 1
    percent of the population is shouldering 100 percent of the burden of
    maintaining our national security, and we hope you will act soon so
    they won't be left wondering when, or if, the rug will be pulled out
    from underneath them.
                              retirement benefits
        The administration's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget called for
    the creation of a base realignment and closure-like panel that will
    review current military compensation and recommend changes (most likely
    reductions) for the Congress to consider. The commission is to be
    formulated on the premise that the groups agreed upon plan must save
    DOD money. Instead of approaching the subject with discussion on what
    is the Nation's obligation to those who serve, the administration plans
    to use a formula that lays out a predetermined result. We believe those
    who serve and have served in uniform deserve better. Senior military
    leaders often speak of the importance of ``Keeping the faith'' with
    military members, particularly where earned benefits are concerned--
    benefits like retired pay and healthcare. Right now, airmen are asking,
    ``Where is the faith?'' And they are looking to you, the Members of
    Congress, to provide that answer. ``Passing the buck'' to
    servicemembers instead fulfilling promised benefits will only serve to
    undermine long-term retention and readiness. Much of the success of the
    all-volunteer force can be directly attributed to the benefits we
    provide military members in return for their service and sacrifice. Not
    just them, but their families, too. Do we want to risk this? I urge you
    to resist any plan that reduces pay and benefits and fully fund the
    existing systems that have directly contributed to the extraordinary
    success of the all-volunteer force for nearly four decades.
                                    tricare
        No military personnel issues is more sacrosanct than pay and
    benefits, which is why healthcare is such a sensitive subject. It and
    the immediate receipt of retirement pay are the only incentives DOD can
    offer to entice someone to first volunteer 20 or more years of their
    youth to the Nation just to be eligible. Yet, despite acknowledging
    this long-term commitment, DOD again reintroduced plans--rejected by
    the Congress in the past--to force military dependents and retirees to
    either pay more for their healthcare coverage or to opt out of TRICARE
    entirely. Specifically, the department proposes to raise beneficiary
    costs by:
      --raising annual fees by as much as $2,000 or more for retired
            families younger than age 65;
      --establishing new annual enrollment fees of up to $950 for retired
            couples older than age 65;
      --imposing ``means testing'' of military retiree health benefits
            based on their retired income--something no other Federal
            program does;
      --dramatically increasing pharmacy co-pays to approach or surpass the
            median of current civilian plans; and
      --tying future annual increases to an unspecified health cost index
            estimated to average more than 6 percent each year.
        In announcing these so-called ``modest'' proposals, DOD leaders
    stressed their intent to ``keep faith with currently serving troops''
    by avoiding any retirement changes that would affect the current force.
    But their concept of ``keeping faith on retirement'' apparently doesn't
    extend to retirement healthcare benefits, as the proposed changes would
    affect any currently serving member who retires the day after they were
    implemented. Further, the proposed pharmacy changes would affect
    hundreds of thousands of currently serving Guard/Reserve members and
    families, as well as the family members of currently serving personnel
    who don't have access to military pharmacies.
        Modest increases? How could raising out-of pocket healthcare costs
    $2,000 annually or increasing pharmacy copays up to 375 percent be
    considered modest? And I remind the members of this panel that our more
    senior retirees, those in TRICARE for Life, are already required to
    participate in Medicare Part B in order to retain their earned
    healthcare coverage.
        AFSA regards all efforts to force those who serve and sacrifice the
    most, to sacrifice even more, as a supreme breach of faith. It
    denigrates the years of upfront service and sacrifice required of
    career military and their families, plus these anti-people proposals
    will be perceived very negatively by future generations, who may
    consider civilian employment far more rewarding and safer than military
    service. And if breaking faith with the currently serving is wrong, so
    is imposing a major ``bait and switch'' change on those who already
    completed 20-30 year careers, induced by promises of current benefits.
        At a recent hearing to examine the administration's proposed fee
    hike, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) accurately observed, ``You can't
    renegotiate the front end once the back end is done. This is an
    obligation that has been made to people whose military careers are now
    done.'' Senator Webb understands few join the military intent on making
    it a career which involves multiple moves and hazardous deployments,
    their children constantly uprooted from schools and spouses from career
    opportunities, virtually zero in home ownership equity, and upon
    military retirement, potential age discrimination entering the civilian
    marketplace. In fact, only 8.5 percent of those who serve in the
    military ever reach retirement, a percentage derived by dividing DOD's
    1.9 million retirees by the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) 22.2
    million veterans--a percentage that is even less if medical retirees
    are excluded.
        Like Senator Webb, our greatest concern is that the continued
    erosion of pay and benefits could lead to the end of a professionally
    led, all-volunteer military that for 39 years and more than a decade of
    nonstop war has served the American public extremely well. We hope you
    believe likewise, and will fully fund the military healthcare system.
        Other healthcare issues included in our priorities are listed
    below. Funding for each of these issues is encouraged, and we would be
    happy to provide additional information if requested:
      --exempt those military retirees who entered service prior to
            December 7, 1956, from the obligation of Medicare Part B
            payments;
      --oppose the various recommendations for retirees aged 38-64 to seek
            healthcare coverage from somewhere else besides TRICARE;
      --include Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy as part of regular
            TRICARE coverage; and
      --establish a full optometry benefit for military retirees.
                               tuition assistance
        The discretionary Air Force Tuition Assistance program is an
    important quality of life program that provides tuition and fees for
    courses taken by Active-Duty personnel. The program is one of the most
    frequent reasons given for enlisting and re-enlisting in the Air Force,
    and we urge full funding for this program.
                          family readiness and support
        A fully funded, robust family readiness program is crucial to
    military readiness, and especially appropriate given the continuing
    demands of deployments and the uncertainty of the legacy of the effects
    11 years of war have had on servicemembers and their families. AFSA
    urges the subcommittee to continue much-needed supplemental funding
    authority to schools impacted by large populations of military students
    (Impact Aid), fully fund effective family readiness programs, and
    support the child care needs of our highly deployable force.
                             military resale system
        AFSA strongly believes military commissary, exchange and Morale
    Welfare and Recreation programs contribute significantly to a strong
    national defense by sustaining morale and quality of life for military
    beneficiaries both within the United States and around the globe. In
    surveys looking at the benefits of service, military servicemembers
    often cite access to the commissary and exchange as one of their top
    five benefits. With this in mind, we urge this subcommittee to resist
    initiatives to civilianize or consolidate DOD resale systems in any way
    that would reduce their value to patrons. AFSA instead urges a thorough
    review of the findings of an extensive and costly ($17 million)
    multiyear study that found consolidation is not a cost-effective
    approach to running these important systems.
                            retiree/survivor issues
        Concurrent Receipt.--AFSA continues its advocacy for legislation
    that provides concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans'
    disability compensation for all disabled retirees without offset. Under
    current statues, retirees with 50 percent or greater disabilities will
    receive their full-retired pay and VA disability in fiscal year 2014.
    The Congress should now focus on eliminating this unjust offset for
    veterans with lesser disabilities and in particular, individuals who
    were medically retired with less than 20 years of service due to a
    service-connected illness or injury. They are not treated equally.
        Age-57 Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Remarriage.--
    AFSA commends Members of Congress for previous legislation, which
    allowed retention of DIC, burial entitlements, and VA home loan
    eligibility for surviving spouses who remarry after age 57. However, we
    strongly recommend the age-57 DIC remarriage provision be reduced to
    age 55 to make it consistent with all other Federal survivor benefit
    programs.
        Repeal Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)/DIC Offset.--We endorse the view
    that surviving spouses with military SBP annuities should be able to
    concurrently receive earned SBP benefits and DIC payments related to
    their sponsor's service-connected death. We would like to thank Senator
    Bill Nelson (D-FL) for introducing S. 260 and the 50 Senators who have
    co-sponsored this important legislation to repeal the SBP-DIC offset.
    Despite budgetary difficulties, we sincerely hope the Congress will
    find the funding to eliminate this unfair offset.
        Retention of Final Paycheck.--Current regulations require survivors
    of deceased military retirees to return any retirement payment received
    in the month the retiree passes away or any subsequent month
    thereafter. Once a retirees passes, the Defense Finance and Accounting
    Service stops payment on the retirement account, recalculates the final
    payment to cover only the days in the month the retiree was alive, and
    then forwards a check for those days to the surviving spouse.
        Understandably, this practice can have an adverse impact on the
    surviving spouse. When the retirement pay is deposited, they use those
    funds to make payment on items such as mortgages, medical expenses, or
    other living expenses. Automatically withdrawing those funds can
    inadvertently cause essential payments to bounce and places great
    financial strain on a beneficiary already faced with the prospect of
    additional costs associated with their loved one's death. AFSA strongly
    encourages this subcommittee to appropriate the funds necessary to
    bring an end to this abhorrent practice.
                            guard and reserve issues
        Reduce the Earliest Guard and Reserve Retirement Compensation Age
    From 60 to 55.--Legislation was introduced during the last Congress to
    provide a more equitable retirement for the men and women serving in
    the Guard and Reserves. The proposed legislation would have reduced the
    age for receipt of retirement pay for Guard and Reserve retirees from
    60 to 55. Active-Duty members draw retirement pay the day after they
    retire. Yet, Guard and Reserve retirees currently have to wait until
    they reach age 60 before they can draw retirement pay. Although
    legislation addressing this issue does not exist in the 112th Congress,
    we urge the members of this subcommittee to support it when and if it
    is reintroduced.
        Reduction of Retirement Age Due to Title 10 Service.--A provision
    in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act reduces the
    Reserve component retirement age requirement by 3 months for each
    cumulative 90 days ordered to Active Duty. However, this provision only
    credits active service since January 28, 2008, so it disenfranchises
    and devalues the service of hundreds of thousands of Guard and Reserve
    members who served combat tours (multiple tours, in thousands of cases)
    between 2001 and 2008. These contributions to national security are
    further demeaned by language that specifies eligible service must fall
    within a given fiscal year (e.g., a reservist receives no credit for a
    90-day tour that began in August and ended in November because the
    period of service spanned 2 fiscal years).
        AFSA supports full funding of initiatives that eliminate the fiscal
    year limitation and authorizes early retirement credit for all Guard
    and Reserve members who have served on Active-Duty tours of at least 90
    days retroactive to September 11, 2001.
        Provide Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP) for Service
    Incurred Disabilities.--National Guard and Reserve with 20 or more good
    years are currently able to receive CRDP; however, they must wait until
    they are 60 years of age and begin to receive their retirement check.
    This policy must be changed, and along with the reduction in retirement
    age eligibility, is a benefit our Guard and Reserve deserve. They have
    incurred a service-connected disability, and we must provide concurrent
    retirement and disability pay to them.
        Many Guard/Reserve retirees have spent more time in a combat zone
    than their Active Duty counterparts. DOD has not supported legislation
    to provide Guard/Reserve men and women more equitable retirement pay in
    the past. Additional requirements and reliance has been placed on the
    Guard and Reserve in recent years. It is time to recognize our men and
    women in uniform serving in the Reserve components and provide them a
    more equitable retirement system.
        Award Full Veterans Benefit Status to Guard and Reserve Members.--
    It is long overdue that we recognize those servicemembers in the Guard
    and Reserve who have sustained a commitment to readiness as veterans
    after 20 years of honorable service to our country. Certain Guard and
    Reserve members that complete 20 years of qualifying service for a
    reserve (nonregular) retirement have never been called to active-duty
    service during their careers. At age 60, they are entitled to start
    receiving their Reserve military retired pay, Government healthcare,
    and other benefits of service including some veterans' benefits. But,
    current statutes deny them full standing as a ``veteran'' of the Armed
    Forces. S. 491, the ``Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of
    2011'' introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and a House-approved
    bill, H.R. 1025 by Representative Tim Walz (D-MN) would change current
    statues to include in the definition(s) of ``veteran'' retirees of the
    Guard and Reserve components who have completed 20 years or more of
    qualifying service. There is little or no cost associated with this
    change, it's simply the right thing to do, and I encourage the members
    of this subcommittee to support Senator Pryor's bill.
        Guard/Reserve GI Bill.--Arguably the best piece of legislation ever
    passed by the Congress, and thanks to the efforts of many of you here,
    the Post-9/11 GI Bill is providing unprecedented educational
    opportunities for the thousands of men and women who served in uniform
    since 9/11 and for many of their family members. Regrettably, many
    volunteers who join the Selected Reserve were left behind in this
    legislation because Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Benefits
    were not upgraded or integrated in the Post-9/11 GI Bill as AFSA
    previously recommended.
        AFSA supports funding of legislation that restores basic Reserve
    MGIB benefits for initially joining the Selected Reserve to the
    historic benchmark of 47-50 percent of active-duty benefits; integrates
    Reserve and Active Duty MGIB laws in title 38, and enacts academic
    protections for mobilized Guard and Reserve students, including refund
    guarantees and exemption of Federal student loan payments during
    activation.
                uniformed services former spouses protection act
        AFSA urges this subcommittee to support some fairness provisions
    for the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA)
    (Public Law 97-252). While this law was passed with good intentions in
    the mid-1980s, the demographics of military service and their families
    have changed. As a result, military members are now the only U.S.
    citizens who are put at a significant disadvantage in divorce
    proceedings. Because of the USFSPA, the following situations now exist:
      --A military member is subject to giving part of his/her military
            retirement pay (for the rest of his/her life) to anyone who was
            married to him/her during the military career regardless of the
            duration of the marriage.
      --The divorce retirement pay separation is based on the military
            member's retirement pay--not what the member's pay was at the
            time of divorce (often many years later).
      --A military retiree can be paying this ``award'' to multiple former
            spouses.
      --It takes a military member 20 years to earn a retirement; it takes
            a former spouse only having been married to the member (for any
            duration, no matter how brief) to get a portion of the member's
            retirement pay.
      --Under this law, in practice judges award part of the member's
            retirement pay regardless of fault or circumstances.
      --There is no statute of limitations on this law; i.e., unless the
            original divorce decree explicitly waived separation of future
            retirement earnings, a former spouse who the military member
            has not seen for many years can have the original divorce
            decree amended and ``highjack'' part of the military member's
            retirement pay.
      --The former spouse's ``award'' does not terminate upon remarriage of
            the former spouse.
      --The ``award'' to a former spouse under this law is above and beyond
            child support and alimony.
      --The law is unfair, illogical, and inconsistent. The member's
            military retired pay which the Government refers to as
            ``deferred compensation'' is, under this law, treated as
            property rather than compensation. Additionally, the law is
            applied inconsistently from State to State.
      --In most cases, the military retiree has no claim to part of the
            former spouse's retirement pay.
      --Of all U.S. citizens, it is unconscionable that military members
            who put their lives on the line are uniquely subjected to such
            an unfair and discriminatory law.
      --While there may be unique cases (which can be dealt with by the
            court on a case-by-case basis) where a long-term, very
            supported former spouse is the victim, in the vast majority of
            the cases we are talking about divorces that arise which are
            the fault of either or both parties--at least one-half of the
            time not the military member. In fact, with the current levels
            of military deployments, more and more military members are
            receiving ``Dear John'' and ``Dear Jane'' letters while they
            serve.
      --This is not a male-versus-female issue. More and more female
            military members are falling victim to this law. These are just
            a few of the inequities of this law. We believe this law needs
            to be repealed or, at the least, greatly modified to be fairer
            to military members. We urge the subcommittee to support any
            funding requirement that may be necessary to take action on
            this unfair law--for the benefit of those men and women who are
            currently defending the interests of this Nation and its
            freedom.
                                   conclusion
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, in conclusion, I want to
    thank you again for this opportunity to express the views of our
    members on these important issues as you consider fiscal year 2013
    appropriations. We realize that those charged as caretakers of the
    taxpayers' money must budget wisely and make decisions based on many
    factors. As tax dollars dwindle, the degree of difficulty deciding what
    can be addressed, and what cannot, grows significantly.
        AFSA contends that it is of paramount importance for a nation to
    provide quality healthcare and top-notch benefits in exchange for the
    devotion, sacrifice, and service of military members. So, too, must
    those making the decisions take into consideration the decisions of the
    past, the trust of those who are impacted, and the negative
    consequences upon those who have based their trust in our Government.
    We sincerely believe that the work done by your committees is among the
    most important on the Hill. On behalf of all AFSA members, we
    appreciate your efforts and, as always, are ready to support you in
    matters of mutual concern.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Sergeant. May I
    just assure you that we'll never forget anyone who is willing
    to stand in harm's way on our behalf.
        Sergeant McCauslin. Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness, Ms. Elizabeth Vink,
    represents the International Foundation for Functional
    Gastrointestinal Disorders.
    STATEMENT OF ELISABETH VINK, PROGRAM ASSISTANT,
                INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR FUNCTIONAL
                GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS
        Ms. Vink. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present testimony regarding functional
    gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) among service personnel and
    veterans. My name is Elisabeth Vink, and I am testifying on
    behalf of the International Foundation for Functional
    Gastrointestinal Disorders (IFFGD). IFFGD is a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to supporting individuals affected by
    functional gastrointestinal and motility disorders through
    education and research. I am also a proud member of a military
    family, with my father having served 23 years in the U.S. Air
    Force, and I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in
    support of veterans like my dad.
        FGIDs are disorders in which the movement of the
    intestines, the sensitivity of the nerves of the intestines, or
    the way in which the brain controls intestinal function is
    impaired. The result is multiple, persistent, and often painful
    symptoms ranging from nausea and vomiting to altered bowel
    habit.
        More than two dozen different FGIDs have been identified,
    ranging in severity from bothersome to disabling. One thing
    these conditions have in common is that little is understood
    about their underlying mechanisms, making them difficult to
    treat effectively. The onset of a functional gastrointestinal
    (GI) disorder can be triggered by severe stress and infections
    of the digestive system.
        Deployed military personnel face an elevated chance of
    experiencing these risk factors and developing FGIDs as a
    result of their service. For this reason, continued research
    through the Department of Defense (DOD) Gulf War Illness
    Research Program (GWIRP) is critical in fiscal year 2013.
        In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report
    titled ``Gulf War and Health, Volume 8; Update on the Health
    Effects of Serving in the Gulf War'', which determined that
    there is sufficient evidence to associate deployment to the
    gulf war and FGIDs. According to the report, there have been a
    large number of FGID cases among gulf war veterans and their
    symptoms have continued in the years since the war. Based on
    the report from IOM, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    adopted a final rule in August 2011 stating that there is a
    presumptive service connection between FGIDs and service in the
    Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf
    war.
        Our military personnel are taught to put duty first, and we
    have noticed that by the time they reach out to us their
    condition is incredibly painful or highly disruptive to their
    life. Not only are these disorders hard to treat, but, in the
    words of one retired sergeant, these sometimes very
    embarrassing GI disorders are just as hard to talk about.
        In order to better articulate the suffering associated with
    FGIDs, I would like to share with you the voices of veterans
    affected by these disorders. This is from Steven in North
    Carolina, who served in the Persian Gulf theater of operations.
    ``While there and since my return, I have been plagued with a
    multitude of GI problems, including irritable bowel syndrome
    (IBS). I suffered nearly constant diarrhea for over 10 years
    before the IBS was ever diagnosed. None of my GI problems
    existed prior to my deployment and they simply do not seem to
    go away afterwards.''
        Another veteran, Jason, mentioned the prevalence of these
    conditions. ``While speaking with several of my former
    soldiers, I came to realize that they are experiencing the same
    signs and symptoms. I am the first one of a group of friends
    and veterans that is doing research to find out that we are not
    alone.''

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The DOD Gulf War Illness Research Program conducts
    important research on the complex set of chronic symptoms that
    impact gulf war veterans. Given the conclusions of the IOM
    report and the report's recommendations for further research on
    the length between FGIDs and exposures experienced by veterans
    in the gulf war, we ask that you continue to support the Gulf
    War Illness Research Program and encourage research into FGIDs
    through this program, so that important research on FGIDs among
    veterans can be conducted.
        Thank you for your time and your consideration of this
    request.
        [The statement follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Elisabeth Vink, Program Assistant, International
              Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
    International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
    (IFFGD) regarding functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) among
    service personnel and veterans. FGIDs are recognized by the Department
    of Veterans Affairs (VA) as disabling and connected to military service
    as a part of gulf war illness, and we request that the subcommittee
    continue support the Department of Defense (DOD) Gulf War Illness
    Research Program (GWIRP) through the Congressionally Directed Medical
    Research Program. I am a proud member of a military family, with my
    father having served 23 years in the U.S. Air Force, and I appreciate
    the opportunity to present testimony in support of veterans like my
    dad.
        Established in 1991, IFFGD is a patient-driven nonprofit
    organization dedicated to assisting individuals affected by FGIDs, and
    providing education and support for patients, healthcare providers, and
    the public at large. Our mission is to inform and support people
    affected by painful and debilitating digestive conditions, about which
    little is understood and few (if any) treatment options exist. The
    IFFGD also works to advance critical research on functional
    gastrointestinal (GI) and motility disorders, in order to provide
    patients with better treatment options, and to eventually find a cure.
        FGIDs are disorders in which the movement of the intestines, the
    sensitivity of the nerves of the intestines, or the way in which the
    brain controls intestinal function is impaired. People who suffer from
    FGIDs have no structural abnormality, which makes it difficult to
    identify their condition using xrays, blood tests, or endoscopies.
    Instead, FGIDs are typically identified and defined by the collection
    of symptoms experienced by the patient. For this reason, it is not
    uncommon for FGID suffers to have unnecessary surgery, medication, and
    medical devices before receiving a proper diagnosis.
        More than two dozen different FGIDs have been identified. Severity
    ranges from bothersome to disabling and life-altering. The conditions
    may strike anywhere along the gastrointestinal tract, from nausea and
    vomiting to altered bowel habit. Examples of FGIDs include irritable
    bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia. IBS is characterized by
    abdominal pain and discomfort associated with a change in bowel
    pattern, such as diarrhea and/or constipation. Symptoms of functional
    dyspepsia usually include an upset stomach, pain in the belly, and
    bloating.
        FGIDs can be emotionally and physically debilitating. Due to
    persistent pain and bowel unpredictability, individuals who suffer from
    these disorders may distance themselves from social events, work, and
    even may fear leaving their home. Stigma surrounding bowel habits may
    act as barrier to treatment, as patients are not comfortable discussing
    their symptoms with doctors.
        The onset of a functional GI disorder can be triggered by severe
    stress and infections of the digestive system. Deployed military
    personnel face an elevated chance of experiencing these risk factors
    and developing FGIDs as a result of their service. In April 2010, the
    Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report titled ``Gulf War and
    Health, Volume 8: Update on the Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf
    War'', which determined that there is sufficient evidence to associate
    deployment to the gulf war and FGIDs. According to the report, there
    have been a large number of FGID cases among gulf war veterans, and
    their symptoms have continued to be persistent in the years since the
    war. The IOM report focused on the incidence of GI disorders among
    veterans and did not attempt to determine causality. However, the
    report provides compelling evidence linking exposure to enteric
    pathogens during deployment and the development of FGIDs. The IOM
    recommended that further research be conducted on this association.
        Based on the report from IOM, Department of Veterans Affairs
    adopted a final rule on August 15, 2011, stating that there is a
    presumptive service connection between FGIDs and service in the
    Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf war. This
    includes conditions like IBS and functional dyspepsia.
        At IFFGD we hear from numerous veterans about their difficulties
    with FGIDs, including conditions such as IBS and cyclic vomiting
    syndrome. Our military personnel are taught to put duty first, and at
    IFFGD we have noticed that by the time they reach out to us, their
    situation is usually pretty bad. Not only are these disorders hard to
    treat, but in the words of one retired Sergeant, these ``sometimes very
    embarrassing GI disorders'' are just as hard to talk about. In order to
    better articulate the suffering associated with FGIDs, I would like to
    share with you the voices of veterans affected by these disorders. This
    is from Stephen in North Carolina:

        ``I am a Desert Shield/Desert Storm veteran that served in the
    Persian Gulf theater of operations from August 1990 to March 1991, as
    the G2 Sergeant Major for the 24th Infantry Division. While there, and
    since my return, I have been plagued with a multitude of GI problems
    including IBS, a functional GI problem. I suffered nearly constant
    diarrhea for over 10 years before the IBS was ever diagnosed. None of
    my GI problems existed prior to my deployment and they simply do not
    seem to go away afterwards.''

        This is from Jason, who contacted us earlier this year:

        ``I am a disabled Iraq veteran that was deployed during 2003-2005
    timeframe with a National Guard unit attached to Active Duty. Since
    returning from Iraq, I have had issues with my gastrointestinal tract.
    I have made a few attempts to try to pinpoint the cause of this change
    in my bodily function to no avail . . . While speaking with several of
    my former soldiers I came to realize that they are experiencing the
    same signs and symptoms. I am the first one of a group of friends/vets
    that is doing research to find out that we are not alone.''

        The DOD Gulf War Illness Research Program conducts important
    research on the complex set of chronic symptoms that impact Gulf War
    Veterans. Given the conclusions of the IOM report and the report's
    recommendations for further research on the link between FGIDs and
    exposures experienced by veterans in the Gulf War, we ask that you
    continue to support the Gulf War Illness Research Program and encourage
    research into FGIDs through this program so that important research on
    FGIDs among veterans can be conducted.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. If this matter is
    service-connected, I can assure you we're morally bound to do
    something about it.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Vink. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Mr. Anthony Castaldo,
    representing the United States Hereditary Angiodema
    Association.
    STATEMENT OF ANTHONY CASTALDO, PRESIDENT, U.S.
                HEREDITARY ANGIOEDEMA ASSOCIATION
        Mr. Castaldo. Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran:
    I'm delighted to present testimony today on hereditary
    angioedema (HAE). I am Anthony Castaldo, president of the
    United States HAE Association, a Honolulu-based nonprofit
    patient services, research, and advocacy organization that
    represents more than 4,500 HAE patients.
        Now, HAE is a rare, debilitating, and potentially life-
    threatening genetic condition that occurs in about 1 in 50,000
    people. HAE patients experience frequent attacks of intense
    swelling of various body parts, including the hands, face,
    feet, throat, and abdomen. Abdominal attacks involve
    excruciating abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Attacks
    involving the throat are particularly dangerous because the
    swelling can progress to the point where the airway closes and
    causes death by suffocation.
        The historical mortality rate for HAE sufferers is well
    over 30 percent and, tragically, even today HAE patients
    continue to die from swelling attacks that close the airway.
    Unfortunately, according to a recent study HAE patients suffer
    for almost a decade before obtaining an accurate diagnosis, and
    are therefore often subject to unnecessary exploratory surgery
    and ineffective medical procedures.
        Now, the swelling experienced by many HAE patients is
    actually caused by a genetic defect that results in deficient
    levels of a key blood protein. However, there are still
    patients in the HAE Association community who do not yet know
    what causes their swelling. Despite a family history of
    debilitating and life-threatening swelling attacks, these
    patients have normal levels of the protein that I mentioned
    earlier. This important subset of HAE sufferers represent a
    significant unmet medical need and research is required to
    identify the genetic and biochemical markers for this form of
    HAE.
        Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman Cochran, I'd like to share
    some examples of how HAE has a significant impact on the
    ability to serve in our country's armed services. Today, right
    on the island, Hawaiian island of Oahu, there was a remarkable
    young man, Christian Davis, whose dreams of following his
    father's footsteps and becoming an Air Force pilot have been
    dashed because his HAE symptoms prevent him from military
    service.
        Christian, who bravely endures frequent HAE attacks
    involving his abdomen and throat, loved to visit Hickham Air
    Force Base and proudly watch his father, Lieutenant Colonel
    Milton Davis, take off and land Hawaii Air National Guard C-17
    cargo planes. With visions of one day serving America by
    grasping the controls and piloting a C-17, Christian eagerly
    began the process of applying for military service. It did not
    take long, however, for this young man's aspirations to be
    dowsed by the reality that HEA would cause him to be rejected
    for military service.
        My father, who experienced severe swelling attacks, yet
    served with distinction in the Korean war, chose to endure his
    excruciating swelling without seeking treatment, so he could
    continue to serve his country. Of course, in those days HAE had
    not yet been identified as a discrete disease. Indeed, my dad
    was so proud to serve as a U.S. military police officer that
    while in Korea he stopped reporting to the field hospital
    during swelling attacks, in an attempt to avoid a medical
    discharge.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, on behalf of HEA
    patients in the United States, including those like Christian
    Davis who would like to serve his country, and veterans like my
    dad, who remained on active duty despite suffering from
    debilitating HAE swelling attacks, I would like to request that
    the subcommittee continue--that HAE continue to be eligible for
    the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program for fiscal year
    2013. There is a critical need for research in understanding
    all causes of HAE, including currently available treatments,
    and ultimately finding a cure.
        Thank you for inviting me to appear today.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Anthony Castaldo
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the Defense subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present
    testimony on Hereditary Angioedema (HAE). I am Anthony Castaldo,
    president of the United States Hereditary Angeioedema Association
    (USHAEA) and an HAE patient. USHAEA is a nonprofit patient advocacy
    organization founded to provide patient support, educate patients and
    their families, advance HAE research, and find a cure. Our efforts
    include providing research funding to scientific investigators to
    increase the HAE knowledge base and maintaining a patient registry to
    support groundbreaking research efforts. Today, we would like to
    request the continued inclusion of HAE in the fiscal year 2013 Peer-
    Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) within the Department of
    Defense (DOD) appropriations bill.
        My family has a long history of military service, my grandfather
    served in the Great War and my father and uncle in Korea; I grew up
    understanding the sacrifices and dedication of our servicemen and
    women. I, however, was and am unable to serve my country in the same
    way because of my condition. There are also a number of other men and
    women who were prevented from serving in the military due to an HAE
    diagnosis.
        HAE is a rare and potentially life-threatening inherited disease
    with symptoms of severe, recurring, debilitating attacks of edema
    (swelling). HAE patients have a defect in the gene that controls a
    blood protein called C1-inhibitor, so it is also more specifically
    referred to as C1-inhibitor deficiency. This genetic defect results in
    production of either inadequate or nonfunctioning C1-inhibitor protein.
    Because the defective C1-inhibitor does not adequately perform its
    regulatory function, a biochemical imbalance can occur and produce an
    unwanted peptide--called bradykinin--that induces the capillaries to
    release fluids into surrounding tissues, thereby causing swelling.
        People with HAE experience attacks of severe swelling that affect
    various body parts including the hands, feet, face, airway (throat),
    and intestinal wall. Swelling of the throat is the most life-
    threatening aspect of HAE, because the airway can close and cause death
    by suffocation. Studies reveal that more than 50 percent of patients
    will experience at least one throat attack in their lifetime.
        HAE swelling is disfiguring, extremely painful, and debilitating.
    Attacks of abdominal swelling involve severe and excruciating pain,
    vomiting, and diarrhea. Because abdominal attacks mimic a surgical
    emergency, approximately one-third of patients with undiagnosed HAE
    undergo unnecessary surgery. Untreated, an average HAE attack lasts
    between 24 and 72 hours, but some attacks may last longer and be
    accompanied by prolonged fatigue.
        The majority of HAE patients experience their first attack during
    childhood or adolescence. Most attacks occur spontaneously with no
    apparent reason, but anxiety, stress, minor trauma, medical, surgical,
    and dental procedures, and illnesses such as colds and flu have been
    cited as common triggers. ACE inhibitors (a blood pressure control
    medication) and estrogen-derived medications (birth control pills and
    hormone replacement drugs) have also been shown to exacerbate HAE
    attacks.
        HAE's genetic defect can be passed on in families. A child has a
    50-percent chance of inheriting the disease from a parent with HAE.
    However, the absence of family history does not rule out the HAE
    diagnosis; scientists report that as many as 25 percent of HAE cases
    today result from patients who had a spontaneous mutation of the C1-
    inhibitor gene at conception. These patients can also pass the
    defective gene to their offspring. Worldwide, it is estimated that this
    condition affects between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 30,000 people.
                     peer-reviewed medical research program
        On behalf of the HAE community, including our military families, I
    would like to thank the subcommittee for recognizing HAE as a condition
    eligible for study through Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program
    (PRMRP) in the committee reports accompanying the fiscal year 2012 DOD
    appropriations bill. The scientific community showed great interest in
    the program, responding to the grant announcements with an immense
    outpouring of proposals. We urge the Congress to maintain HAE's
    eligibility in the PRMRP in committee reports accompanying the fiscal
    year 2013 DOD appropriations bill, to help find a cure so the men and
    women born with HAE can serve their country in the Armed Forces and
    help their families with the very challenging condition.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the HAE
    community.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Castaldo. I
    assure you that we'll look into this matter.
        Mr. Castaldo. Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Our next witness is Lieutenant Colonel Carl Hicks,
    representing the Pulmonary Hypertension Association.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL CARL HICKS, U.S. ARMY
                (RETIRED), PULMONARY HYPERTENSION
                ASSOCIATION
        Colonel Hicks. Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to acknowledge
    you as a personal hero. Your actions long ago set an example
    for bravery and sacrifice, inspiring so many young Americans
    who would later follow as infantrymen and earn the combat
    infantryman's badge. Sir, I was one of them, and I'm especially
    humbled to be in your presence, as any American would be. Thank
    you.
        And thank you for having me here today to speak on behalf
    of hundreds of thousands of Americans impacted by pulmonary
    hypertension (PH). On behalf of the PH community, I am here to
    request that you once again include pulmonary hypertension as a
    condition eligible for study through the Department of Defense
    (DOD) Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program.
        I volunteer for a grassroots, patient-centric organization
    called the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA). With more
    than 20,000 members and supporters, including more than 250
    support groups across the country, PHA now is recognized
    worldwide. We are dedicated to improving treatment options and
    finding cures for PH and supporting affected individuals
    through coordinated research, education, and advocacy
    activities.
        PH is a debilitating and usually fatal condition where
    blood pressure in the lungs rises to dangerously high levels.
    In PH patients, the walls of the arteries that take the blood
    from the side of the heart to the lungs thicken, scar, and
    constrict, and as a result the right side of the heart has to
    pump harder to move blood into the lungs, causing it to enlarge
    and ultimately fail.
        Symptoms of PH include shortness of breath, fatigue, chest
    pain, dizziness, and fainting. The stricken feel, even at rest,
    as though they are suffocating, because they are. The only way
    to ultimately survive being stricken with PH is to undergo a
    lung or a heart-lung transplant.
        August 16, 1981, was one of the happiest days of my life. I
    was a young airborne Ranger infantry captain who had worked his
    way up from private. I felt pretty tough. Holding my first-born
    Meaghan in my arms moments after she was born, I looked down
    into her beautiful little face and vowed these arms would
    protect her from everything, and there was no doubt that I
    could.
        Fast-forward 13 happy years and our little happy family had
    grown to three healthy, beautiful Army brats. I had been
    promoted rapidly, and we were on our way back from Germany to
    assume the command of the 10th Mountain Division. Life could
    not have been better.
        Days away from leaving, Meaghan, who was a fit, healthy
    young gymnast of 13, fainted and complained of shortness of
    breath. Initially misdiagnosed, we were soon at Walter Reed,
    where I was confident they could solve the problem. After 3
    days of testing, an Army doctor asked me to join him around the
    corner, where he said: ``Colonel Hicks, I regret to inform you,
    but your daughter, Meaghan, has a terminal illness. She has
    less than a year to live and there is nothing we can do for
    her.''
        I was not such a tough warrior any more. Little did they
    know that Meaghan was a tough warrior, though, and with the
    combined help and prayers of many she lived another 12 years
    before declining precipitously. Finally, the only hope for
    Meaghan was a dangerous heart and lung transplant, which she
    fearlessly endured. But there were serious complications.
    Undaunted, she fought on, never quitting or giving up.
        As she once again began to decline, helpless to find ways
    to comfort her, I offered her an old Ranger tee shirt to wear
    as she lay in bed. She was so proud that she rallied briefly.
    Yet, 48 hours later we lost her. I had failed my most important
    mission, that promise to protect her from everything. She was
    the bravest person I have ever known.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Distinguished members, while new treatment options have
    been developed for PH in recent years, they are limited and
    there remains no cure. For the members of our military and
    their families who are struggling with PH, the hope for a
    better quality of life depends on advancements made through
    biomedical research. It is important to note that research in
    this area has a potential to yield additional benefits toward
    the study of America's number one killer, heart disease, as
    well as other lung illnesses.
        Pulmonary hypertension was included as a condition eligible
    for study through DOD Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program in
    2009. I respectfully request once again that we renew that
    commitment toward a better tomorrow made through this important
    research by including pulmonary hypertension as a condition
    eligible for fiscal year 2013.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Carl Hicks
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee: Thank you for having me here today to speak on
    behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Americans impacted by pulmonary
    hypertension (PH). As a military veteran and as a veteran of the
    ongoing battle against PH, it is my honor to appear before you as a
    representative of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA). On
    behalf of the PH community, I am here to request that you once again
    include PH as a condition eligible for study through the Department of
    Defense (DOD) Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) as you
    work to complete fiscal year 2013 Defense appropriations.
        PHA has served the PH community for more than 20 years. In 1990,
    three PH patients found each other with the help of the National
    Organization for Rare Disorders and shortly thereafter founded PHA. At
    that time, the condition was largely unknown amongst the general public
    and within the medical community; there were fewer than 200 diagnosed
    cases of the disease. Since then, PHA has grown into a nationwide
    network of more than 20,000 members and supporters, including more than
    250 support groups across the country. PHA is dedicated to improving
    treatment options and finding cures for PH, and supporting affected
    individuals through coordinated research, education, and advocacy
    activities. We now have an international presence and reputation around
    the world for which I am deeply proud.
        PH is a debilitating and often fatal condition where the blood
    pressure in the lungs rises to dangerously high levels. In PH patients,
    the walls of the arteries that take blood from the right side of the
    heart to the lungs thicken and constrict. As a result, the right side
    of the heart has to pump harder to move blood into the lungs, causing
    it to enlarge and ultimately fail. Symptoms of PH include shortness of
    breath, fatigue, chest pain, dizziness, and fainting. The only way to
    ultimately survive being stricken with PH is a lung or heart-lung
    transplant.
        On August 16, 1981, I was a young Airborne Ranger Infantry captain
    who'd worked his way up from private and felt pretty tough. As I held
    my firstborn child, Meaghan, in my arms moments after she was born, I
    looked down into her beautiful little face and knew these arms could
    protect her from anything, and I lovingly told her so in front of her
    beaming mother. Fast forward 13 happy years and our little family had
    grown to three happy, healthy, beautiful Army brats. I had been
    promoted multiple times below the zone, and we were on our way back
    from Europe so I could assume a new command in the 10th Mountain
    Division. Life couldn't have been better, or so I thought.
        Days away from leaving, Meaghan, a super fit healthy gymnast of 13,
    fainted and complained of shortness of breath. Initially misdiagnosed
    as are almost all, we eventually ended up at Walter Reed. Two days
    later a young Army doctor asked me to join him around the corner where
    he said, ``Colonel Hicks, I regret to inform you that your daughter,
    Meaghan, has a terminal illness, and there is nothing we can do for
    her. She has less than a year to live at best.'' I was no longer the
    tough battle-hardened Ranger that moments before I was.
        Little did they know that Meaghan was tough, and combined with the
    help of a civilian physician, she lived another 12 years before
    declining precipitously. Finally the only hope was a dangerous heart-
    lung transplant which she fearlessly endured. But there were
    complications. Undaunted, she fought on, never quitting or giving up.
    As she again began to decline and she asked for my Ranger t-shirt to
    wear. Forty-eight hours later, with all of us around her, she lost her
    last fight. I had failed my mission and didn't keep that promise to
    protect from everything, but Meaghan, she never gave up. Rangers both
    retired and Active Duty came from around the world for her celebration
    of life, and we did a Ranger ``roll-call'' for her and stood to salute
    when she didn't respond. She was the bravest person I ever knew, and
    she never, ever quit.
        Gentlemen, while new treatment options have been developed for PH
    in recent years, these treatment options are limited and there remains
    no cure. For the members of our military and their families who are
    struggling with PH, the hope for a better quality of life depends on
    advancements made through biomedical research. It is important to note
    that research in this area has the potential to yield additional
    benefits towards the study of America's number one killer, heart
    disease. PH was included as a condition eligible for study through the
    DOD's Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program as recently as 2009. I ask
    that this subcommittee renew the commitment towards a better tomorrow
    made through this important research by including pulmonary
    hypertension as a condition eligible for study through the Peer-
    Reviewed Medical Research Program in fiscal year 2013.
    PHA Fiscal Year 2013 DOD Appropriations Recommendations
        Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP):
      --Please, once again, include pulmonary hypertension (PH) on the list
            of conditions deemed eligible for study through the DOD PRMRP
            as you continue your important work on the fiscal year 2013
            Defense appropriations bill.
      --In addition, please provide $50 million for PRMRP, which is housed
            within the DOD Congressionally Directed Medical Research
            Program, so that this program may continue to advance important
            research activities focused on a number of conditions.
        Thank you for your time and your consideration of this request.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much and thank you for
    your kind words. We will make certain that this matter is
    continued.
        Colonel Hicks. Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        The next group of witnesses: Mr. Neal Thompson of the
    Interstitial Cystitis Association; Mr. Danny Smith of the
    Scleroderma Foundation; Ms. Dee Linde, the Dystonia Medical
    Research Foundation; and Ms. Joy Simha, National Breast Cancer
    Coalition.
        I call upon Mr. Thompson.
    STATEMENT OF F. NEAL THOMPSON, TREASURER, BOARD OF
                DIRECTORS, INTERSTITIAL CYSTITIS
                ASSOCIATION
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman
    Cochran, distinguished members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present testimony before you today. My
    name is Neal Thompson. I'm speaking on behalf of the
    Interstitial Cystitis Association (ICA). The ICA advocates for
    interstitial cystitis (IC) research, raises awareness, and
    serves as a center hub for healthcare providers, researchers,
    and millions of patients with IC.
        I'm also a lieutenant colonel in the Virginia Defense
    Force, which is a voluntary military organization set up to
    provide support for the Department of Military Affairs, which
    is the Virginia National Guard and Army Guard.
        I was a high-level insurance executive, but my life came to
    a screeching halt when I got this IC base. I couldn't travel. I
    couldn't sleep. Fortunately, I was able to get a diagnosis from
    the Medical College of Virginia, from a doctor there who was
    also working at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    hospital. So that changed my life and I was able to get some
    treatment.
        IC is a chronic condition characterized by recurring pain,
    pressure, and discomfort of the bladder and pelvic region. It's
    often associated with urinary frequency and urgency. The cause
    of IC is still unknown and the diagnosis is made only after
    excluding other urinary and bladder conditions.
        Misdiagnosis is very common, and when healthcare providers
    are not properly educated about IC patients may suffer for
    years before receiving an accurate diagnosis, often as long as
    5 years. IC is often considered a woman's disease, but, while
    it is more common in women, scientific evidence shows that all
    demographic groups are affected by IC. It is estimated that 12
    million Americans have IC symptoms.
        The effects of IC are damaging to work life, psychological
    well-being, personal relationships, and general health. The
    impact on IC quality of life is equally as severe as rheumatoid
    arthritis and end stage renal disease. IC can cause patients to
    suffer from sleep dysfunction, high rates of depression,
    anxiety, sexual dysfunction, and in some cases, suicide.
        The burden of IC on our military, the Nation's military
    members and veterans, is significant. The Urological Disease of
    America Project conducted between 1999 and 2002 found that
    approximately 1.4 of all veterans who utilized the Veterans
    Health Administration (VHA) have been treated for IC. This
    study also showed a 14-percent increase in IC patients within
    the VHA over the same period.
        The ICA has also heard from many service men and women
    about their struggles with IC, including a woman who is just
    currently in field training, who experienced severe pain every
    time she fired her weapon. Several individuals, such as former
    Navy Captain Gary Monray, were forced to retire from their
    military career due to pain and limitations imposed by IC.
        IC research through the Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed
    Medical Research Program remains essential for expanding our
    knowledge of this painful condition. This program is an
    indispensable resource for studying emerging areas of IC
    research, such as prevalence in men, the role of environmental
    conditions, and development and diagnosis and various
    treatments.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator, I've read your Medal of Honor designation in 1945
    and I read the actions taken in Northern Italy. It's chilling
    just to read that, but at the time I'm sure you knew what was
    happening and you knew the cause and you knew what the
    treatment. What is so insidious about IC is you don't see it
    externally and we still need more research to find the cure.
        On behalf of IC patients, including many veterans, we
    request IC continue to be eligible for the Peer-Reviewed
    Medical Research Program for fiscal year 2013.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of F. Neal Thompson
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present
    information on interstitial cystitis (IC). I am Neal Thompson,
    treasurer of the board of directors of the Interstitial Cystitis
    Association (ICA). 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.
        I am a member of the Virginia Defense Forces, a volunteer military
    reserve set up to provide back up for the Virginia National Guard. This
    group, when called to active duty, is trained to secure any Federal and
    State property left in place in the event of the mobilization of the
    Virginia National Guard. I was a high-level financial executive, but my
    life came to a complete stop because of IC. I struggled for many years
    to get a diagnosis while trying to keep an active travel schedule and
    meet the demands of a high-level position. The challenges of being
    diagnosed and finding an effective treatment eventually forced me to
    leave work due to disability.
        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 1 or more years of delay between the 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. It
    is estimated that as many as 12 million Americans have IC symptoms,
    more people than Alzheimer's, breast cancer, and autism combined.
        The effects of IC are pervasive and insidious, damaging work life,
    psychological well-being, personal relationships, and general health.
    The impact of IC on quality of life is equally as severe as rheumatoid
    arthritis and end-stage renal disease. Health-related quality of life
    in individuals with IC is worse than in individuals with endometriosis,
    vulvodynia, and overactive bladder. IC patients have significantly more
    sleep dysfunction, higher rates of depression, anxiety, and sexual
    dysfunction.
        The burden of IC among our Nation's servicemembers and veterans is
    significant. The Urologic Diseases in America Project, conducted
    between 1999 and 2002, found that approximately 1.4 percent of all
    veterans utilizing the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) had been
    treated for IC. This study also showed a 14-percent increase in IC
    patients within VHA over the same period.
        Navy Captain Gary Mowrey (Retired) was forced to cut his naval
    career short as a result of IC. Captain Mowrey was in the Navy for 25
    years and has served as commander of the VAQ133 Squadron, operations
    officer on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, chief of the Enlisted
    Performance Division in the Bureau of Naval Personnel, and earned a
    Southwest Asia service medal with two stars for his service in
    Operation Desert Storm. In 1994, he began to experience significant
    pain, could not always make it to the restroom, and was not even able
    to sit through normal meetings. After months of unsuccessful antibiotic
    treatments for urinary tract infections, Captain Mowrey was diagnosed
    with IC, and retired due to the pain and limitations imposed by IC. He
    then attempted to teach high school math, but had to retire from this
    position as well due to the pain and frequent urination associated with
    his IC.
        Although IC research is currently conducted through a number of
    Federal entities, including the National Institutes of Health 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 2013 budget request did not include renewed funding for the CDC's
    IC Education and Awareness Program.
        On behalf of the IC community, including our veterans, I would like
    to thank the subcommittee for recognizing IC as a condition eligible
    for study through the DOD's PRMRP in the committee reports accompanying
    the fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 DOD appropriations bills. The
    scientific community showed great interest in IC research through this
    program. We urge the Congress to maintain IC's eligibility in the PRMRP
    in committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2013 DOD
    appropriations bill, as the number of current military members, family
    members, and veterans affected by IC is increasing.

        Chairman Inouye. Sir, I can assure you that we'll do our
    best to maintain the eligibility of IC patients. Thank you very
    much.
        Now may I call upon Mr. Danny L. Smith.
    STATEMENT OF DANNY L. SMITH, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED),
                SCLERODERMA FOUNDATION
        Mr. Smith. Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and
    distinguished members of the Defense subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to talk to you today about scleroderma. I'm
    Danny Smith from Saginaw, Michigan. I have been a scleroderma
    patient since 1999. Before my battle with scleroderma started,
    I was in the U.S. Army--Hawaii 1965 and Vietnam 1966.
        The word ``scleroderma'' literally means ``hard skin'',
    which is one of the most manifestations of the disease. The
    cause of scleroderma is unknown, although it involves an
    overproduction of collagen. This can cause the hardening of the
    internal organs. Serious complications of the disease include
    pain, skin ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, disorders of the
    digestive system, and others.
        For me, it began with my hands. They turned blue, stiffened
    up. I could not move my fingers. I went to my doctor. She sent
    me to a rheumatologist. They sent me to a rheumatologist. He
    diagnosed me with scleroderma eventually. I had just gotten a
    new job working for the United Auto Workers (UAW), and I didn't
    get to sit in that chair because they put me on disability
    right away and I never got there.
        But as time went on, the skin on my arms and my hands got
    tighter. I could not even close my hands. A few months later, I
    began an experimental treatment called cytoxin infusion for
    scleroderma, taken once a month for 2 years. My scleroderma
    began impacting my right lung. Breathing became difficult. I
    was losing weight and coloration of my skin was changing.
        The rheumatologist referred me to a lung specialist at the
    University of Michigan. The lung specialist said that my right
    lung was not fluctuating. It was beginning to harden and turn
    to stone, which is a term used in scleroderma. After many
    tests, counseling on risk, I decided to go ahead with the lung
    transplant. On September 20, 2004, at 11 p.m., I got a phone
    call that a lung was available. I was on the operating table
    the next morning at 7:30 a.m.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        As I said before, the exact cause of scleroderma is not
    known. However, it is suspected that an unknown inciting event
    can trigger autoimmune reactions. Additionally, toxic agents
    soldiers may be exposed to on a battlefield have often proved
    to cause lung injury and fibrosis. The successful completion of
    studies being done by DOD will bring us much closer to being
    able to treat scleroderma, lung disease, and other diseases
    involving lung injury and fibrosis to human patients. This is
    very important because there are currently no effective FDA-
    approved treatments for these diseases.
        On behalf of scleroderma patients, we request scleroderma
    continue to be eligible for the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research
    Program for fiscal year 2013.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Danny L. Smith
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee: As a military veteran, it is my honor to appear
    before you as a representative of the Scleroderma Foundation and on
    behalf of those living with scleroderma. My name is Danny L. Smith. I
    live in Saginaw, Michigan and I was in the U.S. Army from September
    1964 until September 1967. I was discharged at Fort Lewis, Washington
    and was stationed in Hawaii in 1965 and Vietnam in 1966 at Cu Chi. I
    was diagnosed with scleroderma in 1999. I also have had lupus since the
    mid-1970s. I am here to request that you continue to include
    scleroderma as a condition eligible for study through the Department of
    Defense's (DOD) Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) as you
    work to complete fiscal year 2013 Defense appropriations.
        The Scleroderma Foundation is a national organization for people
    with scleroderma and their families and friends. The Foundation's
    mission is threefold:
      --support to help patients and their families cope with scleroderma
            through mutual support programs, peer counseling, physician
            referrals, and educational information;
      --education to promote public awareness and education through patient
            and health professional seminars, literature, and publicity
            campaigns; and
      --research to stimulate and support research to improve treatment and
            ultimately find the cause of and cure for scleroderma and
            related diseases.
        Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) is a chronic autoimmune disorder
    marked by early skin lesions and the progressive tissue fibrosis. More
    than skin deep, this thickening and hardening of connective tissue
    affects the blood capillaries, the gastrointestinal tract, the lungs,
    and the heart. In scleroderma patients, fibrosis frequently leads to
    organ dysfunction, serious illness, and death. Researchers have yet to
    determine the underlying cause of this disfiguring, debilitating
    condition or find an effective antifibrotic remedy. Scleroderma impacts
    approximately 300,000 Americans; 80 percent of whom are women diagnosed
    during their child-bearing years. Scleroderma also has a highly
    disproportionate impact on Native American, African-American, and
    Hispanic populations. These groups tend to exhibit more rapidly
    progressing and severe cases of the disease. Scleroderma lung disease
    is categorized as an interstitial lung disease (ILD). ILD refers to a
    broad category of lung diseases, of which scleroderma is one among
    nearly 150 conditions, marked by fibrosis or scarring of the lungs. The
    net result of the fibrosis is ineffective respiration or difficulty
    breathing. Lung fibrosis occurs in nearly all patients with systemic
    sclerosis and for reasons that are not clear, severe lung scarring is
    seen more frequently in men and in African-American scleroderma
    patients. I was one of these men. Lung disease is the number one cause
    of death in scleroderma patients.
        It began with trouble with my hands at work. They were turning blue
    and I could not flex them. I went to my family doctor and she referred
    me to a rheumatologist who subsequently diagnosed me with Raynaud's
    (the blue color) and scleroderma. As time went on the skin was getting
    tighter on my arms and so tight on my hands that I could not even close
    them. The doctor started me on an exercise program for my arms and
    hands. A few months later I began an experimental treatment, Cytoxin
    Infusion, for the scleroderma, taken once a month. I was on it for 2
    years. After 2 years, my scleroderma began impacting my right lung.
    Breathing became difficult, I was losing weight, and the coloration of
    my skin was changing. The rheumatologist then referred me to a lung
    specialist at the University of Michigan. The lung specialist said that
    my right lung was not fluctuating and was beginning to harden or turn
    to stone--a term used with scleroderma.
        When I inquired about a transplant I was tested and counseled by
    multiple doctors because the operation would be experimental. There
    were considerable risks. I was finally put on the transplant list. On
    September 20, 2004, I got a phone call at 11 p.m. that a lung was
    available. They said I needed to get to Ann Arbor as quickly as
    possible. When I got there they checked to make sure I was healthy
    enough for the operation and ran tests for infection. I was on the
    operating table the next morning, September 21, at 7:30 a.m. I was in
    the hospital for a week. Having become so weak being on oxygen for 2
    years, I also required extensive physical therapy. Since the operation
    I have been doing well. The lung is still functioning as well today as
    the day I received it.
        Since my operation I have joined a Scleroderma Foundation support
    group and found out there is so much we don't know about scleroderma.
    We all differ in our degrees of the illness. I have learned that none
    of us are the same or have the same outcomes. For example, I knew a
    young lady, 17 years old, who had scleroderma. Her one wish was to go
    to Disney World. A trip was arranged for her and her family. She was
    not doing well but wanted to go anyway. She made it to Florida and to
    the hotel but then needed to go to the hospital. She passed away the
    next day without getting to see Disney World. The doctors here in
    Saginaw used some of the treatments on her that were used on me. The
    treatments worked for me but not for her.
        As I stated before, I am a veteran of the United States Army and a
    Vietnam Vet. Scleroderma research is of utmost importance to the
    military. The exact cause of scleroderma is not known; however, it is
    suspected that an unknown inciting event triggers injury, probably to
    cells lining the blood vessels. There are also changes in the body's
    immune system that cause the immune cells to react to body components
    including the connective tissue. A major consequence of these so-called
    ``autoimmune reactions'' is stimulation of fibroblasts (cells that make
    collagen and other connective tissue components). The net result is
    excessive accumulation of collagen and other connective tissue
    components in parts of the body such as skin, lungs, and walls of the
    arteries. A veteran's immune system disability may be related to his
    in-service chemical exposure. Systemic sclerosis and systemic lupus
    have been reported in patients exposed to TCE.
        Additionally, toxic agents soldiers may be exposed to on the
    battlefield have also proved to cause lung injury/fibrosis. The
    successful completion of studies will bring us much closer to being
    able to treat scleroderma lung disease and other diseases involving
    lung injury/fibrosis in human patients. This is of the utmost urgency
    because there are currently no effective, U.S. Food and Drug
    Administration-approved treatments for these diseases.
        On behalf of the scleroderma community, including our veterans, I
    would like to thank the subcommittee for recognizing scleroderma as a
    condition eligible for study through the DOD's PRMRP in the committee
    reports accompanying the fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 DOD
    appropriations bills. The scientific community showed great interest in
    the program, responding to the grant announcements with an immense
    outpouring of proposals. We urge the Congress to maintain scleroderma's
    eligibility in the PRMRP.

        Chairman Inouye. We'll do our best to make certain that
    it's eligible for research.
        Thank you very much, Sir.
        Our next witness is Ms. Dee Linde, representing the
    Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.
    STATEMENT OF DEE LINDE, PATIENT ADVOCATE, DYSTONIA
                ADVOCACY NETWORK
        Ms. Linde. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman: Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Dee Linde and
    I'm a dystonia patient and volunteer with the Dystonia Advocacy
    Network (DAN). As a veteran and former Navy petty officer, I am
    honored to testify before this subcommittee.
        The DAN is comprised of five dystonia patient groups and
    works to advance dystonia research, increase dystonia
    awareness, and provide support for dystonia patients. Dystonia
    is a rare neurological movement disorder that causes muscles to
    contract and spasm involuntarily. Dystonia is a chronic
    disorder whose symptoms vary in degrees of frequency,
    intensity, disability, and pain. Dystonia can be generalized or
    focal. Generalized dystonia affects all major muscle groups,
    resulting in twisting, repetitive movements, and abnormal
    postures. Focal dystonia affects a specific part of the body,
    such as the legs, arms, eyelids, or vocal cords.
        Dystonia can be hereditary or caused by trauma, and it
    affects approximately 300,000 persons in the United States. At
    this time there is no cure for dystonia and treatment is highly
    individualized. Patients frequently rely on invasive therapies.
        In 1995, after my Navy career, I started feeling symptoms
    from what would later be diagnosed as tardive dystonia, which
    is medication-induced dystonia. The symptoms started as an
    uncontrollable shivering sensation. Over the next 2 years, the
    symptoms continued to worsen and I started feeling like I was
    being squeezed in a vise. My diaphragm was constricted and I
    couldn't breathe. I also had blepharospasm, a form of dystonia
    that forcibly shut my eyes, leaving me functionally blind even
    though there was nothing wrong with my vision.
        My dystonia affected my entire upper body and for years my
    spasms didn't allow me to sit in a chair or sleep safely in bed
    with my husband. I spent those years having to sleep and even
    eat on the floor. I was also forced to give up my private
    practice as a psychotherapist.
        In 2000, I underwent surgery to receive deep brain
    stimulation (DBS). The neurosurgeon implanted leads into my
    brain that emit constant electrical pulses which interrupt the
    bad signals and help control my symptoms. Thanks to DBS, I have
    gone from being completely nonfunctional to having the ability
    to walk and to move like a healthy individual and I am now
    almost completely symptom-free. But DBS is not a cure.
        The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation (DMRF) has
    received reports that the incidence of dystonia in the United
    States has noticeably increased since our military forces were
    deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. An article in Military
    Medicine titled ``Post-Traumatic Shoulder Dystonia in an Active
    Duty Soldier'' stated that, ``Dystonia after minor trauma can
    be as crippling as a penetrating wound, with disability that
    renders the soldier unable to perform his duties.''
        Awareness of this disorder is essential to avoid
    mislabeling and possibly mistreating a true neurological
    disease.
        In addition, a study published this month in ``Science
    Translational Medicine'' found that blast exposures can cause
    structural problems in the brain. We believe these structural
    problems will lead to increased dystonia.
        The Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Medical Research
    Program is critical to developing a better understanding of the
    mechanisms connecting trauma and dystonia.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The dystonia community would like to thank the subcommittee
    for adding dystonia to the list of conditions eligible for
    study under this program since fiscal year 2010. We're excited
    to report that dystonia researchers have competed successfully
    within the peer-reviewed system every year thus far. We urge
    the subcommittee to maintain dystonia as an eligible condition
    in the Defense Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program in fiscal
    year 2013.
        Thank you again for your time and interest.
        [The statement follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Dee Linde
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Department of Defense
    Appropriations subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. My name is Dee Linde, and I am a dystonia patient and volunteer
    with the Dystonia Advocacy Network (DAN). I am also a former Navy
    servicemember, and I am honored to testify before this subcommittee.
    The DAN is comprised of five dystonia patient groups working
    collaboratively to meet the needs of those affected:
      --the Benign Essential Blepharospasm Research Foundation (BEBRF);
      --the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation (DMRF);
      --the National Spasmodic Dysphonia Association (NSDA);
      --the National Spasmodic Torticollis Association (NSTA); and
      --ST/Dystonia, Inc.
        The DAN works to advance dystonia research, increase dystonia
    awareness, and provide support for those living with the disorder. On
    behalf of the dystonia community, I am here to request that you include
    dystonia as a condition eligible for study through the Peer-Reviewed
    Medical Research Program as you work to complete fiscal year 2013
    Department of Defense appropriations.
        Dystonia is a rare neurological movement disorder that causes
    muscles to contract and spasm involuntarily. It is a chronic disorder
    whose symptoms vary in degrees of frequency, intensity, disability, and
    pain. Dystonia can be generalized or focal. Generalized dystonia
    affects all major muscle groups, resulting in twisting repetitive
    movements and abnormal postures. Focal dystonia affects a specific part
    of the body such as the legs, arms, hands, eyelids, or vocal chords.
    Dystonia can be hereditary or caused by trauma such as a car crash or a
    blast exposure as experienced by military personnel. At this time,
    there is no cure for dystonia 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.
        In 1995, after my Navy career, I started feeling symptoms for what
    would later be diagnosed as tardive dystonia, which is medication-
    induced dystonia. The symptoms started as an uncontrollable shivering
    sensation that often prompted people to ask me if I was cold. Over the
    next 2 years, the symptoms continued to worsen, and I started feeling
    like I was being squeezed: my diaphragm was constricted and I couldn't
    breathe. I also had belpharospasm which meant that my eyes would shut
    forcibly and uncontrollably, leaving me functionally blind even though
    there was nothing wrong with my vision.
        The tardive dystonia affected my entire upper body and for years my
    spasms didn't allow me to sit in a chair, or sleep safely in the bed
    with my husband. As a family joke, my mother made my husband a nose
    guard to wear because I kept hitting him during the night. We made
    light of the situation when we could, but I was facing much hardship
    and loneliness. I spent those years having to sleep and even eat on the
    floor. Before I developed dystonia, I had my own private practice as a
    licensed psychotherapist which I had to give up as a result of my
    spasms.
        Because I have other service-connected disabilities and am
    considered 100-percent unemployable, I receive care at the Veterans
    hospital in Portland, Oregon. In 2000, I underwent surgery to receive
    DBS. The surgeons implanted leads into my basil ganglia, the part of
    the brain that controls movement. The DBS therapy delivers constant
    electrical stimulation that interrupts the bad signals and helps
    control the involuntary movements. Thanks to DBS, I have gone from
    being completely nonfunctional, to having the ability to walk and to
    move like a healthy individual. I am happy to say that I am now almost
    completely symptom free. Many dystonia patients who undergo DBS do not
    experience the positive results on the scale that I have, and some
    undergo brain surgery only to find that the DBS has no effect.
    Moreover, DBS is a treatment--not a cure.
        The DAN has received reports that the incidence of dystonia in the
    United States has noticeably increased 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 traumatic
    injuries and the onset of dystonia. A June 2006 article in ``Military
    Medicine'' entitled ``Post-Traumatic Shoulder Dystonia in an Active
    Duty Soldier'' reported on dystonia experienced by military personnel
    and concluded the following:

        ``Dystonia after minor trauma can be as crippling as a penetrating
    wound, with disability that renders the soldier unable to perform his
    duties . . . awareness of this disorder [dystonia] is essential to
    avoid mislabeling, and possibly mistreating, a true neurological
    disease.''

        More recently, a study published in the May 16, 2012 issue of
    ``Science Translational Medicine'' led by Dr. Lee E. Goldstein of
    Boston University's School of Medicine found that blast exposures can
    cause structural problems in the brain that we believe will lead to
    increased dystonia. As military personnel remain deployed for longer
    periods, we can expect dystonia prevalence in military and veterans
    populations to continue to rise.
        Although Federal dystonia research is conducted through a number of
    medical and scientific agencies, the Department of Defense (DOD) Peer-
    Reviewed Medical Research Program remains the most essential program
    studying dystonia in military and veteran populations. This program is
    critical to developing a better understanding of the mechanisms
    connecting trauma and dystonia. For the past 2 years, I have been a
    consumer reviewer on this panel. The DAN 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, fiscal year 2011, and fiscal year 2012 Defense
    Appropriation bills. The DAN is excited to report that dystonia
    researchers have competed successfully within the peer-reviewed system
    every year which underscores the important nature of their work. We
    urge the subcommittee to maintain dystonia as a condition eligible for
    study through the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program in fiscal year
    2013.
        Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to address the
    subcommittee today. I hope you will continue to include dystonia as a
    condition eligible for study under the DOD Peer-Reviewed Medical
    Research Program.
    DAN Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Appropriations Recommendations
        Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP):
      --Include ``dystonia'' as a condition eligible for study through the
            PRMRP.
      --Provide $50 million for PRMRP, which is housed within the
            Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.

        Chairman Inouye. If this matter is service-connected, I can
    assure you that we'll do our best to make certain your
    organization continues its research.
        Ms. Linde. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Our next witness is Ms. Joy Simha, representing the
    National Breast Cancer Coalition.
    STATEMENT OF JOY SIMHA, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
                NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION
        Ms. Simha. Thank you very much. I am Joy Simha, an 18-year
    breast cancer survivor, co-founder of the Young Survival
    Coalition and a member of the board of directors of the
    National Breast Cancer Coalition, which is an organization made
    up of hundreds of grassroots organizations from across the
    country.
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, members of the
    subcommittee: We thank you for your longstanding support for
    the Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research
    Program (BCRP). You know the importance of this program to
    women and their families both within and outside the military
    across the country, to the scientific and healthcare
    communities, and to the Department of Defense, because much of
    the progress that has been made in the fight against breast
    cancer is due to your investment in this important program.
        The vision of the Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed BCRP
    is to eradicate breast cancer by funding innovative, high-
    impact research through the unique partnership of the Congress,
    the Army, scientists, and consumers.
        The Department of the Army must be applauded for overseeing
    this unique program. It's established itself as a model medical
    research program, respected throughout the cancer and broader
    medical communities 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.
    It is lauded worldwide and others try to emulate the program.
        Its specific focus on breast cancer allows it 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 have the potential to benefit not just breast cancer,
    but all cancers, as well as other diseases. Biomedical research
    is literally being transformed by the Department of Defense
    BCRP, 90 percent of the funds appropriated go to research.
        Advocates bring a necessary perspective to the table,
    ensuring that the science funded by the program is not only
    meritorious, but also relevant to the women whose lives are
    affected by this disease.
        You may remember Karen Moss, a retired Air Force Lieutenant
    Colonel who served almost 21 years on active duty and she
    chaired the integration panel. Karen passed away in September
    2008. She was committed to making a difference and ensuring
    that the voices of consumer advocates were heard by the
    scientific community, challenging scientists to always think
    differently.
        Her legacy reminds us that breast cancer is not just a
    struggle for scientists; it's a disease of the people. She
    chaired the integration panel the year that she died. 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 to keep the program focused on its
    vision.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        This is research that will help us win a very real and
    devastating war against a very vicious enemy. You and your
    subcommittee have shown great determination and leadership in
    funding the DOD Peer-Reviewed BCRP at a level that has brought
    us closer to ending this disease. I am hopeful that you will
    continue that determination and leadership.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony and
    represent all the people across this country who care about
    ending this disease. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Joy Simha
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations
    Subcommittee on the Department of 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, an 18-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 (DOD) Breast Cancer Research Program
    (BCRP). My testimony represents the hundreds of member organizations
    and thousands of individual members of the NBCC. NBCC is a grassroots
    organization dedicated to ending breast cancer through action and
    advocacy. Since its founding in 1991, NBCC has been guided by three
    primary goals:
      --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.
        In September 2010, in order to change the conversation about breast
    cancer and restore the sense of urgency in the fight to end the
    disease, NBCC launched Breast Cancer Deadline 2020--a deadline to end
    breast cancer by January 1, 2020.
        Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran, we appreciate your
    longstanding support for the Department of Defense (DOD) Peer-Reviewed
    Breast Cancer Research Program. As you know, this program was born from
    a powerful grassroots effort led by NBCC, and has become a unique
    partnership among consumers, scientists, Members of Congress and the
    military. You and your subcommittee have shown great determination and
    leadership in funding DOD Peer-Reviewed BCRP at a level that has
    brought us closer to ending this disease. I am hopeful that you and
    your subcommittee 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 DOD. Much of the progress that has been made in the
    fight against breast cancer is due to the Appropriations Committee's
    investment in breast cancer research through the DOD BCRP. To support
    this progress moving forward, we ask that you support a $150 million
    appropriation for fiscal year 2013. In order to continue the success of
    the program, you must ensure that it maintains its integrity and
    separate identity, in addition to this 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 DOD Peer-Reviewed BCRP 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. Its
    specific focus on breast cancer allows it 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 have 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.
                             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 the
    science funded by the program fills important gaps not already being
    addressed by other funding agencies. Since 1992, more than 700 breast
    cancer survivors have served on the BCRP review panels.
        Four years ago, Karin Noss, a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
    who served almost 21 years on active duty as a missile launch officer
    and intelligence analyst, chaired the Integration Panel. Karin was 36
    years old when she discovered a lump that was misdiagnosed by
    mammography and clinical exam; just more than 1 year later, however,
    she was diagnosed with Stage II breast cancer. Her diagnosis inspired
    her to become knowledgeable about her disease, and as a trained
    consumer advocate she began participating as a consumer reviewer on
    BCRP scientific peer-review panels in 1997. Karin was committed to
    making a difference and ensuring that the voice of consumer advocates
    was heard by the scientific community, challenging scientists to think
    differently.
        Karin worked tirelessly in support of the BCRP through the pain and
    fatigue of metastatic breast cancer. She died of the disease in
    September 2008. Just a few weeks before her passing, Karin served what
    would be her final role for the BCRP when she chaired the fiscal year
    2008 Vision Setting Meeting, an important milestone at which the
    program determines which award mechanisms to offer in order to move
    research forward. She said that:

        ``Consumer involvement in all facets of the BCRP has proven crucial
    to ensuring not only that the best and most innovative science gets
    funded, but that the science will really make a difference to those of
    us living with the disease.''

        Karin demonstrated an amazing strength, determination, and
    commitment to eradicating breast cancer. She was an optimist,
    determined to make things better for women with breast cancer whose
    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 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, three-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 2010 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, Ph.D., 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. For example, in fiscal year 2009, Dr. Seongbong Jo of the
    University of Mississippi was granted a concept award to develop a
    multifunctional nanoparticle that can selectively recognize breast
    cancer and specifically inhibit the growth of cancer cells, while
    minimally affecting normal cells. This has the potential to
    significantly improve the delivery of breast cancer chemotherapy,
    increase its efficiency, and contribute to the reduction of breast
    cancer mortality rates.
        IDEA and concept grants are uniquely designed to dramatically
    advance our knowledge in areas that offer the greatest potential. In
    fiscal year 2006, Dr. Gertraud Maskarinec of the University of Hawaii
    received a synergistic IDEA grant to study effectiveness of the Dual
    Energy Xray Absorptiometry (DXA) as a method to evaluate breast cancer
    risks in women and young girls. Such a method, which could possibly be
    used to prevent breast cancer during adulthood, is currently not
    available because the risk of xray-based mammograms is considered too
    high in that age group. Such grants are precisely the types 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 as well.
        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. Dr. Dennis Slamon of the
    University of California, Los Angeles was granted an innovator award in
    fiscal year 2010 to develop new insights that will result in the
    development of novel treatment initiatives for all of the current
    therapeutic subtypes of breast cancer. This research builds upon the
    past gains in understanding of the molecular diversity of human breast
    cancer which has led treatment away from the ``one-size-fits-all''
    therapeutic approaches, and the success of existing treatments of
    specific breast cancer subtypes.
        The Era of Hope Scholar Award supports 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. Stuart S. Martin of the University of Maryland,
    Baltimore received a fiscal year 2010 Era of Hope Scholar Award to
    build an international consortium to define a molecular framework that
    governs the mechanical properties of a certain type of tumor cell
    which, because of its shape, poses a greater metastatic risk than other
    cells.
        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, Herceptin, 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 results 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 towards 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. Erin McCoy of the University of Alabama,
    Birmingham received a fiscal year 2010 Predoctoral Traineeship Award
    for work on the potential role a certain protein, CD68, plays in breast
    cancer cells attaching themselves to bone which allows metastatic
    growth to take place. The bone is the most common site for breast
    cancer metastasis. In fiscal year 2011, Dr. Julie O'Neal of the
    University of Louisville received a Postdoctoral Fellowship Award to
    study breast cancer biology with an emphasis on identifying enzymes
    that are required for breast cancer growth.
        Dr. John Niederhuber, former 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 2013.
        outcomes and reviews of the department of defense breast cancer
                                research program
        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
    14,724 publications in scientific journals, more than 19,013 abstracts
    and nearly 643 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
    moving us closer to eradicating breast cancer.
        The success of the DOD Peer-Reviewed BCRP has been illustrated by
    several unique assessments of the program. The Institute of Medicine
    (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 BCRP 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 BCRP 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 sixth Era of
    Hope meeting in August 2011. As MSNBC.com's Bob Bazell wrote, this
    meeting ``brings 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 . . .''
        During the 2011 Era of Hope, investigators presented work that
    challenged paradigms and pushed boundaries with innovative, high-impact
    approaches. Some of the research presented looked at new ways to treat
    the spread of breast cancer, including a vaccine for HER2+ breast
    cancer that has stopped responding to treatment, and an innovative
    treatment using nanoparticles of HDL cholesterol tied to chemotherapy
    drugs to more directly zero in on cancer cells.
        The DOD Peer-Reviewed BCRP 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 Web site 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 reaching Breast Cancer Deadline 2020's goal of ending the
    disease by the end of the decade. 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 subcommittee to protect the integrity of the important model
    this program has become.
        There are nearly 3 million women living with breast cancer in this
    country today. This year, approximately 40,000 will die of the disease
    and more than 260,000 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 end 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, the 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 subcommittee have been leaders in
    the effort to continue this innovative investment in breast cancer
    research.
        NBCC asks you, the Department of 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
    nearly 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. I thank you for your testimony and I can
    assure you that we'll do our very best to maintain the funding.
    Thank you.
        Next panel.
        Our next panel consists of: the Honorable Charles Curie,
    American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; Captain Charles D.
    Connor, United States Navy, Retired, representing the American
    Lung Association; Dr. William Strickland, representing the
    American Psychological Association; and Mr. Robert Ginyard,
    ZERO--the Project to End Prostate Cancer.
        May I call upon Mr. Curie.
    STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES CURIE, MEMBER, NATIONAL BOARD
                OF DIRECTORS AND PUBLIC POLICY COUNCIL,
                AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION
        Mr. Curie. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran: Thank
    you for providing the American Foundation for Suicide
    Prevention (AFSP) with the opportunity to present testimony on
    the needs of programs within the Department of Defense (DOD)
    that play a critical role in suicide prevention efforts among
    our Nation's military personnel. I respectfully submit my
    written comments for the record.
        Chairman Inouye. Without objection.
        Mr. Curie. My name is Charles Curie. I'm a member of AFSP's
    Public Policy Council and I serve on its National Board of
    Directors. AFSP is the leading national not-for-profit
    grassroots organization exclusively dedicated to understanding
    and preventing suicide through research, education, and
    advocacy, and to reaching out to people with mental disorders
    and those impacted by suicide.
        My professional experience spans 30 years in the mental
    health and substance use services field. I was nominated by
    President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate from
    2001 to 2006 to head the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Services Administration (SAMHSA). As SAMHSA Administrator, I
    led the $3.4 billion agency responsible for improving the
    accountability, effectiveness, and capacity of the Nation's
    substance abuse prevention, addictions treatment, and mental
    health services, including the President's New Freedom
    Commission on Mental Health, the Strategic Prevention
    Framework, Access to Recovery, National Outcome Measures, and
    work with postconflict and war-torn countries' mental health
    service systems, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
        At the outset, I would like to thank the DOD and
    specifically the Department of the Army for the tremendous
    strides they have taken in recent years to not only understand
    suicide, but for the concrete steps they have taken to prevent
    suicide among their ranks. The DOD message that it's okay to
    seek help and that getting help is the courageous thing to do
    certainly saves lives and brings a new level of attention to
    the problem of suicide.
        Today, more than 1.9 million warriors have deployed for
    Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, two of
    our Nation's longest conflicts. The physical and psychological
    demands on both the deployed and nondeployed soldiers have been
    enormous. These demands are highlighted by the steady increases
    in suicides among Army personnel since 2005.
        Consider these facts: From 2005 to 2011, more than 927
    active-duty Army personnel took their own lives; in 2008,
    estimates of the rate of suicide among active-duty soldiers
    began to surpass the suicide rate among U.S. civilians; 278
    active-duty Army personnel, National Guard members, and Army
    reservists died by suicide in 2011; and year-to-date data
    indicates that so far 2012 is on track to be a record-high year
    for suicides in the Army.
        While access to affordable and quality treatment of mental
    disorders is critical in preventing suicide, public health
    efforts to get in front of suicide prevention are equally, if
    not more, important than healthcare efforts, because we know it
    is far more difficult to change behavior once someone has
    already attempted suicide or has received treatment in an
    inpatient treatment facility.
        Last year, the Congress appropriated an $8.1 million
    increase for the suicide prevention program under the Defense
    Health Program. While AFSP appreciates the Congress's
    commitment to preventing suicide among our Nation's military
    personnel, this funding sits largely unused because of
    restrictions on how those dollars must be spent. According to
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Health Program
    dollars must be used for healthcare delivery programs and
    services, not for prevention, education and training, or
    research and development programs.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Requiring additional funding to be spent on treatment is
    not going to help get in front of the problem. The services
    should have the authority to spend it on prevention efforts and
    not just healthcare delivery. Therefore, AFSP requests that
    this subcommittee add clarifying language to the fiscal year
    2013 Defense appropriations bill that would allow for these
    dollars to be spent on pre-medical related prevention,
    education, and outreach programs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, for the
    opportunity.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Charles Curie
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for providing the American Foundation for
    Suicide Prevention (AFSP) with the opportunity to provide testimony on
    the needs of programs within the Department of Defense (DOD) that play
    a critical role in suicide prevention efforts among our Nation's
    military personnel.
        At the outset, I would like to thank the DOD, and specifically the
    Department of the Army, for the tremendous strides they have taken in
    recent years to not only understand suicide, but for the concrete steps
    they have taken to prevent suicide among their ranks. Military leaders
    are now more willing to openly talk about suicide within the military,
    as well as among veterans and the civilian population. The DOD message
    that it is okay to seek help, that getting help is the courageous thing
    to do, has certainly saved lives and brought a new level of attention
    to the problem of suicide. But we cannot wait for one minute, nor
    soften our collective resolve, inside and outside of Government, to
    help active duty military, veterans, and their families understand the
    warning signs of suicide, or where to get help.
        AFSP is the leading national not-for-profit, grassroots
    organization exclusively dedicated to understanding and preventing
    suicide through research, education, and advocacy, and to reaching out
    to people with mental disorders and those impacted by suicide. You can
    see more at www.afsp.org.
        My name is Charles Curie. I am member of AFSP's Public Policy
    Council, and I serve on the AFSP National Board of Directors. I am also
    the Principal and Founder of The Curie Group, LLC, a management and
    consulting firm specializing in working with leaders of the healthcare
    field, particularly the mental health services and substance use
    treatment and prevention arenas, to facilitate the transformation of
    services and to attain increasingly positive outcomes in the lives of
    people worldwide. I currently reside in Rockville, Maryland.
        My professional experience spans 30 years in the mental health and
    substance use services fields. I was nominated by President George W.
    Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate from 2001 to 2006 to head the
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). As
    SAMHSA Administrator, I led the $3.4 billion agency responsible for
    improving the accountability, capacity, and effectiveness of the
    Nation's substance abuse prevention, addictions treatment, and mental
    health services, including The President's New Freedom Commission on
    Mental Health, the Strategic Prevention Framework for substance use
    prevention, Access to Recovery, National Outcome Measures and work with
    post-conflict and war-torn countries metal health and substance use
    treatment service systems, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
        More than 1.9 million warriors have deployed for Operation Iraqi
    Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), two of our Nation's
    longest conflicts (IOM, 2010). The physical and psychological demands
    on both the deployed and nondeployed soldiers have been enormous. These
    demands are highlighted by the steady increase in suicides among Army
    personnel since 2005.
        Consider these facts:
      --From 2005 through 2011, more than 927 active duty Army personnel
            took their own lives.
      --In 2008, estimates of the rate of suicide among active duty
            soldiers in the regular Army, Army Reserve, and Army National
            Guard began to surpass the suicide rate among U.S.
            civilians.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Kuehn BM. Soldier suicide rates continue to rise: military,
    scientists work to stem the tide. JAMA 2009; 301: 1111-13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Two hundred seventy-eight active duty Army personnel, National
            Guard members, and Army reservists died by suicide in 2011.
      --Year-to-date data indicates that 2012 is on track to be a record-
            high year for suicides in the Army.
        In light of studies that have shown more than 90 percent of people
    who die from suicide have one or more psychiatric disorders at the time
    of their death; critical context for these alarming suicide numbers was
    provided in the April edition of the Medical Surveillance Monthly
    Report (MSMR).
        The MSMR showed that in 2011 mental disorders accounted for more
    hospital bed days than any other medical category, and substance abuse
    and mood disorder admissions accounted for 24 percent of the total DOD
    hospital bed days.
        This report also stated that outpatient behavioral health treatment
    was the third highest workload category, and that the largest
    percentage increase in workload between 2007 and 2011 was for mental
    disorders (99-percent increase or 943,924 additional medical
    encounters).
        While access to affordable and quality treatment of mental
    disorders is critical in preventing suicide, public health efforts to
    ``get in front'' of suicide prevention are equally, if not more,
    important than healthcare efforts because we know that it is far more
    difficult to change behavior once someone has already attempted suicide
    or has received treatment in an inpatient treatment facility.
        Last year, the Congress appropriated an $8,158,156 program increase
    for suicide prevention under the Defense Health Program. While AFSP
    appreciates the Congress's commitment to preventing suicide among our
    Nation's military personnel, this funding sits largely unused because
    of restrictions on how those dollars must be spent.
        According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Health
    Program dollars must be used for healthcare delivery programs and
    services and not for education and training or research and development
    programs.
        Requiring additional funding to be spent on treatment is not going
    help the services get in ``front'' of this problem. The services should
    have the authority to spend it on ``program evaluation'' and prevention
    efforts and not just on healthcare delivery.
        Therefore, AFSP requests that this subcommittee add clarifying
    language to the fiscal year 2013 Defense appropriations bill that would
    allow for these dollars to be spent on pre-medical related prevention,
    education, and outreach programs.
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    subcommittee: AFSP once again thanks you for the opportunity to provide
    testimony on the funding needs of programs within the Department of
    Defense that play a critical role in suicide prevention efforts. With
    your help, we can assure those tasked with leading the Department of
    Defense's response to the unacceptably high rate of suicide among our
    military personnel will have the resources necessary to effectively
    prevent suicide.

        Chairman Inouye. I'm certain you're aware that this
    subcommittee is deeply concerned about the rising rate of
    suicides. We will make certain that these funds are used for
    research and prevention.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Curie. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Captain Charles D.
    Connor, representing the American Lung Association.
    STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN CHARLES D. CONNOR, U.S. NAVY
                (RETIRED), PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                OFFICER, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
        Captain Connor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice
    Chairman. It's an honor to be here before you today to discuss
    important matters such as the health of our Armed Forces. As a
    retired Navy captain myself, it's very important to me as well.
        The American Lung Association, as you know, was founded in
    1904 to fight tuberculosis. Today, our mission is to save lives
    by improving lung health and fighting lung disease. We
    accomplish this through three research, advocacy, and
    education.
        All of us here, of course, recognize the importance of
    keeping our military people healthy. Tobacco's adverse impact
    on health is well known and extensively documented.
    Accordingly, our view is that tobacco is an insidious enemy of
    combat readiness.
        Additionally, as this subcommittee well knows, healthcare
    costs for our troops and their families continue to rise, both
    for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans
    Administration (VA). More than a billion dollars of this
    healthcare bill is being driven by tobacco use annually. We owe
    it to our military people and their families and the taxpayers
    to prioritize the lung health of our troops.
        The American Lung Association wishes to invite your
    attention to three issues today for the DOD fiscal year 2013
    budget: Number one, the terrible burden on the military caused
    by tobacco use and the need for the Department to aggressively
    combat it; the importance of restoring funds for the Peer-
    Reviewed Lung Cancer Research Program to $20 million; and
    finally, the health threat posed by soldiers' current and past
    exposure to toxic pollutants in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        The first subject is tobacco, briefly. Tobacco is a
    significant public health problem for the Defense Department,
    and it's not a problem that DOD simply inherited. More than 1
    in 7 active duty personnel begin smoking after joining the
    service.
        The American Lung Association recognizes the Department of
    the Navy's recent efforts to reduce tobacco use in their
    branch, such as the Navy's 21st Century Sailor and Marine
    Initiative announced just in the past few weeks. This
    initiative will help sailors and marines quit tobacco and
    promote tobacco-free environments. It also puts in place
    environmental changes that will reduce tobacco use throughout
    the Navy and Marine Corps.
        Likewise, the American Lung Association also recognizes the
    Air Force for its March 26 instruction on tobacco use. The
    instruction states that, ``The goal is a tobacco-free Air
    Force.'' It lays out strong policies on tobacco-free facilities
    and workplaces, tobacco use in formal training programs, and
    tobacco cessation programs. The document also establishes clear
    responsibilities within the Air Force chain of command to
    accomplish these goals and enforce their policies.
        So these steps are really the first signal from the
    military that tobacco use is disfavored. Both of these efforts,
    the Departments of the Navy and the Air Force, are
    unprecedented investments in the comprehensive health of
    sailors, marines, airmen, and their families. So the American
    Lung Association hopes these initiatives expand quickly to
    cover all military personnel.
        Also in 2011, DOD released a proposed rule implementing
    coverage of tobacco cessation treatment through TRICARE. When
    finalized, this new coverage will give soldiers and their
    families the help they need to quit tobacco.
        All of these actions follow recommendations in the
    Institute of Medicine's report ``Combatting Tobacco Use in
    Military and Veterans Populations'', which is now as of this
    month 3 years old. The American Lung Association urges the DOD
    and VA to fully implement all the recommendations in the report
    and, importantly, we urge the Congress to remove any
    legislative barriers that exist to implementing these
    recommendations.
        I'd like to leave for the record two articles from the
    American Journal of Public Health that fully document the
    extent to which the tobacco industry through their friends in
    the Congress over decades past have enshrined into law
    impediments that will impede the elimination of tobacco in the
    military.
        Just to wind up, we strongly support the Lung Cancer
    Research Program and Congressionally Directed Medical Research
    Program and its original intent to research the scope of lung
    cancer in our military. We urge the subcommittee to restore the
    funding level to $20 million and make sure the program is
    returned to its original intent as directed by the 2009
    program, which states, ``These funds shall be used for
    competitive research. Priority shall be given to the
    development of integrated components to identify, treat, and
    manage early curable lung cancer.''
        Last, respiratory item, the American Lung Association
    continues to be troubled by reports of soldiers and civilians
    returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with lung illness. Research
    is beginning to show that the air our troops breathe in the war
    theater can have high concentrations of particulate matter,
    which can cause or worsen lung disease.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Data from a 2009 study of soldiers deployed in Iraq and
    Afghanistan found that 14 percent of them suffered new-onset
    respiratory symptoms. This is a much higher rate than their
    nondeployed colleagues. So we urge that immediate steps be
    taken to minimize troop exposure to pollutants and that DOD
    investigate pollutants in the air our troops breathe.
        Thank you very much for your time today.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Captain Charles D. Connor
        The American Lung Association is pleased to present this testimony
    to the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the Department of Defense
    (DOD). 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.
        I have no doubt you recognize the importance of keeping our
    soldiers' lungs healthy. A soldier who uses tobacco or has asthma or
    other lung disease is a soldier whose readiness for combat is
    potentially compromised. Additionally, healthcare costs for these
    troops continue to rise, both for DOD and for the Veteran's
    Administration (VA). We owe it to our soldiers, their families, and
    taxpayers to prioritize troops' lung health.
        The American Lung Association wishes to invite your attention to
    three issues for the DOD fiscal year 2013 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-Reviewed Lung
            Cancer Research Program to $20 million; and
      --the health threat posed by soldiers' exposure to toxic pollutants
            in Iraq and Afghanistan.
                          tobacco use in the military
        Tobacco use is a significant public health problem for DOD. And it
    is not a problem DOD has simply inherited. More than 1 in 7
    (approximately 15 percent) of active duty personnel begin smoking after
    joining the service.
        The American Lung Association recognizes the Department of the
    Navy's recent efforts to reduce tobacco use in the military, such as
    the Navy's 21st Century Sailor initiative. This initiative will help
    sailors and marines quit tobacco, promote tobacco-free environments,
    and put in place environmental changes that will reduce tobacco use
    throughout the Navy and Marine Corps.
        The American Lung Association also recognizes the Department of the
    Air Force for its March 26 Air Force Instruction (AFI 40-102) on
    Tobacco Use in the Air Force. The Instruction states that ``the goal is
    a tobacco-free Air Force,'' and lays out strong policies on tobacco-
    free facilities and workplaces, tobacco use in formal training
    programs, and tobacco cessation programs. The document also establishes
    clear responsibilities within the Air Force chain of command to
    accomplish its goal and enforce the policies. Both of these efforts are
    unprecedented investments in the comprehensive health of sailors,
    marines, and airmen and their families. The American Lung Association
    hopes these initiatives expand to other military branches.
        In 2011, DOD released a proposed rule implementing coverage of
    tobacco cessation treatment through TRICARE. When finalized, this new
    coverage will give soldiers and their families the help they need to
    quit tobacco.
        All of these actions follow recommendations in the Institute of
    Medicine's report Combating Tobacco Use in Military and Veterans
    Populations. The American Lung Association urges DOD and VA to fully
    implement all recommendations included in the report.
                          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. In fiscal year 2012, LCRP received
    $10.2 million. We urge this subcommittee to restore the funding level
    to $20 million and that 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''.
        In August 2011, the National Cancer Institute released results from
    its National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a randomized clinical trial
    that screened at-risk smokers with either low-dose computed tomography
    (CT) or standard chest xray. The study found that screening individuals
    with low-dose CT scans could reduce lung cancer mortality by 20 percent
    compared to chest xray. These are exciting results, but conclusions can
    only be drawn for the segment of the population tested by the NLST:
      --current or former smokers aged 55 to 74 years;
      --a smoking history of at least one pack a day for at least 30 years;
            and
      --no history of lung cancer. As the report made clear, CT scans
            should be recommended for this narrowly defined population of
            patients--but evidence does not support recommending them for
            everyone.
        The American Lung Association recently endorsed screening for this
    defined population.
        The Lung Cancer Research Program has the potential to further
    knowledge on the early detection of lung cancer. The program recently
    funded an exciting study at Boston University aimed at discovering
    biomarkers to improve the accuracy of lung cancer diagnoses. We
    encourage the DOD to continue its research into lung cancer.
                           respiratory health issues
        The American Lung Association is troubled by reports of soldiers
    and civilians returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with lung illnesses.
    Research is beginning to show that the air troops breathe in the war
    theater can have high concentrations of particulate matter, which can
    cause or worsen lung disease. Data from a 2009 study of soldiers
    deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan found that 14 percent of them suffered
    new-onset respiratory symptoms, a much higher rate than their
    nondeployed colleagues. The American Lung Association urges that
    immediate steps be taken to minimize troop exposure to pollutants and
    that the DOD investigate pollutants in the air our troops breathe.
                                   conclusion
        In summary, this 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. Troops must be protected from tobacco
    and unsafe air pollution and the severe health consequences.
        Thank you.

        Chairman Inouye. The matter that you have discussed is very
    serious and we look upon it as very serious. I can assure you
    that we'll continue funding this.
        Thank you.
        Our next witness is Dr. William Strickland, representing
    the American Psychological Association.
    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. STRICKLAND, Ph.D., AMERICAN
                PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
        Dr. Strickland. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice
    Chairman. I'm Dr. Bill Strickland from the Human Resources
    Research Organization (HumRRO). I'm submitting testimony today
    on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA),
    which is a scientific and professional organization of more
    than 137,000 psychologists.
        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 counterterrorism. My
    own military-oriented research and consulting focus on
    recruiting, selecting, and training enlisted members of the
    Army and the Air Force.
        My testimony this morning will focus on reversing
    administration-proposed cuts to the DOD science and technology
    (S&T) budget. In terms of the overall DOD S&T budget, the
    President's request for fiscal year 2013 represents another
    step backward for defense research. Defense S&T would fall from
    an enacted fiscal year 2012 level of $12.3 billion to $11.9
    billion.
        APA urges the subcommittee to reverse this cut to the
    critical Defense Science Program by providing a total of $12.5
    billion in Defense S&T funds in fiscal year 2013. APA also
    encourages the subcommittee to provide increased funding to
    reverse specific cuts to psychological research throughout the
    military research laboratories. This human-centered research is
    vital to sustaining warfighter superiority and both the
    national academies and the Defense Science Board recommend that
    DOD fund priority research in the behavioral sciences in
    support of national security.
        In the President's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget, the
    Army and Air Force basic and applied research accounts all
    would be reduced. The Air Force Research Laboratory's Human
    Effectiveness Directorate is an example of a vital DOD human-
    centered research program slated for dramatic cuts.
    Headquartered at Wright-Paterson Air Force Base in Ohio, with
    additional research sites in Texas and Arizona, the Human
    Effectiveness Directorate's mission is to provide science and
    leading-edge technology to define human capabilities,
    vulnerabilities and effectiveness, to train warfighters, to
    integrate operators and weapons systems, and to protect Air
    Force personnel while sustaining aerospace operations.
        The directorate is the heart of human-centered science and
    technology in the Air Force as it integrates both biological
    and cognitive technologies to optimize and protect airmen's
    capabilities to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and
    cyberspace. Proposed cuts to this directorate would cripple the
    Air Force's to optimize the human elements of warfighting
    capability.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We urge you to support the men and women on the front lines
    by reversing yet another round of cuts to the overall Defense
    S&T account, and specifically to the human-oriented research
    projects within the military laboratories.
        Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
        Chairman Inouye. We will most certainly look into these
    cuts. I've been told that you have some report language you'd
    like to recommend.
        Dr. Strickland. Yes, Sir, we do. It's in my written
    statement.
        Chairman Inouye. Will you submit that, Sir?
        Dr. Strickland. Yes, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Doctor.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of William J. Strickland, Ph.D.
        The American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and
    professional organization of more than 137,000 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 counterterrorism. 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.
         fiscal year 2013 department of defense appropriations summary
        The President's budget request for basic and applied research at
    DOD in fiscal year 2013 is $11.9 billion, a significant cut from the
    enacted fiscal year 2012 level of $12.3 billion. APA urges the
    subcommittee to reverse this cut to the critical Defense Science
    Program by providing a total of $12.5 billion for Defense S&T in fiscal
    year 2013.
        APA also encourages the subcommittee to provide increased funding
    to reverse specific cuts to psychological research through the military
    research laboratories. This human-centered research is vital to
    sustaining warfighter superiority.
                         department of defense 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 servicemembers 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 department of
                                    defense
        Within DOD, the majority of behavioral, cognitive, and social
    science is funded through the Army Research Institute for the
    Behavioral and Social Sciences (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, 6.3) while concurrently preparing for the next war (with
    technology ``in the works,'' 6.2) and the war after next (by taking
    advantage of ideas emerging from basic research, 6.1). 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
        A recent 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 2013 department of defense budget for science and
                                   technology
    Department of Defense
        In terms of the overall DOD S&T budget, the President's request for
    fiscal year 2013 again represents a step backward for defense research.
    Defense S&T would fall from an enacted fiscal year 2012 level of $12.3
    to $11.9 billion. The military service labs and Defense-wide research
    offices would see variable decreases, but also in some cases increases,
    to their accounts. The Army and Air Force 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 accounts
    all would be reduced in the proposed budget. Navy's basic research
    account (6.1) would remain funded at the fiscal year 2012 level, but
    its 6.2 and 6.3 applied research portfolios each would see decreases.
    DOD's OSD Defense-wide account would get increased funding in fiscal
    year 2013 for both its basic 6.1 and advanced development 6.3 research,
    whereas its 6.2 applied research account would be cut.
        AFRL's Human Effectiveness Directorate is an example of a vital DOD
    human-centered research program slated for dramatic cuts in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget. Headquartered at Wright-Patterson
    Air Force Base in Ohio (with additional research sites in Texas and
    Arizona), the 711th Human Performance Wing's Human Effectiveness
    Directorate's mission is to provide ``science and leading-edge
    technology to define human capabilities, vulnerabilities and
    effectiveness; train warfighters; integrate operators and weapon
    systems; protect Air Force personnel; and sustain aerospace operations.
    The directorate is the heart of human-centered science and technology
    for the Air Force'', and integrates ``biological and cognitive
    technologies to optimize and protect the Airman's capabilities to fly,
    fight and win in air, space and cyberspace''. Proposed cuts to this
    Directorate would cripple the Air Force's ability to optimize the human
    elements of warfighting capability.
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
        Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is slated for a
    slight agency-wide increase over its fiscal year 2012 level, increasing
    from $2.74 to $2.75 billion in fiscal year 2013.
                                    summary
        The President's budget request for basic and applied research at
    DOD in fiscal year 2013 is $11.9 billion, a significant cut from the
    enacted fiscal year 2012 level of $12.3 billion. APA urges the
    subcommittee to reverse this cut to the critical Defense Science
    Program by providing a total of $12.5 billion for Defense S&T in fiscal
    year 2013.
        APA also encourages the subcommittee to provide increased funding
    to reverse specific cuts to psychological research through the military
    research laboratories. This human-centered research is vital to
    sustaining warfighter superiority.
        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 decisionmaking, 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 continues to meet the challenges of current
    engagements, 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 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
    2013 which would encourage the DOD to fully fund its behavioral
    research programs within the military laboratories and the Minerva
    Initiative:
                             department of defense
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
        Warfighter Research.--The subcommittee notes the increased demands
    on our military personnel, including high operational tempo, leadership
    and training challenges, new and ever-changing stresses on
    decisionmaking and cognitive readiness, and complex human-technology
    interactions. To help address these issues vital to our national
    security, the subcommittee 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 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
            and Army Research Laboratory; and
      --the Office of Naval Research.
        The Committee also notes the critical contributions of behavioral
    science to combating counterinsurgencies and understanding extremist
    ideologies, and renews its strong support for the DOD Minerva
    Initiative.

        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Ginyard,
    ZERO--the Project to End Prostate Cancer.
    STATEMENT OF ROBERT GINYARD, MEMBER, BOARD OF
                DIRECTORS, ZERO--THE PROJECT TO END
                PROSTATE CANCER
        Mr. Ginyard. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Vice
    Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about
    the prostate cancer research program and the Congressionally
    Directed Medical Research Programs at the Department of
    Defense.
        My name is Robert Ginyard. I am a member of the Board of
    Directors of ZERO--The Project to End Prostate Cancer, but I'm
    also a prostate cancer survivor.
        ZERO is a patient advocacy organization that raises
    awareness and educates men and their families about prostate
    cancer. Of particular importance to us is the issue of early
    detection. It is a fact that early detection of prostate cancer
    increases the likelihood that a man will survive prostate
    cancer. In fact, if caught early the cancer--surviving cancer
    at least 5 years is nearly 100 percent. If the cancer spreads
    outside of the prostate into other organs, the chances drop to
    29 percent. This is why I'm here today.
        The recent actions taken by the United States Preventative
    Service Task Force (USPSTF) threaten men's access to care and
    makes it more important than ever for us to protect critical
    research dollars that will help doctors make better decisions
    about the diagnosis and treatment.
        Two years ago my life was changed forever when I heard the
    words: ``You have prostate cancer.'' Because my father also had
    prostate cancer, I began having my prostate checked at age 40.
    I am now 49. During my annual checkup, my doctor noticed that
    my prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was high, and it had
    been rising in recent years. After the results of this PSA,
    however, my doctor suggested that I see a urologist.
        A few days after, I received a call that I would never want
    to wish on anyone else. The doctor said: You do have prostate
    cancer. I recall the doctor mentioning that he hated to give
    this news on a Monday morning and, quite frankly, it wouldn't
    have mattered what day he had given me this news.
        I remember crying in the stairwell outside of my office.
    The only thing I thought about was death, how long do I have to
    live, will I see my daughters go to their prom, will I see them
    go off to college, how will my beautiful wife and children make
    out without me if something happens to me?
        After getting over my diagnosis, it was time to take
    action. I elected to receive a radical prostatectomy in 2010,
    but because there were positive margins I had to undergo 4
    months of radiation treatment and 4 months of hormone
    treatment. Thirteen months afterwards, I'm proud to say, I'm
    happy to say, I'm blessed to say, I am cancer-free with a great
    quality of life.
        But one of the most important things that came out of my
    experiences things. During my daily treatments, most of the men
    that I was in treatment with would always talk about their
    wives. They would talk about them with hope in their voices.
    They talked about how they wanted to enjoy life rather than
    focus on death. It is my hope that we find a cure for prostate
    cancer so that every day will be a father's day, a son's day, a
    brother's day, a good friend's day.
        I'm here today because prostate cancer affects the family,
    not just the man. I am here today because I want the important
    research at the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
    Program, and particularly the Prostate Cancer Research Program.
        Prostate cancer is a disease that is diagnosed in more than
    240,000 American men each year and will kill 28,000 men in
    2012. It is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among
    men. One in six men--1 in 4 African-American men--will get
    prostate cancer. Some will only be in their 30s.
        The recent recommendation change by the USPSTF has
    highlighted the issue of early detection for prostate cancer.
    However, the issue is not whether we should be trying to detect
    prostate cancer early, but how we can do it most effectively
    and identify what cancers should be treated versus the ones
    that shouldn't. The only way that doctors will know the answer
    to this question is through advances that may be closer than we
    think.
        In 2010, research partially funded by the Prostate Cancer
    Research Program identified 24 types of prostate cancer. Each
    of these are aggressive forms of the disease. If we could
    identify what type of cancer a man has, we could more
    effectively determine if he needs treatment and how aggressive
    treatment should be. This would render moot the argument some
    make that the disease is overtreated and ultimately save men's
    lives.
        The Prostate Cancer Research Program is funding some of the
    most critical research in cancer today. I ask that the
    committee continue to fund this important, important research.
    Many men will count on you. Many women will count on you. Their
    family members will count on you.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        It is one day that I can always look back and say: Hey,
    look, I was there with you. I hope we get through this
    together. I just ask for your continued support in this
    initiative. There are many men who are really hoping that you
    make the right decision to allocate the proper resources for
    this research.
        I thank you for your time and I thank you for your efforts
    and all that you've done. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Robert Ginyard
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak to you about the Prostate Cancer Research Program
    (PCRP) and the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs
    (CDMRP) at the Department of Defense. My name is Robert Ginyard--I am a
    member of the Board of Directors of ZERO--The Project to End Prostate
    Cancer. Many people can speak effectively about the research this
    program has done or is doing, about its history, funding levels, and
    accomplishments, but I want to tell you about my experience with
    prostate cancer and how you are having an impact on the lives of
    patients and will continue to impact the lives of men and their
    families through the research funded by the PCRP.
        ZERO is a patient advocacy organization that raises awareness and
    educates men and their families about prostate cancer. Of particular
    importance to us is the issue of early detection. It is a fact that
    early detection of prostate cancer increases the likelihood that a man
    will survive prostate cancer. In fact, if caught early, a man's chances
    of surviving cancer at least 5 years is nearly 100 percent--if the
    cancer spreads outside of the prostate into other organs those chances
    drop to 29 percent. This is why I am here today--recent actions by the
    United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) threaten men's
    access to care and makes it more important than ever for us to protect
    critical research dollars that will help doctors make better decisions
    about diagnosis and treatment.
        Two years ago, my life was changed forever by three words I thought
    I would never hear: ``You have cancer.'' Prior to receiving the news
    that I had prostate cancer, I was engaged in another sort of battle--
    seeking investors to raise capital for my tote bag company. And then
    things came to an unexpected halt.
        Because my father also had prostate cancer, I began having my
    prostate checked at age 40; I am now 49. During my annual check up my
    doctor noticed that my prostate specific antigen (PSA) level was high--
    it had been rising in recent years. After the results of this PSA,
    however, my doctor suggested I see a urologist for a biopsy. After a
    few days, I received a call that I thought I would never receive--we
    did find cancer in your prostate. I recall the doctor mentioning that
    he hated to deliver this type of news on a Monday morning. Quite
    frankly, with this type of news, it would not have made a difference
    what day I received it. I remember crying in a stairwell outside of my
    office. The only thing I thought of was death. How long do I have to
    live? Will this mean I won't get to see my beautiful daughters go to
    their high school prom, or graduate from college? How will my wife and
    daughters make it without me?
        After getting over the shock of my diagnosis, it was time to take
    action and research the treatment options that were available to me. I
    elected to have a radical prostatectomy in August 2010. Because there
    were positive margins after my surgery, I underwent 4 months of hormone
    therapy and 8 weeks of radiation treatments. Thirteen months after
    treatment, I am happy to be cancer-free with a great quality of life.
        One of the most interesting things that came out of my prostate
    cancer experience was the power of hope. During my daily radiation
    treatments, many of the men who I got to know on a very personal basis
    always had a look of hope in their eyes. Going through with their
    treatments they always talked about their wives. They talked about it
    with hope in their voices--hope that their treatment will cure them, or
    keep the cancer away long enough to be more engaged in living rather
    than focusing on dying. It is with this hope that we must continue to
    fund prostate cancer research so that everyday will be father's day,
    son's day, grandfather's day, uncle's day, brother's day, or simply a
    good friend's day.
        I am here today because prostate cancer affects the family, not
    just the man. I am here today because I want to stress the importance
    of research at the CDMRP and particularly the PCRP.
        Prostate cancer is a disease that is diagnosed in more than 240,000
    American men each year and will kill more than 28,000 men in 2012. It
    is the second-leading cause of cancer related deaths among men. One in
    six men--1 in 4 African-American men--will get prostate cancer and some
    will only be in their 30s. It's not just an old man's disease.
        The recent recommendation change by the USPSTF has highlighted the
    issue of early detection for prostate cancer. However, the issue is not
    whether we should be trying to detect prostate cancer early, but how
    can we do it most effectively and identify the cancers that should be
    treated versus the ones that shouldn't.
        The only way doctors will ever really know the answer to this
    question is through advances that may be closer than we think. In 2010,
    research partially funded by the PCRP identified 24 different types of
    prostate cancer. Eight of these are aggressive forms of the disease. If
    we could identify what type of prostate cancer a man has, we could more
    effectively determine if he needs treatment and how aggressive that
    treatment should be. This would render moot the argument some make that
    the disease is over-treated, and ultimately save men's lives.
        Another innovative funding mechanism of the PCRP is the Clinical
    Trials Consortium. To address the significant logistical challenges of
    multicenter clinical research, the clinical trials consortium was
    started to promote rapid Phase I and Phase II trials of promising new
    treatments for prostate cancer.
        Since 2005, nearly 90 trials with more than 2,600 patients have
    taken place, leading to potential treatments that will soon be
    available to patients. Two recently approved drugs, XGEVA and ZYTIGA,
    benefited from the consortium, accelerating their approval time by more
    than 2 years.
        The PCRP is funding some of the most critical work in cancer today.
    The program uses innovative approaches to funnel research dollars
    directly into the best research to accelerate discovery, translate
    discoveries into clinical practice, and improve the quality of care and
    quality of life of men with prostate cancer.
        It is the only federally funded program that focuses exclusively on
    prostate cancer, which enables them to identify and support research on
    the most critical issues facing prostate cancer patients today. The
    program funds innovative, high-impact studies--the type of research
    most likely to make a difference.
        I understand that the subcommittee is working under extremely tight
    budgetary constraints this year and that many tough decisions are
    ahead. This program is important to the millions of men who are living
    with the disease, those who have survived the disease and those who are
    at risk for the disease, including our veterans and active duty
    military personnel.
        Active duty males are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as
    their civilian counterparts. While serving our country, the United
    States Armed Forces are exposed to deleterious contaminants such as
    Agent Orange and depleted uranium. These contaminants are proven to
    cause prostate cancer in American veterans. Unfortunately, the genomes
    of prostate cancer caused by Agent Orange are the more aggressive
    strands of the disease, and they also appear earlier in a man's life.
    In addition, a recent study showed that Air Force personnel were
    diagnosed with prostate cancer at an average age of just 48.
        There are many men that will be diagnosed with cancer this year.
    These men are placing their hope in this subcommittee that you will
    consider them as you make the decision to allocate the proper resources
    to help find a cure for this disease that not only affects men, but
    their families and other loved ones.
        Thank you very much for your time.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Ginyard, and I
    can assure you we'll do our best to continue funding.
        Mr. Ginyard. Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. I'd like to thank the panel.
        Our next panel consists of: Captain Marshall Hanson, U.S.
    Navy, Retired, representing Associations for America's Defense;
    Major General Andrew ``Drew'' Davis, United States Marine
    Corps, Retired, representing the Reserve Officers Association;
    Ms. Karen Goraleski, representing the American Society for
    Tropical Medicine and Hygiene; and Mr. John Davis, representing
    the Fleet Reserve Association.
        May I call upon Captain Hanson.
    STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL A. HANSON, U.S. NAVY
                (RETIRED), ACTING CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATIONS
                FOR AMERICA'S DEFENSE
        Captain Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran.
    It's nice to be back in this seat after an absence before this
    subcommittee of a couple of years.
        The Associations for America's Defense (A4AD) is again
    honored to testify. A4AD represents 13 associations that share
    a concern for our national security.
        While the subcommittee is recognized for its stewardship on
    the defense issues, the challenges being faced this year seem
    almost insurmountable. The administration's new defense
    strategy guidance realigns national security with a tighter
    Federal budget. Scheduled personnel cuts that start in 2015
    will be used to pay for future investments in intelligence,
    surveillance, reconnaissance, cyberspace, and counterterrorism.
    The resulting reduction in force is supposed to be offset by
    building partner capacity and by employing the concept of
    reversibility.
        While this may look good on paper, one can question the
    substance. Not only is the Nation's security at risk of being
    hollowed out from underbudgeting, but with the incomplete
    strategy the United States might not be planning for a
    potential threat.
        The Pentagon will rely on traditional and new allies to
    complement the U.S. force structure. Yet, European defense
    plans will still rely on the United States. With military
    budgets being cut in nearly all North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) countries, there is little promise that
    Europe is ready to pick up the slack.
        The defense guidance also states that the concept of
    reversibility is a key part of the U.S. decision calculus,
    placing emphasis on quickly restarting the industrial base and
    relying on the right Active-to-Reserve component balance. This
    is akin to building our defense foundation on quicksand.
    Reversibility will take time, which may not be available in a
    crisis.
        The Pentagon has warned the Congress that there is no room
    for modification of their budget or their strategy. This was
    emphasized by the lack of submission of unfunded priority
    lists. A4AD agrees with those Senators who wrote the service
    chiefs that, without the military's budgetary needs, the
    Congress cannot accurately determine the resources necessary
    for our Nation's defense.
        Normally, A4AD's testimony would include an unfunded list
    for both the active and Reserve components which were submitted
    by member associations. But the blackout of information has
    affected us as much as it has this subcommittee.
        When the Air Force suggested hasty cuts to its
    infrastructure, the Congress wisely questioned this
    hurriedness. The Senate Armed Services Committee has suggested
    a commission to study the makeup of the Air Force. A4AD shares
    the concern over the lack of analysis and justification and
    suggests that this type of study needs to be done for all of
    the services.
        The Armed Forces need a critical surge capacity for
    domestic and expeditionary support to national security in
    response to domestic disasters. A strategic surge construct
    needs to include manpower, airlift, and air refueling, sealift
    inventory, logistics, and communications to provide a surge-to-
    demand operation. This capacity requires funding for training,
    equipment, and maintenance of a mission-ready strategic reserve
    composed of both active and Reserve units.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        This in itself is formidable, only complicated further by
    budget control. The specter of sequestration only multiplies
    the complexity of the puzzle that needs to be solved. The
    disastrous consequences of automatic cuts to defense have been
    documented in earlier hearings. A4AD asks this subcommittee to
    work toward resolving sequestration prior to a lame duck
    session, before the meat cleaver chops into the military and
    the defense industry.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Captain Marshall Hanson, USN (Retired)
                       associations for america's defense
        Founded in January 2002, the Associations for America's Defense
    (A4AD) is an ad hoc group of military and veteran service organizations
    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
    American Military Society
    Army and Navy Union
    Association of the U.S. Navy
    Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
    Hispanic War Veterans of America
    Marine Corps Reserve Association
    Military Order of World Wars
    National Association for Uniformed Services
    Naval Enlisted Reserve Association
    Reserve Enlisted Association
    Reserve Officers Association
    The Flag and General Officers' Network
    The Retired Enlisted Association
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, A4AD is
    again very grateful for the invitation to testify before you about our
    views and suggestions concerning current and future issues facing the
    Department of Defense Subcommittee Appropriations.
        A4AD is an ad hoc group of 13 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
        A4AD would like to thank this subcommittee for the on-going
    stewardship that it has demonstrated on issues of defense. While in a
    time of war, this subcommittee's pro-defense and nonpartisan leadership
    continues to set an example.
    Force Structure: The Risk of Erosion in Capability
        Last January, the Obama administration announced a new Defense
    Strategy Guidance, which has been a driving force in current budget
    talks. The new strategy realigns national security with a tighter
    Federal budget. Not only is the Nation's security at risk of being
    hollowed out from being under budgeted, but with an incomplete strategy
    the United States might not be planning for a potential future threat.
        Not surprisingly, a lot of the aspects about this plan are not new.
    The new strategy for the United States has evolved from fighting and
    quickly winning two major wars simultaneously into winning one war
    while ``deterring'' or ``dismantling'' the designs of a second
    potential adversary.
        Part of the ``revolution'' in military thinking justifying a new
    strategy is a refocus from Europe to ``rebalance toward the Asia-
    Pacific region''. It requires a shift of power to the Pacific, with
    military end-strength reductions in Europe. But rather than build up
    garrisoned forces in the Far East, this plan calls upon the mobility of
    the Navy and Air Force to project power.
        With a leaner defense strategy, the Pentagon will rely on
    traditional and new allies to complement U.S. force structure. With the
    U.S. planning to reduce its financial and military presence in Europe,
    the Department of Defense (DOD) will expect Europe to take the lead.
    Yet with military budgets being cut in nearly all North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) countries, there is little promise that Europe is
    ready to pick up the slack.
        Six years ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, then Chief of Naval Operations,
    envisioned a thousand-ship Navy, where the U.S. and other navies
    worldwide would partner to improve maritime security and information
    sharing. ``For it to work, explicit and implicit references to U.S.
    security concerns have to go'', warned one unnamed, former military
    officer in an ``Armed Forces Journal'' article.
        The risk of basing a national security policy on foreign interests
    and good world citizenship is increasingly uncertain because 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.
        In many ways, the new strategy is ``back to the future'', with DOD
    constructing a strategy on old tactics and untried concepts, in order
    to save money. This strategy is building a force structure on a shaky
    foundation. Rather than rushing into this unknown, the Congress needs
    to examine this plan closer.
                             budgetary constraints
        A4AD strongly disagrees with placing budgetary constraints on
    defense, especially in light of the fact that under the Budget Control
    Act of 2011 (BCA) defense will take 50 percent of the cuts despite
    being less than 20 percent of the overall budget. Member associations
    also question the current administration's spending priorities, which
    place more importance on the immediate future rather than a longer-term
    approach.
        DOD faces a trigger of an additional $500 billion in budget
    reduction starting on January 1, 2013, that is in addition to the $587
    billion already planned by DOD as cuts over the next 10 years, unless
    something is done by the Congress.
        ``Historically we've run about 20 percent reductions after these
    conflicts'', warned General James E. ``Hoss'' Cartwright, USMC
    (Retired), former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the Joint
    Warfighting Conference. ``We are about halfway there . . . If you take
    another two hundred billion out of this budget, we're going to start to
    run into a problem if you don't start thinking about strategy.''
        At a time when strategy is being shaped by budget, election
    posturing, and an authority squabble between the Congress and the
    Secretary of Defense, national security is being held hostage.
                  authority over force structure and strategy
        A conflict has arisen over who maintains force structure. Defense
    Secretary Leon Panetta has objected to additional defense funding in
    the House National Defense Authorization Act, emphasizing that every $1
    added to the defense authorization will come at the expense of other
    critical national security programs. House Armed Services Committee
    chairman Representative Buck McKeon responded that increases were
    offset while complying with the overall BCA budget targets, which
    specify $487 billion in cuts.
        This exchange reflects an ongoing tension between the Pentagon and
    the Congress over defense budgeting. The new Defense Strategy Guidance
    warns ``as a result of a thorough process that was guided by the
    strategy and that left no part of the budget unexamined, we have
    developed a well-rounded, balanced package. There is no room for
    modification if we are to preserve the force and capabilities that are
    needed to protect the country and fulfill the missions of the
    Department of Defense.'' The Pentagon is frustrated with any amount of
    control by the Congress over the department's business.
        A4AD understands that the Congress takes seriously their
    constitutional responsibility to raise and maintain the Armed Forces.
    This is interpreted as congressional authority to fund, equip, and
    train the military and give committees, such as this, oversight on the
    force structure, including nonfunded items.
                             risk of sequestration
        As sequestration automatically cuts the Federal budget, DOD faces a
    trigger of an additional $500 billion in budget reduction starting on
    January 1, 2013 unless the Congress finds an offset or agrees to
    reconciliation.
        Secretary of Defense Panetta has warned the Congress that if the
    automatic cuts of sequestration are allowed to take effect then the
    number of U.S. ground troops would fall to pre-1940 levels; the Navy
    would have the smallest number of ships since 1915; and the Air Force
    would be the smallest ever.
        If the President exempts personnel accounts, Secretary Panetta
    warns that sequestration could require a 23-percent cut across the
    military's budget for fiscal year 2013.
        Some are suggesting that reconciliation can wait until after the
    election, but the lame duck session schedule is already full. Among
    things needing to be considered by December 31, 2012, are reversing
    cuts to doctors' Medicare payments, Bush tax rates, 2-percent Social
    Security payroll-tax cut, increasing the debt-ceiling negotiations,
    expiration of the payroll tax cut, extending unemployment benefits,
    rises in the Alternative Minimum Tax and the estate tax rates, tax cuts
    from the 2009 economic-growth/stimulus law, the 100-percent write-off
    for business investment, transportation and farm bill reauthorizations,
    and 12 appropriations bills.
        A4AD takes a position that it is vital that reconciliation is
    reached prior to the national election. The House has already passed
    its version. A4AD hopes that the Senate develops and passes its own
    version of a balanced deficit reduction package, thus permitting the
    two chambers to conference.
                                  end strength
        The administration already proposes cutting 100,000 troops. End-
    strength cuts need to be made cautiously.
        The deployment of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan proved that the
    pre-9/11 end strengths left the Army and Marine Corps undermanned,
    which stressed the force. Sequestration would double the reductions for
    these two services.
        The goal for active duty dwell time is 1:3, and 1:5 for the Reserve
    component. After 10 years of war, this has yet to be achieved under
    current operations tempo, and end-strength cuts will only further
    impact dwell time.
        Trying to pay the defense bills by premature manpower reductions
    will have consequences.
                                 reversibility?
        President Obama made the point that an important goal of his
    Defense strategy guidance was to avoid the mistakes made in previous
    downsizings. He suggested that this could be done by designing
    reversibility into the drawdown.
        ``The concept of `reversibility'--including the vectors on which we
    place our industrial base, our people, our Active-Reserve component
    balance, our posture and our partnership emphasis--is a key part of our
    decision calculus,'' states the new DOD strategy.
        This concept should be approached cautiously. If manpower is
    drawndown and industry production lines are shut down, either will take
    years to recover.
        Adequate training for an infantry warrior can take a year and more,
    and even then they lack the field experience. DOD's solution is to keep
    midgrade officers and enlisted that can mature into the next-generation
    leadership. Unfortunately, this is where shortages currently exist.
        If industry is shutdown, skilled labor is laid off, and without
    incentives tooling is destroyed. A restart is neither quick nor
    inexpensive. Even with equipment back online, the skilled labor has
    left for other work opportunities.
        Without question, DOD needs to plan how it can sustain basic
    proficiencies needed to battle emerging threats before relying on
    reversibility. A4AD questions this strategy.
                         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 capability requires funding for training, equipping,
    and maintenance of a mission-ready strategic reserve composed of Active
    and Reserve units.
        The budget will drive changes to the Armed Forces structure. The
    National Guard and Reserve are in a position to fulfill many of the
    missions, while remaining an affordable alternative.
                      base closure or defense realignment?
        The President's budget recommends two more rounds of base closures.
    A4AD does not support such a base realignment and closure (BRAC)
    recommendation.
      --BRAC savings are faux savings as these savings are outside the
            accounting cycle; with a lot of additional $1 expenses front-
            loaded into the DOD budget for infrastructure improvements to
            support transferred personnel.
      --Too much base reduction eliminates facilities needed to support
            surge capability. Some surplus is necessary.
        Instead, A4AD recommends that the Congress consider an independent
    Defense Realignment Commission that would examine the aggregate
    national security structure. The commission could examine:
      --Emerging threats;
      --Foreign defense treaties and alliance obligations;
      --Overseas and forward deployment requirements;
      --Foreign defense aid;
      --Defense partnerships with the State Department and other agencies,
            as well as nongovernmental organizations;
      --Requisite missions and elimination of duplicity between the
            services;
      --Current and future weapon procurement and development;
      --Critical industrial base;
      --Surge capability and contingency repository;
      --Best utilization and force structure of Active and Reserve
            components;
      --Regional or centralized training, and dual-purpose equipment
            availability; and
      --Compensation, recruiting and retention, trends, and solutions.
        In a time of war and force rebalancing, 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 take precedence over budget reductions.
                            compensation commission
        Another recommendation in the President's budget is a commission to
    review deferred compensation. As structured, A4AD does not support this
    proposal either, but if considered:
      --This should not be a BRAC-like commission. The Congress should not
            give up its authority.
      --In one section of the President's budget, it suggests that the
            President will appoint all of the members on the commission.
            The Congress should share in appointments.
      --While alternatives to current military retirement should be
            explored, A4AD does not support a two-tiered system where two
            generations of warriors have different benefit packages.
      --An incentivized retirement option could be offered, rather than
            making any new mandatory system.
      --Should a task force be appointed, A4AD recommends that individuals
            with military experience in both the Active and Reserve
            component compensation be among those appointed, as the
            administration has suggested that both regular and nonregular
            (Reserve) retirement should be the same.
                             unfunded requirements
        Earlier this year, the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced its decision
    to discontinue the practice of providing the Congress with formal lists
    of programs that were excluded from the President's budget request.
        A4AD concurs with those Senators who wrote to the Secretary of
    Defense that the military's budgetary needs cannot be determined
    without the lists, known formally as the Unfunded Priorities Lists.
    These lists, which have effectively been an extension of the Pentagon's
    annual spending request for more than a decade, provide insight that
    may otherwise be overlooked.
        In the past, A4AD has submitted unfunded recommendations for the
    service components of the Active and Reserve forces. Without such
    lists, it is difficult to make recommendations that provide the
    committee with additional information that spans even beyond the list.
               national guard and reserve equipment requirements
        A4AD asks this subcommittee to continue to provide appropriations
    for unfunded National Guard and Reserve Equipment Requirements. The
    National Guard's goal is to make at least one-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 would provide Reserve Chiefs with a flexibility of
    prioritizing funding.
                            force structure funding
    U.S. Army
        Much of the media attention has been on the manpower cuts which
    could be between 72,000-80,000 soldiers over the next 6 years, along
    with a minimum of eight brigade combat teams. If sequestration occurs
    reports are that another 100,000 personnel could be cut. The problem
    faced by the Army is balancing between end strength, readiness, and
    modernization.
        Examples of Army reductions in procurement are its M1A1 Abrams
    upgrade and Stryker vehicle program taking 84 percent and 57-percent
    cuts, respectively, in planned spending. Army cuts create strategic
    vulnerabilities.
        To ignore the risk of a protracted ground campaign is a security
    gamble. The Army has provided between 50 to 70 percent of the U.S.
    deployable forces over the last 10 years.
        Yet, 1 in 3 Active Army units do not have sufficient personnel to
    perform its missions, requiring personnel to be cross-assigned from one
    unit to another to accomplish missions. The Army Reserve and National
    Guard face similar challenges. Defense cuts will further impact the
    Army's ability to train and be ready. The Army needs $25 billion to
    reset its force.
        Air power and technology may be a critical part of a strategy, but
    America's enemies won't fight the way America expects them to. Boots on
    the ground will remain a critical part of this Nation's defense.
    U.S. Marine Corps
        Proposed budget cuts and mission resets could clip USMC's
    triphibious flexibility. The USMC's capability to perform a combined
    mission of land, naval, and air attack could become unbalanced with the
    administration's plan to reset funding and missions to pre-war
    strategies, and build-down the Armed Forces.
        A change in strategy announced by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
    would cut the USMC further than the 20,000 announced by the
    administration. Under consideration is the elimination of another
    infantry battalion and reducing some light-armored reconnaissance
    capability.
        A4AD supports the House V-22 proposal to procure under a multiyear
    procurement contract that will save a proposed $852 million versus
    single-year contracts.
        The USMC is facing critical shortages of stockpiled equipment such
    as radios, small arms, and generators. It needs about $12 billion to
    reset its force.
        The past three Marine Commandants have emphasized that the USMC
    needs to get back to its naval roots as an amphibious force. The
    associations have concerns that the stated need for amphibious warships
    is a minimum of 33, and the likely cap is 30 ships.
    U.S. Navy
        Proposed defense cuts could reduce the number of navy ships to the
    point that China will become dominant in the Western Pacific. This
    reduction undercuts the new Defense Strategy Guidance.
        Rather than growing the fleet to 330 ships, under sequestration
    analyst warns that the fleet could drop to as few than 230 ships. The
    Navy is tempted to retire ships early to reduce manpower requirements,
    but this reduction also will reduce capability.
        One in five ships when inspected is found not to be combat ready or
    is severely degraded. The combatant commanders ask for 16 attack
    submarines on a daily basis, but the USN can only provide 10. USN's
    repair backlog is $367 million.
        The Navy could lose some of its most important shipbuilding
    industry partners if it slows down construction schedules.
        A4AD applauds the House for reinstating 3 of the 4 cruisers
    scheduled to be retired. These are cruisers with the Aegis Combat
    System that is suitable for the at-sea missile defense mission. This
    provides a flexible option to a land-based site.
    U.S. Air Force
        The U.S. Air Force's (USAF) fleet is now the oldest it has ever
    been, and sequestration cuts will either reduce the number of units
    sharply, or eliminate the USAF modernization. Defense cuts will affect
    more than 20 USAF acquisition programs. Sequestration will have a
    detrimental effect on all of the Air Force's procurements, including
    new refueling tankers, tactical fighter jets, remotely piloted
    aircraft, and long-range strike bombers.
        The average age of a strategic bomber is 34 years. Cutting funds
    for a new USAF bomber would seriously setback the progress of a
    replacement.
        The Air Force plans to drop 500 aircraft from its inventory in the
    near future. This is caused by retirement of airplanes, elimination of
    close combat missions, and delays in procuring replacements. The USAF
    is cutting F-15 and F-16 fighters by more than 200 aircraft before
    replacement F-35s are available.
        The majority of these cuts are from the Air National Guard and Air
    Force Reserve, affecting air sovereignty and surge capability.
        The ``Air Force Magazine'' reports that the USAF's end-strength is
    7-percent smaller than it was 7 years ago, yet the personnel costs for
    this smaller force have risen 16 percent. USAF would have to cut 47,000
    airmen out of its total force just to hold personnel spending at a
    constant rate between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2017. The Air
    Force showed that a high percentage of the cuts would be taken out of
    its Reserve components.
        A4AD commends the House Armed Services Committee for delaying the
    proposed cuts to the Air Reserve Components until the Secretary of the
    Air Force provides supporting data, and details as to the affects of
    such cuts on National Security. A4AD hopes that Senate will provide
    similar direction to DOD.
        According to Pentagon reports, the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget
    calls for a 12-percent cut in aircraft programs. Aircraft procurement
    for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, and the Army decreased from
    $54.2 billion in fiscal year 2012 to a budget request of $47.6 billion
    in fiscal year 2013.
                                   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. Thank you very much, Captain. I can assure
    you that we are doing our very best to avoid sequestration,
    because if that ever happens then this hearing is for naught,
    and in the process we may have to take some painful cuts, make
    some painful decisions. But I can assure you we'll do our best.
        Thank you very much.
        Now may I call upon Major General Andrew Davis.
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ANDREW DAVIS, U.S. MARINE
                CORPS (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED
                STATES
        General Davis. Chairman Inouye and Senator Cochran: The
    Reserve Officers Association (ROA) thanks you for the
    invitation to appear and give testimony. I am retired Marine
    Major General Drew Davis, the Executive Director of Reserve
    Officers Association. I am speaking on behalf of the Reserve
    Enlisted Association (REA).
        ROA and REA are concerned about how the Congress and the
    Pentagon will meet the requirements set by the Budget Control
    Act of 2011 and the resulting cuts to the Defense budget. With
    the Pentagon looking to reduce the Defense budget, a risk is
    that the services will make disproportionate cuts to the
    Reserve component to protect active duty roles, missions, and
    end strengths.
        Army Vice Chief of Staff General Lloyd Austin told the
    Senate that with sequestration the Army would likely lose
    another 100,000 troops on top of the 72,000 cuts already
    planned. He said that one-half of these cuts would be in the
    National Guard and the Army Reserve.
        Cutting one reservist only provides 35 percent of the cost
    savings when compared to the reduction of an active duty
    rifleman, airman, or sailor.
        As they have shown after 10 years of war, Reserve and Guard
    perform their missions on par with active duty, at less
    overhead and infrastructure cost. They require no base housing
    and no medical care, and their retirement benefit is deferred
    to age 60. To ignore the cost efficiencies of the Reserve
    component is a disservice to the American taxpayer and violates
    the axioms of strategic planning for our Nation's defense.
        Additional further cost savings are found when civilian
    knowledge and proficiencies can be called upon at no training
    cost to the military.
        With the Pentagon and the Congress examining our Nation's
    security, it would be incorrect to discount the Reserve
    components' abilities and cost efficiencies. The Reserve
    strength of these part-time warriors provides a cost-saving
    solution and are an area to retain competencies for missions
    not directly embodied in the administration's new strategic
    guidance.
        For reversibility to succeed we will need a viable Reserve
    component. The Reserve and National Guard are no longer just a
    part-time strategic force, but contribute to our Nation's
    operational ability to defend itself, project power, and
    perform needed noncombat missions.
        Nearly 850,000 Reserve and Guard members have been
    activated and deployed since September 11, 2001, with more than
    275,000 having done so two times or more. By throwing away this
    required expertise and can-do attitude, we undermine the total
    force at the same time.
        Already, the Air Force and Navy are using their Reserve
    components as bill-payers. ROA and REA thank those members of
    this committee who delayed the recommended cuts by the Air
    Force of Reserve component aircraft and facilities. Experienced
    warriors are returning to their Reserve component training
    sites and are finding aging facilities and obsolete and battle-
    damaged equipment. To remain robust and relevant, they need to
    have the same type of equipment or simulators for training that
    they used during overseas missions. If the Reserve component is
    simply put on the shelf, these volunteer young men and women
    will walk away.
        ROA and REA's written testimony includes lists of unfunded
    requirements that we hope this subcommittee will fund. But we
    also urge this subcommittee to specifically identify funding
    for both the services' Reserve forces and the National Guard
    exclusively to train and equip the Reserve components by
    providing funds for the National Guard and Reserve equipment
    appropriation. Just because the services did not submit a wish
    list does not mean there are no wishes or needs.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In addition, we hope that the chairman reconsiders the
    military construction appropriations to the Reserve components,
    even though that subcommittee has marked up its bill. Our
    written testimony includes dollar recommendations.
        ROA and REA thank you again for your consideration of our
    testimony and we look forward to working with this committee.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Major General Andrew Davis
        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 the Congress in 1950, the act established the objective of
    ROA to: ``. . . support and promote the development and execution of a
    military policy for the United States that will provide adequate
    National Security''. The mission of ROA is to advocate strong Reserve
    components and national security and to support Reserve officers in
    their military and civilian lives.
        The Association's 58,000 members include Reserve and Guard
    soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coastguardsmen, 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. ROA is represented in
    each State with 54 departments plus departments in Latin America, the
    District of Columbia, Europe, the Far East, and Puerto Rico. Each
    department has several chapters throughout the State. ROA has more than
    450 chapters worldwide.
        ROA is a member of The Military Coalition, where it co-chairs the
    Guard and Reserve Committee. ROA is also a member of the National
    Military/Veterans Alliance. Overall, ROA works with 75 military,
    veterans, and family support organizations.
        The Reserve Enlisted Association (REA) 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.
                                  introduction
        On behalf of the 1.1 million members of the Reserve and National
    Guard, the ROA and the REA thank the subcommittee for the opportunity
    to submit testimony on budgeting issues affecting serving members,
    retirees, their families, and survivors.
        The associations would like to further thank those Senators who
    have been working to postpone planned cuts to Reserve component (RC)
    aircraft by the Air Force. A proper analysis needs to be done before
    premature action is taken that could encumber our national security.
        The title 10 Reserve and National Guard are no longer just a part-
    time strategic force but are an integral contributor to our Nation's
    operational ability to defend itself, assist other countries in
    maintaining global peace, and fight against overseas threats. They are
    an integrated part of the total force, yet remain a surge capability as
    well.
        At a time that the Pentagon and the Congress are examining our
    Nation's security, it would be incorrect to discount the RC abilities
    and cost efficiencies. Instead, these part-time warriors provide a
    cost-savings solution and an area to retain competencies for missions
    not directly embodied in the administration's new strategic policy,
    ``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for a 21st Century
    Defense''.
        ROA and REA are concerned that as the Pentagon strives to achieve
    the administration's goals for this new strategic policy, it is not
    seriously considering the available assets and cost efficiencies of the
    RC, and that it views the Reserve and National Guard as a bill payer
    instead.
        The Congress, starting with the leadership of this subcommittee,
    should insist on a methodical analysis of suggested reductions in
    missions and bases before budgeting for such changes. Haste creates
    mistakes.
               provide and execute an adequate national security
        The ROA is chartered by the Congress ``to support and promote the
    development and execution of a military policy for the United States
    that will provide adequate national security''.
        Requested action:
      --Hold congressional hearings on the new policy of ``Sustaining U.S.
            Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense''.
      --Seek reconciliation to offset Defense sequestration budget cuts.
      --Study the impact of manpower cuts to Army and Marine Corps on
            national security.
      --Avoid simple parity cuts of components without analyzing the best
            Active-Reserve balance.
      --Maintain robust and versatile all-volunteer Armed Forces that can
            accomplish its mission to defend the homeland and U.S.
            interests overseas.
        ROA and REA question the current spending priorities that place
    more importance on the immediate future, rather than first doing a
    short- and long-term threat analysis. The result of such a budget-
    centric policy could again lead to a hollow force whose readiness and
    effectiveness is degraded.
        ROA and REA share concerns about reductions in the Department of
    Defense, while proposed budgets for other Federal agencies increase. An
    example of this is the $13.4 billion budget increase for the Department
    of Veteran Affairs (VA). Of this, $10.6 billion is an increase in
    mandatory funding. When ROA asked the VA's Chief Financial Officer,
    Todd Grams, what offset is being made to allow this increase, his
    response was that no offset was needed as all but $1 billion were for
    existing programs.
        While some VA increase is obviously needed with the ever increasing
    number of service-connected veterans who are disabled, injured, or ill,
    every agency should be fiscally responsible to help balance the budget
    and reduce the ever-growing deficit.
        Serving members, retirees, families, and survivors are in effect
    being taxed by defense reductions to be the dollar offsets for other
    departments. Not only is this unfair, but by making cuts to national
    security, it puts future warriors at a greater risk.
                        reserve strength thru efficiency
        ``With roughly 1.4 [million] Active-Duty servicemembers, 1.2
    million Reserve-component members and likely future missions
    worldwide,'' Dennis McCarthy, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Reserve Affairs told ROA, ``the military will need to continue to rely
    on reserve strength.''
        The Reserve forces are no longer a part-time strategic force but
    are an integral contributor to our Nation's operational ability to
    defend our soil, assist other countries in maintaining global peace,
    and fight in overseas contingency operations, as demonstrated by the
    last 10 years of war. The Reserve and National Guard should not be
    arbitrarily cut from the defense strategy.
        Rather than be limited by historical thinking, and parochial
    protections, creative approaches should be explored. The RC needs to
    continue in an operational capacity because of cost efficiency and
    added value. The cost of the Reserve and National Guard should not be
    confused with their value, as their value to national defense is
    incalculable.
        The RCs remain a cost-efficient and valued force. It is just a
    small percentage of the total services budget:
      --Army Reserve: 7 percent of the Army budget; 18 percent of the
            force.
      --Army National Guard: 14 percent of the Army budget; 32 percent of
            the force.
      --Marine Forces Reserve: 6 percent of the United States Marine Corps
            (USMC) budget; 16.5 percent of the force.
      --Navy Reserve: 7 percent of the United States Navy budget; 17
            percent of the force.
      --Air Force Reserve: 4 percent of the Air Force (AF) budget, 14
            percent of the force, and 20 percent of the capability.
      --Air National Guard: 6 percent of the AF budget and 21 percent of
            the force.
        Value, on the other hand, is more intangible to calculate. The RC
    fills an ongoing need for a surge capability as an insurance policy
    against worse-case scenario's. Reserve and National Guard members give
    the armed forces access to civilian skills that would prove too
    expensive for the uniformed services to train and maintain. With less
    than 1 percent of the U.S. population serving in uniform, the RC also
    provides a critical link to American communities.
        The Reserve and National Guard should also be viewed as a
    repository for missions and equipment that aren't addressed in the
    administration's new strategic policy. They can sustain special
    capabilities not normally needed in peacetime.
        Part of the President's budget includes planned end-strength
    reductions for both the Army and Marine Corps, by 80,000 and 20,000,
    respectively. It should be remembered that individuals cannot be
    brought quickly on to active duty on a temporary basis, as it is an
    accumulation of experience and training that is acquired over years
    that becomes an asset for the military. The Reserve is also a
    repository for these skills.
        To maintain a strong, relevant, and responsive Reserve force, the
    Nation must commit the resources necessary to do so. Reserve strength
    is predicated on assuring the necessary resources--funding for
    personnel and training, equipment reconstitution, and horizontal
    fielding of new technology to the RC, coupled with defining roles and
    missions to achieve a strategic/operational Reserve balance.
               national guard and reserve equipment appropriation
        Once a strategic force, the RCs are now also being employed as an
    operational asset; stressing an ever greater need for procurement
    flexibility as provided by the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriations (NGREA). Much-needed items not funded by the respective
    service budget are frequently purchased through NGREA. In some cases,
    it is used to procure unit equipment to match a state of modernizations
    that aligns with the battlefield.
        With the active component (AC) controlling procurement, a risk
    exists where Defense planners may be tempted to put the National Guard
    and title 10 Reserve on the shelf, by providing them ``hand me down''
    outmoded equipment and by underfunding training. NGREA gives the
    Reserve chiefs some funding control.
        The Reserve and National Guard are faced with the ongoing
    challenges of how to replace worn out equipment, equipment lost due to
    combat operations, legacy equipment that is becoming irrelevant or
    obsolete, and, in general, replacing what is lost in combat, or aged
    through the abnormal wear and tear of deployment. The RCs benefit
    greatly from a National Military Resource Strategy that includes an
    NGREA.
        The Congress has provided funding for the NGREA for more than 30
    years. At times, this funding has made the difference in a unit's
    abilities to carry out vital missions.
        ROA thanks the Congress for approving $1 billion for NGREA for
    fiscal year 2012, but more dollars continue to be needed. ROA urges the
    Congress to appropriate into NGREA an amount that is proportional to
    the missions being performed, which will enable the RC to meet its
    readiness requirements.
                             military construction
        ROA and REA attempted to submit testimony to an earlier hearing on
    military construction by the Subcommittee on Military Construction and
    Veterans Affairs, and other related agencies, but the associations were
    told to submit this during the public witness hearing.
        Unfortunately, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and
    other related agencies marked up their portion of the Senate version of
    the appropriations bill on May 15. It is hoped that the Chairman will
    include some of the following information in his Chairman's markup.
        Requested Action.--ROA and REA urge the Congress to continue
    appropriating funds for Military Construction budgets for the Reserve
    and National Guard.
        Military Construction funding has not generally kept pace with
    essential RC facility modernization, conversion, and replacement
    requirements. In fiscal year 2012, Military Construction for the RC was
    appropriated $1.2 billion, which was $223 million less then the fiscal
    year 2011 enacted level. The RCs indicated they need a higher level of
    Military Construction funding in fiscal year 2013.
        The RC's mission has changed from being primarily strategic
    reserves and ``weekend warriors'' to being an operational reserve. The
    RC now has a required high level of mission readiness which needs to be
    supported by functional training and facilities for current and future
    needs. They must train troops, maintain facilities and prepare troops
    postdeployments to return to civilian life. Additionally, families are
    supported throughout the force regeneration cycle phases. All of these
    initiatives require maintaining, renovating, and modernizing
    facilities.
        As morale and combat readiness can be significantly affected by
    inadequate facilities, it is prudent to sustain fiscal year 2011's
    level of improvement (except the Air Force) in funding and allocation
    of projects in fiscal year 2013.
        Five-year project backlog:
          Army National Guard.--Approximately $1.8 billion.
          Air National Guard.--Approximately $660 million.
          Army Reserve.--Approximately $1 billion.
          Air Force Reserves.--Approximately $170 million.
          Navy and Marine Corps.--Approximately $240 million.
        In 2011, the U.S. Senate found that National Guard Army Reserve
    facilities average more than 40 years in age. Other RCs suffer similar
    challenges with aging infrastructure. Military Construction requests
    fund the Reserve's most critical facilities and support total force
    transformation. The Reserve and National Guard will be realigning its
    forces to operational missions to provide increased combat service,
    while the active-duty end strengths are being reduced.
                    base closure and realignment commission
        The President's budget recommends two more rounds of base closures.
    ROA and REA do not support such a base closure and realignment (BRAC)
    recommendation. If any action is taken, the emphasis should be placed
    on realignment rather than closure.
        The association concerns are:
      --BRAC savings are faux savings as these savings are beyond the
            congressional budget accounting cycle; with a lot of additional
            dollar expenses front loaded into the Defense budget for
            infrastructure improvements to support transferred personnel.
      --Too much base reduction eliminates facilities needed to support
            surge capability, some surplus is good.
      --Reserve and National Guard facilities should not be included, as
            was the case in BRAC 2005 when RC facilities were closed to
            reduce the risk of closure to active duty facilities.
                             association priorities
        Calendar year 2011 legislative priorities are:
      --Recapitalize the total force to include fully funding equipment and
            training for the National Guard and Reserves.
      --Ensure that the Reserve and National Guard continue in a key
            national defense role, both at home and abroad.
      --Provide adequate resources and authorities to support the current
            recruiting and retention requirements of the Reserves and
            National Guard.
      --Support citizen warriors, families and survivors.
    Issues To Help Fund, Equip, and Train
        Advocate for adequate funding to maintain national defense during
    times of war and peace.
        Regenerate the RC with field compatible equipment.
        Improve and implement adequate tracking processes on National Guard
    and Reserve appropriations and borrowed RC equipment needing to be
    returned or replaced.
        Fully fund the military pay appropriation to guarantee a minimum of
    48 drills and 2 weeks of training.
        Sustain authorization and appropriation to 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.
    Issues To Assist Recruiting and Retention
        Support continued incentives for affiliation, re-enlistment,
    retention, and continuation in the RC.
                Pay and Compensation
        Simplify the Reserve duty order system without compromising drill
    compensation.
        Offer professional pay for RC medical professionals, consistent
    with the AC's pay.
        Eliminate the 1/30th rule for Aviation Career Incentive Pay, Career
    Enlisted Flyers Incentive Pay, Diving Special Duty Pay, and Hazardous
    Duty Incentive Pay.
                Education
        Continue funding the GI bill for the 21st century.
                Healthcare
        Provide medical and dental readiness through subsidized preventive
    healthcare.
        Extend military coverage for restorative dental care for up to 90
    days following deployment.
        Provide funding for transitional TRICARE Reserve Select healthcare
    for those beneficiaries being released from drill status.
                Spouse Support
        Repeal the Survivor Benefits Plan--Dependency Indemnity Clause
    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 vital needs.
        Key issues facing the Armed Forces concerning equipment:
      --Procuring new equipment for all U.S. forces.
      --Modernize by 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 RC.
        Reserve component equipping sources:
      --Procurement.
      --Cascading of equipment from AC.
      --Cross-leveling.
      --Recapitalization and overhaul of legacy (old) equipment.
      --Congressional add-ons.
      --NGREA.
      --Supplemental appropriation, such as overseas contingency operations
            funding.
    End Strength
        The ROA would like to place a moratorium on any potential
    reductions to the National 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 the support
    of:
      --Army National Guard of the United States, 358,200.
      --Army Reserve, 206,000.
      --Navy Reserve, 66,200.
      --Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
      --Air National Guard of the United States, 106,700.
      --Air Force Reserve, 71,400.
      --Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.
        In a time of war and force rebalancing, it is wrong to make cuts to
    the end strength of the RCs. We need to pause to permit force planning
    and strategy to catch-up with budget reductions.
                      unfunded reserve component equipment
        ROA and REA agree with the Senate leadership that the Congress
    should be provided with a unfunded list from both Active and Reserve
    components. The below charts shows that the ground forces have the
    greatest backlog of unfunded equipment.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chart 1.--Items of unfunded equipment reported in the National Guard
     and Reserve Equipment Report published by the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Fiscal year 2013 could be the
      last year of publication if the Secretary of Defense insists on not
                            further unfunded lists.

                  army reserve components equipment priorities
    Army Reserve Unfunded Requirements
        While the Army Reserve (USAR) has 91 percent of its equipment on-
    hand, only 67 percent of it is modernized, a decline of 2 percent from
    last year. More new production and recapitalized equipment is needed to
    close the gap with the active and the Army Guard.
        An enduring operational force cannot be fully effective if it is
    underfunded. Theater-provided equipment has allowed the USAR to provide
    support during mobilization. The USAR rebuilt 70 percent of its 5-ton
    cargo trucks and 83 percent of its semitrailer tankers to meet its
    mission.
        Top USAR equipping challenges of an operational Reserve are:
      --Modernize and sustain equipment in a resource-constrained
            environment.
      --Equip USAR as an operational force capable of overseas, homeland
            defense, and natural disasters.
      --Modernize the tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleet.
      --Achieve full transparency for equipment procurement and
            distribution.
      --Expand the use of simulators to mitigate equipment shortfalls and
            gain training efficiencies.

                             USAR UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Force protection:
        Alarm Biological Agent [BIDS] M31E2, 63 required......         $69
        Armored Security Vehicle, 27 required.................          21
    Combat logistics and mobility:
        Loader Skid Steer: Type II, 40 required...............           1.2
        Rough Terrain Contain Handler, 39 required............          28.9
    Ground vehicles:
        Truck Cargo, 5-ton, 771 required......................         154
        Truck Dump, 10-ton, 213 required......................          42.6
        Truck, Expandable Van, 141 required...................          28.2
    Soldier systems:
        Medium Weapon Thermal Sights [MWTS]AN/PAS-13(V)2,               28.2
         1,600 required.......................................
        Thermal Sights AN/PAS-13B9V)1, 1,500, required........          25.5
        Javelin Command Launch Unit, 50 required..............          11.5
        Helicopter, Utility, UH-60L, 8 required...............          38.4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Simulators
        The use of simulations and simulators minimizes turbulence for USAR
    soldiers and their families caused by training demands during the first
    2 years of the Army Force Generation process by enabling individuals
    and units to train at their home station and during exercises in a safe
    environment without the increased wear and tear on equipment.
    Army National Guard Unfunded Equipment Requirements
        The on-hand percentage for all equipment is dropped from 92 percent
    to 87 percent, and this does not include requirements for training.
    Part of this requirement is dual use, with critical items of equipment
    being needed for homeland missions with critical use inventory at 89
    percent.
        Top Army National Guard equipping challenges are:
      --Equip units for pre-mobilization training and deployment.
      --Equip units for their homeland missions.
      --Achieve full transparency for equipment procurement and
            distribution.
      --Modernize ARNG TWV fleet.
      --Improve interoperability with AC forces.
      --Modernize the ARNG helicopter fleet.

                             ARNG UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Strike:
        Radar Sets AN/TPQ -36(V)10 and -37(V)9, 10/9 required.        $231
    Field support:
        Containerized kitchen, 69 required....................          15.5
        Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Infantry, M2A3, 45 required.         198
        Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Cavalry, M3A3, 29 required..         116.5
        Generator sets, 659 required..........................           8.2
    Air defense:
        Radar set: Sentinel AN/MPQ-64.........................          66.5
    Aviation:
        Helicopter, Attack AH-64D, 16 required................         402
        Helicopter, Utility, UH-60L, 55 required..............         267
        Light Utility Helicopter, UH-72A, 34 required.........         132.6
        Helicopter, Cargo CH-47F, 19 required.................         570
    Medical field system:
        MES Combat Medic, 463 required........................           1.6
        Medical Communications for Combat Casualty Care [MC4]            4.6
         Program..............................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    marine corps reserve unfunded priorities
        Marine Forces Reserve (MFR) has two primary equipping priorities--
    outfitting individuals who are preparing to deploy and sufficiently
    equipping units to conduct home station training. Individuals receive
    100 percent of the necessary war fighting equipment. MFR units are
    equipped to a level identified by the Training Allowance (TA). MFR
    units are equipped with the same equipment that is utilized by the AC,
    but in quantities tailored to fit reserve training center needs. It is
    imperative that MFR units train with the same equipment they will
    utilize while deployed.
        Top MFR equipping challenges are:
      --Implementing Results of the Strategic Review from the Force
            Structure Review Group; 40 percent of USMCR units may be
            impacted by this review.
      --Transitioning the KC-130 airframe.
      --Providing units the ``right amount'' of equipment to effectively
            train in a pre-activation environment.
      --Achieving USMCR goal that the Reserve TA contains the same
            equipment as the AC.
      --Resetting and modernizing the MFR to prepare for future challenges.

                            USMCR UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aviation:
        KC-130J Super Hercules Aircraft Tankers, 2 required...        $184.6
        UH-1Y Helicopter, Utility, 6 required.................         184.8
        MV-22 B Tiltrotor Osprey, 2 required..................         167.5
    USMCR Simulators:
        KC-130J Weapons System Trainer, 2 required............          50
        UH-1 Trainer, 1 required..............................          16.5
    Ground Transport:
        Truck cargo, 22.5 ton, LVSR, 8 required...............           3.4
        Lighted Armed Vehicle, Command/Control, 5 required....           3
        Light Armored Vehicles--LAV-25, procure 1 remaining...           3.2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  air reserve components equipment priorities
        The Air Reserve Component (ARC) is made up of both the Air Force
    Reserve (AFR) and the Air National Guard. Over the last 10 years they
    have met all tasking, and were not asked to perform at full capacity.
        ARC alone can cover:
      --75 percent of Combat Air Force tasking.
      --75 percent of Mobility Air Force tasking.
      --50 percent of Aerial Refueling tasking.
    Air Force Reserve Unfunded Requirements
        AFR while fully integrated with the active for air, space, and
    cyberspace, has higher sustainment needs across its fleet. Sustaining
    operations on five continents, the resulting wear and tear weighs
    heavily on aging equipment.
        AFR has some specialized capabilities not found in regular AF
    units. These include support of counternarcotics efforts, weather
    reconnaissance including hurricane penetration, aeromedical evacuation,
    aerial spray capabilities, and forest fire suppression.
        Yet AF proposes cuts from the AFR. Even though the AF announced
    that the AFR will be reduced by 900 personnel in fiscal year 2013, more
    than 3,000 jobs will be realigned.
        There will be a risk of further reductions at some locations. There
    are 2,093 Reserve and 734 full-time staff (FTS) reductions shown in AF
    announcements at six AFR flying locations. These include:
      ---563 Lackland, Texas (-385 reserve/-178 FTS in C-5s);
      ---580 Barksdale, Louisiana (-409/-171 closing AFR A-10 combat unit
            recently returned from Afghan);
      ---53 Homestead, Florida (-40/-13 reducing RC F-16s);
      ---1,448 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (-1,122/-326 closing Wing and
            Base);
      ---53 Fort Worth, Texas (-40/-13 reducing RC F-16s); and
      ---130 Youngstown, Ohio (-97/-33 reducing C-130s).
        The closure of Air Reserve Station Pittsburg challenges the
    congressional mandate and authority of base closure with more than 300
    Federal employees.
        Next in fiscal year 2014 and out, the plan to close the entire C-
    130 wing at Maxwell, Alabama; the entire C-130 wing/base at
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minneapolis; a C-130 flying squadron at Keesler,
    Mississippi; and the C-130 wing/base at Niagara, New York.
        These cuts will affect the surge and reversibility capabilities of
    the AF. In these proposed reductions, the AF does not seem to
    understand the importance of population/reserve demographics to cost-
    effective Reserve unit locations. ROA and REA hope that this committee
    supports actions by the House to delay and proposed reductions for a
    year to properly review these recommendations.
        Top AFR equipping challenges:
      --C-5 Maintenance.
          Defensive Systems.--LAIRCM, ADS, and MWS: equip aircraft lacking
            adequate infrared missile protection for combat operations.
          Data Link and Secure Communications.--Data link network
            supporting image/video, threat updates, and SLOS/BLOS
            communications for combat missions.

                               UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aviation:
        Large aircraft infrared countermeasures...............          $4
        F-16 Systems, CDU, Combined AIFF With Mode 5/S, Sim              2
         Trainer Upgrade......................................
        C-17A upgrades........................................          10
        C-130 system upgrades.................................          13.7
        KC-135 modifications..................................           3.8
    Telecommunication:
        National Airspace System..............................           1.3
        Air and Space Operations Center.......................           2
    Ground transportation:
        Medium tactical vehicles..............................           2.6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air National Guard Unfunded Equipment Requirements
        The immediate threat the Air National Guard (ANG) was the
    threatened reduction of squadrons and aircraft proposed by the Air
    Force as cost saving measures. This included the reduction of 5,100 ANG
    billets. ROA and REA hope that this committee support actions by the
    House to delay and proposed reductions for a year to properly review
    these recommendations.

                            PROPOSED CUTS TO THE ANG
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------
    C-130 H intratheater airlift....  21 aircraft.......  Provides 40
                                                           percent of the
                                                           total fleet.
    C-5A heavy intertheater airlift.  13 aircraft.......  Provides 25
                                                           percent of
                                                           outsize cargo
                                                           airlift.
    C-27J short-to-medium range       15 aircraft.......  Provides 100
     tactical airlift.                                     percent of the
                                                           total fleet.
    A-10C ground support fighter....  63 aircraft.......  Performed 66
                                                           percent of the
                                                           missions.
    F-16 C Fighter..................  20 aircraft.......  Since 2003, 3
                                                           percent of CentAF
                                                           taskings.
    C-21 A operational support......  24 aircraft.......  Provides 40
                                                           percent of the AF
                                                           fleet.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Given adequate equipment and training, the ANG will continue to
    fulfill its total force obligations. On-hand equipment is just under 91
    percent of requirements with dual use equipment being 88 percent of ANG
    assets, but some major items of equipment are nearing 30 years of use.
    Operations tempo has been high and prolonged, requiring equipment to be
    modernized and recapitalized concurrently.
        ANG equipping challenges:
      --Modernize aging aircraft and other weapons systems for both dual-
            mission and combat deployments.
      --De-conflict dual use equipment when required for both Federal and
            domestic missions.
      --Acquire equipment to satisfy requirements for domestic operations
            in each Emergency Support Function (ESF).
      --Define an Air Force validation process for both Federal and State
            domestic response needs.
      --Program aging ANG F-16 aircraft for the Service Life Extension
            Program (SLEP).
        An ANG wing contains not only aircraft but fire trucks, forklifts,
    portable light carts, emergency medical equipment including ambulances,
    air traffic control equipment, explosives ordinance equipment, etc., as
    well as well-trained experts--valuable in response to civil
    emergencies.

                               UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Command and Control:
        Control and reporting center systems..................          $6.6
        Air Defense Tactical Satellite Communications.........           1.2
    Aviation:
        C-17 large aircraft infrared countermeasures and                36.4
         detection............................................
        C-38 replacement aircraft.............................          62
        C-40C Procurement.....................................         103
        C-130 H/J Advanced LAIRCM/Missile Warning System......          58.2
        F-15 Advance Digital Warning/Radio Frequency CSM......          85.7
        F-16 advanced targeting pod upgrades..................          83.5
    Dual Mission: Rapidly deployable RPA capability...........          28.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        navy reserve unfunded priorities
        Active Reserve Integration (ARI) aligns active and Reserve
    component units to achieve unity of command. Equipment used is the RC
    is often experiencing service life of more than 20 years for many
    platforms, adding sustainability and interoperability challenges,
    leading to training and deployment challenges for mobilization ready
    individuals and units. The United States Navy Reserve (USNR) has been
    the primary provider of Individual Augmentees for the overseas
    contingency operations filling Army and Air Force assignments.
        Expeditionary missions include security forces, construction
    battalions, cargo handling, and warehouse and fuel operations. The USNR
    contributes 1/3 of the personnel in support of Special Warfare
    operations. A new mission will be Maritime Civil Affairs which will be
    doubling the number of units in the near future.
        Top USNR equipping challenges are:
      --Aircraft procurement (C-40A, P-8, KC-130J, and C-37B).
      --Expeditionary equipment procurement (MESF, EOD, NCF, NAVELSG,
            MCAST, EXPCOMBATCAM, and NEIC).
      --Navy special warfare equipment.

                             USNR UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aviation:
        C-40 A Combo Cargo/Passenger Airlift, 4 required......        $340
        KC-130J Super Hercules Aircraft Tankers, 2 required...         162
        C-37 B (Gulf Stream) Aircraft, 1 required.............          64
        H-53 E Sea Dragon, Mine Warfare.......................          24
        F-5F Adversarial Aircraft Modification................           4.3
    USNR Expeditionary:
        Maritime Civil Affairs Team, Equipment Allowance, 3              1
         required.............................................
        Tactical Vehicles.....................................          11.8
        Civil Engineering Support Equipment...................           1.2
        Materials Handling Equipment..........................           1.2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Percentage of
      Reserve  component        Requirements             On-hand                Shortage             required $$
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   ARNG              105,594.3               64,867.8               40,726.5                  38.6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     AR               27,283.6               16,634.9               10,648.7                  39.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    USMCR              6,243.6                5,812.8                  430.8                   6.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   USNR                9,977.4                8,978.2                  999.2                  10.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    ANG               53,620.8               50,778.4                2,842.4                   5.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    AFR               26,900.7               24,783.3                2,207.4                   8.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     USCGR                51.1                   26.1                   25.1                  49.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total              229,761.6              171,881.5               57,880.1                  25.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chart 2.--``Beginning Fiscal Year 2013 Reserve Component Equipment $$$
       Shortages'' published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
                          Defense for Reserve Affairs.

        The Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) reflects a 6.9 percent shortage of
    its major items; however, the USMCR is equipped to a home station
    training allowance only.
                                   conclusion
        The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the
    contributions to be made by the Reserve and National Guard. It the
    future they will continue to play role in missions to maintain national
    security.
        This country cannot afford a strategy that writes them out of the
    picture. It makes sense to fully fund the most cost efficient
    components of the total force, its Reserve components.
        The ROA, 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. General, I can assure you that this
    subcommittee is well aware of the important role played by
    Reserve and Guard forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we will
    make certain that a study be carried out on base realignment
    and closure (BRAC) recommendations and equipment. Those are
    important items for this subcommittee.
        Thank you very much, Sir.
        General Davis. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Our next witness is Ms. Karen Goraleski,
    representing the American Society of Tropical Medicine and
    Hygiene.
    STATEMENT OF KAREN GORALESKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND
                HYGIENE
        Ms. Goraleski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member Cochran: My name is Karen Goraleski. I am the
    executive director of the American Society of Tropical Medicine
    and Hygiene (ASTMH). Thank you for the privilege of testifying
    before you today. I am here on behalf of our members, who are
    the world's leading experts in the research and treatment of
    tropical diseases, to respectfully request that the
    subcommittee expand funding for the Department of Defense's
    (DOD) efforts to develop new preventions, treatments, vaccines,
    and diagnostics that will protect our service men and women
    from infectious diseases in areas of the world where many serve
    now or may serve in the future.
        ASTMH understands the rich return on this DOD investment.
    We are concerned that without the sustained resources needed to
    address health risks to our troops, we will also inadvertently
    hamper military mission success.
        As a Nation, we must Americans' tax dollars wisely, and
    this particular DOD investment has legs. First, our military
    benefits, but so do Americans that travel for business, for
    vacation, for school and faith-based volunteer work. Every gain
    also helps reduce premature death and disability of those
    living in the developing world.
        Infectious disease is the ever-present enemy. Our
    investments in new and effective tools must have a focus on
    today as well as tomorrow. The drugs and preventive measures
    used in earlier conflicts are quickly becoming resistant and we
    can always bank on Mother Nature to deliver new diseases.
        I want to highlight the smart and cost-effective work being
    done at two facilities within the DOD, Walter Reed Army
    Institute of Research (WRAIR), and the Naval Medical Research
    Center (NMRC).
        I will begin with WRAIR, which effectively leverages its
    modest infectious disease research budget through domestic and
    international partnerships, public and private, and they are
    continually seeking out new ones. WRAIR's portfolio includes
    malaria vaccine and drug development, malaria vector control,
    drug development for leishmaniasis, a tropical disease
    transmitted by sand flies that is prevalent in Africa, West
    Asia, and the Middle East, enteric disease research, and HIV/
    AIDS research and treatment.
        WRAIR's success relies heavily on collaborations, as seen
    in the development of RTS,S with the malaria vaccine initiative
    and GlaxoSmithKline. Last fall, this large-scale phase 3 trial
    showed an approximate 50-percent efficacy in decreasing
    clinical episodes of malaria in African children. This is news
    we rightfully celebrate for children and parents living in
    malaria endemic countries. But for our military, right now
    RTS,S is not suitable as a vaccine for adults who have never
    experienced malaria as a child. This leaves us with more work
    to do in order to protect our troops, but it is work that is
    doable.
        The NMRC works both in the United States and in its
    overseas medical research laboratories located in Peru, Egypt,
    and Cambodia. These labs offer outstanding scientific
    collaborations and create deep and lasting relationships in
    country. The labs also offer research and education
    opportunities that are filled by local citizens, who then in
    turn build in-country capacity.
        Recently, Navy researchers announced the start of clinical
    trials for a dengue fever vaccine to protect our troops from
    this sometimes deadly virus found in tropical regions, and even
    recently found in the United States. This vaccine would be a
    game-changer in tropical medicine. No cure exists and right now
    treatment is only symptom management.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, our military must be ready at any time to
    embark on a new mission, to a new location, which can mean
    exposure to new and emerging health threats. This and the
    vexing problem of drug resistance serve as stark reminders as
    to why our investments cannot stop and where additional
    investments are needed.
        Thank you for this opportunity. ASTMH stands ready to serve
    as an expert resource to you. We are in this together.
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Karen Goraleski, Executive Director of American
                    Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
        The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH)--the
    principal professional membership organization representing, educating,
    and supporting scientists, physicians, clinicians, researchers,
    epidemiologists, and other health professionals dedicated to the
    prevention and control of tropical diseases--appreciates the
    opportunity to submit written testimony to the Senate Defense
    Appropriations subcommittee.
        ASTMH respectfully requests that the subcommittee expand funding
    for the Department of Defense's (DOD) longstanding efforts to develop
    new and more effective drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics designed to
    protect servicemembers from infectious diseases including funding for
    the important research efforts at the Walter Reed Army Institute of
    Research (WRAIR) and the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC).
    department of defense research protects the u.s. military and civilians
                        and contributes to global health
        A core component of ASTMH membership supports the work of the DOD,
    and we understand first-hand the important role that research and
    development play in protecting our service men and women deployed
    abroad from the threat of infectious disease, as well as contributing
    significantly to civilian medical applications. Specifically, DOD
    infectious disease research contributes to the protection of:
      --U.S. troops that are currently deployed or likely to be deployed in
            many tropical areas;
      --The safety of U.S. citizens, working, traveling, participating in
            volunteer work, and vacationing overseas who are impacted by
            these same tropical diseases;
      --Our country from agents responsible for these diseases, which could
            be introduced and become established in the United States (as
            was the case with West Nile virus), or might even be
            weaponized; and
      --Citizens around the world who suffer disability and death from many
            of these same tropical diseases.
                     walter reed army institute of research
        A large part of DOD investments in infectious disease research and
    development are facilitated through WRAIR. Between 2007 and 2010,
    WRAIR's Center for Infectious Disease Research performed more than $260
    million of research for the DOD and had an additional $140 million in
    collaborative research work with external partner organizations. WRAIR
    has advanced their work through critical public-private partnerships
    and collaborative efforts with entities such as:
      --GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi;
      --Nonprofit organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates
            Foundation, Medicines for Malaria Venture, and PATH; and
      --Other U.S. agencies including Centers for Disease Control and
            Prevention, United States Agency for International Development,
            and National Institutes of Health.
        WRAIR invests in:
      --malaria vaccine and drug development;
      --drug development for leishmaniasis;
      --enteric disease research;
      --vector control for malaria and other vector-borne infections; and
      --HIV/AIDS research and treatment.
        One example of WRAIR's successful work and collaboration includes
    the development of several significant and promising vaccine
    candidates, including RTS,S, developed with PATH Malaria Vaccine
    Initiative and GlaxoSmithKline, which recently underwent the first-ever
    large-scale Phase 3 trial for a malaria vaccine. In trials last year,
    the vaccine candidate decreases clinical episodes of malaria in
    children in Africa by approximately 50 percent. While we celebrate this
    news and the promise that it brings for children living in malaria-
    endemic countries, RTS,S is not suitable as a vaccine for adults who
    have never experienced malaria during childhood, such as our military
    personnel. As a result, there remains a significant need for continued
    research funding in order to achieve more robust results.
        WRAIR is headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, and has research
    laboratories around the globe including:
      --a public health reference laboratory in The Republic of Georgia;
      --dengue fever clinical trials in the Philippines;
      --malaria clinical studies and surveillance in Kenya;
      --military entomology network field sites in Thailand, the
            Philippines, Nepal, Cambodia, Korea, Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt,
            Libya, Ghana, Liberia, and Peru; and
      --several other coordination efforts with national health ministries
            and defense units.
        This diversity in research capacity puts WRAIR in a unique
    leadership position in research and development for tropical diseases--
    research that aids our military men and women as well as people living
    in disease-endemic countries.
                  united states naval medical research center
        NMRC and its affiliated labs conduct basic and applied research in
    infectious disease. The Infectious Disease Directorate (IDD) of NMRC
    focuses on malaria, enteric diseases, and viral rickettsial diseases.
    IDD has an annual budget exceeding $10 million and conducts research on
    infectious diseases that are considered to be a significant threat to
    our deployed sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines.
        The primary objective of the Navy Malaria Program is to develop a
    vaccine that kills the parasite during the first few days of
    development in the liver, before it breaks into the blood. The program
    is also investigating vaccines that would target blood-stage infection
    to limit the severity of symptoms associated with this stage. Both of
    these vaccines could alleviate much of the suffering caused by this
    parasite in tropical areas.
        The research is enhanced by IDD's close working relationship with
    the Navy's three overseas medical research laboratories located in
    Peru, Egypt, and Indonesia. These laboratories, like those of WRAIR,
    afford diplomatic advancement through the close working relationships
    they have developed with governments and citizens of those countries.
    ASTMH has heard first-hand accounts of the successful diplomatic impact
    that both the WRAIR and NMRC overseas labs have on the communities
    where they are guests. Many of the researchers and staff who work in
    the labs are local to the area and speak highly of the role of the U.S.
    military labs.
                 tropical medicine and u.s. military operations
        The term ``tropical medicine'' refers to the wide-ranging clinical,
    research, and educational efforts of physicians, scientists, and public
    health officials with a focus on the diagnosis, mitigation, prevention,
    and treatment of diseases prevalent in the areas of the world with a
    tropical climate. Most tropical diseases are located in sub-Saharan
    Africa, parts of Asia (including the Indian subcontinent), Central and
    South America, and parts of the Middle East. These are the same areas
    military troops are often deployed. Since many of the world's
    developing nations and economies are located in these areas, tropical
    medicine tends to focus on diseases that impact the world's most
    impoverished individuals.
      case studies--the importance of department of defense's infectious
                            disease research efforts
        Malaria has resulted in the loss of more person-days among U.S.
    military personnel than to bullets during every military campaign
    fought in malaria-endemic regions during the 20th century.
        Because servicemembers deployed by the U.S. military comprise a
    majority of the healthy adults traveling each year to malarial regions
    on behalf of the U.S. Government, the U.S. military has understandably
    taken a primary role in the development of anti-malarial drugs, and
    nearly all of the most effective and widely used anti-malarials were
    developed in part by U.S. military researchers. Drugs that now continue
    to save civilians throughout the world were originally developed by the
    U.S. military to protect troops serving in tropical regions during
    World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
        In recent years the broader international community has increased
    its efforts to reduce the impact of malaria in the developing world,
    particularly by reducing childhood malaria mortality, and the U.S.
    military plays an important role in this broad partnership.
    Nonetheless, military malaria researchers at NMRC and WRAIR are working
    practically alone in the area most directly related to U.S. national
    security: drugs and vaccines designed to protect or treat healthy
    adults with no developed resistance to malaria who travel to malaria-
    endemic regions. NMRC and WRAIR are working on the development of a
    malaria vaccine and on malaria diagnostics and other drugs to treat
    malaria--an especially essential investment as current malaria drugs
    face their first signs of drug resistance.
        The latest generation of malaria medicines is increasingly facing
    drug-resistance. The most deadly variant of malaria--Plasmodium
    falciparum--is believed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to have
    become resistant to ``nearly all anti-malarials in current use''. The
    malaria parasite demonstrates a notorious and consistent ability to
    quickly develop resistance to new drugs. Malaria parasites in Southeast
    Asia have already shown resistance to the most recently developed anti-
    malarial drug, artemisin.
        Developing new antimalarials as quickly as the parasite becomes
    resistant to existing ones is an extraordinary challenge, and one that
    requires significant resources before this becomes widespread,
    especially as United States military operations in malaria-endemic
    countries of Africa and Asia increase. Without new anti-malarials to
    replace existing drugs as they become obsolete, military operations
    could be halted in their tracks by malaria. The 2003 malaria outbreak
    affecting 80 of 220 marines in Liberia is an ominous reminder of the
    impact of malaria on military operations. Humanitarian missions also
    place Americans at risk of malaria, as evidenced by several Americans
    contracting malaria while supporting Haitian earthquake relief efforts.
        Leishmaniasis is a vector-borne disease that comes in several
    forms, the most serious of which is visceral leishmaniasis, which
    affects internal organs and can be deadly if left untreated. According
    to the WHO, more than 350 million people are at risk of leishmaniasis
    in 88 countries around the world. It is estimated that 12 million
    people are currently infected with leishmaniasis, and 2 million new
    infections occur annually. Co-infection of leishmaniasis and HIV is
    becoming increasingly common, and WHO notes that because of a weakened
    immune system, leishmaniasis can lead to an accelerated onset of AIDS
    in HIV-positive patients.
        Because of leishmaniasis' prevalence in Iraq, DOD has spent
    significant time and resources on the development of drugs and new
    tools for the treatment of leishmaniasis. As more troops return from
    Iraq and Afghanistan, it is likely DOD and the Department of Veterans
    Affairs will see an increase in leishmaniasis cases in our soldiers.
    WRAIR discovered and developed Sitamaquine, a drug that, once
    completed, will be an oral treatment for leishmaniasis. While essential
    for the safety of our service men and women abroad, these types of
    innovations will also be extremely beneficial to the at-risk
    populations worldwide living in leishmaniasis-endemic countries.
        Dengue fever (``breakbone fever''), according to the WHO, is the
    most common of all mosquito-borne viral infections. About 2.5 billion
    people live in places where dengue infection can be transmitted by
    mosquitoes, and last year we saw a few cases pop up in the United
    States. There are four different viruses that can cause dengue
    infections. While infection from 1 of the 4 viruses will leave a person
    immune to that strain of the virus, it does not prevent them from
    contracting the other three, and subsequent infections can often be
    more serious.
        The DOD has seen about 28 cases of dengue in soldiers per year.
    While none of these cases resulted in the death of a soldier,
    hospitalization time is lengthy. Currently, there are several research
    and development efforts under way within the DOD both for treatments
    and vaccines for dengue.
             u.s. government action is needed for mission readiness
        The role of infectious disease in the success or failure of
    military operations is often overlooked. Even a cursory review of U.S.
    and world military history, however, underscores that the need to keep
    military personnel safe from infectious disease is critical to mission
    success. Ensuring the safety of those men and women in future conflicts
    and deployments will require research on new tools. Additional funds
    and a greater commitment from the Federal Government are necessary to
    make progress in tropical disease prevention, treatment, and control.
        Although several promising new infectious disease drugs are in
    development at WRAIR and NMRC, the U.S. Government's funding level for
    these programs has been anemic for several years. There are indications
    that the current budget process may decrease or not keep up with
    medical research inflation, let alone an increase in real dollars,
    despite burgeoning evidence that many of our military's current drugs
    are rapidly approaching obsolescence.
        Fortunately, a relatively small amount of increased funding for
    this program would restore the levels of research and development
    investment required to produce the drugs that will safeguard U.S.
    troops. In relation to the overall DOD budget, funding for infectious
    disease research programs is very small. Cutting funding for this
    program would deal a major blow to the military's efforts to reduce the
    impact of these diseases on soldiers and civilians alike, thereby
    undercutting both the safety of troops deployed to tropical climates
    and the health of civilians in those regions.
        ASTMH feels strongly that increased support for efforts to reduce
    this threat is warranted. A more substantial investment will help to
    protect American soldiers and potentially save the lives of millions of
    individuals around the world. We appreciate the opportunity to share
    our views in our testimony, and please be assured that ASTMH stands
    ready to serve as a resource on this and any other tropical disease
    policy matter.

        Chairman Inouye. Ms. Goraleski, I thank you very much for
    your testimony.
        The Vice Chairman has a question to ask.
        Ms. Goraleski. Yes, Sir.
        Senator Cochran. Ms. Goraleski, I know that you are aware
    of some collaboration between Walter Reed Hospital and the
    University of Mississippi research capacity through the Natural
    Products Research Center there. They're working to collaborate
    to get Walter Reed Army Institute to identify safe and
    effective drugs to treat tropical-related diseases and
    illnesses, which you mentioned in your testimony.
        I was curious to know if you are aware of this and how
    effective any of these research efforts have been assumed to
    be, and whether or not we need to put more money into these
    efforts than what we have in this year's budget.
        Ms. Goraleski. Yes, Sir, I am aware of those
    collaborations. Those collaborations are really essential for
    us to move progress forward. The Federal Government cannot do
    it alone without multiple partnerships. I don't have the
    specifics on that research. I just know of it overall, that
    there is some interesting and productive developments. But I
    will certainly find out the details for you and make sure you
    get that immediately. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
    assistance to the subcommittee.
        Ms. Goraleski. You're welcome.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Now may I call upon Mr. John R. Davis, representing the
    Fleet Reserve Association.
    STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE
                PROGRAMS FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION
        Mr. Davis. My name is John R. Davis and I want to thank the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to express the views of the
    Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) today.
        FRA supports legislation to exclude the Defense budget from
    sequestration and agrees with the Secretary of Defense Panetta,
    who said these sequestration cuts would, ``do catastrophic
    damage to our military, hollowing out the force and degrading
    its ability to protect the country''.
        Defense accounts for 17 percent of the Federal budget but
    will receive 50 percent of the sequestration cuts. Less than 1
    percent of the population is shouldering 100 percent of the
    burden of maintaining our military and national security, and
    the punitive funding reductions mandated by sequestration would
    force across-the-board cuts to all programs that could
    potentially threaten the all-volunteer force.
        Ensuring adequate funding for the military health system
    and maintaining the current retirement system are top
    legislative priorities for the association. This is reflected
    in responses to the association's 2012 survey, completed in
    February by more than a thousand current and former
    servicemembers, who cited retirement and military health
    programs as the most important benefits. Over the past several
    years, healthcare has consistently been a top concern for all
    segments of the military community, that being the Active Duty,
    Reserve component, veterans, and retirees.
        This year's survey, however, revealed that active duty and
    reservists viewed the military retirement above healthcare and
    pay.
        FRA believes that the administration's fiscal year 2013
    budget request devalues military service by proposing drastic
    TRICARE enrollment fee increases for all retirees and excessive
    pharmacy co-pay increases. All reservists and 97 percent of
    active duty participants in the survey found retirement
    benefits as the most important benefit.
        FRA appreciates Secretary of Defense Panetta's statement
    that those currently serving would not be impacted by the
    changes proposed by the administration's proposed retirement
    commission, but wonders why there is no similar commitment to
    those who have served in the past.
        The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the markup
    recently for the Defense authorization bill and that expands
    this commission to include not just retirement pay, but also
    current active duty compensation. Although we are thankful it
    excludes currently serving and retirees, the FRA opposes this
    base realignment and closure (BRAC)-like type commission
    because it would bypass the expertise of this Committee and
    subcommittee on Capitol Hill.
        FRA supports Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Marco Rubio's
    bill, the Military Health Care Protection Act, that would seek
    to protect TRICARE beneficiaries from excessive and unfair
    enrollment fee increases and significant hikes in pharmacy co-
    pays. The bill will emphasize that military service, unlike
    other civilian occupations and associated healthcare costs, are
    earned through 20 years or more of arduous service and
    sacrifice.
        The association does support the administration's fiscal
    years 2013 and 2014 active-duty pay increase that is equal to
    the Employment Cost Index.
        FRA supports a Defense budget at least 5 percent of the
    gross domestic product (GDP), that will adequately fund both
    people and weapons programs, and is concerned that the
    administration's spending plan is not enough to support both,
    particularly given the ongoing operational commitments
    associated with the new defense strategy. Further, spending on
    national defense as a percentage of GDP will be reduced,
    despite significant continued war-related expenses and
    extensive operational and national security commitments.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Defense budget could actually shrink by more than 30
    percent over the next decade, and the administration projects
    outlays of only 2.7 percent of GDP in 2021. That would be down
    from last year's 4.5 percent of GDP. That would be down--the
    2021 outlays would be pre-World War II outlays. As recently as
    1986, though, the United States has spent 6.2 percent of GDP on
    defense, with no real detrimental economic impact.
        Again, thank you for allowing me to submit FRA's views to
    the subcommittee.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of John R. Davis
                         the fleet reserve association
        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 Navy.
        FRA's mission is to act as the premier ``watch dog'' organization
    on Capitol Hill in maintaining and improving the quality of life for
    Sea Service personnel and their families. The Association also sponsors
    a National Americanism Essay Program and other recognition and relief
    programs. In addition, the FRA Education Foundation oversees the
    Association's scholarship program that presented awards totaling more
    than $120,000 to deserving students last year.
        The Association is also a founding member of The Military Coalition
    (TMC), a consortium of more than 30 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 87 years of service in November 2011. For nearly
    nine 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
    Standard) was an initiative of FRA, as was the Uniformed Services
    Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). 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
    servicemembers and their dependents.
        FRA's motto is: ``Loyalty, Protection, and Service.''
                  certification of nonreceipt of federal funds
        Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the FRA has not
    received any Federal grant or contract during the current fiscal year
    or either of the 2 previous fiscal years.
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, the FRA salutes you, members of the subcommittee, and
    your staff for the strong and unwavering support of funding for
    programs essential to Active Duty, Reserve component, and retired
    members of the uniformed services, their families, and survivors. The
    subcommittee's work has greatly enhanced care and support for our
    wounded warriors and significantly improved military pay and other
    benefits and enhanced other personnel, retirement, and survivor
    programs. This support is critical in maintaining readiness and is
    invaluable to our uniformed services engaged throughout the world
    fighting the global War on Terror, sustaining other operational
    requirements and fulfilling commitments to those who've served in the
    past.
                    stop department of defense sequestration
        As mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, failure of the Super
    Committee in 2011 to develop a bipartisan plan to contain the growth of
    the national debt will force implementation of ``sequestration'' in
    January 2013 unless the Congress intervenes. Failure to act will
    trigger across-the-board cuts with one-half coming from the defense
    budget. FRA agrees with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who said
    these cuts ``would do catastrophic damage to our military, hollowing
    out the force and degrading its ability to protect the country.''
    Defense counts for 17 percent of the Federal budget but will receive 50
    percent of the sequestration cuts.
        With the American military out of Iraq and the conflict in
    Afghanistan winding down, some are suggesting the possibility of a
    ``peace dividend.'' Although there have been victories in the War on
    Terror, there has been no peace treaty with terrorism and an additional
    $500 billion in defense cuts beyond the already-planned reductions over
    the next decade beginning in fiscal year 2013 could jeopardize
    essential funding of military pay and benefit programs, which would
    negatively impact recruiting, retention, and overall military
    readiness. For these reasons, FRA strongly supports the ``Down Payment
    to Protect National Security Act'' (S. 2065) sponsored by Senator Jon
    Kyl and a House bill (H.R. 3662) sponsored by the House Armed Services
    Committee (HASC) Chairman, Representative Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon.
    These proposals would amend the Budget Control Act of 2011 by excluding
    the Department of Defense budget from the first year of sequestration
    (2013).
        Less than 1 percent of the population is shouldering 100 percent of
    the burden of maintaining our national security, and the punitive
    funding reductions mandated by sequestration would force major across-
    the-board cuts to all programs and could potentially threaten the all-
    volunteer force.
                        budget devalues military service
        FRA's membership is especially concerned about the administration's
    proposed fiscal year 2013 budget which includes plans to drastically
    increase existing TRICARE Prime enrollment fees, implement new fees for
    TRICARE Standard and TRICARE-for-Life beneficiaries, and increase
    pharmacy co-pays. If authorized, fees would be tiered based on the
    beneficiary's retired pay. These increases are a major concern to the
    entire military retiree community and since mid-February that concern
    has prompted nearly 20,000 messages to Capitol Hill via FRA's Web site
    Action Center. Our members are also concerned that the budget calls for
    the fees to be adjusted annually based on healthcare inflation after
    fiscal year 2017.
        As this statement is being written, the Senate Armed Services
    Committee has not marked up its version of the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense
    Authorization bill. The HASC version of the legislation (H.R. 4310) did
    not authorize the proposed healthcare fee increases for all military
    retirees--including TRICARE for Life (TFL) beneficiaries. The panel
    did, however, authorize higher pharmacy co-pays. In addition, future
    co-pay adjustments will be tied to the Consumer Price Index which is
    the basis of annual military retired pay adjustments and consistent
    with future TRICARE Prime enrollment fee adjustments that became
    effective this year. The legislation also authorizes a 5-year pilot
    program that would require TFL beneficiaries to use the mail-order,
    home delivery program rather than retail pharmacies for maintenance
    drugs, and beneficiaries could opt out of the program after 1 year.
    There would be no cost for prescriptions filled at military pharmacies.
        The budget request also calls for a commission to study and propose
    changes to the military retirement system. This BRAC-like process would
    bypass the expertise of Senate and House committees and subcommittees
    and only allow the Congress an up-or-down vote on the commission's
    recommendations. All reservists responding to a recent (February 2012)
    FRA survey, and 97 percent of active duty participants ranked
    retirement benefits as a very important benefit. More than 1,000
    current and former servicemembers participated in the survey. As the
    Congress considers plans to reduce DOD costs by revamping the military
    retirement program, that benefit is particularly relevant to Active
    Duty and Reserve component personnel. Many current servicemembers have
    expressed concern about the future of the retired pay and healthcare
    benefits they've been promised after they complete a career of military
    service. FRA appreciates Secretary of Defense Panetta assuring those
    currently serving that they will come under the current retirement
    system, but wonders why there is no similar commitment for those who
    served in the past?
        The budget also requests an Active Duty and Reserve pay hike based
    on the Employment Cost Index of 1.7 percent in 2013, and only at that
    level in 2014 with capped pay adjustments below that index thereafter.
        FRA supports a defense budget of at least 5 percent of GDP that
    will adequately fund both people and weapons programs, and is concerned
    that the administration's spending plan is not enough to support both,
    particularly given ongoing operational commitments associated with the
    new defense strategy.
        Future spending on national defense as a percentage of GDP will be
    reduced despite significant continuing war related expenses and
    extensive operational and national security commitments. Wall Street
    Journal editorial writers noted, ``Taken altogether, the (defense)
    budget could shrink by more than 30 percent in the next decade. The
    administration projects outlays at 2.7 percent of GDP in 2021, down
    from 4.5 percent last year (which included the cost of Iraq and
    Afghanistan). That would put U.S. outlays at 1940 levels--a bad year.
    As recently as 1986, a better year, the U.S. spent 6.2 percent of GDP
    on defense with no detrimental economic impact. What's different now?
    The growing entitlement state. The administration is making a political
    choice and sparing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are
    set to hit nearly 11 percent of GDP (without healthcare reform costs)
    by 2020.''
        Make no mistake about the importance of these entitlement programs;
    however, DOD and VA benefits are also important and essential to
    maintaining that all volunteer force and our national security.
                             tricare fee increases
        Healthcare benefits are important to every segment of FRA's
    membership. The continued growth in healthcare costs is not just a
    military challenge but a challenge for the entire society. FRA believes
    that military service is a unique profession and notes minimal
    projected savings associated with DOD management efficiencies and other
    initiatives in fiscal year 2013 and beyond, while retirees are targeted
    for major fee hikes. These proposals also follow the 13-percent
    military retiree TRICARE Prime increase imposed this year.
        Our members are also very concerned about a proposed new TRICARE-
    for-Life (TFL) enrollment fee beginning in fiscal year 2013. This is
    viewed as another failure to honor commitments to those who served past
    careers in the military. These personnel have not benefited from the
    significant pay and benefit enhancements enacted since 2000.
        The Association believes that military retirees have earned their
    TRICARE benefits with 20 or more years of arduous military service with
    low pay. As you know, many retirees believe that they were promised
    free healthcare for life.
        FRA strongly opposes premium increases for TRICARE beneficiaries'
    based on healthcare inflation. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the
    basis for military retiree annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs),
    the purpose of which is to maintain purchasing power for the
    beneficiary. The Association strongly supports adequate funding of the
    Military Health Service (MHS) without the drastic fee increases and
    extreme pharmacy co-pays for all retirees proposed by the
    administration.
                             retirement commission
        The administration proposed the creation of a BRAC-like commission
    to review and ``reform'' the current military retirement system.
    Numerous studies and commissions have focused on the military
    retirement as an opportunity to reduce overhead costs for the Pentagon.
    The latest is the Defense Business Board (DBB) proposal to replace the
    current system with a 401(k) plan similar to what corporations offer
    their employees. This concept has created significant anxiety in the
    career active duty community. An FRA online survey released last
    October resulted in strong opposition responses to proposals to
    ``civilianize'' the current military retirement system. More than 1,700
    current and former servicemembers responded and nearly 95 percent
    believe retiree benefits offer the most appeal if they were joining
    today. More than 80 percent of Active Duty and Reserve component
    respondents said they'd shorten their term of service if retirement
    benefits were changed to conform with the recommendations.
        FRA believes that military service is unlike any other career or
    occupation, and requires a unique retirement system. Career senior
    noncommissioned officers are the backbone of our military and their
    leadership and guidance are invaluable and a result of many years of
    training and experience.
                                wounded warriors
        FRA believes post-traumatic stress should not be referred to as a
    ``disorder''. This terminology adds to the stigma of this condition,
    and the Association believes it is critical that the military do all it
    can to reduce the stigma associated with post-traumatic stress and
    traumatic brain injury.
        FRA also believes the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs
    Committees should remain vigilant regarding their oversight
    responsibilities associated with ensuring a ``seamless transition'' for
    wounded warriors transitioning from DOD's MHS to the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA). FRA strongly supports efforts to create and
    adequately fund a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) for
    every servicemember and believes this would be a major step toward the
    long-standing goal of a truly seamless transition from military to
    veteran status for all servicemembers and would permit a DOD, VA, or
    private healthcare provider immediate access to a veteran's health
    data.
        According to Navy Times editors, ``Even before sequestration takes
    effect budget cuts have impacted the Office of Wounded Warrior Care and
    Transition Policy with the elimination of 40 percent (44 positions) of
    the staff, and all 15 contract employees in the transition policy
    section that leaves only two full-time civilian employees.'' \1\ Budget
    cuts have also resulted in the cancellation of the Virtual Transition
    Assistance Program Web site that was scheduled to replace the current
    Turbo TAP Web site. FRA is concerned that these cuts could negatively
    impact transitioning wounded warriors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Navy Times'' editorial, January 16, 2012, page 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Association also notes the importance of the Navy's Safe Harbor
    Program and the Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Regiment that are
    providing invaluable support for these personnel and recommends
    adequate funding to support these programs.
                                 suicide rates
        Suicide in the military is a serious concern for FRA and the
    Association notes that active-duty suicides have been reduced or at
    least leveled off, but suicides for non-active-duty Reserve component
    personnel are increasing. ``More than 2,000 servicemembers killed
    themselves in the past decade, including 295 in 2010 compared with 153
    in 2001''.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ABC News, ``Rising Suicides Stump Military Leaders'', September
    27, 2011, Kristina Wong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2011, there were 51 Navy active-duty suicides and 7 Navy Reserve
    suicides which represents an increase from 39 active-duty suicides and
    6 Reserve suicides in 2010. To reduce the suicide rate the Navy has
    implemented a multifaceted approach with communication, training, and
    command support, designed to reduce individual stress and strengthen
    psychological health of sailors. The Navy efforts fall within the scope
    of their broader family readiness programs and require adequate
    resources to sustain these efforts.
        In 2011, there were 33 marine suicides and 171 failed suicide
    attempts. During the previous year, 37 marines committed suicide and
    there were 172 failed attempts. The marines have deployed peer-to-peer
    suicide prevention training and are working with the DOD Suicide
    Prevention Office to implement the recommendations of the DOD Joint
    Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide. Despite these initiatives,
    suicides continue and efforts to address the reasons for suicides must
    continue to be a top priority. FRA appreciates the provision in the
    Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Act that requires preseparation
    counseling for Reservists returning from successful deployments. In
    addition, FRA supports Representative Thomas Rooney's bill (H.R. 208)
    that authorizes reimbursement for mental health counseling under
    TRICARE and requests full funding to support this program if
    authorized.
                           cost-of-living adjustments
        Under current law, military retired pay cost-of-living adjustments
    (COLAs) are rounded down to the next lowest $1. For many of these
    personnel, particularly enlisted retirees, their retired pay is
    sometimes the sole source of income for them and their dependents. Over
    time, the effect of rounding down can be substantial for these
    personnel and FRA supports a policy change to rounding up retiree COLAs
    to the next highest $1.
                            reserve early retirement
        A provision of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization
    Act reduces the Reserve retirement age requirement by 3 months for each
    cumulative 90-days ordered to active duty. This is effective upon the
    enactment of the legislation (January 28, 2008) and not retroactive to
    October 7, 2001, and the Association supports ``The National Guardsmen
    and Reservists Parity for Patriots Act'' (H.R. 181) sponsored by the
    House Personnel Subcommittee Chairman, Representative Joe Wilson, to
    authorize reservists mobilized since October 7, 2001, to receive credit
    in determining eligibility for receipt of early retired pay. Since
    September 11, 2001, the Reserve component has changed from a strategic
    Reserve to an operational Reserve that now plays a vital role in
    prosecuting the war efforts and other operational commitments. This has
    resulted in more frequent and longer deployments impacting individual
    reservist's careers. Changing the effective date of the Reserve early
    retirement would help partially offset lost salary increases,
    promotions, 401(k), and other benefit contributions. The Association
    urges support and funding for this important legislation.
                  retention of final full month's retired pay
        If authorized, FRA urges the subcommittee to provide funding to
    support the retention of the full final month's retired pay by the
    surviving spouse (or other designated survivor) of a military retiree
    for the month in which the member was alive for at least 24 hours. FRA
    strongly supports ``The Military Retiree Survivor Comfort Act'' (H.R.
    493), introduced by Representative Walter Jones, which addresses this
    issue.
        Current regulations require survivors of deceased Armed Forces
    retirees to return any retirement payment received in the month the
    retiree passes away or any subsequent month thereafter. Upon the demise
    of a retired servicemember in receipt of military retired pay, the
    surviving spouse is to notify DOD of the death. DOD's financial arm
    (DFAS) then stops payment on the retirement account, recalculates the
    final payment to cover only the days in the month the retiree was
    alive, forwards a check for those days to the surviving spouse
    (beneficiary) and, if not reported in a timely manner, recoups any
    payment(s) made covering periods subsequent to the retiree's death. The
    recouping is made without consideration of the survivor's financial
    status.
        The measure is related to a similar VA policy. The Congress passed
    a law in 1996 that allows a surviving spouse to retain the veteran's
    disability and VA pension payments issued for the month of the
    veteran's death. FRA believes military retired pay should be no
    different.
                               concurrent receipt
        FRA supports legislation authorizing and funding concurrent receipt
    of full military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for
    all disabled retirees. The Association strongly supports Senate
    Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid's ``Retired Pay Restoration Act''
    (S. 344) and Representative Sanford Bishop's ``Disabled Veterans Tax
    Termination Act'' (H.R. 333). Both proposals would authorize
    comprehensive concurrent receipt reform, and Representative Gus
    Bilirakis's ``Retired Pay Restoration Act'' (H.R. 303) would authorize
    current receipt for retirees receiving concurrent retirement and
    disability pay (CRDP) with a disability rating of 50 percent or less.
        FRA also strongly supports House Personnel Subcommittee Chairman
    Representative Joe Wilson's bill (H.R. 186), that expands concurrent
    receipt for servicemembers who were medically retired with less than 20
    years of service (chapter 61 retirees) and would be phased-in over 5
    years. This proposal mirrors the administration's proposal from the
    110th Congress. In 2008, the Congress voted to expand eligibility for
    combat-related special compensation (CRSC) coverage to chapter 61
    retirees and the proposed legislation would, in effect, extend
    eligibility for CRDP to all chapter 61 retirees over 5 years. A less
    costly improvement to pursue in an austere budget year would be fixing
    the so-called ``glitch'' for CRSC that result in compensation declining
    when the VA disability rating increases.
                             military resale system
        FRA strongly supports adequate funding for the Defense Commissary
    Agency (DeCA) to ensure access to the commissary benefit for all
    beneficiaries. Since 2000, DeCA's budget has remained flat in real
    dollars, meaning the agency has done more with less for the past 11
    years.
        The Association also strongly supports the military exchange
    systems (AAFES, NEXCOM, and MCX), and urges against revisiting the
    concept of consolidation. FRA instead urges a thorough review of the
    findings of an extensive and costly ($17 million) multiyear study which
    found that this is not a cost-effective approach to running these
    important systems.
                                   conclusion
        FRA is grateful for the opportunity to provide these
    recommendations to this distinguished subcommittee.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Davis, for your
    testimony, and we will most certainly look into the Lautenberg-
    Rubio bill. Thank you.
        I thank this panel.
        Now, the next panel consists of: Ms. Mary Hesdorffer,
    representing the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation; Mr.
    Stephen Isaacs, representing Aduro Biotech; Dr. Laurence
    Corash, representing Cerus Corporation; and Ms. Sharon Smith,
    representing the National Trauma Institute.
        May I call upon Ms. Mary Hesdorffer.
    STATEMENT OF MARY HESDORFFER, ARNP, MSN, MESOTHELIOMA
                APPLIED RESEARCH FOUNDATION
        Ms. Hesdorffer. Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran,
    and members of the subcommittee: I really want to thank you
    again for allowing me to come before you to present our case on
    behalf of mesothelioma patients. I'm a nurse practitioner. I've
    been treating patients for more than 12 years with this
    disease, and I'd like to share a little bit of information that
    I think is important for the Department of Defense.
        Mesothelioma is directly related to asbestos exposure. It's
    an extremely rare disease. There's about 3,500 cases diagnosed
    per year. Of those 3,500 cases, one-third can be directly
    related to either Navy duty or working in shipyards. So we lose
    a tremendous amount of Navy vets to this disease. And it
    remains an active threat now because after exposure to asbestos
    the latency period can be anywhere from 10 to 50 years. So this
    remains a constant threat and something that we really need to
    do something about.
        From the time of diagnosis, the average survival is
    documented as 6 to 9 months. We have one approved therapy and
    that's a drug combination, and that extends the median survival
    to 12.3 months.
        I'd like to use a Navy vet who I'm very close to to give
    you an illustration of what the life of a mesothelioma patient
    is like. Tom Shikowski, who asked that I share his name and his
    story, was a sonar man. He worked as an underwater fire control
    technician on the USS Fletcher. He describes his situation as
    having spent 4 years in an asbestos cocoon on the Navy ship. He
    directly correlates his development of mesothelioma to his time
    served in the Navy.
        Tom was faced with a tough decision. He could have
    chemotherapy and extend life to 12.3 months, or try something
    experimental, and the best experimental we have right now is
    what we call an extrapleural pneumonectomy, where we remove the
    entire lung, the lining of the lung, the lining of the
    mediastinum, which is the center of the chest, and the lining
    of the heart. The heart is then encased in a sack to keep it in
    place. Patients are subjected to chemotherapy and radiation
    therapy.
        Yet this is not a cure, and in fact Tom, after having
    undergone this procedure, now faces a decision of what type of
    chemotherapy he's going to have for his fourth recurrence of
    the disease. Tom is out of options. He has one lung. It fills
    with fluid, and traveling for treatment becomes very difficult,
    especially in terms of having so few clinical trials to offer.
        What we're asking today is that the subcommittee recognizes
    the need for mesothelioma and to spur research in this field.
    We'd like you to take this up as a critical national priority
    by providing at least $5 million in funding for mesothelioma
    research through the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
    Program for the fiscal year 2013 Defense appropriations bill,
    rather than the mere eligibility in the Peer-Reviewed Cancer
    Research Program. Mesothelioma needs to be designated as a
    specific line item. Mesothelioma patients, who have already
    risked their lives by serving in their country's armed
    services, do not have this time to wait.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I care deeply about my mesothelioma patients, the
    caregivers, and those people that have lost loved ones to this
    disease, and I really ask you to join me in caring deeply about
    this community as well and helping us to find a cure and to
    raise research dollars so others like Tom will not have to go
    through these devastating choices and will enjoy a better
    quality of life and extended survival.
        Thank you so much.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Mary Hesdorffer, ARNP, MSN
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today to
    discuss mesothelioma, its connection to military service, and the
    desperate need for research. Your support is critical to our mission,
    and I look forward to continuing our relationship with this
    subcommittee.
        My name is Mary Hesdorffer and I am a nurse practitioner that has
    worked with mesothelioma patients for over a decade. I am testifying on
    behalf of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation and the
    Mesothelioma community composed of patients, physicians, caregivers,
    and family members. I would like to take this time to stress the
    importance of increased funding for the Congressionally Directed
    Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) which plays a critical role in
    finding and delivering treatments for mesothelioma.
        Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer known to be caused by exposure
    to asbestos. Doctors say it is among the most painful and fatal of
    cancers, as it invades the chest, abdomen, and heart, and crushes the
    lungs and vital organs. Mesothelioma disproportionately affects our
    service men and women, as one-third of mesothelioma cases have been
    shown to involve exposures in the Navy or working in our Nation's
    shipyards.
        There are two types of mesothelioma--pleural and peritoneal.
    Patients with pleural mesothelioma, which affects the lining of the
    lungs, comprise 85 percent of the mesothelioma population and face a
    devastating survival time of only 9 months. Peritoneal affects the
    lining of the abdomen. The harsh reality for patients with advanced
    primary peritoneal cancer is a median survival time of 12.3 months; 5-
    year survivals are rare. Mesothelioma patients not only face a
    devastatingly short survival time, but also the harsh reality that
    there is only one Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for
    mesothelioma. Often, the only option is surgery. I have dedicated my
    life to caring for these people, and I am here today to speak for the
    many patients that will never have the opportunity to speak for
    themselves and give testimony like this.
        I am currently directing the care of a Navy veteran, Tom Shikoski.
    Tom joined the Navy directly out of high school, at the age of 18. He
    said ``I always felt it was my duty as a citizen to serve my country.''
    His primary duty was as a sonarman underwater fire control technician
    aboard the USS Fletcher DDE445. He spent most of his time below deck,
    in his words ``a virtual asbestos cocoon''. He is certain that he was
    exposed to asbestos in his 4 years on the USS Fletcher, although he was
    never informed about the dangers of asbestos.
        Asbestos exposure among Navy personnel was widespread from the
    1930s through the 1980s, and exposure to asbestos still occurred after
    the 1980s during ship repair, overhaul, and decommissioning. We have
    not yet seen the end of exposures to asbestos. Asbestos exposures have
    been reported among the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers in
    wars that extend into third-world countries, where asbestos use is
    increasing without stringent regulations, may also be at risk for
    exposure during tours of duty. Even low-dose, incidental exposures can
    cause mesothelioma. For all those who will develop mesothelioma as a
    result of these past or ongoing exposures, the only hope is that we
    will develop effective treatment.
        Tom Shikoski had never even heard the word mesothelioma until his
    diagnosis. He never thought that his service to his country would come
    back to haunt him so many years later. His diagnosis came by accident.
    He had gone in for another procedure, and his doctor discovered fluid
    in his left lung. He had to undergo another surgery to drain over one
    liter of fluid from his lung, and 1 week later, he had the diagnosis of
    pleural mesothelioma. He found, through the help of a physician family
    friend, a mesothelioma specialist in Texas and had to travel across the
    country from his home in Michigan to see a mesothelioma expert. It was
    recommended that he have an extrapleural pneumonectomy, a surgical
    treatment to remove a lung, a portion of the diaphragm, the linings of
    the lungs, and heart. He then had 25 treatments of radiation, followed
    by 30 treatments of chemotherapy even though not more than 12
    treatments are recommended due to the high risk of anaphylactic shock.
    Tom is willing to do anything to spend more time with his wife,
    children, and many grandchildren.
        Patients take great risks to participate in clinical trials, but
    they feel the possibility of helping to find a better treatment is
    worth the risk. As peritoneal mesothelioma patient, Bonnie Anderson,
    said recently, ``I knew if I was going to die from mesothelioma, I was
    going to put it to good use in a clinical trial.''
        There are brilliant researchers dedicated to mesothelioma.
    Biomarkers are being identified. Two of the most exciting areas in
    cancer research--gene therapy and biomarker discovery for early
    detection and treatment--look particularly promising in mesothelioma.
    The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation has made a significant
    investment, funding more than $7.6 million to support research in hopes
    of giving researchers the first seed grant they need to get started. We
    need the continued partnership with the Federal Government to develop
    the promising findings into effective treatments.
        I will give you an example of how the support of the CDMRP has
    helped the promising research initiatives that are giving hope to
    mesothelioma patients:
      --A vaccine is being developed that would induce an immune response
            against WT1, a tumor suppressor gene highly expressed in
            mesothelioma patients. A pilot trial was conducted in patients
            with mesothelioma to show that it is safe and immunogenic. The
            researcher was then funded by a 2009 CDMRP award. Today, a
            multisite clinical trial is being conducted on patients
            following definitive surgery.
        It is efforts like these that give me faith. I am grateful for the
    Federal Government's investment in mesothelioma research, the
    discoveries being made due to the funding, and I want to see it
    continued and increased.
        Mesothelioma is known to be caused by exposure to asbestos. We can
    not only document the Naval asbestos exposures over the course of the
    20th century, but we have evidence that one-third of American
    mesothelioma patients were exposed while serving their country or
    working as civilians aboard Navy ships. The United States must take
    greater action to right this wrong and fund mesothelioma research.
        The mesothelioma community urges the subcommittee to recognize
    mesothelioma as a critical national priority by providing at least $5
    million in funding for mesothelioma research through the CDMRP in the
    fiscal year 2013 Defense appropriations bill. Rather than mere
    eligibility in the Peer-Reviewed Cancer Research Program, mesothelioma
    needs to be designated a specific line item. Mesothelioma patients who
    already risked their lives by serving in our Nation's armed services do
    not have the time to wait.
        I look to the Defense appropriations subcommittee to provide
    continued leadership and hope to the people who develop this deadly
    cancer. You have the power to lead this battle against mesothelioma.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony and for funding the
    CDMRPs at the highest possible level so that patients receiving this
    deadly diagnosis of mesothelioma may someday survive.

        Chairman Inouye. As you know, we're constantly reminded of
    mesothelioma by television ads of law firms. But your
    suggestion, I think, has some merit. We'll look into it.
        Ms. Hesdorffer. Thank you so much.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Now may I call upon Mr. Stephen Isaacs.
    STATEMENT OF STEPHEN T. ISAACS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF
                EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ADURO BIOTECH
        Mr. Isaacs. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Inouye,
    Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the Defense
    subcommittee. It's truly an honor for me to testify before you
    today.
        I'm the Chairman and CEO of Aduro Biotech from Berkeley,
    California, and we develop modern vaccines to both prevent and
    treat serious conditions such as cancer, infectious diseases,
    and a variety of bioterror pathogens. While these vaccines are
    primarily designed for civilian use, they also have a lot to
    offer to the military.
        My purpose in testifying today is to briefly tell you about
    these new vaccine technologies that can make a big difference
    to the military and to make a few suggestions about the Peer-
    Reviewed Medical Research Program that we participate in and
    how the process can be improved.
        No one knows better than your subcommittee that development
    of modern vaccines to support combat operations, to mitigate
    acts of terrorism, and to provide new therapies for DOD-wide
    populations is a top priority for DOD. I think the past
    problems of a major U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services (HHS) effort to develop a protective vaccine against
    anthrax really illustrates the complexity and difficulty of
    developing such vaccines.
        But, fortunately, there's now a strategic opportunity to
    advance recent breakthroughs in vaccine technology, to develop
    both therapeutic and preventative vaccines. So briefly, the
    problem with many current vaccines is that they are attenuated
    or weakened pathogens and they're used to elicit an effective
    immune response, but these pathogens carry a risk of causing an
    infection. Another approach is to use so-called ``killed
    vaccines'', but these simply don't work as well.
        To address this problem, my company, Aduro Biotech, has
    really developed a very novel platform technology that combines
    the safety of a killed vaccine with the efficacy of a live
    vaccine. Since 2002 we've raised and invested more than $83
    million to the development of the Aduro vaccine platform
    technology, and we've made remarkable progress.
        Aduro is currently conducting a phase two clinical trial to
    treat metastatic pancreatic cancer, and we will begin new
    trials on mesothelioma and glioblastoma within the next few
    months. We were recently competitively selected to participate
    in the peer-reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program, and I
    thank you for your leadership in providing the Pentagon with
    the funds for this award. We strongly believe that we can make
    a difference in vaccine programs for the Army and the Navy as
    well.
        In its medical research budget to the Congress, the Army
    notes that developing an effective malaria vaccine is a top
    priority, and the Navy notes that diseases that were once
    confined to remote areas of the world now have the capability
    to cross continents.
        In our opinion, neither the Army nor the Navy have
    sufficient funds to conduct robust vaccine development programs
    that are clearly needed to deal with these threats. The main
    purpose of testifying is to say that the military could realize
    significant breakthroughs by competitively developing modern
    preventative and therapeutic vaccines, and I strongly urge your
    subcommittee to make it a top priority to give DOD adequate
    resources for robust vaccine development programs for our
    troops.
        The other topic I'd like to briefly address is the process
    used by the Army to administer the DOD Congressionally Directed
    Medical Research Program that we believe can be improved. Here
    are a few of the issues. First, it's not always clear to us
    what DOD would like to fund. Is it innovative research or is it
    translational medicine?
        Second, some topics that are listed as areas of interest
    are not funded at all. So in spite of high scores in these
    applications, no funding is received, and this is a huge waste
    of everybody's time for both the submitters and for the
    reviewers.
        Finally, there is no path for resubmission of these
    applications, such as there is at the National Institutes of
    Health (NIH) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
    program.
        So, specifically, we respectfully submit our
    recommendations for improving the process, which are the
    following: first, consider limiting the use of congressionally
    directed medical research funds to applied research; second,
    consider directing a specific percentage of the annual programs
    to small businesses; and finally, consider directing the
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to submit a
    report on how DOD's peer-review process can be strengthened and
    approved.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So thank you very much for the opportunity to express my
    views about vaccine development that are really directed at
    solving important medical issues for our troops. And thanks to
    both of you for your interest in these programs and certainly
    for your service to our country.
        Finally, I really do appreciate the opportunity to present
    today, and I invite you and other staff to come and visit Aduro
    the next time you're on the west coast.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Stephen T. Isaacs
        Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    Defense subcommittee: It is an honor for me to testify before your
    subcommittee today.
        I know that your subcommittee cares deeply about the health and
    welfare of the brave men and women who serve our Nation in the Armed
    Forces, and that your subcommittee has taken a leadership role in
    providing funds for health and biodefense research. My purpose today is
    to tell you about the new vaccine technologies like ours that can make
    a big difference to the military; and second, to make some suggestions
    about the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program in order to make it
    better for all who participate in it and to provide better value to the
    taxpayer.
        I am Chairman and CEO of Aduro Biotech Incorporated in Berkeley,
    California. We are developing modern vaccines to both prevent and to
    treat serious diseases, and while these vaccines are designed for
    civilian use, they also offer tremendous capabilities to our Armed
    Forces. We team with other companies and nonprofit organizations to
    collaboratively develop the best vaccine technologies for specific
    purposes.
        No one knows better than your subcommittee that development of
    modern vaccines to support combat operations, to mitigate acts of
    terrorism, and to provide new therapies for the Department of Defense
    (DOD)-wide population of military personnel and their dependents is a
    top priority for DOD. The past failure of a major Department of Health
    and Human Services (HHS)-supported program to develop a prophylactic
    (protective) anthrax vaccine illustrates the difficulty in developing
    modern vaccines. There is also now a strategic opportunity to advance
    recent breakthroughs in therapeutic vaccines to develop treatments for
    serious cancers and infectious diseases that affect our war fighters
    and their dependents--particularly for pancreatic cancer for which
    survival rates are very low--as well as infectious diseases that affect
    the military, such as malaria, and improve our defense against
    engineered biological threats.
        Many current vaccines use small amounts of ``attenuated'' pathogens
    to elicit an effective immune response from the body. However, the use
    of attenuated microorganisms is often considered inappropriate due to
    potential risks that the live microbe itself may be harmful in some
    individuals and is out of the question for biodefense applications. An
    alternative is the use of ``killed-vaccines'' in which pathogens are
    completely inactivated and then used to produce an immune response
    without causing the severe effects of the disease; however, the
    efficacy of killed vaccines is often not as great as attenuated
    strains.
        To address this problem, Aduro Biotech has developed novel live-
    attenuated double deleted (LADD) vaccines to target specific diseases,
    as well as a unique killed but metabolically active (KBMA) vaccine
    platform technology that combines the safety of a killed vaccine with
    efficacy similar to a live vaccine. Most recently, Aduro has developed
    a third vaccine platform in which the vaccine vector actually commits
    ``suicide'' within the body after stimulating a strong immune response
    (``Suicide Strains''). All three of these platforms stimulate the
    body's immune system by using a genetically modified form of the common
    bacteria Listeria monocytogenes as the platform. Promising work has
    been done by Aduro on selected LADD vaccines that are excellent vaccine
    candidates in their own right and which require further development,
    some of which may also become more desirable if transitioned to KBMA or
    Suicide Strains. All three vaccine platforms are designed for the
    treatment of cancer, infectious disease, and protection against
    bioterror agents.
        More than $83 million of private funds have been invested to date
    in development of Aduro's revolutionary LADD, KBMA, and Suicide Strain
    technologies. These approaches use advanced technology developed by
    Aduro to specifically and selectively block the ability of a vaccine
    organism to cause disease, yet preserve its ability to stimulate a
    robust immune response against selected pathogens or cancerous tumors.
    LADD, KBMA, and Suicide Strain vaccines can also be used as therapeutic
    agents used to treat cancers such as pancreatic, lung, and melanoma,
    and chronic infections such as human papilloma virus, malaria, and
    hepatitis B and C.
        Remarkable progress has recently been made in treating pancreatic
    cancer. Aduro is currently conducting a Phase II clinical trial with a
    LADD vaccine to treat metastatic pancreatic cancer, and will begin new
    clinical trials on mesothelioma this summer and glioblastoma early next
    year.
        We were recently competitively selected to participate in the Peer-
    Reviewed Prostate Cancer research program, and I am here to thank you
    for your leadership in providing the Pentagon the funds that allow
    companies like mine to competitively bring in the best new ideas and
    new technologies.
        In its medical research budget to the Congress, the Army notes that
    developing an effective malaria vaccine is a top priority since ``A
    highly effective vaccine would reduce or eliminate the use of anti-
    malarial drugs and would minimize the progression and impact of drug
    resistance to current/future drugs.'' In our opinion, the Army does not
    have sufficient malaria research funds to conduct a robust vaccine
    development program that it clearly needs. United States servicemembers
    are often deployed to regions endemic for malaria. Currently, a large
    contingent of U.S. forces is deployed in malarial regions in Southeast
    and Southwest Asia. Soldiers in today's military can be exposed to more
    than one malaria-endemic region prior to diagnosis. This presents new
    complexities for disease monitoring and prevention policy development.
        In its medical research budget to the Congress, the Navy notes that
    diseases that may have once been confined to remote areas of the world
    now have the capability to swathe entire regions and to cross
    continents. United States expeditionary operational forces are
    especially susceptible due to their exposure to areas/regions of high
    risk and the potential for rapid, high-volume transmission among close
    quartered personnel. Enteric diseases are of special concern to the
    Navy and Marine Corps because of the high morbidity involved and the
    potential to infect a large number of personnel through contaminated
    food and water sources, especially in regions overseas where food
    handling, water supply, and waste disposal practices are questionable.
    Respiratory disease has been and will continue to be a main focus of
    military disease research and vaccine development. Viruses, bacteria,
    and parasites spread by arthropods (e.g., mosquitos, flies, fleas) are
    some of the most imminent threats to military forces abroad due to
    geographic risk factors and a general lack of effective vaccines and
    treatment. Emerging diseases also include new drug-resistant variants
    as well as new mutational strains of viral agents. In our opinion, the
    Navy does not have sufficient vaccine research funds to conduct a
    robust vaccine development program that it clearly needs to meet these
    requirements.
        The main purpose of testifying before your subcommittee today is to
    tell you that the military could make some significant breakthroughs by
    competitively developing modern prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines
    to solve some of the more difficult challenges for ensuring the health
    of our Nation's Armed Forces. Understanding that we are in a very
    difficult budget climate, I strongly urge your subcommittee to make it
    a top priority to give DOD adequate resources for robust vaccine
    development programs for our troops as your subcommittee crafts annual
    appropriations bills.
        The other topic I would like to briefly address today is the
    process used by the Army to administer the DOD Congressionally Directed
    Medical Research Program that we and others in our industry believe can
    be improved. Here are observations from our perspective:
      --It is not clear to the investigators whether DOD would like to fund
            early innovative research or technology development, yet
            analysis of after-the-fact awards indicates a bias toward basic
            research even though solicitations seem to be inviting applied
            research proposals. The real-world funding gap, which should be
            the intent of the Senate's program, is in applied research not
            basic research.
      --In some instances topics are listed in their contracting documents,
            review panels are formed for these topics, but in the
            subsequent review of industry proposals none of these grant
            applications are funded--even some with exceptionally high
            scores. This seems to be a tremendous waste of everybody's time
            including the time of the reviewers.
      --The review process seems to be a complete hit and miss; the quality
            of the review is highly variable and the comments are often not
            very helpful. Steps should be taken to ensure that the
            reviewers have a background in and understand the technology
            being reviewed.
      --There is no path for resubmission and for addressing the reviewer's
            comments. Unlike other similar Federal programs, DOD does not
            allow for resubmissions. In contrast, National Institutes of
            Health (NIH), Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), and
            Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) do allow for
            at least one resubmission. The new reviewers are provided with
            the full review of the first submission and the investigator
            has one page to outline how the resubmission has been changed.
            We have had very good experience with resubmissions, which are
            the only form of dialogue between submitter and reviewer.
        We believe that the following recommendations for improved
    management of the Peer-Reviewed Congressionally Directed Medical
    Research Programs would give DOD, the Congress, and the taxpayer better
    results:
      --Consider limiting use of congressionally added medical research
            funds, particularly in the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research
            Program, to applied research rather that basic research.
      --Consider directing a specific percentage of the annual programs to
            small businesses.
      --Direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD
            (HA)) submit a report to the Appropriations Committees of the
            House and Senate by January 31, 2013, on how DOD's peer-review
            process for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
            Programs can be strengthened and improved. ASD (HA) should
            specifically examine the procedures used by the Department of
            Energy's ARPA-E that are efficient and consistently win praise
            from industry.
        In closing, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity
    to express some priorities of vaccine development companies like mine
    on the possibilities for strategic breakthroughs in solving thorny
    medical issues for our troops through robust, competitive vaccine
    development programs.
        I would also like to thank you, Chairman Inouye, for your lifetime
    of service to our Nation and to commend the other members of the
    subcommittee for your dedication to the welfare of the young men and
    women who so ably serve our Nation. I appreciate the opportunity to
    express my views to you today, and I invite any of the members or staff
    to come visit Aduro the next time you are on the west coast.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much. Your study shows
    that vaccines can have an impact upon prostate cancer?
        Mr. Isaacs. Well, we're working on that right now and we
    see a very strong impact in animal models that we've developed.
    And we've taken this on into human clinical trials in non-
    small-cell lung cancer and in pancreatic cancer. We hope to
    expand to mesothelioma as well.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        May I now call upon Dr. Laurence Corash of the Cerus
    Corporation.
    STATEMENT OF LAURENCE CORASH, M.D., CHIEF MEDICAL
                OFFICER, CERUS CORPORATION
        Dr. Corash. Thank you, Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member
    Cochran, members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to
    testify about the safety of blood transfusion in the military.
    I'm a hematologist and I've spent 20 years researching ways to
    prevent transfusion-transmitted infections, first at the
    National Institutes of Health (NIH), then at the University of
    California as chief of laboratory medicine, and now at Cerus
    Corporation, and in my capacity as the industry representative
    for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
    Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability.
        Blood transfusion is a fundamental component of healthcare.
    Patients assume that when blood is required it will be
    available and it will be safe. But this is not always the case.
    My interest in this problem began in the 1980s at the NIH and
    then at the University of California, when we saw our patients
    infected with a new disease via blood transfusion that we
    ultimately recognized as AIDS and the virus as HIV.
        We now know, though, that this is not the only threat to
    the blood supply and it will not be the last threat. Our
    patients have experienced hepatitis B, hepatitis C, West Nile
    virus, and today they're facing dengue and bebizia, new
    pathogens that cause fatal and debilitating illnesses. There
    will be new pathogens in the future.
        Improved donor testing has reduced the risk for some of
    these infections, but tests do not exist for all pathogens, and
    the blood supply remains vulnerable. Testing will always be
    inherently a reactive strategy against new pathogens. Improved
    donor testing has not solved the problem.
        Soldiers on deployment are especially vulnerable to the
    problems of providing an adequate and safe blood supply for the
    military. As to adequacy, the military relies on its own
    donors, but many of these donors are disqualified due to travel
    related to deployment. Because blood products have a limited
    shelf life and require temperature control, it's not easy to
    transport blood to forward areas of deployment where they're
    critically required. As a result, the military must frequently
    rely on personnel to donate blood in forward areas of
    deployment, where it cannot be adequately tested, and this
    creates problems of safety due to exposure to unrecognized
    pathogens.
        Today a solution exists to this problem. It's pathogen
    inactivation, treating donated blood to kill microbes. This is
    not a novel concept. We pasteurize milk and other intravenous
    medications are treated to sterilize them. However, pathogen
    inactivation of blood components has been a scientific
    challenge.
        My colleagues and I started work on this technology years
    ago and in 1999 the subcommittee provided the first year of
    funding to advance this technology for the military, and we're
    grateful for this. In 2003 the technology from our company was
    licensed in Europe, and since that time 1 million blood
    components treated with this technology have been transfused.
        In our country, the respiratory hurdles to pathogen
    inactivation have been challenging. But my focus today is on a
    modest step to improve safety for the military blood
    transfusion supply. The French military have solved the problem
    of adequacy and safety for plasma by creating a pathogen-
    inactivated freeze-dried plasma. This product has been used in
    Afghanistan since 2010. It can be stored for up to 2 years at
    room temperature and it's ready for use within 6 minutes.
        The U.S. Army is aware of dried plasma, but without FDA
    agreement it cannot be used for U.S. troops. The clinical data
    from the French army support the use of this freeze-dried
    plasma, and the pathogen-inactivate plasma can be available to
    the U.S. military through a collaborative program with the
    French, at lower cost and more rapidly than other approaches.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Cerus asks that the subcommittee provide funding to support
    the licensure of this product and to encourage the FDA to
    define an expeditious pathway for licensure. This action is
    consistent with the 2009 recommendation by the Assistant
    Secretary for Health for implementation of pathogen
    inactivation of civilian blood components.
        Chairman Inouye, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    and for your decades of service to our military and the Nation.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Laurence Corash, M.D.
        Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    Defense subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    your subcommittee today about improving blood safety.
        I am the Chief Medical Officer for Cerus Corporation in Concord,
    California. In the 1980s, I was the director of a university hematology
    service in which a majority of our patients were infected by an unknown
    virus and developed a disease, we now call AIDS, but which no one knew
    existed at the time. There was no way to know at that time that blood
    being donated and transfused contained deadly pathogens that could kill
    people. Although many steps are taken today to reduce the risk of
    infection from donated blood, it is surprising and disappointing that
    for both civilian and military purposes there still remains no good way
    to prevent new and unknown emerging pathogens from entering the blood
    supply and no way to detect them prior to transfusion. Worse, if a
    terrorist organization were to engineer novel pathogens and introduce
    them into our Nation's blood supply, there is no mechanism for
    determining that they are in blood until you see the effects, when it
    is far too late. We had a close call with the anthrax event in which
    potential blood donors were unknowingly exposed.
        There is a better way, and it's called ``pathogen inactivation''.
    This is not a novel concept as all other intravenous medications are
    sterilized. Unfortunately, our Nation has been slow to implement it,
    which is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issue. But we are also
    asking our military personnel, who maybe wounded in combat, to take
    blood-safety risks that are not necessary. I would like to bring this
    issue to your attention today, along with an interim solution for your
    consideration.
        About 16 million units of whole blood were donated in the United
    States in 2006. Whole blood can be transfused directly or more commonly
    separated into its components:
      --red cells;
      --plasma; and
      --platelets.
        Most of the Nation's blood supply is handled by the American Red
    Cross and a small number of community blood-banks. The FDA regulates
    all blood bank operations.
        Blood centers, which have tested for risks like hepatitis C and
    AIDS since the 1980s and 1990s, have added a number of new tests on
    donated blood in recent years to deal with emerging pathogens. However,
    more pathogens have shown up in the donor population as people travel
    more, climate change, and urbanization impact pathogen vectors, and
    bacterial pathogens become more resilient to antibiotics. Without FDA
    approved tests for many infectious risks, blood centers have steadily
    added new prohibitions for people wanting to give blood which reduce
    the donor pool significantly. In 2006, for example, 12.4 million people
    volunteered to donate blood but nearly 2.6 million were turned away
    during questionnaire screening. Donors may be rejected simply on the
    region of the world to which they travelled, but many of them could be
    qualified blood donors if adequate testing was possible or other safety
    measures were taken, such as pathogen inactivation.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) is generally discouraged from
    relying on the domestic blood supply to support the military. The Armed
    Services Blood Program supplies blood for 1.3 million servicemembers
    and their families each year. Military personnel who were stationed in
    Europe for extended periods in the 1980s and 1990s are not allowed to
    donate blood, as a precaution against mad cow disease. Soldiers
    returning from Iraq and Afghanistan cannot donate blood for at least a
    year. As a consequence, a larger population of the military can no
    longer donate blood. Measures such as increasing blood recruitment
    efforts from military personnel in training billets, from the DOD
    civilian workforce, and from military dependents may not be enough.
        During recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, platelets were
    collected from U.S. military members and transfused with limited real-
    time testing. The U.S. Army Medical Command for example stated in a
    January 2008 news release that:

        ``. . . field hospitals must rely on local personnel when treating
    someone who has suffered catastrophic injuries and needs a lot of blood
    quickly. At these times, an urgent call for blood donors is sent out
    and our men and women in uniform, already in a war zone, line up on-on
    the run to give blood.''

        As you can imagine, collecting blood in theater from deployed U.S.
    soldiers or civilians entails a significant risk of infection, because
    testing in theater is limited. Your subcommittee is aware of the
    incident where the British Government raised concerns about 18 of its
    troops and 6 civilians who received emergency blood transfusions from
    American personnel in Afghanistan without proper testing for infectious
    diseases.
        As I indicated before, there is a better way to ensure blood
    transfusion safety, and it's called ``pathogen inactivation''. In fact,
    the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and
    Human Services established a Federal pathogen inactivation task force
    in 2009 based on recommendations from its Advisory Committee on Blood
    Safety and Availability. I urge the Senate Appropriations Committee,
    through one of its other subcommittees, to look into the lack of
    progress that has been made at the Federal level to expedite pathogen
    inactivation technology to protect our national blood supply.
        Cerus is a biotechnology company based in California founded in
    1992 with the mission to develop technology for the inactivation of
    infectious microbes, including viruses, bacteria, and parasites, in
    blood components (platelets, plasma, and red cells) used for
    transfusion support of patients. We have a process for pathogen
    inactivation in blood using chemicals and ultraviolet light that
    prevents any organism from replicating. Cerus blood technology
    inactivates all infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and
    parasites in blood, whether you know they are there or not. We have
    spent more than $600 million developing the technology, of which less
    than 7 percent came from the Federal Government, and we have been on an
    agonizingly slow process toward FDA approval for its eventual use in
    the United States.
        The technology is in use in Europe, Asia, Russia, the Middle East,
    and South America. The treated blood components have received national
    licensure as biologics in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. To
    date more than 1 million therapeutic doses have been transfused in more
    than 100 blood centers in 16 countries. In France, more than 30,000
    patients have received the platelet and plasma products. One Belgian
    blood center has used the technology for 9 years. The Swiss Regulatory
    Authority mandated use of the platelet technology in 2010. The French
    Armed Forces Blood Transfusion Service has used this technology to
    create dried plasma which has been used in Afghanistan to treat
    severely wounded personnel at the time of injury since 2010.
    Surveillance by the regulatory authorities in these countries has shown
    that the technology is safe and effective in routine use; and that it
    has prevented transfusion-transmitted infections. The red cell
    technology is entering Phase 3 clinical trials in Europe.
        Cerus has received DOD funding to support the development of
    technology specific to the Army's blood transfusion requirements. The
    major portion of this funding has supported the red cell technology
    program that is now under discussion with FDA for design of Phase 3
    clinical trials. Recently, Cerus became aware of the Army's interest in
    dried plasma as a means to improve outcomes for severely wounded
    personnel. However, the Army has communicated to Cerus the overwhelming
    task of taking this product through FDA regulatory approval.
        The U.S. Army is aware of the French Armed Forces experience with
    the dried plasma product; and Cerus has discussed the use of data from
    the French Armed Forces clinical experience with the French Armed
    Forces Blood Service to support FDA licensure for the specific
    treatment of U.S. military personnel. Cerus believes that these data,
    in combination with the substantial European experience with this
    technology are relevant and sufficient to support licensure, but prior
    discussions with FDA have not resulted in a commitment to use these
    data. Cerus believes that there is a need for the pathogen inactivated
    dried plasma product and that this product can be made available to the
    U.S. Armed Forces through a collaborative manufacturing program with
    the French Armed Forces Blood Service. This approach would make this
    product available at lower cost and more rapidly than other approaches
    currently under consideration. Cerus requests the subcommittees
    recommend this initiative with expedited review by FDA which could
    improve the outcomes for military personnel with severe traumatic
    injuries.
        The pathogen inactivation technology will also be of benefit to the
    civilian population especially for national disaster contingency
    planning when normal channels for blood donation, preparation, and
    transport may be disrupted by natural disasters or bioterrorism events.
        Chairman Inouye, as a Medal of Honor winner who has personally
    witnessed the horrors of combat, I wanted to bring to your attention,
    and to the subcommittee, that through cooperation with the French
    military the Army can now take steps to expedite the availability of
    proven pathogen inactivation technology for the U.S. Armed Forces. That
    would mean that our soldiers and marines would have more blood
    supplies, faster treatment during the critical first moments after
    severe injuries, and improved safety during blood transfusions after
    being injured in combat.
        I thank all the members of the subcommittee for allowing me this
    opportunity to testify today, and thank you for your decades of service
    to our military and to our Nation.

        Chairman Inouye. You've brought up a matter that's very
    personal to me because during the war I got about 30
    transfusions. I just must have been lucky.
        What was the situation in World War II? Was it this bad?
        Dr. Corash. Well, it was worse, of course, because
    transportation of blood in liquid format and even of plasma was
    extraordinarily difficult, and that meant that treatment could
    not be delivered close to the point of injury. We know now that
    the first 30 minutes are very critical for survival.
        It's improved over the years by various measures, but we
    have not yet achieved the most optimal outcome. I think the
    French have really achieved this. The data from their
    experience in Afghanistan for salvage of these wounded
    personnel is quite impressive.
        Chairman Inouye. If you have any reading material on the
    French method, will you submit that, please?
        Dr. Corash. I'm sorry, Sir?
        Chairman Inouye. On the French method, if you have any
    reading material.
        Dr. Corash. Yes, I do. I can send you some publications
    that have been provided to me by the French military, and I
    work very actively with them.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        May I now call upon Ms. Sharon Smith.
    STATEMENT OF SHARON SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
                TRAUMA INSTITUTE
        Ms. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Cochran, for the opportunity to testify today to urge the
    subcommittee to invest a greater amount of DOD medical research
    funds into the primary conditions which kill our soldiers.
        According to military trauma surgeons, noncompressible
    hemorrhage is the leading cause of death among combatants whose
    deaths are considered potentially survivable. This includes
    injuries to the neck, chest, abdomen, groin, and back, where a
    tourniquet or compression cannot be easily applied. The
    National Trauma Institute (NTI) believes an accelerated program
    of research into noncompressible hemorrhage will result in the
    first truly novel advances in treating this difficult problem,
    will save the lives of soldiers wounded in combat, and will
    have tremendous impact on civilian casualties and costs.
        I'm executive director of the NTI, which is a nonprofit
    organization based in San Antonio, Texas, where so many of the
    military's medical research assets are centralized. We were
    formed in 2006 by leaders of America's trauma organizations in
    response to frustration over lack of funding of trauma
    research. Our board of directors includes civilian, active
    duty, and retired military trauma surgeons, and we advocate and
    manage funds for trauma research and are a national
    coordinating center for those funds.
        In a June 2011 letter, the Defense Health Board, which
    provides advice and recommendations to the DOD, cited an urgent
    need to improve the evidence base for trauma care, and further
    stated that, ``Due to the lack of opportunities to perform
    randomized controlled trials on the battlefield, challenges
    arise in maintaining the best practice guidelines for the
    combat environment.''
        The board then recommended that the Department endorse
    high-priority medical research, development, testing, and
    evaluation (RDT&E) funding for improving battlefield trauma
    care. Further, individual members of the board have expressed
    grave concern that when the current combat mission ends no
    further military medical research progress will be made. A
    review of medical advances available to the combat medic has
    identified no significant changes during the period of relative
    peace from the end of the Vietnam War to September 11, 2011.
        The challenge going forward is to fund medical research and
    development during peacetime, without the historical impetus
    afforded by active combat operations. A time of peace is an
    opportunity to make medical advances to ensure readiness for
    the next conflict or terrorist threat.
        NTI has been invited to meet with the Defense Health Board
    later this month to explore how we together can address these
    concerns.
        Military trauma surgeons agree that the major cause of
    death from combat wounds is hemorrhage. In recent conflicts, 21
    percent of combat deaths were potentially survivable. In other
    words, more than 1,300 warriors wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan
    might have survived, but died because treatment strategies were
    lacking. More than 600 of these were due to noncompressible
    hemorrhage.
        Currently there is no active intervention for
    noncompressible hemorrhage available to military medics, not
    even a method to detect whether the wounded warrior is bleeding
    internally and if so how much blood has been lost.
        On the civilian front, trauma injury is responsible for
    more than 61 percent of the deaths of Americans between the
    ages of 1 to 44 every year, more than all forms of cancer,
    heart disease, HIV, liver disease, stroke, and diabetes
    combined. An American dies every 3 minutes due to trauma, and
    that's 170,000 deaths, in addition to 42 million injuries every
    year, making trauma the second most expensive healthcare
    problem facing the United States, with annual medical costs of
    $72 billion.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So NTI recommends that the Congress set aside a much larger
    portion of DOD medical research funding for the medical
    conditions which most seriously and severely injure, as well as
    kill, our soldiers, and in particular maintain or increase
    funding for noncompressible hemorrhage, the leading cause of
    potentially survivable deaths of our soldiers.
        So I thank you again for the opportunity to present our
    views.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Sharon Smith
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today to urge
    the subcommittee to invest a greater amount of Department of Defense
    (DOD) medical research funds in the primary conditions which kill our
    soldiers. According to military medical officials, noncompressible
    hemorrhage is the leading cause of death among combatants whose deaths
    are considered ``potentially survivable.'' The National Trauma
    Institute (NTI) believes an accelerated program of research into
    noncompressible hemorrhage will result in the first truly novel
    advances in treating this difficult problem, will save the lives of
    soldiers wounded in combat, and will have tremendous impact on civilian
    casualties and costs.
        NTI is a nonprofit organization formed in 2006 by leaders of
    America's trauma organizations in response to frustration over lack of
    funding of trauma research. Our Board of Directors now includes 19
    leading physicians totaling hundreds of years in treating traumatic
    injuries. Some of these physicians are active duty Army, Navy, and Air
    Force doctors in organizations such as the Army's Institute for
    Surgical Research in San Antonio, where NTI is based. Others are
    retired from the military after 20 plus years serving our Nation and
    are bringing the expertise gained in combat theaters to the civilian
    setting.
        With the support and participation of the national trauma
    community, NTI advocates and manages funding for trauma research and is
    a national coordinating center for trauma research funding. In recent
    years, NTI issued two national calls for proposals and received a total
    of 177 pre-proposals from 32 States and the District of Columbia. After
    rigorous peer review, NTI awarded $3.9 million to 16 proposals
    involving 55 clinical investigators at 39 participating sites spread
    across 35 cities and 22 States nationally. Several of these studies are
    nearing completion. However, important as these studies are, they will
    barely begin to build the body of knowledge necessary for improved
    treatments and outcomes in the field of trauma in the United States.
                              defense health board
        As the subcommittee knows, the Defense Health Board is a Federal
    advisory committee which provides independent advice and
    recommendations on DOD healthcare issues including research to the
    Secretary of Defense. The Board, in a letter to the Honorable Jonathan
    Woodson, M.D., Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) dated
    June 2011, cited ``an urgent need to improve the evidence base for
    trauma care . . . due to the lack of opportunities to perform
    randomized controlled trials on the battlefield, challenges arise in
    maintaining . . . best practice guidelines for the combat
    environment.'' The DHB then recommended that the Department of Defense
    ``endorse . . . high-priority medical Research, Development, Test and
    Evaluation (RDT&E) issues for improving battlefield trauma care.''
        Further, individual members of the Defense Health Board have
    expressed grave concern that when the current combat mission ends, no
    further military medical research progress will be made. The challenge
    going forward will be to provide the necessary support for medical
    research and development during peacetime, without the historical
    impetus afforded by active combat operations. A review of medical
    advances available to the Combat Medic has identified no significant
    changes during the period of relative peace from the end of the Vietnam
    War to September 11, 2001.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Blackborne, L.H.C. (2011) 1831. The Army Department Medical
    Journal April-June 2011, 6-10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A time of peace is an opportunity to make medical advancements to
    ensure readiness for the next conflict or terrorist threat. NTI will be
    visiting the Defense Health Board later this month to explore how our
    country can address these concerns.
                           noncompressible hemorrhage
        According to military documents and officials, the major cause of
    death from combat wounds is hemorrhage. In recent conflicts, 21 percent
    of combat deaths have been judged to be potentially survivable.\2\ In
    other words, more than 1,300 warriors wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan
    might have survived to come home to their loved ones, but didn't
    because treatment strategies were lacking. More than 1,100 (85 percent)
    of these deaths were due to hemorrhage, and 55 percent of these, more
    than 600 potentially survivable deaths, resulted from hemorrhage in
    regions of the body such as the neck, chest, abdomen, groin, and back
    that couldn't be treated by a tourniquet or compression.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Eastridge, B.J., Hardin, M., Cantrell, J., Oetjen-Gerdes, L.,
    Zubko, T., Mallak, C., Wade, C.E., Simmons, J., Mace, J., Mabry, R.,
    Bolenbaucher, R., Blackbourne, L.H. (2011) Died of wounds on the
    battlefield: causation and implications for improving combat casualty
    care. J Trauma. 71 (1 Suppl): S4-8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        causes of potentially survivable deaths operation iraqi freedom/
                           operation enduring freedom

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        NTI commends the Congress for its attention to traumatic brain
    injuries and encourages a continuing focus on this potentially
    debilitating condition. Yet as the above chart shows, hemorrhage is a
    far more common killer of our soldiers, and hemorrhage has received
    relatively little funding.
        Extremity wounds are amenable to compression to stop bleeding, and
    new tourniquets and hemostatic bandages have had a major impact on the
    decline in combat deaths due to extremity hemorrhage. But compression
    is rarely effective for penetrating wounds to the torso and major
    vessels can be damaged resulting in massive hemorrhage. At present,
    such wounds are normally only treatable through surgical intervention
    and typically such patients do not survive to reach the operating room.
        Currently, there is no active intervention for noncompressible
    hemorrhage available to military medics, who along with civilian
    responders have only the tools their predecessors had in the early 20th
    century. There is not even a method to detect whether the wounded
    warrior is bleeding internally, and if so, how much blood has been
    lost. The current Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines for medics
    and corpsmen do not include strategies to stem bleeding from
    noncompressible hemorrhage because no solutions are available.\3\ NTI
    hopes to decrease the mortality of severely injured patients suffering
    from torso hemorrhage. This can only be accomplished through research
    into the development of simple, rapid and field-expedient techniques
    which can be used by medics on the battlefield or first responders in a
    civilian context to detect and treat noncompressible hemorrhage.
    Examples of current NTI research in noncompressible hemorrhage include:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ (2009) Tactical Combat Casualty Care Guidelines. http://
    www.usaisr.amedd.army.mil/tccc/TCCC%20Guidelines%20091104.pdf. Accessed
    May 20, 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The use of ultrasonography to measure the diameter of the vena cava
            to determine whether this will give an accurate indication of
            low blood volume.
      --An observational study to determine the incidence and prevalence of
            clotting abnormalities in severely injured patients and to
            study the complex biology of proteins to better understand,
            predict, diagnose, and treat bleeding after trauma.
      --Supplementation of hemorrhagic shock patients with vasopressin, a
            hormone needed to support high blood pressure. Vasopressin at
            high doses has been shown to improve blood pressure, decrease
            blood loss and improve survival in animal models with lethal
            blood loss. This study investigates the use of vasopressin in
            trauma patients.
        Another challenge in hemorrhage is resuscitation--the restoration
    of blood volume and pressure. Traditional resuscitation includes large
    volumes of intravenous fluids followed by blood and finally plasma.
    However, now this large intravenous fluid load is thought to worsen the
    trauma patient's coagulopathy (blood clotting problems), increasing
    bleeding. There is strong retrospective evidence that for patients
    requiring massive transfusion, a higher proportion of plasma and
    platelets, when compared to red cells, results in improved survival.
    Based on a 2004 research study,\4\ the current Joint Theater Trauma
    Clinical Practice Guideline for Forward Surgical Teams and Combat
    Support Hospitals advocates a plasma, platelet, and red cell
    resuscitation regime in lieu of the standard intravenous fluids.
    Currently, there is no blood substitute available for in-theater use.
    The Army Medical Department/USA Institute of Surgical Research is
    working on a freeze-dried plasma solution; however, this product has
    not yet received FDA approval. Remarkably, current treatments used by
    military medics for restoration of blood volume are very similar to
    those originally used in 1831 when saline was first given as an
    intravenous fluid to cholera patients.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Holcomb, J.B., Jenkins, D., Rhee, P., Johannigman, J., Mahoney,
    P., Mehta, S., Cox, E.D., Gehrke, M.J., Beilman, G.J., Schreiber, M.,
    Flaherty, S.F., Grathwohl, K.W., Spinella, P.C., Perkins, J.G.,
    Beekley, A.C., McMullin, N.R., Park, M.S., Gonzalez, E.A., Wade, C.E.,
    Dubick, M.A., Schwab, C.W., Moore, F.A., Champion, H.R., Hoyt, D.B.,
    and Hess, J.R. (2007) Damage Control Resuscitation: Directly Addressing
    the Early Coagulopathy of Trauma. The Journal of Trauma 62, 307-310.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Noncompressible hemorrhage is just one example of advances in
    research that can be applied to both military and civilian casualties.
    Many of the problems associated with hemorrhage of all kinds are
    potentially solvable and are transferable between military and civilian
    trauma care. The funding recommended by NTI could have a dramatic
    impact on civilian mortality in the United States as hemorrhage is
    responsible for 30 to 40 percent of deaths following a traumatic injury
    to civilians.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Holcomb, J.B. (2010) Optimal Use of Blood Products in Severely
    Injured Trauma Patients. Hematology, 465-469.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  impact of trauma on united states civilians
        Traumatic injury is the cause of death of nearly every soldier in
    combat. On the civilian front, trauma/injury is responsible for more
    than 61 percent of the deaths of Americans between the ages of 1 and 44
    each year.\6\ That's more than all forms of cancer, heart disease, HIV,
    liver disease, stroke, and diabetes combined. An American dies every 3
    minutes due to trauma. That's 170,000 deaths in addition to 42 million
    injuries every year.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ CDC (2006) Centers for Disease Control/WISQARS. http://
    webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html. Accessed March 16,
    2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    top causes of death in 2009: 1-44 years

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Trauma is the second most expensive public health problem facing
    the United States. Data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and
    Quality (AHRQ) on the ten most expensive health conditions puts the
    annual medical costs from trauma at $72 billion, second only to heart
    conditions at $76 billion, and ahead of cancer and all other
    diseases.\7\ The National Safety Council estimates the true economic
    burden to be more than $690 billion per year, since trauma has an
    ongoing cost to society due to disability, and is the leading cause of
    years of productive life lost.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ AHRQ (2008) Big Money: Cost of 10 Most Expensive Health
    Conditions Near $500 Billion. Agency for Healthcare Research and
    Quality http://www.ahrq.gov/news/nn/nn012308.htm. Accessed May 2, 2012.
        \8\ NSC (2011) Summary from Injury Facts, 2011 Edition. National
    Safety Council http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/
    injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Summary%202011.pdf. Accessed
    March 16, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          eight most expensive health conditions in the united states

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 department of defense medical research funding
        For fiscal year 2012, the Congress added more than $600 million to
    the President's budget request for DOD medical research funding. While
    very significant, this sum is considerably less than that appropriated
    just 2 years prior, when the Congress added more than $1 billion for
    DOD medical research. However, roughly 60 percent of the fiscal year
    2012 funding the Congress added was not directed to those conditions
    such as hemorrhage which are common battlefield injuries and most
    severely impact our troops. NTI greatly appreciates the subcommittee's
    attention to traumatic brain injury and psychological health. NTI urges
    that the Congress set aside equivalent sums for improvements in
    treating other lethal or disabling battlefield injuries.
                                 research works
        It has been proven repeatedly that medical research saves lives.
    For instance, in 1950 a diagnosis of leukemia was tantamount to a death
    sentence. Research led to chemotherapy treatments in the 1950s and bone
    marrow transplantations in the 1970s. A substantial investment in
    research has led to safer and more effective treatments, and today
    there is a 90-percent survival rate for leukemia.\9\ Another example is
    breast cancer. Thirty years ago only 74 percent of women who were
    diagnosed before the breast cancer spread lived for another 5 years.
    Due to research into early detection, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals,
    the 5-year comparable survival rate for breast cancer is now 98
    percent.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ (2011) Research Successes. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society http:/
    /www.lls.org/#/aboutlls/researchsuccesses/. Accessed May 20, 2012.
        \10\ (2011) Our Work. Susan G. Komen For the Cure http://
    ww5.komen.org/AboutUs/OurWork.html. Accessed May 20, 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fifty years of dedicated research into proper diagnosis and
    treatment of leukemia has led to an 80-percent reduction in the death
    rate. Imagine even a 5 percent reduction in trauma deaths and economic
    burden--this could save the United States $35 billion, save almost
    9,000 lives every year, and significantly reduce the extent of
    disability of those who do survive a traumatic event.
        Recommendation.--NTI recommends that the Congress set aside a much
    larger portion of DOD medical research funding for the medical
    conditions which most severely injure as well as kill our soldiers and
    in particular maintain or increase funding for noncompressible
    hemorrhage--the leading cause of potentially survivable deaths of our
    soldiers.

        Chairman Inouye. I can assure you that we will discuss this
    matter with DOD to see if they cannot increase funding. Thank
    you very much.
        Now the final panel. We have: Rear Admiral Casey Coane,
    representing the Association of the United States Navy; Dr.
    Andrew Pollak, representing the American Association of
    Orthopedic Surgeons; Mr. Mark Haubner, representing the
    Arthritis Foundation; and Dr. Remington Nevin, representing the
    mefloquine research.
        May I call upon Admiral Coane.
    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CASEY COANE, U.S. NAVY
                (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION
                FOR THE UNITED STATES NAVY
        Admiral Coane. Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran:
    It's good to be with you again this year. On behalf of the
    Association of the United States Navy (AUSN) and our thousands
    of members, we thank you and the committee for the work that
    you do in support of our Navy, retirees and veterans, as well
    as their families. Your hard work has allowed significant
    progress in adequately funding our Nation's military that has
    also left a lasting impact on national security.
        AUSN recognizes the difficulties ahead in your obligation
    to abide by the Budget Control Act of 2011, while adequately
    funding and providing for our Nation's defense. Our top
    concerns with defense appropriations include the proposed
    TRICARE increases, Navy shipbuilding, and adequately funding
    the National Guard and Reserve equipment account for the Navy
    Reserve component. I'll make a brief comment about each and
    refer your staff to our written testimony for details.
        Regarding TRICARE, AUSN accepts proposed increases in
    pharmacy copays right now as reasonable, but urges the Congress
    to reject any new fees and any increase in TRICARE Prime fees
    that exceeds the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)-based
    standard established just last year in the Defense
    Authorization Act.
        If we were here discussing changing the age requirements
    for social security, there isn't a person in this room who
    wouldn't agree that we must grandfather current recipients who
    planned for their retirement under the current rule set. The
    Defense Department extends no such consideration to those
    already retired. In fact, the lion's share of proposed fee
    increases applies only to retirees.
        AUSN supports legislation to protect the armed service
    retirees from proposed increases to their TRICARE coverage,
    such as S. 3203, the Military Health Care Protection Act of
    2012, which was introduced bipartisanly by Senators Frank R.
    Lautenberg and Marco Rubio.
        Senators, our Navy is stretched thin today. In this decade
    of war our Navy, while the budget has gone up, has gotten only
    smaller. Right now the budget calls for fewer ships.
    Deployments are lengthening today. We just had a ship return
    from, instead of a 6-month deployment, a 10-month wartime
    deployment, and we just sent one on a 10-month deployment last
    month. This directly impacts families. As I said, the proposed
    budget calls for fewer ships.
        As the Army and Marine Corps return from Afghanistan, the
    Navy's mission will not decrease. In fact, the President has
    directed in his January strategic guidance increased efforts in
    the Pacific.
        Therefore, AUSN urges the Senate Appropriations Committee
    to restore planned cuts to the Virginia-class submarine, to
    restore 4 of the 7 cruisers now scheduled for early retirement.
    This is both necessary to the Navy's mission and cost-effective
    for the taxpayer.
        Turning to the Reserve component, Senator Cochran, you and
    I discussed at this hearing last year the Navy's C-48 transport
    aircraft. It's a program of record calling for 17 aircraft to
    replace seriously aging C-9B's. Now, in keeping with the
    Pentagon's thoughts about unfunded lists, the Navy Reserve
    didn't ask for an airplane this year, and yet the program of
    record stands. Fourteen have been bought to this date of the
    17. Some have been bought with National Guard and Reserve
    equipment moneys, which is the right place for that, in the
    Reserve component.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Navy cannot do without this airlift capacity, and each
    year that the less capable and far more expensive to operate C-
    9s remain, the taxpayers lose. There are no C-40s, as I said,
    in the fiscal year 2013 budget. AUSN urges the addition of at
    least one, funded through the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Account (NGREA), this year.
        That concludes my testimony, subject to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Casey Coane
                   the association of the united states navy
        The Association of the United States Navy (AUSN) continues its
    mission as the premier advocate for our Nation's sailors and veterans
    alike. Formerly known as the Naval Reserve Association, which traces
    its roots back to 1954, AUSN was formally established on May 19, 2009,
    to expand its focus on the entire Navy. AUSN works for not only our
    members, but the Navy and veteran community overall by promoting the
    Department of the Navy's interest, encouraging professional development
    of officers and enlisted, and educating the public and political bodies
    regarding the Nation's welfare and security.
        AUSN prides itself on personal career assistance to its members and
    successful legislative activity on Capitol Hill regarding equipment and
    personnel issues. The Association actively represents our members by
    participating in the most distinguished groups protecting the rights of
    military personnel. AUSN is a member of The Military Coalition, a group
    of 34 associations with a strong history of advocating for the rights
    and benefits of military personnel, active and retired. AUSN is also a
    member of the National Military Veterans Alliance and an associate
    member of the Veterans Day National Committee of the Department of
    Veterans' Affairs (VA).
        AUSN's members are Active Duty, Reserve and veterans from all 50
    States, U.S. territories, Europe, and Asia. AUSN has 81 chapters across
    the country. Of our 18,000 members, approximately 95 percent are
    veterans. Our national headquarters is located at 1619 King Street,
    Alexandria, Virginia, and we can be reached at 703-548-5800.
                                    summary
        Chairmen Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense: AUSN thanks you and
    your Committee for the work that you do in support of our Navy,
    retirees, and veterans as well as their families. Your hard work has
    allowed significant progress in adequately funding our Nation's
    military that has also left a lasting impact on our national security.
        Last year alone, in the Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations
    Act of 2012, AUSN was pleased to see that the Congress funded Navy
    Military personnel at $26.8 billion; Marine Corps military personnel at
    $13.6 billion; Navy Reserve personnel at $1.9 billion; and Marine Corps
    Reserve personnel at $644 million. In addition, AUSN was pleased to see
    $14.9 billion appropriated for Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion; $32.5
    billion for the Defense Health Program; and record amounts of National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) funding at $1 billion, of
    which $75 million was appropriated for the Navy Reserve.
        As part of a larger military and veteran community, AUSN recognizes
    that there are many challenges ahead, especially with the release of
    the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request this past February and
    his Strategic Guidance earlier this past January. Of great concern
    amongst our membership, as well as the Navy and military community, are
    the increases in TRICARE rates and enrollment fees in DOD's budget
    request. AUSN believes that such changes must be done in accordance
    with what is right for our military and veterans given the promises
    that were made when they signed up to serve their country, and
    especially with those retirees who have already served and whom these
    changes effect even more. The impact this will also have upon future
    recruitment and retention within the military should also be taken into
    consideration as this subcommittee begins appropriating funds for the
    various essential DOD programs our servicemembers rely on.
        Similarly, AUSN is concerned with the heavy cuts that appear to be
    disproportionately allocated to DOD. DOD requested, in the President's
    budget request, $614 billion for fiscal year 2013, which reduces $487
    billion from its projected spending over the next decade. In the
    President's Strategic Guidance, released on January 3, 2012, it states
    that, ``we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific
    region''; however, the proposed decommissioning of seven older cruisers
    (six of which had been scheduled for modernization), delaying the Ohio-
    class submarine (SSBN-X) replacement program by 2 years, build two
    fewer littoral combat ships (LCS) over the next 5 years (one from each
    variant builder), building only one Virginia-class submarine (SSN) in
    2014 and delay it to 2018, and the reduction of the joint high speed
    vessel (JHSV) from 18 to 10 found in the President's budget seems
    counter intuitive to this new strategy.
        The overarching, long-term, concerns with the proposed DOD budget
    cuts that the AUSN has is that DOD is already requesting $614 billion
    for fiscal year 2013, already trimming down $487 billion from its
    projected spending over the next decade. However, after the failure of
    the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, or ``Super Committee'',
    failing to find the savings as mandated by the Budget Control Act of
    2011 (BCA), come January 2013, the ``sequestration'' mechanism would be
    triggered that would automatically slash an additional $450-$500
    billion from the military's budget by fiscal year 2021. As a result of
    such drastic cuts, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has already
    stated, in a letter to Senators McCain and Graham last fall, that
    sequestration represents a reduction of nearly 20 percent in DOD
    funding over the next 10 years with reductions at this level meaning
    the smallest Navy since before World War II, potential termination of
    the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, delay of the next-generation
    ballistic missile submarine and cuts to our existing sub fleet as well
    as the cancellation of the LCS program.
        AUSN is working with other Military and Veteran Service
    Organizations to address these concerns, but in regards to Defense
    appropriations, our focus is on the Military Healthcare System (MHS)
    that is crucial to our military personnel and the Navy's Equipment/
    Procurement needs that is vital to our national security.
                       military healthcare system funding
        AUSN was pleased to hear that the President's budget request
    included $32.5 billion for the Defense Health Program (DHP), which was
    the same level enacted for fiscal year 2012. However, for the DOD's
    unified medical budget, which includes DHP, the President's budget
    request included $48.7 billion, which is a reduction of $4.1 billion
    from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $52.8 billion. The reduction
    primarily comes out of the Health Care Accrual Program which includes
    healthcare contributions of the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care
    Fund to provide for the future costs of our personnel currently serving
    on Active Duty and their family members when they retire. AUSN stresses
    the importance of adequately funding the MHS and ensure that changes,
    like those proposed in the President's budget request, aren't
    burdensome to our military.
                                    tricare
        The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request implements
    numerous changes to the existing MHS, which is utilized by more than
    9.6 million beneficiaries which include active military member, their
    families, military retirees and their families, dependent survivors and
    certain eligible Reserve component members and their families. Changes
    include increases to TRICARE Prime Enrollment fees. Last year, finally
    acknowledging the Congress's long-standing concerns about the
    inappropriateness of dramatic increases in beneficiary fees, the
    administration proposed a 13-percent increase in TRICARE Prime fees. In
    the absence of congressional objection, the increase was implemented as
    of October 1, 2011. However, the new proposal for fiscal year 2013
    through fiscal year 2017 is a dramatic departure, proposing to triple
    or quadruple fees over the next 5 years (for example $520 across the
    board retired pay levels for fiscal year 2012 to $600/$720/$820 tiered
    across the retired pay levels for fiscal year 2013 to $893/$1,523/
    $2,048 by fiscal year 2017). AUSN urges the Congress to reject any
    increase in TRICARE Prime fees that exceeds the cost-of-living
    adjustment (COLA)-based standard established in the Fiscal Year 2012
    Defense Authorization Act.
        In addition, the fiscal year 2013 budget request institutes an
    annual TRICARE Standard Enrollment fee to be phased in over a 5-year
    period and then indexed to increases in National Health Expenditures
    (NHE) after fiscal year 2017 (for example $0 in fiscal year 2012 to $70
    in fiscal year 2013 for individuals and $0 in fiscal year 2012 to $140
    for families). The deductibles for TRICARE Standard would also increase
    from $150 in fiscal year 2012 to $160 in fiscal year 2013 for
    individuals and from $300 in fiscal year 2012 to $320 in fiscal year
    2013 for families. TRICARE for Life (TFL) would also see an
    implementation of enrollment fees for all three tiers going from $0 for
    all three for fiscal year 2012 to $35 for tier 1, $75 for tier 2 and
    $115 for tier 3 for fiscal year 2013. In total, the fiscal year 2013
    budget request contains $48.7 billion for the entire DOD unified
    medical budget to support the MHS, which is a difference of $4.1
    billion less than the $52.8 billion that was enacted for fiscal year
    2012.
        These proposed increases, which require congressional approval, are
    part of the Pentagon's plan to cut $487 billion in spending and seeks
    to save $1.8 billion from the TRICARE system in the fiscal year 2013
    budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017. These rate increases amount to an
    overall change of 30-percent to 78-percent increase in TRICARE premiums
    for the first year and explodes for a 5-year span increase of 94
    percent to 345 percent, more than three times current levels!
        AUSN, our membership and the military and veteran community
    continue to oppose the establishment of any new fees where there are
    none now (such as the enrollment fees for TFL or TRICARE Standard). Our
    veterans should get guaranteed access for an enrollment fee which is
    not always the case for those that rely on TFL or TRICARE Standard
    where many can't find doctors to see them. Where a flat fee exists now
    (which DOD is trying to dramatically increase and then index to health
    cost growth), we assert that the same rules should apply to those that
    the Congress applied to the Prime enrollment fee in the fiscal year
    2012 NDAA . . . they should be tied to COLA and not health cost growth.
        These changes in the fiscal year 2013 budget request raise concerns
    amongst the military community about the impact this will have on
    recruiting and maintaining a high quality all volunteer military force.
    These benefits have been instrumental in recruiting qualified service
    men and women and keeping them in uniform.
                     pending legislation and appropriations
        AUSN was happy to see that the House Appropriations Committee,
    Subcommittee on Defense completed its markup in mid-May and included
    $32.9 billion for DHP, which is $333.5 million more than the
    President's budget request, and $380.2 million more than the amount
    appropriated for fiscal year 2012. The markup also includes $2.3
    billion for family support and advocacy programs. Increases above the
    request include:
      --$246 million for cancer research;
      --$245 million for medical facility and equipment upgrades;
      --$125 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health
            research; and
      --$20 million for suicide prevention outreach programs.
        AUSN is supportive of these funding levels within the DHP to our
    military. In addition, AUSN supports legislation to protect armed
    service retirees from proposed increases to their TRICARE coverage such
    as S. 3203, the Military Healthcare Protection Act of 2012, which was
    introduced bipartisanly by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Marco
    Rubio (R-FL). This bill recognizes the sacrifices made over a 20- or
    30-year military career to retirees and seeks to limit the proposed
    changes in TRICARE.
                           navy equipment/procurement
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request included $43.9
    billion for Navy and Marine Corps equipment funding. This is a decrease
    of $2.3 billion below the amount enacted for fiscal year 2012 (5-
    percent decrease). This includes, within the fiscal year 2013 budget
    request for the Navy, the proposed decommissioning of seven older
    cruisers (six of which had been scheduled for modernization), delaying
    the Ohio-class submarine (SSBN-X) replacement program by 2 years, build
    two fewer littoral combat ships (LCS) over the next 5 years (one from
    each variant builder), and build only one Virginia-class submarine
    (SSN) in 2014 and delay it to 2018. AUSN is concerned that these
    funding level decisions are being driven by budget, rather than
    strategy, and that the Navy procurement levels do not reflect the needs
    of a strong forward presence, especially in the hostile regions of the
    Asia-Pacific Theater.
                        navy shipbuilding and conversion
        As the Congress proceeds with consideration of the fiscal year 2013
    Defense appropriations bill, it is important that the appropriated
    funding levels for Navy equipment meet the needs of our Navy as
    recommended by the President's Strategic Guidance released this past
    January. In the Strategic Guidance, the Administration highlights that,
    ``we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region . . .
    [providing] security in the broader Indian Ocean region.'' Yet the
    proposed cuts to Navy platforms in the President's budget request are
    alarming in that with this refocus in strategy, and the Navy's goal of
    a 300-plus fleet, appear to hamper this strategy and reduce our Navy's
    capability, making any attempt to deter hostilities in the Pacific very
    difficult.
        Last year, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year
    2012, the Navy was appropriated $14.9 billion for Navy Shipbuilding and
    Conversion. Of that, for the Advanced Procurement (AP) for the Carrier
    Replacement Program (AP), $554.7 million, for the Virginia-class
    submarine, $3.2 billion, for the Virginia-class submarine (AP), $1.5
    billion, for the DDG-1000 Program, $453.7 million, or the DDG-51
    Destroyer, $2.0 billion, for the DDG-51 Destroyer (AP), $100.7 million,
    for the LCS, $1.8 billion and for the joint high speed vessel (JHSV),
    $372.3 million. Along with the ship cuts in the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget request, this year's request for shipbuilding and
    conversion had dramatic cuts in funding levels from the fiscal year
    2012 enacted legislation. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes
    a total of $13.6 billion for Navy shipbuilding and conversion (a
    reduction of $1.3 billion). Of that, for the Carrier Replacement
    Program, $608.1 million (an increase of $53.4 million), for the
    Virginia-class submarine, $3.2 billion, for the Virginia-class
    submarine (AP), $875 million (a decrease of $625 million), for the DDG-
    1000 program, $669.2 million (an increase in $215.5 million), for the
    DDG-51 Destroyer, $3 billion (an increase of $1 billion), for the DDG-
    51 Destroyer (AP), $466.3 million (an increase of $365.6 million), for
    the LCS, $1.8 billion, and for the JHSV, $189.2 million (a decrease of
    $183.1 million).
        Although AUSN was pleased to see funding increases between the
    fiscal year 2012 enacted level and the fiscal year 2013 budget request
    in some areas, AUSN was alarmed by some of the other drastic
    reductions, especially in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)
    funding levels, and its effects upon the capability of our Navy to
    forward project our forces and deter hostilities as required in the
    President's Strategic Guidance of January 2013.
       navy reserve national guard and reserve equipment account funding
        AUSN was pleased last year when the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels
    for National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) were in
    historic amounts of $1 billion, of which the Navy Reserve received $75
    million. Given the requirements set forth in the annual National Guard
    and Reserve Equipment Report (NGRER), AUSN would like to see the
    funding levels for the Navy Reserve increase to match their needs and
    priorities. With more than 6,000 mobilized or deployed Navy Reserve
    sailors, providing about one-half of the Navy's ground forces in the
    Central Command and in other critical roles worldwide, equipping the
    compatibility with the Active component (AC) is quite the challenge.
    Equipment in the Navy Reserve is experiencing a service life of more
    than 20 years for many platforms, adding sustainment and
    interoperability challenges in preparing Reserve units to train and
    deploy mission-ready in support of the Navy's total force.
        The Navy Reserve faces many equipping challenges. The first is
    aircraft procurement where Naval Aviation Plan 2031 provides a
    requirement to replace the aging and maintenance intensive aircraft
    that provide critical Reserve component (RC) capability enhancements.
    In particular, C-130s are a critical part of the Navy-unique fleet
    essential airlift mission between strategic airlift points and the
    carrier onboard delivery and vertical onboard delivery to the fleet. In
    addition are the C-40As, whereas they are continuously being procured,
    with 14 to date, with help from critical NGREA funding, however the C-
    40A is still below requirement levels. In addition, the Navy Reserve is
    facing shortfalls in expeditionary equipment funding and increased
    procurement in force protection, secure communications and a wide range
    of logistical equipment will increase the overall capabilities of units
    serving in contingency operations. Last, the RC Navy Special Warfare
    sea-air-land (SEAL) teams have been fully integrated with the AC since
    2008, making up one-third of the personnel mobilized in support of
    overseas contingency operations. The RC relies on the equipment of the
    AC and the shortfalls become a challenge when 97 percent of special
    warfare personnel are mobilized for current operations.
        As our Nation's overseas operations decrease, i.e. Iraq and
    Afghanistan, Active Duty for Training Funding (ADT) is resulting in
    increased utilization and driving an unfunded liability as high as $200
    million. With the challenges to equip a total force and the increased
    reliance on the RC in the past decade, AUSN believes that the Navy
    Reserve should continue to have its funding requirements met to the
    best of the subcommittee's ability.
                     pending legislation and appropriations
        AUSN was happy to see that the HAC-D markup included, for Navy
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, an appropriation of $15.2 billion to
    remain available for obligation until September 30, 2017 (an increase
    of 1.7 billion from the fiscal year 2013 budget request). Highlights of
    this appropriation include for:
      --Carrier Replacement Program: $578.3 million;
      --Virginia-class submarine: $3.2 billion;
      --Virginia-class submarine--Advance Procurement (AP): $1.6 billion
            (increase of $723 million for the subcommittee's return of the
            fiscal year 2014 Virginia-class submarine, from the President's
            fiscal year 2013 budget request of $874.9 million);
      --DDG-1000 Program: $699.2 million;
      --DDG-51 destroyer: $4 billion (increase $1 billion from President's
            fiscal year 2013 budget request of $3 billion due to
            subcommittee adding one additional DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class
            destroyer);
      --DDG-51 Destroyer--Advance Procurement (AP): $466.3 million;
      --LCS: $1.8 billion; and
      --JHSV: $189.2 million.
        In addition, AUSN was pleased to see that the NGREA amount was to
    include $2 billion; a $1 billion increase in last year's enacted level.
    We look forward to seeing the Senate Appropriations Committee consider
    these funding levels in the Senate's fiscal year 2013 DOD
    appropriations bill.
                                   conclusion
        The Association of the United States Navy understands that there
    are difficult decisions ahead in regards to this year's fiscal year
    2013 budget and how the Senate Appropriations Committee considers
    adequately funding our military, while adhering to the Budget Control
    Act. Amongst our Legislative Objectives/Priorities for fiscal year 2013
    is the looming concern of the effects of an automatic sequestration
    trigger upon DOD. AUSN was pleased that the Office of Management and
    Budget ruled in favor of exempting the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
    However, with our military community relying on TRICARE and DHP, as
    well as the President's strategic guidance shifting focus to a volatile
    Asia/Pacific region, cuts to DOD need to be carefully looked at and
    decisions need to be made based on strategy, rather than budget. On
    March 15, 2012, in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the
    fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Secretary of the Navy highlighted
    how the goal is to have a Navy of more than 300 ships by no later than
    2019. In the same hearing, Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, the Chief of
    Naval Operations, testified that ``In my view, if sequestration kicks
    in . . . I'm looking at not 285 ships in a given year. I'm looking at
    230. We don't have enough force structure to accrue that kind of
    savings without reducing procurement.'' However, this raises the
    concern that as budget cuts progress, with looming DOD sequestration,
    our fleet size could be drastically reduced, and consequently, so could
    our capabilities with forward force projection. AUSN urges this
    subcommittee to look at all proposals to ensure that vital DOD programs
    and platforms, for our military personnel and our strategic
    capabilities, aren't subject to further debilitating cuts and
    sequestration. In addition, we encourage members of the subcommittee to
    look at our Web site which contains detailed analyses of past and
    current DOD appropriations measures as the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committee's markup and consider the fiscal year 2013 DOD
    appropriations bills. (http://www.ausn.org/Advocacy/AppropriationBills/
    Defense/tabid/2758/Default.aspx)
        Thank you.

        Chairman Inouye. As you can imagine, Admiral, this
    subcommittee has that assignment of preventing sequestration,
    and we will do our absolute best. I can assure you that.
        Admiral Coane. Thank you, Sir. It's absolutely essential
    that we do.
        Chairman Inouye. Now may I call upon Dr. Andrew Pollak.
    STATEMENT OF ANDREW N. POLLAK, M.D., TREASURER,
                AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHOPAEDIC
                SURGEONS
        Dr. Pollak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I'm
    Dr. Andy Pollak, treasurer of the American Association of
    Orthopaedic Surgeons (AOS) and immediate past president of the
    Orthopaedic Trauma Association. I'm also chief of orthopaedic
    traumatology at the University of Maryland's R. Adams Cowley
    Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore.
        On behalf of the AOS and my orthopaedic colleagues across
    the country, thank you for inviting us to testify before you
    today on the Peer-Reviewed Orthopaedic Research Program
    (PRORP).
        The events of September 11, 2001, catalyzed the global war
    on terror, a war that's resulted in thousands of wounded
    warriors, most of whom wind up with an extremity injury, an
    injured arm or leg. Between Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi
    Freedom, and New Dawn, more than 47,000 service men and women
    have been injured, and of those more than 80 percent have
    suffered a limb injury.
        The issue of treating the sheer volume of injuries has been
    compounded with the newness of the injuries. Improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) have overwhelmed our military medical
    providers with new injuries and scant data on how to best treat
    them, initially forcing our military surgeons to amputate limbs
    at an alarming rate.
        The PRORP and the Orthopaedic Extremity Trauma Research
    Program (OETRP) were both created as a result of the Congress's
    action, specifically this subcommittee's leadership in
    recognizing the need for more research to save limbs and limit
    disability in our wounded warriors. PRORP is funded through
    DOD's health program and was established to quickly develop
    focused basic and clinical research through direct grants to
    research institutions across the country. The goal is to help
    military surgeons address the leading burden of injury and loss
    of fitness for military duty by finding new limb-sparing
    techniques to save extremities, avoid amputations, and preserve
    and restore the function of injured limbs.
        PRORP aims to provide all warriors affected by extremity
    war injuries the opportunity for optimal recovery and
    restoration of function. One of the greatest successes of OET
    and PRORP has been the establishment of the Major Extremity
    Trauma Research Consortium (METRC). METRC works to produce the
    evidence needed to establish treatment guidelines for the
    optimal care of the wounded warrior and ultimately improve the
    clinical, functional, and quality of life outcomes of both
    servicemembers and civilians who sustain high-energy trauma to
    the extremities. This research is presently being coordinated
    at 54 military and civilian sites throughout the country,
    making it a true military-civilian partnership to help our
    wounded warriors while learning more about relevant comparable
    civilian injuries as well.
        One important recently published advance attributable
    directly to OET and PRORP has been the research on heterotopic
    ossification (HO). HO comes in two main forms, one that appears
    in children and is congenital and another that strikes wounded
    military personnel and surgery patients and is triggered by
    severe injuries and wounds such as amputation.
        With HO, the bone grows in abnormal locations and can press
    against nerves and blood vessels, resulting in severe pain,
    limited motion, problems fitting prosthetic limbs, and skin
    breakdown. Nearly 65 percent of wounded warriors with extremity
    injuries suffer HO, a problem we understood little about prior
    to this program.
        Through a grant from OETRP, researchers at Children's
    Hospital of Philadelphia have shown that a drug that interrupts
    a specific signaling pathway can prevent HO. The potential
    benefit to our wounded warriors is astronomical and that
    represents an advance that would not have been possible absent
    this program.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We're under no illusion that this kind of research is
    cheap. We further understand that we're in an era of
    unprecedented budget austerity. But the cost of not doing this
    research is exponentially higher. An amputation costs three
    times more than limb salvage in future medical care and
    significantly more than that after accounting for increased
    disability payments and the need to replace trained
    servicemembers with new recruits.
        Furthermore, while we need to get our fiscal house in
    order, it can't be done on the backs of our men and women in
    uniform. If we put them in harm's way, we have a solemn duty to
    give them the best possible medical care, backed by the best
    possible science. The Peer-Reviewed Orthopaedic Research
    Program helps accomplish just that.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Andrew N. Pollak, M.D.
                                  introduction
        Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Dr. Andrew N. Pollak,
    treasurer of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS),
    and immediate past president of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association. I
    am also the chief of orthopaedic traumatology at the University of
    Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. On behalf of the AAOS and my
    orthopaedic surgeon colleagues across the country, thank you for
    inviting our organization to testify before you today on the Peer-
    Reviewed Orthopaedic Research Program (PRORP) as part of the fiscal
    year 2013 budget.
                                    overview
        The events of September 11, 2001, served as a catalyst for the
    global war on terror. This war has resulted in thousands of wounded
    warriors, most of whom wind up with an extremity injury. Between
    Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn, more than
    47,000 service men and women have been injured.\1\ Of the injured, more
    than 80 percent have suffered a limb injury.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Wounded Warrior Project. http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/
    mission/who-we-serve.aspx.
        \2\ United States Army Institute of Surgical Research. http://
    www.usaisr.amedd.army.mil/
    extremity_trauma_research_regenerative_medicine.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The issue of treating the sheer volume of injuries has been
    compounded with the newness of the injuries. Our men and women in
    uniform are facing a new type of weapon that causes a new type of
    injury: improvised explosive devices. Overwhelmed with new injuries and
    scant data on how best to treat them, our military surgeons were
    amputating extremities at an alarming rate.
        PRORP and the Orthopaedic Extremity Trauma Research Program (OETRP)
    were both created as a result of the Congress's action, specifically
    this subcommittee's leadership in recognizing the need for more
    research to save limbs and limit disability in our wounded warriors.
    PRORP is funded through the Department of Defense Health Program, and
    was established to quickly develop focused basic and clinical research
    through direct grants to research institutions. The goal is to help
    military surgeons address the leading burden of injury and loss of
    fitness for military duty by finding new limb-sparing techniques to
    save extremities, avoid amputations, and preserve and restore the
    function of injured extremities. PRORP aims to provide all warriors
    affected by extremity war injuries the opportunity for optimal recovery
    and restoration of function.
                              benefits of research
        One of the greatest successes of OETRP and PRORP has been the
    establishment of the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium
    (METRC). METRC works to produce the evidence needed to establish
    treatment guidelines for the optimal care of the wounded warrior and
    ultimately improve the clinical, functional, and quality-of-life
    outcomes of both servicemembers and civilians who sustain high-energy
    trauma to the extremities. This research is being coordinated at 54
    military and civilian sites throughout the country making it a true
    military civilian partnership to help our wounded warriors while
    learning more about relevant comparable civilian injuries.
        One important recently published advance attributable directly to
    OETRP and PRORP has been the research on heterotopic ossification (HO).
    HO comes in two main forms--one that appears in children and is
    congenital, another that strikes wounded military personnel and surgery
    patients and is triggered by severe injuries and wounds such as
    amputation. With HO, the bone grows in abnormal locations and can press
    against nerves and blood vessels, resulting in severe pain, limited
    motion, problems fitting prosthetic limbs, and skin breakdown. It is so
    prevalent after high-energy trauma that nearly 65 percent of wounded
    warriors with extremity injuries suffer HO.\3\ Through a grant from the
    OETRP program, researchers at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
    have shown that a drug that interrupts a signaling-nuclear protein
    pathway can prevent HO. The potential benefit to our wounded warriors
    is astronomical.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/
    110403141331.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      cost
        We are under no illusion that this kind of research is cheap, we
    further understand that we are in an era of unprecedented budget
    austerity. But the cost of not doing the research is exponentially
    higher. An amputation costs three times more than limb salvage in
    future medical care and significantly more than that after accounting
    for increased disability payments and the increased need to replace
    trained servicemembers with new recruits. Indeed, 65 percent of all
    combat related medical care resources go to treating extremity
    injuries, and almost 70 percent of wounded warriors who suffer an
    unfitting condition are unfit to return to duty because of an extremity
    injury.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Masini BD, Waterman SM, Wenke JC et al. Resource utilization
    and disability outcome assessment of combat casualties from Operation
    Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. J Orthop Trauma. 2009. 23
    (4): 261-266.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, while we need to get our fiscal house in order, it
    cannot be done on the backs of the men and women in uniform. If we put
    them in harm's way, we have a solemn duty to give them the best
    possible medical care backed by the best possible science. The Peer-
    Reviewed Orthopaedic Research Program helps accomplish just that.
                                    closing
        On behalf of the AAOS, I would like to thank the Chairman, the
    Ranking Member, and the entire subcommittee for your interest in and
    attention to this important issue facing America's military, and the
    surgeons who treat them. We look forward to continuing to work with you
    on this matter.

        Chairman Inouye. Dr. Pollak, did I hear you say that there
    were 47,000 injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of that number
    80 percent had limb injuries?
        Dr. Pollak. Yes, Sir. Yes, the most common injury
    sustained. Many of them sustain multiple injuries to multiple
    parts of their body. But the limbs are disproportionately
    exposed, as the chest and abdomen are protected with body armor
    and the head's protected with a helmet.
        Chairman Inouye. Do we have enough orthopaedic surgeons?
        Dr. Pollak. That's a separate question, Sir. I don't
    believe we do at this point. Our orthopaedic surgeons at Walter
    Reed and at our military facilities throughout the country
    right now are terribly taxed with the number of wounded
    warriors returning.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Sir.
        Dr. Pollak. Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. May I now call on Mr. Mark Haubner and Ms.
    Erin O'Rourke.
    STATEMENT OF MARK HAUBNER, ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION
        Mr. Haubner. Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee: It's an honor to
    have the opportunity to speak with you, especially today, June
    6, regarding the importance of funding arthritis research to
    benefit the health of our men and women in uniform, our
    military veterans, and our Nation.
        We would first like to thank the Arthritis Foundation's
    2012 Advocacy Leadership Award recipient, Senator Murkowski,
    for being a champion for the cause of arthritis research in the
    past.
        My name is Mark Haubner, from Aquebogue, New York, and with
    me in the audience today is Erin O'Rourke from Lake Ronkonkoma,
    New York. We are here today as Arthritis Foundation advocacy
    ambassadors and as concerned citizens representing 50 million
    Americans with arthritis, the number one cause of disability in
    the United States. We hope that our comments today give voice
    to this very important request in support of peer-reviewed
    competitively awarded arthritis research funded by the DOD.
        I would like to tell you how arthritis has affected our
    lives and the relevance to our military personnel. I broke my
    leg while skiing at the age of 14, underwent many operations as
    a result, and suffered my first total joint replacement at 44,
    which forced me into retirement. I'm having my fifth total
    joint replacement next month, 1 of 1 million joint replacements
    being done in the United States every year now.
        Research now shows that the rampant presence of
    osteoarthritis in all of my joints is a result of a post-
    traumatic trigger event suffered 30 years before. My colleague
    Erin O'Rourke, who began suffering from severe pain in her
    hands and fingers at the age of 34, was diagnosed with
    rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a debilitating autoimmune disease
    that causes unrelenting and destructive inflammation in the
    joints. The medications she is taking treat, but do not cure,
    arthritis. Due to RA, Erin has twice the risk of developing
    heart disease and diabetes, which will likely lead to a
    shortened life by almost a decade.
        Studies show that our Nation's servicemembers are 32
    percent more likely to develop osteoarthritis than the general
    population, and the damage is presenting itself within a few
    years of active duty. This is already becoming a great burden
    on the long-term healthcare provided by the Department of
    Veterans Affairs and can only increase with time.
        One-third of our combat personnel what are medevaced out of
    the field are suffering from a musculoskeletal injury, and
    these injuries represent one of the leading causes of
    disability and medical discharge for active servicemembers
    under the age of 40. Research is needed for arthritis because
    the military is facing skyrocketing numbers of Active Duty and
    retired personnel fighting the high costs of pain and
    disability associated with arthritis, part of a total of $128
    billion per year in this country.
        Another area of research concerns the inflammation that
    occurs with RA. Further investigation of these inflammatory
    characteristics will help us to understand and improve the
    healing times and skin graft outcomes in wound care.
        Thank you all for recognizing the need over the last 3
    years to include post-traumatic osteoarthritis and last year
    arthritis, which includes both osteo and RA, in the DOD budget
    for Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP).
    We deeply appreciate the peer-reviewed research funding awards
    of almost $5 million from DOD appropriations over the last 2
    years.
        In conclusion, we ask for your consideration and support of
    the following: to continue to include the topics of post-
    traumatic osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the fiscal
    year 2013 DOD appropriations bill for the peer-reviewed medical
    research program, CDMRP, under the account of Defense Health
    Programs, research and development. Maintaining arthritis
    research in the fiscal year 2013 DOD appropriations bill will
    aid Armed Forces personnel in active service, military
    veterans, and millions of Americans.
        I thank you very much for your time and consideration.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Chairman Inouye. Did I hear you say that 30 percent of the
    troops were evacuated because of skeletal injury?
        Mr. Haubner. Sorry, Sir. It's 32 percent of the military
    population that's indicating osteoarthritis and one-third of
    the military population medevaced out, is suffering from a
    musculoskeletal injury, that's correct.
        Chairman Inouye. Can that be traced to the load they have
    to carry?
        Mr. Haubner. Much is indicated by both Navy and Army
    studies that have been done in the past 5 or 10 years. They're
    carrying 100-pound packs, 120-pound packs, through the field,
    broken field running. It's making an immediate impact on their
    health.
        Chairman Inouye. World War II was easy. My pack was about
    20 pounds.
        Mr. Haubner. And the rifle was probably 18 more.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of the Arthritis Foundation

        Nearly 6.5 million Americans have wounds that take months
    or even years to heal. Many of these wounds are a consequence
    of diabetes, which damages blood vessels and interferes with
    normal skin repair. But new research from Georgetown University
    Medical Center in Washington, DC, points to another cause:
    autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and
    lupus.
        The research was presented earlier this month at the
    American College of Rheumatology's annual conference, in
    Chicago, by rheumatologist and lead author Victoria Shanmugam,
    M.D. It has been accepted for publication in the International
    Wound Journal.
        Dr. Shanmugam had noticed an unusual number of nonhealing
    wounds--mostly leg ulcers--in people with autoimmune disorders.
    ``What I saw clinically was that people who had autoimmune
    disease did not respond as well to the usual wound care
    treatments. I wanted to try to understand the reason for this
    by comparing healing times and [skin] graft outcomes,'' she
    says.
        Treatment for nonhealing wounds depends on the wound, but
    might include special dressings, hyperbaric oxygen, growth
    factors, bioengineered skin substitutes and skin grafts. If
    treatment doesn't work, the patient faces amputation.
        Dr. Shanmugam and her colleagues reviewed the charts of 340
    patients who sought care at Georgetown's Center for Wound
    Healing and Hyperbaric Medicine during a 3-month period in
    2009. Only those with open wounds that hadn't healed after at
    least 3 months of normal therapy were included.
        Forty-nine percent of these patients had diabetes (both
    type 1, which is itself an autoimmune condition, or type 2).
    This isn't unusual--diabetes accounts for about one-half of all
    chronic wounds. Others had vascular or arterial diseases that
    typically cause poor wound healing. What surprised Dr.
    Shanmugam was that 23 percent had autoimmune disorders--a far
    greater rate than had been expected or previously reported. The
    most prevalent autoimmune diseases were RA (28 percent), lupus
    (14 percent), and livedoid vasculopathy, a vascular disease
    that causes ulcers on the lower legs (also 14 percent).
        Dr. Shanmugam then looked at how the people with underlying
    autoimmune disease responded to therapy. ``These patients had
    larger wounds at the first visit, had higher pain scores and
    took significantly longer to heal--14-and-a-half months
    compared to just over 10 months for other patients'', she
    explains. ``Clearly, there is something in the autoimmune
    milieu that is inhibiting wound healing,'' says Dr. Shanmugam.
        The next step is a 3-year study funded by the National
    Institutes of Health. Under way since May, the study will
    monitor autoimmune-related wounds over time. ``We are hoping to
    get some understanding of what happens on the cellular and
    molecular level in people who don't heal well,'' Dr. Shanmugam
    says.
        One theory is that diabetes and autoimmune disorders cause
    wounds to become stalled in the inflammatory stage of repair,
    when the body normally develops new blood vessels. Why this
    occurs and what happens at the level of the wound itself are
    questions she hopes to answer.
        She also will explore whether treating underlying
    autoimmune diseases such as RA improves wound healing. ``There
    is concern about using potent immune suppressants in people
    with open wounds,'' she says, noting that immunosuppressive
    drugs are known to interfere with wound healing after surgery.
    ``But in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients, we found
    that aggressive treatment before skin graft surgery resulted in
    better outcomes.''
        Eric Matteson, M.D., chairman of rheumatology at Mayo
    Clinic in Rochester, Minneapolis, agrees with the approach.
    ``People with rheumatoid arthritis develop wounds for many
    reasons. One is that they may have low-grade vasculitis--
    inflammation affecting the small blood vessels in the skin.
    When the wound is related to the underlying systemic
    inflammation of rheumatoid arthritis, not having that
    inflammation under control makes it much more difficult to
    achieve good wound healing.''
        He says that successful wound care requires cooperation and
    vigilance. ``Perhaps the biggest message here is that treating
    people with autoimmune-related wounds really calls for a team
    approach among the rheumatologist, wound-care specialist and
    surgeon'', says Dr. Matteson. ``What you often see,
    unfortunately, is a primary care doctor who can't properly
    manage the wound because of the complexity of the underlying
    disorder.''
        Dr. Shanmugam believes her findings will affect patient
    care in the future. ``Understanding how people respond to wound
    care on a molecular level can help guide therapy and may reduce
    the risk of infections, which can lead to surgery and even
    amputation,'' she says.
        As important, she hopes her research will alert other
    physicians to this under-recognized problem. ``When a patient
    has a leg ulcer that hasn't healed after 3 or 4 months of
    normal treatment, I hope doctors will check for autoimmune
    disease,'' says Dr. Shanmugam.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
        Mr. Haubner. Thank you, Sir.
        Chairman Inouye. And now may I call upon Dr. Remington
    Nevin.
    STATEMENT OF REMINGTON NEVIN, M.D., MEFLOQUINE RESEARCH
        Dr. Nevin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Dr. Remington Nevin. I am a board-
    certified preventive medicine physician, epidemiologist, and
    medical researcher. I'm a graduate of the Uniformed Services
    University School of Medicine, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
    School of Public Health, and the residency program in
    preventive medicine at the Walter Reed Army Institute of
    Research, where I was awarded the Distinguished George M.
    Sternberg Medal. I have published extensively in medical and
    scientific journals and my research has informed and broadly
    influenced military public health policy over the past 7 years.
        I'm here today to testify on an important issue which I
    fear may become the Agent Orange of our generation, a toxic
    legacy that affects our troops and our veterans. This is a
    critical issue that is in desperate need of research funding.
    I'm referring to the harmful effects of the antimalarial drug
    mefloquine, also known as Lariam, which was first developed
    more than 40 years ago by the Walter Reed Army Institute of
    Research.
        Mefloquine causes a severe intoxication syndrome
    characterized by vivid nightmares, profound anxiety,
    aggression, delusional paranoia, dissociative psychosis, and
    severe memory loss. Experience has shown that this syndrome,
    even if rare, can have tragic consequences both on the
    battlefield and on the home front.
        My recent research has helped us understand this syndrome
    as a toxic encephalopathy that affects the limbic portion of
    the brain. With this insight, we now understand the drug's
    strong links to suicide and to acts of seemingly senseless and
    impulsive violence. Yet new research suggests that even mild
    mefloquine intoxication may also lead to neurotoxic brain
    injury associated with a range of chronic and debilitating
    psychiatric and neurologic symptoms.
        It is unknown how many of the hundreds of thousands of
    troops previously exposed to mefloquine may be suffering from
    the devastating effects of this neurotoxicity. However, I can
    tell you that I am contacted nearly every day by military
    patients and veterans from the United States and from around
    the world seeking diagnosis and care for their symptoms. Their
    compelling and often heart-wrenching stories can be found
    regularly in media reports worldwide. Invariably, these
    patients are frustrated by lack of resources and information
    specific to their condition.
        A recent publication by the Centers for Disease Control
    suggests that the side effects of mefloquine may even confound
    the diagnosis and management of post-traumatic stress disorder
    and traumatic brain injury.
        Given our research commitments to post-traumatic stress and
    traumatic brain injury, the first two signature injuries of
    modern war, this observation calls for a similarly robust
    research agenda into mefloquine neurotoxic brain injury to
    ensure that patients with either of these conditions are
    receiving accurate diagnosis and the very best medical care.
    Some concrete actions for facilitating this research include
    expanding the scope and mission of the defense centers of
    excellence and the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, to
    include the evaluation and care of patients suffering from the
    effects of mefloquine, and funding a dedicated mefloquine
    research center at a civilian medical school or school of
    public health to attract the very best minds to this problem
    and to coordinate broad investigations into the
    pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical diagnosis, and
    treatment of mefloquine intoxication and neurotoxic brain
    injury.
        A commitment to this research roughly commensurate with our
    initial investment in mefloquine's development will allow us to
    mitigate the effects of the toxic legacy it has left behind. If
    this issue is left unaddressed, mefloquine could become our
    next Agent Orange, but it does not have to. With action,
    mefloquine neurotoxic brain injury could join post-traumatic
    stress and traumatic brain injury as the third recognized
    signature injury of modern war and as a result receive the same
    level of commitment shown for these first two conditions.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I would again like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members
    of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you
    and bring this issue to your attention. I should emphasize in
    closing that the opinions I express today are my own and do not
    necessarily reflect those of the United States Army.
        This concludes my prepared statement and I am happy to
    answer any questions that you may have.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Remington Nevin, M.D., MPH
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name
    is Dr. Remington Nevin. I am a board-certified preventive medicine
    physician, epidemiologist, and medical researcher. I am a graduate of
    the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine; the Johns Hopkins
    Bloomberg School of Public Health; and the residency program in
    preventive medicine at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,
    where I was awarded the distinguished George M. Sternberg Medal. I have
    published extensively in medical and scientific journals, and my
    research has informed and broadly influenced military public health
    policy for the past 7 years.
        I am here today to testify on an important issue which I fear may
    become the ``Agent Orange'' of our generation: a toxic legacy that
    affects our troops, and our veterans. This is a critical issue that is
    in desperate need of research funding.
        I am referring to the harmful effects of the antimalarial drug
    mefloquine, also known as Lariam, which was first developed more than
    40 years ago by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
        Mefloquine causes a severe intoxication syndrome, characterized by
    vivid nightmares, profound anxiety, aggression, delusional paranoia,
    dissociative psychosis, and severe memory loss. Experience has shown
    that this syndrome, even if rare, can have tragic consequences, both on
    the battlefield, and on the home front.
        My recent research has helped us understand this syndrome as a
    toxic encephalopathy that affects the limbic portion of the brain. With
    this insight, we now understand the drug's strong links to suicide, and
    to acts of seemingly senseless and impulsive violence. Yet new research
    suggests that even mild mefloquine intoxication may also lead to
    neurotoxic brain injury associated with a range of chronic and
    debilitating psychiatric and neurologic symptoms.
        It is unknown how many of the hundreds of thousands of troops
    previously exposed to mefloquine may be suffering from the devastating
    effects of this neurotoxicity. I am contacted nearly every day by
    military patients and veterans, from the United States, and from around
    the world, seeking diagnosis and care for their symptoms. Their
    compelling and often heart-wrenching stories can be found regularly in
    media reports worldwide. Invariably, these patients are frustrated by a
    lack of resources and information specific to their condition.
        A recent publication by the Centers for Disease Control suggests
    that the side effects of mefloquine may even confound the diagnosis and
    management of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain
    injury (TBI).
        Given our commitment to post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain
    injury, the first two signature injuries of modern war, this
    observation calls for a similarly robust research agenda into
    mefloquine neurotoxic brain injury, to ensure that patients with these
    conditions are receiving accurate diagnosis and the very best medical
    care.
        Some concrete actions for facilitating this research include:
      --Expanding the scope and mission of the Defense Centers of
            Excellence and the National Intrepid Center of Excellence to
            include the evaluation and care of patients suffering side
            effects from mefloquine; and
      --Funding a dedicated mefloquine research center at a civilian
            medical school or school of public health, to attract the very
            best minds to this problem, and to coordinate broad
            investigations into the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical
            diagnosis, and treatment of mefloquine intoxication and
            neurotoxic brain injury.
        A commitment to this research, roughly commensurate with our
    initial investment in mefloquine's development, will allow us to
    mitigate the effects of the toxic legacy it has left behind. If this
    issue is left unaddressed, mefloquine could become our next ``Agent
    Orange'', but it does not have to. With appropriate action, mefloquine
    neurotoxic brain injury could join PTSD and TBI as the third recognized
    signature injury of modern war, and as a result, receive the same level
    of commitment and care shown for these first two conditions.
        In conclusion, I would again like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and
    members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you
    and bring this issue to your attention. This concludes my prepared
    statement and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Doctor. I have a
    question here submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein and it
    says: Do you believe the mefloquine research you're working on
    could develop treatments to reverse intoxication and brain
    injury?
        Dr. Nevin. Mr. Chairman, despite the permanent nature of
    the neurotoxicity produced by mefloquine, I believe that there
    may be effective treatments available right now, provided that
    the diagnosis of mefloquine neurotoxicity is made. I have
    personally treated a number of patients whose conditions have
    proven fairly responsive to rehabilitation, including
    vestibular, physical, and neuro-optometric therapy. Speech
    therapy and cognitive rehabilitation therapy may also hold
    promise.
        However, obtaining access to such therapy requires that
    mefloquine neurotoxic brain injury be correctly diagnosed, such
    that patients receive appropriate specialist referrals. This
    cannot happen if these symptoms are poorly understood by
    healthcare providers or if they are mistaken for such things as
    malingering, personality disorder, conversion disorder, or
    factitious disorder, as they have been in the past.
        For this reason, simply raising awareness of this diagnosis
    may prove very helpful in facilitating early treatment.
        Now, regarding other therapies, such as potential drug
    treatments, evaluating these would require registered clinical
    trials, which typically have a time horizon of some years
    before they yield results to inform clinical practice. I am
    confident that such trials hold promise in identifying drug
    therapies that alleviate symptoms and improve patient outcomes,
    while not risking a further exacerbation of the condition.
        Chairman Inouye. Where does mefloquine come from?
        Dr. Nevin. Mr. Chairman, mefloquine is the end product of a
    multiyear drug development and discovery effort conducted by
    the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research beginning in the
    early 1960s. Of more than 300 compounds screened for their
    effectiveness and toxicity, mefloquine was one of a handful of
    compounds that passed this testing and later went on to
    commercial development by the F. Hoffman LaRoche Company.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, and I'd like to
    thank all of the witnesses who've testified this morning.
        Two organizations have submitted testimony. Without
    objection, the testimony of Cummins, Incorporated and Research
    Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will be made
    part of the record along with any other statements that the
    subcommittee may receive.
        On behalf of the subcommittee, I thank all the witnesses
    for their testimony, and the subcommittee will take these
    issues in consideration and I can assure you will look at it
    very seriously.
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Dr. Wayne A. Eckerle, Vice President, Research
                          and Technology, Cummins Inc.
        Cummins Inc., headquartered in Columbus, Indiana, is a corporation
    of complementary business units that design, manufacture, distribute
    and service engines and related technologies, including fuel systems,
    controls, air handling, filtration, emission solutions, and electrical
    power generation systems. The funding requests outlined below are
    critically important to Cummins' research and development efforts, and
    would also represent a sound Federal investment toward a cleaner
    environment and improved energy efficiency for our Nation. We request
    that the subcommittee fund the programs as identified below.
                             department of the army
    Army Procurement
        Other Procurement, Budget Activity 03, Other Support Equipment,
    Line No. 171, Generators, Line Item: 0426MA9800, Generators and
    Associated Equipment.--Support the administration's request of $60.3
    million in fiscal year 2013. $67.8 million was appropriated in fiscal
    year 2012. Specifically support the $16.7 million for M53500, Medium
    Generator Sets (5-60 kW) and $33.983 million for R62700 Power Units/
    Power Plants. Advanced Medium Mobile Power System (AMMPS) generators
    and AMMPS Power Units and Power Plants (trailer-mounted AMMPS generator
    sets) are the latest generation of Prime Power Generators for the
    Department of Defense (DOD) and will replace the obsolete Tactical
    Quiet Generators (TQGs) developed in the 1980s. AMMPS generator sets
    are 21 percent more fuel-efficient, 15 percent lighter, 35 percent
    quieter, and 40 percent more reliable than the TQG. Generators are the
    Army's biggest consumer of diesel fuel in current war theatres. When
    AMMPS generator sets are fully implemented, the Army and Marines will
    realize annual fuel savings of approximately 52 million gallons of JP-8
    fuel and more than $745 million in savings based on fuel costs and
    current use pattern. This will mean fewer fuel convoys to bases in
    active war zones resulting in saved lives of military and civilian
    drivers. AMMPS generators will result in annual carbon emissions
    reductions of 500,000 metric tons CO2 or 7.7 million metric
    tons over the expected life of the generators.
        Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Budget Activity 01, Tracked
    Combat Vehicles, Line No. 07, Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles,
    Line Item 2073GZ0410, Paladin Integrated Management Mod In Service,
    Paladin Integrated Management.--Support administration's request of
    $206.1 million in fiscal year 2013. $46.8 million was appropriated in
    fiscal year 2012 to begin low-rate initial production. The M109A6
    Paladin is the primary indirect fire weapons platform in the U.S.
    Army's Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) and is expected to be in the
    Army inventory through 2050. The PIM program will incorporate Bradley-
    based drive-train and suspension components which reduce logistics
    footprint and decrease operations and sustainment costs. PIM is vital
    to ensuring the long-term viability and sustainability of the M109
    family of vehicles (Paladin and FAASV). The program will significantly
    reduce the logistics burden placed on our soldiers, and proactively
    mitigate obsolescence. The system will feature improved mobility (by
    virtue of Bradley-based automotive systems) allowing the fleet to keep
    pace with the maneuver force. The system will improve overall soldier
    survivability through modifications to the hull to meet increased
    threats.
    Research and Development Test and Evaluation Programs
        Budget Activity 05, System Development and Demonstration, Line No.
    121, Program Element No. 0604854A: Artillery Systems, Paladin
    Integrated Management .--Support the administration's request of $167.8
    million in fiscal year 2013. $120.1 million was appropriated in fiscal
    year 2012. The M109A6 Paladin is the primary indirect fire weapons
    platform in the U.S. Army's HBCT and is expected to be in the Army
    inventory through 2050. This request is to further develop Paladin
    Integrated Management (PIM) vehicles and conclude testing. The PIM
    effort is a program to ensure the long-term viability and
    sustainability of the M109A6 Paladin and its companion ammunition
    resupply vehicle, the M992 FAASV. PIM is vital to ensuring the long-
    term viability and sustainability of the M109 family of vehicles
    (Paladin and FAASV). The program will significantly reduce the
    logistics burden placed on our soldiers and proactively mitigate
    obsolescence. The system will feature improved mobility (by virtue of
    Bradley-based automotive systems) allowing the fleet to keep pace with
    the maneuver force.
        Budget Activity 07, Operational Systems Development, Line No. 165,
    Program Element No. 0203735A: Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs.--
    Support the administration's request of $253.9 million in fiscal year
    2013. $36.2 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2012 to initiate
    the program. Specifically support $74.1 million for the Armored Multi-
    Purpose Vehicle (AMP-V) program. AMP-V is an Army program that replaces
    the M113 platforms, which cannot be optimized for future U.S. Army
    combat operations. The Army has identified a significant capability gap
    within the HBCT formation. The Bradley Family of Vehicles are the most
    capable and cost effective platform for replacement of the M113. Along
    with established production, the recapitalized Bradley vehicles bring
    combat- proven mobility, survivability, and adaptability to a variety
    of missions. The Army currently has approximately 1,900 Bradley hulls
    that could be inducted into the production process. This low cost, low
    risk, Military-off-the-Shelf (MOTS) to replace the M113 addresses the
    significant capability shortfalls within the HBCT formation. In
    addition, it is an efficient use of existing Government-owned assets
    and existing Public-Private Partnership arrangements to bridge the
    modernization gap. Recapitalizing existing Bradley chassis provides the
    most survivable, mobile and protected solution for our soldiers at a
    significant lower cost.
                          department of the air force
    Other Procurement
        Budget Activity 04, Other Base Maintenance and Support Equip, Item
    No. 62, Mobility Equip.--Support the administration's request of $23.8
    million ($14.4 million Base and $9.4 million OCO) in fiscal year 2013.
    $20.3 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2012. Specifically
    support $6.7 million ($4.6 million base and $2 million OCO) in fiscal
    year 2013 for the Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resource (BEAR). The
    BEAR product is an 800kW prime power mobile generator used by Combat
    Air Forces to power mobile airfields in-theatre and around the world.
    The finished product will replace the existing MEP unit that is 25
    years old and will offer greater fuel economy, increased fuel options
    (JP-8), improved noise reduction, and the latest innovative control
    technology and functionality. With the ever-increasing global reach of
    the U.S. military, the need for reliable mobile power is paramount.
    This program is currently funded for the design, development and
    preproduction of eight individual BEAR units. These units will undergo
    a battery of validation tests. Design and development of the BEAR
    product is on schedule. There is interest from other branches of the
    military for the BEAR product as well given the increased need for
    mobile electric power.
                             department of the navy
    Other Procurement, Marine Corps
        Budget Activity 06, Engineer and Other Equipment, Line No. 47, Line
    Item 6366, Power Equipment Assorted.--Support the administration's
    request of $76.5 million ($56.3 million Base and $20.2 million OCO) in
    fiscal year 2013. $27.2 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2012.
    Specifically support $26.5 million ($19.5 million Base and $7 million
    OCO) in fiscal year 2013 for AMMPS. AMMPS generators are the latest
    generation of Prime Power Generators for the DOD and will replace the
    obsolete Tactical Quiet Generators (TQGs) developed in the 1980s. AMMPS
    generator sets are 21 percent more fuel-efficient, 15 percent lighter,
    35-percent quieter and 40 percent more reliable than the TQG.
    Generators are the Army's biggest consumer of diesel fuel in current
    war theatres. When AMMPS generator sets are fully implemented, the Army
    and Marines will realize annual fuel savings of approximately 52
    million gallons of JP-8 fuel and more than $745 million in savings
    based on fuel costs and current use pattern. This will mean fewer fuel
    convoys to bases in active war zones resulting in saved lives of
    military and civilian drivers. AMMPS generators will result in annual
    carbon emissions reductions of 500,000 metric tons CO2 or
    7.7 million metric tons over the expected life of the generators.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of James Binns, Chairman of Research Advisory
                   Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses
        Dear Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran: The Gulf War
    Illness Research Program (GWIRP) of the Department of Defense (DOD)
    Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) has made
    remarkable progress during the past 2 years. As Chairman of the
    Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, created by
    Public Law 105-368, I deeply appreciate your support, which has made
    this progress possible.
        I also appreciate the hearing you held this week to consider
    appropriations to CDMRP programs for fiscal year 2013 and am pleased to
    submit this letter for the record, to review these recent developments.
        In its landmark 2010 report, the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
    recognized that the chronic multisymptom illness that affects 250,000
    gulf war veterans is a serious disease (not attributable to psychiatric
    illness) that also affects other U.S. military forces. It called for a
    ``renewed research effort with substantial commitment to well-organized
    efforts to better identify and treat multisymptom illness in Gulf War
    veterans.''
        The scientific community responded with a dramatic increase in the
    quality and quantity of proposals submitted to the GWIRP at CDMRP. Most
    importantly, last summer CDMRP-funded researchers from the University
    of California, San Diego, completed the first successful pilot study of
    a medication to treat one of the major symptoms of gulf war illness. It
    is not a cure, and the study needs be replicated in a full-clinical
    trial, but the result is extremely encouraging. As the IOM committee
    chair, Dr. Stephen Hauser, chairman of Neurology at the University of
    California, San Francisco, and former president of the American
    Neurology Association, emphasized in his preface to the IOM report,
    ``we believe that, through a concerted national effort and rigorous
    scientific input, answers can likely be found.''
        The GWIRP is the only national program addressing this problem. It
    is a peer-reviewed program open to any doctor or scientist on a
    competitive basis. By contrast, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    research programs are only open to VA doctors, few of whom have
    expertise in chronic multisymptom illness. To effectively address a new
    and difficult problem like this, it is necessary to enlist the entire
    medical scientific community. Because VA has not been able to find
    enough qualified researchers, it has reduced funding for gulf war
    illness research in its fiscal year 2013 budget from $15 million to
    $4.9 million. In contrast, the DOD CDMRP program is attracting a
    surplus of excellent investigators. It is critical to shift resources
    accordingly to the DOD program, so that the overall Federal research
    effort is not reduced just at the time it is producing results and the
    Institute of Medicine is pointing the way. The VA budget data is at
    http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2013_Volume_II-
    Medical_Programs_Information_Technology.pdf on page 3A-5.
        As stated by Dr. Hauser, in his attached letters to you, this
    subject is ``vital to the health and effectiveness of current and
    future military forces, in addition to Gulf War veterans.'' Recognizing
    this importance, last summer the House of Representatives in a
    bipartisan roll-call vote increased funding for the program to $10
    million in the 2012 DOD appropriations bill, and this figure was
    adopted by the Senate-House conference committee.
        The Research Advisory Committee has recommended funding this
    program at the $40 million level. It is recognized that in fiscal year
    2013 such an increase may not be possible. However, this effective
    program demonstrably merits increased investment, even in a time of
    fiscal austerity. Dr. Hauser has recommended $25 million. An
    appropriation of $20 million would hold Federal gulf war illness
    research level from last year, taking into account the $10 million VA
    reduction.
        These funds would be productively spent to capitalize on the
    progress that has already been made. Specifically, there are quality
    projects in the pipeline that substantially exceed $25 million. These
    include highly ranked treatment pilot studies not able to be funded in
    previous years due to financial constraints (approximately $20
    million), a followup clinical trial of the treatment shown effective in
    the completed pilot study (approximately $8 million), and three joint
    ``consortium'' treatment research programs developed with earlier
    planning grants by teams of researchers at different institutions
    (approximately $24 million, of which only $4 million has been funded).
        At long last, the scientific community has recognized the severity
    and scope of this problem and is engaged in its solution. The Congress
    has created this superb program, which is succeeding where others have
    failed. Please enable these scientists to continue their work.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Chairman Inouye. This subcommittee will take these issues
    into consideration, I can assure you, as we develop the fiscal
    year 2013 defense appropriations bill.
        This subcommittee will reconvene on Wednesday, June 13, at
    which time we'll meet to receive testimony from the Secretary
    of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the
    fiscal year 2013 budget request for DOD.
        We stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., Wednesday, June 6, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, June 13.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012

                                           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, Harkin, Durbin, Feinstein,
    Mikulski, Kohl, Murray, Reed, Cochran, Hutchison, Collins,
    Murkowski, Graham, and Coats.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                       Office of the Secretary of Defense

    STATEMENT OF HON. LEON E. PANETTA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
    ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ROBERT F. HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
                COMPTROLLER

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Chairman Inouye. This morning, I would like to welcome the
    Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, and General
    Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
    testify on the administration's budget request for fiscal year
    2013.
        Gentlemen, you assumed these positions during a very
    challenging moment in history. Our economy, our country is
    facing a budget deficit, and you have been tasked with
    significantly reducing the Department of Defense's (DOD) budget
    plans in an effort to cut down spending.
        These budget reductions come at an occasion when we are
    fighting a war in Afghanistan and the counterterrorism threat
    worldwide. At the same time, the world is changing rapidly, and
    DOD is being called upon to respond to threats ranging from
    cyberspace, weapons proliferation, rising powers, and
    instability in key regions, such as we have witnessed with the
    Arab Spring.
        DOD's fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $604.5 billion
    that this subcommittee oversees. This is a decrease of $28.8
    billion over last year's enacted budget, mainly due to the
    drawdown of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
        However, over the next decade, the Budget Control Act of
    2011 (BCA) sets limits for DOD, which is $487 billion less than
    what the Department had planned to spend.
        In order to meet the new fiscal realities, you have
    produced a defense strategy to help guide these budget
    reductions. This strategy moves from having a capability to
    fight two major theater wars, to instead defeating a major
    adversary in one theater while denying aggression or applying
    unacceptable costs on another aggressor.
        In addition, it shifts the military's focus to increase
    emphasis on the Pacific and Middle East regions. Furthermore,
    it commits the Department to institutionalize capabilities to
    deal with what were once considered nontraditional or
    asymmetric threats, such as increasing counterterrorism
    capacity, enhancing cyber operations, and countering antiaccess
    threats.
        Most importantly, the strategy reaffirms the
    administration's support of the All-Volunteer Force and
    maintaining the readiness of this force as a vital component of
    our national security. The defense strategy does not, however,
    take into consideration another component of the Budget Control
    Act known as ``sequestration''.
        As you know, beginning on January 2, 2013, if a deficit
    reduction agreement is not reached, DOD will take its first
    increment of an across-the-board reduction of nearly $500
    billion over the next 10 years.
        Gentlemen, I look forward to having a candid dialogue this
    morning on this issue, as well as others I have highlighted.
        We sincerely appreciate your service to our Nation, and the
    dedication and sacrifices made daily by the men and women of
    our armed services.
        We could not be more grateful for what those who wear our
    Nation's uniform and those who support and lead our military do
    for our country each and every day.
        Mr. Secretary, General, your full statements will be made
    part of the record, and I wish to now turn to the Vice
    Chairman, Senator Cochran, for his opening remarks.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join you in
    welcoming our distinguished panel of witnesses this morning to
    review the President's budget request for the Department of
    Defense, and to give us an overview of the needs and challenges
    facing our national security interests.
        We thank you very much for your willingness to serve in
    these important positions. They really are complex and couldn't
    be more important.
        We appreciate the dedication and the years of experience
    that you bring to the challenge as well, and we expect to have
    an opportunity today to find out some of the specific details
    that need to be brought to the attention of the Senate.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much. May I now call upon
    the Secretary.

                   SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LEON E. PANETTA

        Secretary Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator
    Cochran, and members of the subcommittee.
        It is a distinct privilege and honor to have the
    opportunity to appear before this subcommittee of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee.
        First and foremost, let me express my personal thanks to
    all of you for the support that you provide our men and women
    in uniform and the Department.
        I've had the honor of working with many of you in other
    capacities, and I just want to thank you for your patriotism in
    providing very important public service to this country, but
    from my point-of-view right now, providing the support that we
    absolutely need at the Department of Defense in order to keep
    this country safe.

                                 DEFENSE BUDGET

        I'm here to discuss the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2013. I also want to comment as well on the
    problems associated with sequestration that faces us in January
    2013, and mention also some of the budgetary challenges that we
    still face in fiscal year 2012 as a result of fuel costs and
    other contingencies that we're facing.
        With regards to the fiscal year 2013 budget request, this
    was a product of a very intensive strategy review that was
    conducted by senior military and civilian leaders of the
    Department under the advice and guidance of the President.
        The reasons for the review are clear to all of us. First
    and foremost, we are at a strategic turning point after 10
    years of war, and obviously, a period when there was
    substantial growth in the defense budgets.
        Second, we are now a country that is facing very serious
    debt and deficit problems. And the Congress did pass the Budget
    Control Act of 2011 which imposes spending limits that reduce
    the defense base budget by $487 billion over the next decade.
        And I've always recognized, based on my own background,
    having worked on budget issues, that defense does have a role
    to play in trying to get our fiscal house in order.
        For that reason, we looked at this as an opportunity to
    develop a new defense strategy for the future, not to simply
    have to respond to the budget requirements that were here, but
    to do it in a way that would provide a strong defense for the
    country in the future.
        The defense strategy that we developed does reflect the
    fact that as we end the war in Iraq and draw down in
    Afghanistan, we are at a turning point that would have required
    us, frankly, to make a strategic shift, probably under any
    circumstances.
        The problem is that unlike past drawdowns, where the
    threats that we confronted receded, after wars, after the
    Vietnam war, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the problem is
    we continue to face very serious security challenges in the
    world of today.
        We are still at war in Afghanistan. We still confront
    terrorism even though there's been significant damage to the
    leadership of al Qaeda. The reality is, we confront terrorism
    in Somalia, in Yemen, in North Africa.
        We continue to see the proliferation of weapons of mass
    destruction. We continue to see threats from Iran and North
    Korea. We continue to have turmoil in the Middle East. We see
    the rising powers in Asia that represent a challenge in terms
    of stability in that region as well.
        And there are growing concerns about cyber intrusions and
    cyber attacks. We have to meet all of these challenges, and at
    the same time, meet our responsibility to fiscal discipline.
        I don't think we have to choose between our national
    security and our fiscal security. But, at the same time, this
    is not an easy task.
        To build the force we need for the future, we developed
    strategic guidance that consists really of five key elements
    that were the elements that guided us in terms of the budget
    recommendations we made.
        First of all, we know that the military is going to be
    smaller, and it's going to be leaner in the future. But it has
    to be agile, and it has to be flexible. It has to be quickly
    deployable. Yet, it also has to be technologically advanced.
        Second, because of the world we live in, and where we
    confront some of the most serious problems that face us, we
    have to rebalance our global posture and presence to emphasize
    the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. Those are the two
    areas where we confront the most serious challenges.
        Third, we have to build for the rest of the world that we
    deal with, we have to build innovative partnerships and
    strengthen key alliances and partnerships elsewhere in the
    world, so that we maintain a presence in Latin America, Africa,
    Europe, and elsewhere.
        Fourth, we have to ensure that we have a force that can
    confront and defeat aggression from any adversary, anytime,
    anywhere.
        And, last, this can't just be about cutting the budget. It
    also has to be about investments--investments in new technology
    and new capabilities, as well as our capacity to grow, adapt,
    and mobilize as needed.
        In shaping this strategy, we did not want to repeat the
    mistakes of the past. Our goals were the following: Number one,
    maintain the strongest military in the world. That's what we
    have now. That's what we want to have in the future.
        We do not want to hollow out the force, where you maintain
    a large force, less spending, and the result is that we weaken
    everything at the Defense Department by our failure to be able
    to address the needs of that kind of force.
        And that was a mistake that's been made in the past. We
    don't want to make that mistake again today or in the future.
        That means we have to take a balanced approach to budget
    cuts. We have to look at every area of the budget and put
    everything on the table. And it also means that we do not want
    to break faith with the troops and the families, particularly,
    the troops that have been deployed time and time and time
    again.
        As a result of these efforts, the Department, both our
    military and civilian leaders, strongly unified behind the
    recommendations that we presented. Consistent with the Budget
    Control Act, this budget reflects that in the next 5 years,
    we'll achieve savings of almost $260 billion, with 10-year
    savings of $487 billion.
        The savings come from four areas: One, efficiencies; two,
    force structure; three, procurement reforms; and, last,
    compensation.
        Let me walk through each of these areas. First, on
    efficiencies. Efficiencies yield about one-quarter of the
    targeted savings that we have in this package. On top of the
    $150 billion in efficiencies that were proposed in the fiscal
    year 2012 budget, we've added another $60 billion, primarily
    from streamlining support functions, consolidating information
    technology (IT) enterprises, rephasing military construction
    programs, consolidating inventory, and reducing service support
    contractors.
        As we reduce force structure, we also have a responsibility
    to be cost efficient in terms of the support for that force.
    And that's the reason that the recommendation has been to
    authorize another base realignment and closure process for 2013
    and 2015.
        And as someone who has gone through base realignment and
    closure (BRAC), I realize how controversial this process is for
    the members and for the constituencies.
        And yet, we do need, if we're going to bring the force
    down, we have got to find an effective way to achieve
    infrastructure savings. And that's the reason that
    recommendation was made.
        Efficiencies are still not enough to achieve the necessary
    savings. Budget reductions of this magnitude, almost half of $1
    trillion, require significant adjustments to force structure,
    procurement investments, and compensation as well.
        We achieve those in the context of the elements of the new
    strategy that I discussed, so let me just walk through each of
    those.
        First, we obviously have a force that is smaller and
    leaner, but it has to be more agile and technologically
    advanced. We knew that coming out of the wars, the military
    would be smaller. And to ensure an agile force, we made a
    conscious choice not to maintain more force structure than we
    could afford to properly train and equip.
        We're implementing force structure reductions consistent
    with this new strategic guidance. It will give us a total
    savings of about $50 billion over the next 5 years.
        So, those recommendations are to gradually re-size the
    Active Army. We're at about 560,000 now. We would bring that
    down over 5 years to 490,000, about a 70,000 reduction over
    that period.
        It's a force that would be flexible, would be agile. It
    would be ready. It would be lethal. We would still maintain 18
    divisions, 65 brigade combat teams, and 21 aviation brigades.
        We would do the same with the Marine Corps. We're at about
    202,000 in the Marine Corps. We would bring them down to
    182,000 over the next 5 years. That's a reduction of about
    20,000.
        Again, they would still remain the strongest expeditionary
    force in the world. They would have 31 infantry battalions, 10
    artillery battalions, and 20 tactical air squadrons.

                          AIR FORCE AND NAVY INVENTORY

        We would also reduce and streamline the Air Force's airlift
    fleet. In addition, the Air Force would eliminate seven
    tactical air squadrons, but we still would retain a robust
    force of 54 combat-coded fighter squadrons.
        The current bomber fleet would be maintained. We obviously
    have the Joint Strike Fighter in production, and we're also
    going to develop a new generation bomber that we look forward
    to in the future.
        We also have a fleet of 275 strategic airlifters and 318 C-
    130s along with our refueling tanker capabilities.
        The Navy would retire seven lower priority Navy cruisers.
    And the reason they focused on that is because these cruisers
    have not been upgraded with ballistic missile defense
    capability. They're old. They need repairs. And so that was an
    area that they decided to try to achieve savings.
        That would still maintain a force in the Navy of 285 ships,
    11 carriers, 9 large deck amphibs, 82 cruisers and destroyers,
    and 50 nuclear-powered attack submarines. And we would achieve
    a naval number of about 300 ships by 2020.
        Second, in rebalancing our global posture to emphasize
    Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, we made clear that we've got
    to protect capabilities needed to project power in Asia-Pacific
    and in the Middle East.
        To this end, the budget, as I said, maintains the current
    bomber fleet, maintains our aircraft carrier fleet, maintains
    the big deck amphibious fleet, and it restores Army and Marine
    Corps force structure, particularly in the Pacific.
        We're looking at, we've already provided for a rotational
    deployment of Marines in Darwin in Australia. We're looking at
    doing the same thing in the Philippines as well as elsewhere.
        And the same thing is true with regard to a strong presence
    in the Middle East. Because of the threats in that region, we
    have maintained a strong presence of troop strength in that
    area as well.
        We're building innovative partnerships and trying to
    strengthen our alliances throughout the world. And the way we
    are doing this is by developing this innovative, rotational
    presence where troops will go into an area, exercise with them,
    provide guidance and assistance, develop alliances, develop
    their capabilities, and build key alliances and partnerships
    for the future.
        That's the message I delivered to the Pacific on this last
    trip. It's well received. I delivered the same message to Latin
    America. It's well received. These countries want to develop
    their capabilities.
        This is not a question of the United States going around
    basically exerting our own power and telling these countries
    we'll defend them. They've got to develop their capabilities to
    be able to secure themselves for the future. And that's what
    this proposal provides for.
        Fourth, we ensure that we can confront and defeat
    aggression from any adversary, anytime, anywhere, and that,
    obviously, goes to the force structure that would sustain a
    military that's the strongest in the world, capable of quickly
    and decisively confronting aggression wherever and whenever
    necessary.
        In the 21st century, our adversaries are going to come at
    us using 21st century technology. That's the world we live in.
    And we've got to be able to respond with 21st century
    technology.
        So, we must invest. We've got to invest in space. We've got
    to invest in cyberspace. We've got to invest in long-range
    precision strikes. We've got to invest in unmanned vehicles.
    We've got to invest in special operations forces. We've got to
    invest in the latest technologies to ensure that we can still
    confront and defeat multiple adversaries.
        And the last area is to protect, obviously, and prioritize
    key investments, and have the capacity to grow and adapt and
    mobilize. I talked about some of the areas that we want to
    invest in. This budget provides almost $12 billion of
    investment in science and technology, $10.4 billion in special
    operations forces, about $4 billion in unmanned air systems,
    and about $3.5 billion in cyber.

                        NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE UNITS

        The last point I would make is we have got to maintain a
    strong Reserve and a strong National Guard that can respond if
    we have to mobilize quickly. That's been a key to our ability
    to mobilize over these last 10 years.
        And today, I have to tell you, when you go out to the
    battlefield, you can't tell the difference between Active Duty
    and National Guard and Reserve units. They're out there.
    They're fighting. They're developing great experience, great
    capabilities. I don't want to lose that for the future. I want
    to be able to maintain that.
        The last area I will mention is obviously an area that is
    extremely important. It's fundamental to our strategy, which
    are our people. That, frankly, is the biggest strength we have
    in the United States.
        For all the weapons we have, for all the technology we
    have, frankly, it's the men and women in uniform that are the
    strongest weapon we have for the future.
        And so, we want to sustain the family assistance programs,
    the programs for wounded warriors, the basic support programs
    for our troops and their families. But at the same time, I've
    got to focus on some savings in the compensation area.
        This is an area that's grown by 90 percent. And, frankly,
    we have got to be able to find some cost constraints in that
    area. So it's for that reason, that, you know, when it came to
    military pay, we provide pay raises these next 2 years, but we
    try to limit those pay raises in the out years in order to
    provide some limits.

                                HEALTHCARE COSTS

        We also do the same thing with TRICARE costs. And I
    recognize that that's sensitive, and controversial, but
    healthcare costs us almost $50 billion a year at the defense
    budget. I've got to do something to control healthcare costs in
    the future.
        We've also looked at the idea of a retirement commission to
    look at retirement provisions for the future. We'd like to
    grandfather, obviously, benefits for those that are presently
    in the force, but we do need to achieve savings in this area as
    well for the future.
        So, that's the package. This is not easy. It's tough, and
    we need your support. We need your partnership in trying to
    implement this strategy. I know these cuts are painful, and the
    fact is, they impact on all 50 States.
        But there is no way you can cut a half of $1 trillion out
    of the defense budget and not have an impact on States. That's
    just a reality if you do it right.
        So the key here is to try to do this in a way that relates
    to a defense strategy. That's important. The committees that
    have marked up our budget, in many ways, they've accepted the
    recommendations we've made for investment changes, and we
    appreciate that.
        But some of the committees have also made changes with
    regard to our recommendations that we're concerned about. Some
    of the bills seek to reverse the decisions to eliminate aging
    and lower priority ships and aircraft.
        My concern is that if these decisions are totally reversed,
    then I've got to find money somewhere in order to maintain this
    old stuff, which has me literally in a situation where I've got
    to hollow out the force in order to do that.
        We've got to be able to retire what is aged and what we can
    achieve some savings on.
        The same thing is true, there's been some proposals to
    basically not provide for the measured and gradual reductions
    in end-strength that we've proposed for the Army and the Marine
    Corps.
        Again, if I have a large force, and I don't have the money
    to maintain that large force, I'm going to wind up hollowing it
    out because I can't provide the training, I can't provide the
    equipment.
        So that's why, if we're going to reduce the force, then
    I've got to be able to do it in a responsible way.
        The last point I would make is with regard to overhead
    costs in military healthcare and in compensation.
        Again, I understand the concern about that, but if I
    suddenly wind up with no reductions in that area, I've got to
    reach some place to find the money to maintain those programs.
    And that too, somebody's going to pay a price for that.
        There's no free lunch here. Every low-priority program or
    overhead cost that is retained, will have to be offset in cuts
    in higher priority investments in order to comply with the
    Budget Control Act.
        I recognize that there's no one in this subcommittee that
    wants to hollow out the force or weaken our defense structure.
    So I would strongly urge all of you to work with us to reach a
    consensus about how we achieve our defense priorities
    recognizing your concerns.
        Our job is to responsibly respond to what this Congress has
    mandated on a bipartisan basis with regard to reducing the
    defense budget. And I need to have your help and your support
    to do this in a manner that preserves the strongest military in
    the world.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Let me just say a few words about sequestration. Obviously,
    this is a great concern. The doubling--I mean, this would
    result in a doubling of cuts, another $500 billion, that would
    have to be cut through this kind of formulaic, meat-axe
    approach that was designed into that process.
        And it would guarantee that we hollow out our force and
    inflict severe damage on our national defense. I think you all
    recognize that the sequester would be entirely unacceptable.
    And I really urge both sides to work together to try to find
    the kind of comprehensive solution that would detrigger the
    sequester, and try to do this way ahead of this potential
    disaster that we confront.
        I know the members of this subcommittee are committed to
    working together to stop the sequester, and I want you to know
    that we are prepared to work with you to try to do what is
    necessary to avoid that crisis.
        The last point I would make is on fiscal year 2012. We have
    some additional needs that have developed during fiscal year
    2012. Just to summarize a few.
        With regard to fuel costs. Because of the increase in fuel
    costs, we're facing almost another $3 billion in additional
    costs with regard to that area. Obviously, if the price goes
    down, that will provide some relief, but right now, that's the
    number that we're facing.
        We've also had the closure of these ground lines, the so-
    called ground lines of communication (GLOCs) in Pakistan. And
    the result of that is that it's very expensive because we're
    using the northern transit route in order to be able to
    drawdown our forces and also supply our forces.
        I think the amount is about $100 million a day--a $100
    million a month because of the closure of those GLOCs.
        Iron Dome, a system that we're trying to provide for the
    Israelis, is another additional cost that we would like to be
    able to provide. And also, we have had to provide additional
    forces in the Middle East because of the tensions in the gulf.
        And so because we've increased both our naval and land
    forces there, those are additional costs as well.
        So we've got some unbudgeted needs that we would ask for
    your support. I'll present to you an omnibus reprogramming
    request, and we hope to work with you to resolve these issues
    in the current fiscal year and do what the American people
    expect of all of us to be fiscally responsible in developing
    the force we need, a force that can defend the country and
    defend our Nation and support the men and women in uniform that
    are so important to the strongest military in the world.
        These last 2 weeks, I had the opportunity to travel
    throughout Asia Pacific, and I consulted with a lot of our key
    allies and partners. I think they're very receptive of the
    strategy that we're proposing and are enthusiastic, certainly
    about our engagement in the region.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And I think I've been able to reassure our allies and
    partners, that we have a strategy-based approach to dealing
    with national security. I come from this institution of the
    Congress, and I have great respect for you and for this
    institution.
        And I look forward to a partnership here to try to develop
    the approaches that are going to be necessary if we're going to
    meet our responsibilities to national security and fiscal
    responsibility at the same time.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Leon E. Panetta
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and members of the subcommittee.
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget. I also want to address the looming
    problems associated with sequestration as well as our budgetary
    situation in fiscal year 2012.
        But let me begin by first thanking you for your support for our
    servicemembers and our military families, including your responsiveness
    to the urgent needs of our men and women in the battlefield over the
    last decade of war. Our brave men and women, along with the
    Department's civilian professionals who support them, have done
    everything asked of them and more.
                            defense strategy review
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of Defense
    (DOD) was the product of an intensive strategy review conducted by the
    senior military and civilian leaders of the Department with the advice
    and guidance of President Obama. The total request represents a $614
    billion investment in national defense--including a $525.4 billion
    request for the Department's base budget and $88.5 billion in spending
    for overseas contingency operations (OCO).
        The reasons for this review are clear: First, the United States is
    at a strategic turning point after a decade of war and substantial
    growth in defense budgets. Second, with the Nation confronting very
    large debt and deficits, the Congress passed the Budget Control Act of
    2011 (BCA), imposing limits that led to a reduction in the defense
    budget of $487 billion over the next decade.
        Deficit reduction is a critical national security priority in and
    of itself. We at the Department decided that this crisis presented us
    with the opportunity to establish a new strategy for the force of the
    future, and that strategy has guided us in making the budget choices
    contained in the President's budget. We are at an important turning
    point that would have required us to make a strategic shift under any
    circumstances. The United States military's mission in Iraq has ended.
    We still have a tough fight on our hands in Afghanistan, but over the
    past year we have begun a transition to Afghan-led responsibility for
    security--and we are on track to complete that transition by the end of
    2014, in accordance with the commitments made at Lisbon and reaffirmed
    last month at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in
    Chicago. Last year, the NATO effort in Libya also concluded with the
    fall of Qadhafi. And successful counterterrorism efforts have
    significantly weakened al Qaeda and decimated its leadership.
        But despite what we have been able to achieve, unlike past
    drawdowns when threats have receded, the United States still faces a
    complex array of security challenges across the globe:
      --we are still a Nation at war in Afghanistan;
      --we still face threats from terrorism;
      --there is dangerous proliferation of lethal weapons and materials;
      --the behavior of Iran and North Korea threaten global stability;
      --there is continuing turmoil and unrest in the Middle East and North
            Africa;
      --rising powers in Asia are testing international relationships; and
      --there are growing concerns about cyber intrusions and attacks.
        Our challenge is to meet these threats and at the same time, meet
    our responsibility to fiscal discipline. This is not an easy task.
        To build the force we need for the future, we developed new
    strategic guidance that consists of these five key elements:
      --First, the military will be smaller and leaner, but it will be
            agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced.
      --Second, we will rebalance our global posture and presence to
            emphasize Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.
      --Third, we will build innovative partnerships and strengthen key
            alliances and partnerships elsewhere in the world.
      --Fourth, we will ensure that we can quickly confront and defeat
            aggression from any adversary--anytime, anywhere.
      --Fifth, we will protect and prioritize key investments in technology
            and new capabilities, as well as our capacity to grow, adapt,
            and mobilize as needed.
                      strategy to fiscal year 2013 budget
        We developed this new strategic guidance before any final budget
    decisions were made to ensure that the budget choices reflected the new
    defense strategy.
        While shaping this strategy, we did not want to repeat the mistakes
    of the past. Our goals were to maintain the strongest military in the
    world and to do our share of deficit reduction, recognizing that no
    country maintains its military might if its economy is weakened. We are
    determined to not break faith with troops and their families, to not
    ``hollow out'' the force, to take a balanced approach to budget cuts,
    and to put everything on the table. Throughout the review we made sure
    this was an inclusive process, and General Dempsey and I worked closely
    with the leadership of the Services and Combatant Commanders, and
    consulted regularly with Members of Congress.
        As a result of these efforts, the Department is strongly united
    behind the recommendations we have presented to the Congress.
    Consistent with title I of the Budget Control Act, this budget reflects
    $259 billion in savings over the next 5 years and $487 billion over the
    next 10 years compared to the budget plan submitted to the Congress
    last year. Under the 5-year budget plan, the base budget will rise from
    $525 billion in fiscal year 2013 to $567 billion in fiscal year 2017.
    When reduced war-related funding requirements are included, we expect
    total U.S. defense spending to drop by more than 20 percent over the
    next few years from its peak in 2010, after accounting for inflation.
        This is a balanced and complete package that follows the key
    elements of the strategy and adheres to the guidelines we established.
    The savings come from three broad areas:
      --First, efficiencies--we redoubled efforts to make more disciplined
            use of taxpayer dollars, yielding about one-quarter of the
            target savings.
      --Second, force structure and procurement adjustments--we made
            strategy-driven changes in force structure and procurement
            programs, achieving roughly one-half of the savings.
      --Finally, compensation--we made modest but important adjustments in
            personnel costs to achieve some necessary cost savings in this
            area, which represents one-third of the budget but accounted
            for a little more than 10 percent of the total reduction.
        Changes in economic assumptions and other shifts account for the
    remainder of the $259 billion in savings. Let me walk through these
    three areas, beginning with our efforts to discipline our use of
    defense dollars.
                    more disciplined use of defense dollars
        If we are to tighten up the force, I felt we have to begin by
    tightening up the operations of the Department. This budget continues
    efforts to reduce excess overhead, eliminate waste, and improve
    business practices across the Department. The more savings realized in
    this area, the less spending reductions required for modernization
    programs, force structure, and military compensation.
        As you know, the fiscal year 2012 budget proposed more than $150
    billion in efficiencies between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2016,
    and we continue to implement those changes. This budget identifies
    about $60 billion in additional savings over 5 years. Across the
    military services, new efficiency efforts over the next 5 years
    include:
      --The Army proposes to save $18.6 billion through measures such as
            streamlining support functions, consolidating information
            technology (IT) enterprise services, and rephasing military
            construction projects.
      --The Navy proposes to save $5.7 billion by implementing strategic
            sourcing of commodities and services, consolidating inventory,
            and other measures.
      --The Air Force proposes to save $6.6 billion by reducing service
            support contractors and rephasing military construction
            projects.
        Other proposed DOD-wide efficiency savings over the next 5 years
    total $30.1 billion, including reductions in expenses in the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense and the Defense agencies.
        Additionally, we are continuing the initiative to improve the
    Department's buying power by seeking greater efficiency and
    productivity in the acquisition of goods and services. We are
    strengthening acquisition support to the warfighter, executing
    acquisitions more efficiently, preserving the industrial base, and
    strengthening the acquisition workforce. This budget assumes that these
    policies produce savings of $5.3 billion over the next 5 years.
        In terms of military infrastructure, we will need to ensure that
    our current basing and infrastructure requirements do not divert
    resources from badly needed capabilities.
        As we reduce force structure, we have a responsibility to provide
    the most cost-efficient support for the force. For that reason, the
    President is requesting that the Congress authorize the base
    realignment and closure (BRAC) process for 2013 and 2015. As someone
    who went through BRAC, I realize how controversial this process can be
    for members and constituencies. And yet, it is the only effective way
    to achieve infrastructure savings.
        Achieving audit readiness is another key initiative that will help
    the Department achieve greater discipline in its use of defense
    dollars. The Department needs auditable financial statements to comply
    with the law, to strengthen its own internal processes, and to reassure
    the public that it continues to be a good steward of Federal funds. In
    October 2011, I directed the Department to emphasize this initiative
    and accelerate efforts to achieve fully auditable financial statements.
    Among other specific goals, I directed the Department to achieve audit
    readiness of the Statement of Budgetary Resources for general funds by
    the end of calendar year 2014, and to meet the legal requirements to
    achieve full audit readiness for all Defense Department financial
    statements by 2017. We are also implementing a course-based
    certification program for defense financial managers in order to
    improve training in audit readiness and other areas, with pilot
    programs beginning this year. We now have a plan in place to meet these
    deadlines, including specific goals, financial resources, and a
    governance structure.
        These are all critically important efforts to ensure the Department
    operates in the most efficient manner possible. Together, these
    initiatives will help ensure the Department can preserve funding for
    the force structure and modernization needed to support the missions of
    our force.
            strategy-driven changes in force structure and programs
        It is obvious that we cannot achieve the overall savings targets
    through efficiencies alone. Budget reductions of this magnitude require
    significant adjustments to force structure and investments, but the
    choices we made reflected five key elements of the defense strategic
    guidance and vision for the military.
    Build a Force That is Smaller and Leaner, but Agile, Flexible, Ready,
            and Technologically Advanced
        We knew that coming out of the wars, the military would be smaller.
    Our approach to accommodating these reductions, however, has been to
    take this as an opportunity--as tough as it is--to fashion the agile
    and flexible military we need for the future. That highly networked and
    capable joint force consists of:
      --an adaptable and battle-tested Army that is our Nation's force for
            decisive action, capable of defeating any adversary on land;
      --a Navy that maintains forward presence and is able to penetrate
            enemy defenses;
      --a Marine Corps that is a ``middleweight'' expeditionary force with
            reinvigorated amphibious capabilities;
      --an Air Force that dominates air and space and provides rapid
            mobility, global strike, and persistent intelligence,
            surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); and
      --National Guard and Reserve components that continue to be ready and
            prepared for operations when needed.
        To ensure an agile force, we made a conscious choice not to
    maintain more force structure than we could afford to properly train
    and equip. We are implementing force structure reductions consistent
    with the new strategic guidance for a total savings of about $50
    billion over the next 5 years.
        These adjustments include:
      --gradually resizing the Active Army to 490,000, eliminating a
            minimum of eight brigade combat teams (BCTs) and developing a
            plan to update the Army's brigade structure;
      --gradually resizing the Active Marine Corps to about 182,100,
            eliminating six combat battalions and four Tactical Air
            squadrons;
      --reducing and streamlining the Air Force's airlift fleet by retiring
            all 27 C-5As, 65 of the oldest C-130s and divesting all 38 C-
            27s. After retirements, the Air Force will maintain a fleet of
            275 strategic airlifters, and 318 C-130s--a number that we have
            determined is sufficient to meet the airlift requirements of
            the new strategy, including the Air Force's commitment for
            direct support of the Army;
      --eliminating seven Air Force Tactical Air squadrons--including five
            A-10 squadrons, one F-16 squadron, and one F-15 training
            squadron. The Air Force will retain 54 combat-coded fighter
            squadrons, maintaining the capabilities and capacity needed to
            meet the new strategic guidance; and
      --retiring seven lower priority Navy cruisers that have not been
            upgraded with ballistic missile defense capability or that
            would require significant repairs, as well as retiring two dock
            landing ships.
        The strategy review recognized that a smaller, ready, and agile
    force is preferable to a larger force that is poorly trained and ill-
    equipped. Therefore, we put a premium on retaining those capabilities
    that provide the most flexibility across a range of missions. We also
    emphasized readiness. For fiscal year 2013, the Department is
    requesting $209 billion in the base budget for Operation and
    Maintenance, the budget category that funds training and equipment
    maintenance among other aspects of operations. That represents an
    increase of 6 percent compared to the enacted level in 2012, even
    though the overall base budget will decline by 1 percent. Striking the
    right balance between force structure and readiness is critical to our
    efforts to avoid a hollow force, and we will continue to focus on this
    area to ensure that we make the right choices.
    Rebalance Global Posture and Presence To Emphasize Asia-Pacific and the
            Middle East
        The strategic guidance made clear that we must protect capabilities
    needed to project power in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. To this
    end, this budget:
      --maintains the current bomber fleet;
      --maintains the aircraft carrier fleet at a long-term level of 11
            ships and 10 air wings;
      --maintains the big-deck amphibious fleet; and
      --restores Army and Marine Corps force structure in the Pacific after
            the drawdown from Iraq and as we drawdown in Afghanistan, while
            maintaining persistent presence in the Middle East.
        The budget also makes selected new investments to ensure we develop
    new capabilities needed to maintain our military's continued freedom of
    action in face of new challenges that could restrict our ability to
    project power in key territories and domains. Across the Services, this
    budget plan requests $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2013, and a total of
    $3.9 billion over the next 5 years, for enhancements to radars,
    sensors, and electronic warfare capabilities needed to operate in these
    environments.
        Other key power projection investments in fiscal year 2013 include:
      --$300 million to fund the next generation Air Force bomber (and a
            total of $6.3 billion over the next 5 years);
      --$1.8 billion to develop the new Air Force tanker;
      --$18.2 billion for the procurement of 10 new warships and associated
            equipment, including two Virginia-class submarines, two Aegis-
            class destroyers, four littoral combat ships, one joint high
            speed vessel, and one CVN-21-class aircraft carrier. We are
            also requesting $100 million to develop the capability to
            increase cruise missile capacity of future Virginia-class
            submarines;
      --$2.2 billion in fiscal year 2013 for the procurement of an
            additional 26 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft;
      --$1 billion in fiscal year 2013 for the procurement of 12 EA-18G
            Growler aircraft, the Navy's new electronic warfare platform
            that replaces the EA-6B; and
      --$38 million for design efforts to construct an Afloat Forward
            Staging Base planned for procurement in fiscal year 2014. This
            base can provide mission support in areas where ground-based
            access is not available, such as countermine operations,
            Special Operations, and ISR.
    Build Innovative Partnerships and Strengthen Key Alliances and
            Partnerships
        The strategy makes clear that even though Asia-Pacific and the
    Middle East represent the areas of growing strategic priority, the
    United States will work to strengthen its key alliances, to build
    partnerships, and to develop innovative ways to sustain United States
    presence elsewhere in the world.
        To that end, this budget makes key investments in NATO and other
    partnership programs, including:
      --$200 million in fiscal year 2013 and nearly $900 million over the
            next 5 years in the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance system.
            This system will enable the Alliance to perform persistent
            surveillance over wide areas in any weather or light condition;
      --$9.7 billion in fiscal year 2013, and $47.4 billion over the next 5
            years, to develop and deploy missile defense capabilities that
            protect the U.S. homeland and strengthen regional missile
            defenses;
      --$800 million for the Combatant Commanders exercise and engagement
            program. Jointly with the State Department, we will also begin
            using the new Global Security Contingency fund that was
            established at our request in the fiscal year 2012 legislation;
      --$401 million for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
            These funds are necessary to complete the Proof of Concept
            program that was agreed to between the United States, Italy,
            and Germany. Completing the Proof of Concept fulfills an
            important obligation to our international partners, lays the
            groundwork for strengthened NATO air defense, and will provide
            demonstrated technologies to enhance U.S. air defense
            capabilities in the future.
        The new strategy also envisions a series of organizational changes
    that will boost efforts to partner with other militaries. These
    include:
      --Allocating a U.S.-based brigade to the NATO Response Force and
            rotating U.S.-based units to Europe for training and exercises;
      --Aligning an Army BCT with each regional Combatant Command to foster
            regional expertise; and
      --Increasing opportunities for Special Operations Forces to advise
            and assist partners in other regions, using additional capacity
            available due to the gradual drawdown from the post-9/11 wars.
    Ensure That We Can Confront and Defeat Aggression From Any Adversary--
            Anytime, Anywhere
        The strategic guidance reaffirmed that the United States must have
    the capability to fight more than one conflict at the same time. Still,
    the strategic guidance recognizes that how we defeat the enemy may well
    vary across conflicts.
        This budget invests in space, cyberspace, long range precision-
    strike, and the continued growth of special operations forces to ensure
    that we can still confront and defeat multiple adversaries even with
    the force structure reductions outlined earlier. It also sustains the
    nuclear triad of bombers, missiles, and submarines to ensure we
    continue to have a safe, reliable, and effective nuclear deterrent.
        Even with some adjustments to force structure, this budget sustains
    a military that is the strongest in the world, capable of quickly and
    decisively confronting aggression wherever and whenever necessary.
    After planned reductions, the fiscal year 2017 joint force will consist
    of:
      --an Army of more than 1 million Active and Reserve soldiers that
            remains flexible, agile, ready, and lethal across the spectrum
            of conflict, with 18 Divisions, approximately 65 Brigade Combat
            Teams, 21 Combat Aviation Brigades, and associated enablers;
      --a Naval battle force of 285 ships--the same size force that we have
            today--that will remain the most powerful and flexible naval
            force on Earth, able to prevail in any combat situation,
            including the most stressing anti-access environments. Our
            maritime forces will include 11 carriers, 9 large deck
            amphibious ships (although we should build to 10 such ships in
            fiscal year 2018), 82 guided missile cruisers and destroyers,
            and 50 nuclear-powered attack submarines;
      --a Marine Corps that remains the Nation's expeditionary force in
            readiness, forward deployed and engaged, with 31 infantry
            battalions, 10 artillery battalions, and 20 tactical air
            squadrons; and
      --an Air Force that will continue to ensure air dominance with 54
            combat-coded fighter squadrons and the current bomber fleet,
            with the Joint Strike Fighter in production and the next-
            generation bomber in development. Our Air Force will also
            maintain a fleet of 275 strategic airlifters, 318 C-130s, and a
            new aerial refueling tanker.
    Protect and Prioritize Key Investments, and the Capacity To Grow,
            Adapt, and Mobilize
        The force we are building will retain a decisive technological
    edge, leverage the lessons of recent conflicts, and stay ahead of the
    most lethal and disruptive threats of the future.
        To that end, the fiscal year 2013 budget:
      --provides $11.9 billion for science and technology to preserve our
            ability to leap ahead, including $2.1 billion for basic
            research;
      --provides $10.4 billion (base and OCO) to sustain the continued
            growth in Special Operations Forces;
      --provides $3.8 billion for Unmanned Air Systems by funding trained
            personnel, infrastructure, and platforms to sustain 65 USAF MQ-
            1/9 combat air patrols with a surge capacity of 85 by fiscal
            year 2016. We slowed the buy of the Reaper aircraft to allow us
            time to develop the personnel and training infrastructure
            necessary to make full use of these important aircraft. We also
            protected funding for the Army's unmanned air system Gray
            Eagle;
      --invests $3.4 billion in cyber activities, with several initiatives
            receiving increased funding relative to last year. The scale of
            cyber threats is increasing and we need to be prepared to
            defeat these threats, mitigate the potential damage, and
            provide the President with options to respond, if necessary. We
            are investing in full spectrum cyber operations capabilities to
            address the threats we see today and in the future. The
            Department strongly believes that congressional action is
            needed on cyber legislation and is supportive of the bipartisan
            legislation introduced by Senators Lieberman, Collins, and
            Rockefeller; and
      --provides $1.5 billion to fund the Department's Chemical and
            Biological Defense program.
        At the same time, the strategic guidance recognizes the need to
    prioritize and distinguish urgent modernization needs from those that
    can be delayed--particularly in light of schedule and cost problems.
    Therefore this budget identifies about $75 billion in savings over the
    Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) resulting from canceled or
    restructured programs. Key modifications and associated savings over
    the FYDP include:
      --$15.1 billion in savings from restructuring the Joint Strike
            Fighter by delaying aircraft purchases to allow more time for
            development and testing;
      --$1.3 billion in savings from delaying development of the Army's
            ground combat vehicle due to contracting difficulties;
      --$2.2 billion in savings from curtailing the Joint Land Attack
            Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS)
            due to concerns about program cost and operational mobility;
      --$4.3 billion in savings from delaying the next generation of
            ballistic missile submarines by 2 years for affordability and
            management reasons; and
      --$0.8 billion in savings from delaying selected Army aviation
            helicopter modernization for 3 to 5 years.
        We will also terminate selected programs, including:
      --the Block 30 version of Global Hawk, which has grown in cost to the
            point where it is no longer cost effective, resulting in
            savings of $2.5 billion;
      --upgrades to High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);
            we will focus our modernization resources on the joint light
            tactical vehicle, resulting in savings of $900 million; and
      --the weather satellite program, because we can depend on existing
            satellites, resulting in savings of $2.3 billion.
        We have also invested in a balanced portfolio of capabilities that
    will enable our force to remain agile, flexible, and technologically
    advanced enough to meet any threat. We will ensure that we can
    mobilize, surge, and adapt our force to meet the requirements of an
    uncertain future. To that end, ground forces will retain the key
    enablers and know-how to conduct long-term stability operations, and
    the Army will retain more mid-grade officers and noncommissioned
    officers. These steps will ensure we have the structure and experienced
    leaders necessary should we need to re-grow the force quickly.
        Another key element is to maintain a capable and ready National
    Guard and Reserve. The Reserve component has demonstrated its readiness
    and importance over the past 10 years of war, and we must ensure that
    it remains available, trained, and equipped to serve in an operational
    capacity when necessary. We will maintain key combat support
    capabilities and ensure that combat service support capabilities like
    civil affairs are maintained at a high-readiness level. We will also
    leverage the operational experience and institute a progressive
    readiness model in the National Guard and Reserves in order to sustain
    increased readiness prior to mobilization.
        In keeping with the emphasis on a highly capable reserve, this
    budget makes only relatively modest reductions in the ground-force
    Reserve components. Over the next 5 years, the Army Reserve will be
    sustained at 205,000 personnel, the Army National Guard will marginally
    decrease from 358,200 to 353,200 personnel, and the Marine Corps
    Reserve will sustain an end-strength level of 39,600 personnel. The
    Navy Reserve will decrease from 66,200 to 57,100 personnel over the
    next 5 years. Over the same span, the Air Force Reserve will decrease
    from 71,400 to 69,500 personnel, and the Air National Guard will
    decrease from 106,700 to 101,200 personnel.
        Another key part of preserving our ability to quickly adapt and
    mobilize is a strong and flexible industrial base. This budget
    recognizes that industry is our partner in the defense acquisition
    enterprise. A healthy industrial base means a profitable industrial
    base, but it also means a lean, efficient base that provides good value
    for the taxpayers' defense investments and increases in productivity
    over time.
                  ensuring quality of the all-volunteer force
        Now to the most fundamental element of our strategy and our
    decisionmaking process: Our people. This budget recognizes that they,
    far more than any weapons system or technology, are the great strength
    of our United States military. All told, the fiscal year 2013 budget
    requests $135.1 billion for the pay and allowances of military
    personnel and $8.5 billion for family support programs vital to the
    well-being of servicemembers and their families.
        One of the guiding principles in our decisionmaking process was
    that we must keep faith with our troops and their families. For that
    reason, we were determined to protect family assistance programs, and
    we were able to sustain these important investments in this budget and
    continue efforts to make programs more responsive to the needs of
    troops and their families. Yet in order to build the force needed to
    defend the country under existing budget constraints, the growth in
    costs of military pay and benefits must be put on a sustainable course.
    This is an area of the budget that has grown by nearly 90 percent since
    2001, or about 30 percent above inflation--while end strength has only
    grown by 3 percent.
        This budget contains a roadmap to address the costs of military
    pay, healthcare, and retirement in ways that are fair, transparent, and
    consistent with our fundamental commitments to our people.
        On military pay, there are no pay cuts. We have created sufficient
    room to allow for full pay raises in 2013 and 2014 that keep pace with
    increases in the private sector. That means for 2013, we propose a pay
    increase of 1.7 percent for servicemembers. However, we will provide
    more limited pay raises beginning in 2015--giving troops and their
    families fair notice and lead time before changes take effect. Let me
    be clear: Nobody's pay is cut in this budget nor will anyone's pay be
    cut in the future years of this proposal.
        This budget devotes $48.7 billion to healthcare--a cost that has
    more than doubled over the last decade. In order to continue to control
    the growth of these costs, we are recommending increases in healthcare
    fees, copays, and deductibles to be phased in over 4 to 5 years. None
    of the fee proposals in the budget would apply to active-duty
    servicemembers, survivors of servicemembers who died on Active Duty, or
    retirees who retired due to disability. Most of the changes will not
    affect the families of Active-Duty servicemembers--there will be no
    increases in healthcare fees or deductibles for families of Active-Duty
    servicemembers. Those most affected will be retirees--with the greatest
    impact on working-age retirees under the age of 65 still likely to be
    employed in the civilian sector. Even with these changes, the costs
    borne by retirees will remain below levels in most comparable private
    sector plans--as they should be.
        Proposed changes include:
      --further increasing enrollment fees for retirees under age 65 in the
            TRICARE Prime program, using a tiered approach based on retired
            pay that requires senior-grade retirees with higher retired pay
            to pay more and junior-grade retirees less;
      --establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE Standard/Extra
            programs and increasing deductibles;
      --establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE-for-Life program
            for retirees 65 and older, also using a tiered approach;
      --implementing additional increases in pharmacy copays in a manner
            that increases incentives for use of mail order and generic
            medicine; and
      --indexing fees, deductibles, pharmacy copays, and catastrophic caps
            to reflect the growth in national healthcare costs.
        These changes are important. I am therefore disappointed that the
    Authorization Committees did not support the proposed TRICARE fee
    initiatives that seek to control spiraling defense healthcare costs. We
    also feel that the fair way to address military retirement costs is to
    ask the Congress to establish a commission with authority to conduct a
    comprehensive review of military retirement. But the President and the
    Department believe that the retirement benefits of those who currently
    serve should be protected by grandfathering their benefits. For those
    who serve today, I will request there be no changes in retirement
    benefits.
                     fully supporting deployed warfighters
        The costs of overseas contingency operations (OCO) are funded
    separately from the base budget in a stand-alone fiscal year 2013
    request of $88.5 billion. That funding level represents a decrease of
    $26.6 billion from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
        This year's OCO request, which ensures that deployed troops have
    all the financial resources they need to conduct their challenging
    missions, primarily supports operations in Afghanistan, but also
    requests relatively small sums for the Office of Security Cooperation
    in Iraq (OSC-I) and the repair or replacement of equipment redeploying
    from Iraq.
        Our fiscal year 2013 OCO request includes funding for added
    personnel pay and subsistence for deployed forces; communications;
    mobilizing Reserve component units; transportation; supplies;
    deployment and redeployment of all combat and support forces; force
    sustainment; and sustainment and replenishment of war reserve stocks.
        For fiscal year 2013, we request $5.7 billion in funding for the
    Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). It is critically important that
    we maintain sufficient financial support to ANSF so that they can
    ultimately assume full security responsibility across Afghanistan.
        Much tough fighting lies ahead in Afghanistan, but the gradually
    improving situation permits the remainder of the United States surge
    force to redeploy by the end of September 2012, leaving 68,000 United
    States troops in Afghanistan at that time. The fiscal year 2013 OCO
    request assumes a continued level of about 68,000 troops in
    Afghanistan. While future changes in troop levels may be implemented
    during fiscal year 2013, those decisions will be based on advice from
    field commanders about conditions on the ground.
        In Iraq, OCO funding supports continued security assistance and
    cooperation with Iraqi Security Forces through the OSC-I in the areas
    of common interest, including counterterrorism, counterproliferation,
    maritime security, and air defense. This funding is critical for the
    United States to strengthen its long-term partnership with Iraq.
    Additionally, to ensure that United States forces redeployed from Iraq
    are ready and equipped for future operations, this funding replenishes
    equipment and stocks for these forces.
                               a balanced package
        Members of the subcommittee, the fiscal year 2013 request is a
    carefully balanced package that keeps America safe and sustains U.S.
    leadership abroad. As you take a look at the individual parts of this
    plan, I encourage you to do what the Department has done: To bear in
    mind the strategic trade-offs inherent in any particular budget
    decision, and the need to balance competing strategic objectives in a
    resource-constrained environment.
        As the fiscal year 2013 budget request has worked its way through
    the relevant Committees, I am pleased to note that many of our changes
    have been sustained. In particular, most Committees have accepted a
    number of the investment changes we recommended, which are consistent
    with our new defense strategy and the budgetary limits imposed by the
    Budget Control Act.
        However, some Committees of Congress have not supported certain
    choices that are critical to the long-term viability of a defense
    strategy that lives within the constrained resources of the Budget
    Control Act. For example, some Committee bills are seeking to reverse
    decisions to eliminate aging and lower priority ships and aircraft. If
    these decisions are totally reversed, it would be harder to invest in
    newer, multipurpose, and higher priority platforms for the future, and
    we would be burdening the services with excess force structure that
    would risk hollowing out the force.
        There has also been opposition to the measured and gradual
    reductions in end strength we have proposed for the Army and Marine
    Corps. The Department has made it clear that we prefer a smaller ready
    force to a larger force that lacks sufficient training and equipment to
    perform the mission assigned to it. If we are prevented from making the
    full-planned reductions in the size of our ground forces, that's what
    we'll get.
        Similarly, some bills would reverse our efforts to slow overhead
    costs, particularly by slowing the growth of military healthcare costs.
    By making it harder to get these costs under control, the Congress is
    making it more difficult to balance and maintain investments in
    readiness and equipment, which is essential to the overall health of
    the All-Volunteer Force.
        In reversing difficult decisions and restoring funds to those areas
    that achieve necessary savings, the Congress risks upending the careful
    balance we have sought to achieve in our strategy.
        There is no free lunch here. Every low-priority program or overhead
    cost that is retained will have to be offset by cuts in higher priority
    investments in order to comply with the Budget Control Act.
        I know that this subcommittee does not want to hollow out the
    force. Therefore, I would strongly urge the Congress to work with us to
    reach a consensus about our defense priorities, recognizing your
    concerns. Obviously, our job is to responsibly respond to what this
    Congress mandated, on a bipartisan basis, with regard to reducing the
    defense budget. We need your partnership to do this in a manner that
    preserves the strongest military in the world. This will be a test of
    whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action.
        Now that we have seen the sacrifice involved in reducing the
    defense budget by almost half $1 trillion, I want to remind the
    Congress of its important responsibility to make sure that we avoid
    sequestration. That would be a doubling of the cuts, another roughly
    $500 billion in additional cuts that would be required to take place
    through a meat-axe approach, and that we are convinced could hollow out
    the force and inflict severe damage on our national defense. All of us
    recognize that sequester would be entirely unacceptable, and both sides
    and both chambers in the Congress must work urgently to find a
    compromise that will allow us to head off this disaster.
        I know that the members of this subcommittee are committed to
    working together to stop sequester, and to ensuring that our men and
    women in uniform have the resources they need to perform the hard work
    of defending this country.
                       fiscal year 2012 budget situation
        On that note, let me close by pointing to some difficult budgeting
    problems for fiscal year 2012 that will require your help and support
    to solve. Our fiscal year 2012 budget was prepared several years ago.
    Changes in funding needs since then have resulted in shortfalls and
    excesses in particular areas.
        To start, we have a significant shortfall in fuel funding for
    fiscal year 2012. The situation will improve if fuel prices remain at
    current lower levels, but the shortfall will still be substantial.
        There are also additional Army manpower costs due to greater
    Reserve mobilizations than expected, Navy OCO operating costs that are
    higher due to the need for more ships than planned for Afghanistan
    support, Air Force flying hours that exceeded projections, and Army OCO
    transportation costs that are higher due to closures of ground lines of
    communications (GLOC) in Pakistan.
        In terms of excesses, we know that our budgets for the Afghan
    Security Forces Fund (ASFF), both for fiscal year 2011 and for fiscal
    year 2012, are higher than are needed to provide full support to the
    Afghanistan National Security Forces.
        We need the Congress to permit us to realign funds to meet our
    shortfalls. As a start, on June 1 we asked for authority to move $1
    billion from the category for ASFF funding to the defense working
    capital fund. This will enable us to maintain cash reserves while
    paying higher fuel costs.
        Thank you for approving our request which represents a first step
    toward resolving our fiscal year 2012 budgetary problems. Remaining
    issues will be addressed by an omnibus reprogramming request which we
    plan to submit for your review around the end of June.
        As part of our efforts to confront fuel costs and also enhance our
    war-fighting capabilities, we are looking to make our installations and
    operations more fuel efficient and to diversify our energy sources,
    including with alternative fuels. I oppose efforts by the Congress to
    limit the Department's options for using alternative fuels. These
    efforts could deprive commanders of the flexibility they need to meet
    tactical and operational needs and make us more exposed to potential
    supply disruptions and future price volatility of petroleum products.
        I will work closely with you to resolve these issues for the
    current fiscal year, and to do what the American people expect of their
    leaders: Be fiscally responsible in developing the force for the
    future--a force that can defend the country, a force that supports our
    men and women in uniform, and a force that is, and always will be, the
    strongest military in the world.
        Over the past 2 weeks, I had the opportunity to travel extensively
    throughout the Asia-Pacific region, where I consulted with key Allies
    and partners and explained our new defense strategy both publicly and
    privately. I was struck by the enthusiasm and the support for America's
    continued engagement in that region, and the reassurance that our
    Allies and partners felt by the strategy-based approach we are taking
    to our national security.
        This trip has convinced me that we are on the right track, but I
    recognize that we are still at the very beginning of a long-term
    process that will unfold over the next decade and that we must continue
    in future budget requests.
        With our fiscal year 2013 budget, we have laid the groundwork to
    build the military we need for the future. But we need to work with the
    Congress to execute this strategy, and that means implementing the
    proposals we have presented this year, and pushing ahead with the hard
    work of maintaining the strongest military in the world and meeting our
    fiscal responsibilities.

        Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your candid
    and painful testimony. May I now call upon General Dempsey.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT
                CHIEFS OF STAFF
        General Dempsey. Thank you, Chairman, Senator Cochran, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this
    opportunity to discuss the President's defense budget proposal
    for fiscal year 2013.
        This budget represents a responsible investment in our
    Nation's security. It maintains our military's decisive edge,
    and it sustains America's global leadership. Moreover, it keeps
    faith with the Nation and the true source of our military
    strength which is, of course, America's sons and daughters who
    serve in uniform.
        I'd like to open with a few words about them and their
    accomplishments. In just this past year, our soldiers, sailors,
    airmen, and marines further crippled al Qaeda. They brought to
    a close more than 20 years of military operations in and over
    Iraq.
        They continued the steady transition of security
    responsibility in Afghanistan. They helped protect the Libyan
    people from a regime's brutality, and they helped Japan recover
    from a tragic natural disaster.
        They also worked professionally and quietly behind the
    scenes defending against cyber threats, sustaining our nuclear
    deterrent posture, and working with allies and partners around
    the globe to build capacity and prevent conflict.
        They didn't just do it last year. They've been doing it
    year after year after year. During a decade of continuous
    combat, our service men and women and their families have
    persevered and prevailed.
        It is a genuine pleasure and honor to serve with each and
    every one of them. They remain a great source of pride for our
    Nation. We need to keep faith with them just as they work to
    keep faith with the Nation.

                                 DEFENSE BUDGET

        One way to do this is by making sure our defense budget is
    informed by a real strategy. This past January, we released a
    new defense strategy that reflects the lessons of war and
    anticipates a more competitive security environment in the
    future.
        It also acknowledges the realities of the new fiscal
    environment. It sets priorities for investment and it
    establishes a strategic focus. This budget resources that
    strategy.
        It ensures we retain our conventional overmatch while
    divesting capabilities not required in the Active Force or at
    all. It takes advantage of emerging capabilities as the
    Secretary said such as Special Operating Forces, intelligence,
    and cyber.
        It restores versatility and readiness. Overall, it's an
    important stepping off point on our path toward the joint force
    we assess we will need in 2020, a military that is always ready
    to provide options for the Nation.
        Keeping faith also means appropriate compensation for our
    troops. This budget proposes modest reforms to military pay and
    benefits. However, it does not place the burden of budget cuts
    on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform.
        There are no freezes or reductions in pay, and there is no
    decrease in the quality of healthcare received by our active-
    duty members and medically retired wounded warriors.
        That said, we can't ignore some hard realities. We need
    practical reform to deal with escalating personnel costs,
    particularly in healthcare. We must make our healthcare system
    more sustainable. Otherwise, we risk both the quality and the
    continuity of care. We can ensure its viability in ways that
    are fair and modest.
        Last, keeping faith also means managing risk to our
    interests and to our institutions. To be sure, we are assuming
    some risk in this strategy. All strategies in all budgets that
    resource them have to accept some risk. That risk is not in
    what we can do, but in how much we can do and how often.
        The budget helps buy down that risk by investing in our
    people and in the joint capabilities we need most. We have
    achieved balance in this budget.
        Keep in mind, please, that this is a budget for a joint
    force. It should not be thought of as a set of separate service
    budgets but as a comprehensive and carefully devised set of
    choices; choices that reflect the right mix among force
    structure, modernization, readiness, pay, and benefits.
        Different choices will produce a different balance. So
    before giving us weapons we don't need, or giving up on reforms
    that we do need, I'd only ask you to make sure it's the right
    choice, not for our Armed Forces but for our Nation.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Sequestration is absolutely certain to upend this balance.
    It would lead to further end-strength reductions, the potential
    cancellation of major weapon systems, and the disruption of
    global operations.
        We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but
    it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our
    force and reducing its military options available to the
    Nation.
        We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere
    to being less visible globally, and presenting less of an over
    match to our adversaries. And that would translate into a
    different deterrent calculus, and potentially therefore,
    increase the likelihood of conflict.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, I offer my sincere thanks to this subcommittee
    and to the entire Congress of the United States. Thank you for
    keeping our military strong.
        Thank you for taking care of our military family, for
    supporting those who serve, who have served, and who will
    serve, I know you share my pride in them. I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of General Martin E. Dempsey
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee: It is my privilege to update you on our Armed Forces and
    the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. The context for
    this year's posture testimony is unique. Our military has transitioned
    many of our major operations. We have new defense guidance that sets
    strategic priorities. And we are facing real fiscal constraints and an
    increasingly competitive security environment. The President's proposed
    fiscal year 2013 defense budget accounts for these realities. It
    provides a responsible investment in our Nation's current and future
    security.
                           global military operations
        Today, our Armed Forces stand strong. We are proud of the
    performance and accomplishments of our men and women in uniform over
    the past year. They have carried out far-ranging missions with much
    success. They have defended our homeland, deterred aggression, and kept
    our Nation immune from coercion. And despite a decade of continuous
    combat operations, our troops and their families remain resilient.
        Our U.S. Forces in Iraq completed their mission in December. More
    than 20 years of military operations in and over Iraq came to a
    conclusion. The security of Iraq is now the responsibility of the Iraqi
    people, leaders, and security forces. We have transitioned to a normal
    military-to-military relationship. Diplomats and civilian advisors are
    the face of the United States in Baghdad. To be sure, Iraq still faces
    challenges to its future. But as we look to that future, we will
    continue to build ties across Iraq to help the people and institutions
    capitalize on the freedom and opportunity we helped secure.
        In Afghanistan, we are seeing the benefits of the surge in combat
    forces begun in early 2010. The security situation is improving. The
    Taliban are less capable, physically and psychologically, than they
    were 2 years ago. Afghan and International Security Assistance Forces
    (ISAF) have wrested the initiative and momentum from them in much of
    the country. The Taliban, however, remain determined and continue to
    threaten the population and the Government. Combat will continue.
        Key to long-term stability in Afghanistan is the development and
    sustainability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). In 2011,
    the Afghan National Army grew by 18 percent. The Afghan National Police
    grew by 20 percent. These forces, combined with the ever-more-capable
    Afghan local police, are steadily assuming responsibility for Afghan
    security. The process of transition began last July, and after nearly
    completing the second of five ``tranches'' of transition, Afghan
    security forces are now responsible for the day-to-day security of
    almost one-half of Afghanistan's population.
        Developing the ANSF, degrading insurgent capabilities, and turning
    over responsibilities have allowed us to begin a measured draw down of
    our forces in Afghanistan. We withdrew more than 10,000 of the surge
    troops and will withdraw the remaining 23,000 by the end of this
    summer. By that time, we expect the ANSF to achieve their initial
    operating capability and to be responsible for securing nearly 75
    percent of the Afghan population. They are on track to meet the goal of
    assuming lead for security in mid-2013 and full responsibility for
    security throughout Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
        Sustaining progress in Afghanistan requires dealing with some
    significant challenges. The ANSF and other national and local
    government institutions require further development. Corruption remains
    pervasive and continues to undermine the capacity and legitimacy of
    government at all levels. Insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan remain
    largely uncontested. And ultimately, much more work remains to achieve
    the political solutions necessary to end the fighting in Afghanistan.
        The recent North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in
    Chicago affirmed an international commitment to dealing with these
    challenges. Together, we will work to strengthen Afghan institutions
    through the end of 2014. And 2015 will mark the beginning of a decade-
    long commitment to solidify our relationship with and support to the
    Afghan Government and people.
        Our military has been vigilant and active in other areas and with
    other missions to keep America and our allies safe. We decimated al
    Qaeda and pushed this terrorist network decidedly closer to strategic
    defeat. We supported NATO in its United Nations (UN) mission to protect
    civilians in Libya, allowing them to end Muammar Qaddafi's tyrannical
    rule. We responded quickly to the devastating earthquakes and tsunami
    that struck Japan, saving lives and acting on our commitment to this
    key ally. We fended off cyber intrusions against our military's
    computer networks and systems. And we helped counter aggression and
    provocation from Iran and North Korea.
                              a time of transition
        While our military continues to capably and faithfully perform a
    wide array of missions, we are currently in the midst of several major
    transitions. Any one of them alone would be difficult. Taken together,
    all three will test our people and our leadership at every level.
        First, we are transitioning from a war-time footing to a readiness
    footing. With the end of our operations in Iraq and Libya and the
    ongoing transition of security responsibilities in Afghanistan, our
    troops are steadily returning home. From a peak of more than 200,000
    troops deployed to combat 2 years ago, we have fewer than 90,000 today.
    This shift cannot lead us to lose focus on on-going combat operations.
    But, it does mean we must give attention to restoring our readiness for
    full-spectrum operations. We need to reset and refit, and in many cases
    replace, our war-torn equipment. We need to modernize systems
    intentionally passed over for periodic upgrading during the last
    decade. We must retrain our personnel on skills that may have
    atrophied. And, we will have to do all of this in the context of a
    security environment that is different than the one we faced 10 years
    ago. We cannot simply return to the old way of doing things, and we
    cannot ignore the lessons we have learned. As described in the
    Department's recently released strategic guidance, we should adjust our
    missions, our posture, and our organizational structure in order to
    adapt to ever evolving challenges and threats.
        Second, our military is transitioning to an era of more constrained
    resources. The days of growing budgets are gone, and as an institution
    we must become more efficient and transparent. We must carefully and
    deliberately evaluate trade-offs in force structure, acquisition, and
    compensation. We must make the hard choices, focus on our priorities,
    and overcome bureaucratic and parochial tendencies. In sum, we must
    recommit ourselves to being judicious stewards of the Nation's
    resources.
        Third, tens of thousands of our veterans--and their families--are
    facing the transition to civilian life. Many enlistments are coming to
    their normal conclusion, but we are also becoming a leaner force. As we
    do this, we must help our veterans find education opportunities,
    meaningful employment, and first-class healthcare. We must pay
    particular attention to those bearing the deepest wounds of war,
    including the unseen wounds. We must help those who have given so much
    cope with--and where possible, avoid--significant long-term challenges
    such as substance abuse, divorce, depression, domestic violence, and
    homelessness. We must reverse the disturbing, continuing trend of
    increasing suicides. Addressing these issues is not the exclusive
    responsibility of the Services or veterans organizations. How we
    respond, as a military community and as a Nation, conveys our
    commitment to our veterans and their families. It will also directly
    affect our ability to recruit and retain our Nation's best in the
    future.
        I have outlined several priorities for the Joint Force to help us
    anticipate and navigate the challenges these transitions present. We
    will maintain focus on achieving our national objectives in our current
    conflicts. We will begin creating the military of our future--the Joint
    Force of 2020. We will also confront what being in the Profession of
    Arms means in the aftermath of war. And above all else, we will keep
    faith with our military family. In doing all these things, we will
    provide an effective defense for the country and strengthen the
    military's covenant of trust with the American people.
                            a responsible investment
        The President's fiscal year 2013 Department of Defense base budget
    of $525 billion and overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget of $88
    billion represent a responsible investment in our Nation's security.
    The decisions underlying them flow from the strategic guidance the
    Department of Defense issued in January. This guidance set priorities
    for assessing our programs, force structure, and spending in the
    context of a persistently dangerous and increasingly competitive
    security environment. With those priorities in mind, the budget
    proposal strikes an appropriate and necessary balance between
    succeeding in today's conflicts and preparing for tomorrow's
    challenges. It accounts for real risks and real fiscal constraints,
    marrying versatility with affordability.
        The tradeoffs were complex, and the choices were tough. They will
    produce $259 billion in savings over the next 5 years and a total of
    $487 billion over the next 10 years. This savings does not portend a
    military in decline. Rather, this budget will maintain our military's
    decisive edge and help sustain America's global leadership. It will
    preserve our ability to protect our vital national interests and to
    execute our most important missions. Moreover, it will keep faith with
    the true source of our military's strength--our people.
        The merits of this budget should be viewed in the context of an
    evolving global security environment and a longer term plan for the
    Joint Force. Coming on the heels of a decade of war, this budget begins
    the process of rebalancing our force structure and our modernization
    efforts and aligns them with our strategy. Essentially, we are
    developing today the Joint Force the Nation will need in 2020, and our
    plans to build this force will unfold over the course of several budget
    cycles. This budget is the first step--a down payment. If we fail to
    step off properly, our recovery will be difficult, and our ability to
    provide the Nation with broad and decisive military options will
    diminish.
        It is worth addressing head-on some of the major changes we are
    planning. These changes must be viewed in the context of our evolving
    force. They represent a comprehensive package of decisions that strike
    a careful balance. They are not, and cannot be viewed as, individual,
    isolated measures. In all cases, needed capabilities are preserved or,
    when necessary, generated, through one or several programs.
        This budget makes critical investments in our future force. Certain
    specialized capabilities, once on the margins, will move to the
    forefront. Networked special operations, cyber, and intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance will become increasingly central.
        Of these, cyber represents both a potent capability and real
    vulnerability. The threats emanating from cyberspace have evolved
    faster than many could have imagined. This budget allows for us to
    expand many of our nascent cyber capabilities and to better protect our
    defense networks. Similarly, bipartisan cyber legislation under
    consideration in the Senate is a good first step in developing
    protection for our Nation's critical infrastructure. With much work to
    be done, we look forward to working on cyber with agencies across the
    Government and with our allies and partners.
        While some additional capabilities for our Joint Force will be
    needed, others will not. The budget divests some outdated ships,
    planes, and equipment, particularly single-function systems. Each year
    that we delay retiring unneeded systems adds several years of
    additional costs. And, it hampers our ability to achieve the desired
    mix of military capabilities.
        Moreover, we will no longer be sized for large-scale, prolonged
    stability operations. As a result, we expect to draw down the Army from
    562,000 to 490,000 by the end of fiscal year 2017, and the Marine Corps
    from more than 202,100 to 182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016. Some
    of this reduction was planned several years ago when the Congress
    authorized temporary end strength increases to support our operations
    in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        In making ourselves leaner, we will not make the mistakes of
    previous draw downs. We will not retain organizational structures that
    lack the people, training, and equipment necessary to perform the
    assigned mission. We will be realistic about the organizations we keep,
    while also maintaining our ability to reconstitute and mobilize forces.
    This means retaining capacity in our Reserve components and our
    industrial base. We will maintain the Army Reserve end-strength at
    205,000 and reduce the Army National Guard by only 5,000 down to
    353,200. The Marine Corps Reserves will be retain their current
    strength.
        Another major concern among our troops, their families, retirees,
    and with the American public is military compensation and benefits. I
    want to make it clear that cuts in spending will not fall on the
    shoulders of our troops. There are no proposed freezes or reductions in
    pay. There is no change to the quality of healthcare our active-duty
    members and medically retired wounded warriors receive. But we cannot
    ignore some hard realities. Pay and benefits are now roughly one-third
    of defense spending. Pay will need to grow more slowly in the future.
    We are also proposing a commission to review of military retirement.
        To control the growth of healthcare costs, we are also recommending
    changes to TRICARE. These adjustments include modest, new or phased-in
    increases in healthcare fees, copays, and deductibles largely for our
    retirees--but not our active-duty servicemembers. These increases would
    help ensure TRICARE remains one of the finest medical benefits in the
    country. Each year we delay addressing rising healthcare costs puts
    further strain on readiness and modernization which are critical to the
    health of the future force.
        The result of these changes will be a Joint Force that is global
    and networked, that is versatile and innovative, and that is ably led
    and always ready. This force will be prepared to secure global access--
    even where it is contested--and to respond to global contingencies. We
    will be a military that is able to do more than one thing at a time--to
    win any conflict, anywhere.
        Overall, these changes value both the demands of military service
    and our duty to be good stewards of the Nation's fiscal resources. They
    will sustain the recruitment, retention, and readiness of the talented
    personnel we need. Most importantly, they will sustain our enduring
    commitment to our troops and their families--we must never break faith
    with them. I want to note, however, that keeping faith with our service
    men and women is not just about pay and benefits. It is also about
    ensuring we remain the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led force
    in the world.
        The last, and perhaps most critical issue, is risk. This budget and
    the strategy it supports allow us to apply decisive force
    simultaneously across a range of missions and activities around the
    globe. But like all strategies, it also accepts some risk. The primary
    risks lie not in what we can do, but in how much we can do and how fast
    we can do it. The risks are in time and capacity. We have fully
    considered these risks, and I believe they are acceptable. In fact, we
    will face greater risk if we do not change from our previous
    approaches. I am convinced we can properly manage this risk by ensuring
    we keep the force in balance, invest in new capabilities, and preserve
    strong Reserve components.
        Our ability to manage this risk would be undermined by changes to
    the budget that disrupt its carefully crafted balance. Sequestration
    would do this. It could have serious effects on our readiness and
    disrupt essential programs and contracts. We cannot predict precisely
    how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would
    reduce the military options available to the Nation.
                                   conclusion
        In the upcoming year, our Armed Forces will build on the past
    year's achievements, adapt to emergent challenges, seize new
    opportunities, and provide for our common defense. We will continue to
    face threats to our security, whether from aggressive states or violent
    non-state actors. Our Joint Force will be ready, and our response will
    be a source of pride for the American people. In all of our efforts, we
    will aim to maintain strength of character and professionalism--at the
    individual and institutional level--that is beyond reproach.
        As we embark on this critical new course, we will need Congress's
    support to help us build the Joint Force the Nation needs and to
    strengthen our relationship with the American people. As I stated
    before, this budget and the choices that underlie it should be
    understood in the context of the comprehensive, carefully balanced,
    multiyear plan they support. We ask the Congress to support this budget
    while working to avoid the deep cuts that sequestration would impose.
        I thank this subcommittee, and the entire Congress, for all you
    have done to support our men and women under arms and their families.
    Your resolute attention to their needs and to our security has been
    both invaluable and greatly appreciated.

        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, your description of sequestration I believe
    is a candid, but frightening one. You've indicated that you
    would reduce training at a time when you should be increasing
    training.
        It would mean deferral of maintenance of equipment, and
    it's getting pretty bad. You have fewer purchases of aircraft
    and ships. There's something else you didn't mention, and I'd
    like to have your comment on that.
        This sequestration, coupled with projected discretionary
    defense spending, could add 1 percent to the national
    unemployment rate from job losses in Government, military, and
    the private sector within the defense industrial base.
        Does that description make sense?
        Secretary Panetta. Mr. Chairman, I think that is the
    estimate that we've seen in terms of the impact that would
    have.
        Now, you know, again, I just stress, look, the Defense
    Department is not a jobs program. It's a program to defend the
    Nation. But clearly, that kind of sequestration cut across the
    board would have a serious impact not only on men and women in
    uniform but on our personnel and the contractors who serve the
    Defense establishment.
        Chairman Inouye. When you speak of deferral of maintenance
    of equipment, can you give us something beyond that?

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Secretary Panetta. Yes, let me have Bob Hale, our
    comptroller, speak to that.
        Mr. Hale. Mr. Chairman, we haven't done a detailed plan,
    but I think one of the options we would have to look at is
    cutbacks in depot maintenance and that would mean we would push
    out the availabilities of ships, for example, or planes.
        We would try to do it in a sensible manner, but I think it
    inevitably would delay some of the maintenance activities. I
    can't give you details, but I think that's an almost inevitable
    result of sequestration.
        Secretary Panetta. I mean, the way the formula works under
    sequestration is it takes a percentage across the board out of
    every area of the Defense budget. And it means that, you know,
    it's almost about a 20-percent cut in a weapon's system.
        It would be a 20-percent cut with regard to training
    equipment. It would impact on every area of the Defense budget.
    That's the way it was designed. It was designed as a meat axe.
    It was designed to be a disaster, because the hope was, because
    it's such a disaster, that the Congress would respond and do
    what was right.
        And so I'm just here to tell you, yes, it would be a
    disaster.
        Chairman Inouye. Now, the across-the-board cut that you've
    indicated will not impact upon pay and health programs.
    Anything else?
        Secretary Panetta. It would.
        Mr. Hale. The President has the authority, Mr. Chairman, to
    exempt military personnel. He'll have to decide whether he does
    that. If that were the case, then it won't affect military
    personnel.
        But the other accounts would have to be cut by larger
    amounts so that the total remains the same. It would affect our
    ability to pay healthcare. It's in a separate account. And as
    the Secretary said, it gets its meat-axe share of this cut, and
    we would face a serious problem of potentially not being able
    to pay all our TRICARE bills, for example.
        General Dempsey. Mr. Chairman, could I add something?
        Chairman Inouye. Please do.
        General Dempsey. Because it's important also to note that
    overseas contingency operations (OCO) is now subjected to
    sequestration. That would roughly be about $8 billion. And of
    the $88 billion or so, $88.5 billion that we've requested to
    sustain our operations globally, mostly in the gulf region.
        But we have to fund that. So that money will have to be
    taken, will have to come to you for some reprogram activity to
    move money from base to cover those war-related costs.
        That in combination with the potential freeze in the
    manpower account, in other words, exempting manpower, means
    that a service chief, and I was a service chief, can only go
    back to find this money to about three places, training,
    maintenance, and modernization.
        That's it. There's no magic in the budget at that point.
    And those three accounts will be subjected to all of the cuts
    mandated by sequestration.
        Mr. Hale. May I add one more point, Mr. Chairman?
        I would not look at reprogramming as a way to solve this
    problem. We have some legal limits. Unless you change them on
    the amount we can reprogram, and we wouldn't have the authority
    to offset all of those changes, at least not readily, in OCO,
    without some major changes.
        So we could do some, but they'll be very little flexibility
    if this goes into play or into effect as it's currently
    designed.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Before I call upon my colleagues, I'd like to note that
    because of the good attendance, we will have to limit the
    questioning period to 5 minutes.
        With that, Senator Cochran.

                                     SHIPS

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, what your impression is of
    the need for amphibious ships?
        We've heard that the Navy and Marine Corps have determined
    a minimum force of 33 amphibious warships is the limit of
    acceptable risk in meeting the amphibious force requirement.
        What's your assessment of the risk that we are assuming, if
    any, with our current shipbuilding plan as proposed and
    requested for funding by the Department?
        Secretary Panetta. I'll ask General Dempsey to comment as
    well.
        But one of the things I'm really trying to do is to
    maintain our industrial base in the Defense Department. If we
    lose more shipyards, if I lose, more of the industry that
    supports our Defense Department, it makes it very difficult to
    mobilize in the future.
        And so my goal is to try to design a budget here that
    maintains the shipyards that we have, that maintains the
    industrial base that supports our defense system.
        On the amphibs, the reason they're important is because of
    the agility issue that I talked about, because we are going to
    have a smaller force. These ships allow us to be very agile, to
    be quickly deployable, to be able to move quickly if we have
    to.
        And that's the reason that we want to maintain those as
    part of our Defense structure.
        General Dempsey. And just to add, Senator, the number that
    you cited as based on the existing war plans and a particular
    phase in which the amphibious warship capability is under most
    stress.
        And what we're doing as a result of our defense strategy is
    we're opening up our operation plans in concept format
    (CONPLANs) or our operation plans (OPLANs) to look at the
    assumptions we made, and to see if we can adjust the way we
    conduct operations in order to mitigate that risk.
        And at this point, the commandant and I are content that
    the budget proposal and the number of amphibs in that budget
    proposal are adequate to the task. But it means we'll have to
    adjust the way in which we conduct operations.
        Senator Cochran. Well, there's a suggestion that the
    current 30-year shipbuilding plan projects an inventory that
    will fall to 28 ships in fiscal year 2015.
        And I wonder, General, if this is below the level required
    by the Department, and whether or not this is an increase in
    the assumption of risk? Do we need to revise that upward? What
    do you suggest we do when we review the requirements being
    submitted by the Marine Corps and the Navy?
        General Dempsey. What I'd ask to do, Senator, is take that
    question for the record, because there is a bit of it that
    would cross over into classified information related to war
    plans, but I'd be happy to answer that for you.
        [The information follows:]

        Each year, the combatant commanders submit force requirements to my
    staff, which include capabilities that reside in all Services. Some of
    these requirements routinely exceed the Services' capacity to meet
    them. Within the Navy, this includes not only demand for amphibious
    platforms, but also aircraft carriers, cruiser/destroyers, coastal
    patrol boats, and frigates. The strategic risk associated with these
    capacity shortfalls is balanced among the combatant commanders based
    upon Secretary of Defense policy and guidance, which reflect the
    National Military Strategy.
        Specific to the issue of amphibious ship capacity, the Navy remains
    committed to providing 30 operationally available amphibious ships to
    meet Naval amphibious ship demand. With some risk, 30 amphibious
    landing ships can support a two-Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)
    forcible entry operation. This force accepts risk in the arrival of
    combat support and combat service support elements of the MEB, but this
    risk is appropriately balanced with the risk in a wide range of other
    important warfighting requirements within today's fiscal limitations.
        Navy can achieve this operational availability goal by sustaining
    an inventory of about 32 amphibious ships in the mid- to long-term. The
    32-ship amphibious force being procured to meet this need will
    optimally be comprised of 11 landing helicopter assault (LHA/D), 11
    landing platform/dock (LPD) 17 and 10 landing ship, dock (LSD). To
    support routine forward deployments of Marine Expeditionary Units
    (MEUs), the amphibious force will be organized into nine, three-ship
    CONUS-based Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), and one four-ship ARG based
    in Japan, with an additional big-deck amphibious ship available to
    support contingency operations worldwide. Two LSDs will be taken out of
    commission and placed in reserve status allowing Navy to reconstitute
    an 11th ARG as required in the future, or to build up the number of
    ships in the active inventory, if necessary.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey and Mr. Hale, thank
    you for being here. I appreciate the chance we had to talk
    before the hearing.
        One thing I didn't mention then was something you're well
    aware of, that during the last 10 years, we've depended more
    than ever on our Guard and Reserve.
        And, Secretary Panetta, I appreciate what you said during
    your testimony. I know we could never have supported two
    simultaneous wars without men like you.
        General Dempsey, anytime I've visited areas where we're in
    combat, you don't see a difference between the Active Guard and
    Reserve. They're all out there doing their job, putting their
    lives on the line.

                                AIR FORCE BUDGET

        I think your strategies echo this reality from the
    President's guidance in the last Quadrennial Defense Review
    (QDR). As a result, it surprised many of us in the Congress,
    including Senator Graham and I as co-chairs of the Guard
    caucus, when the Air Force presented a fiscal year 2013 budget
    plan that disproportionately cut the Guard.
        I know there will be cuts and we all understand that, but
    it appeared here that you were going after your least expensive
    manpower to save money. That did not make a lot of sense,
    especially since manpower costs are more and more of the
    defense budget as you said.
        So I don't know how you shrink the Guard and maintain a
    ready and capable force. So my question is, does DOD stick with
    its earlier strategies to increasingly depend on the Guard and
    Reserve, or is there an alternative?
        Because the Air Force budget does not appear to follow that
    idea.
        Secretary Panetta.
        Secretary Panetta. Senator, you know, again, what the Air
    Force was asked to do is based on the new strategy, try to
    develop an approach that provided a kind of multimission
    support for the force.
        And, as a result of that, made decisions with regards to
    some areas that could be reduced in order to achieve obviously
    the savings that we were required to achieve.
        I recognize, you know, the controversy involved here
    because it impacts on constituencies, it impacts on the Guard.
        Senator Leahy. I'm afraid it impacts on readiness too.
    That's my biggest concern.
        Secretary Panetta. Yes, I understand that.
        But, you know, obviously, we don't want to take it out of
    the Active Force because that is a force that's there ready to
    deploy quickly.
        What I've suggested is to try to see if there's a way that
    we can work to provide some restoration. So I think I suggested
    putting some additional 130s back in place to try to assist
    some of these areas with regards to the impact that might be
    there.
        Let me just say this for the record. I'm fully prepared to
    work with this subcommittee and to work with the staff of this
    subcommittee to try to see if there's a way to do this that can
    minimize the impact, but at the same time, hopefully achieve
    some of the necessary savings that we have to do in order to
    achieve it.
        Senator Leahy. I hope you will. And you've worked with
    Senator Graham and me in the past on these issues. I know we
    can again.
        On another matter related to the budget, I was one of those
    on the subcommittee who opposed the Iraq war from the very
    start. President Obama also did. I opposed it because I didn't
    think it was the right decision for our national security. And
    we basically ran that war on a credit card.
        Now we're making decisions how we address the national
    deficit. It is not just sequestration. We voted earlier, the
    majority of us did, that sequestration should happen only if we
    were unable to reach consensus on deficit reduction.
        The understanding was we would put everything on the table.
    But now we find people who are calling for more military action
    in other parts of the world. At the same time, they do not want
    to consider any way of paying for it, unlike what we've always
    done in the past.
        What would be the impact of going to war again without
    committing to pay for that war with upfront taxes, something we
    did not do in either Iraq or Afghanistan, for the first time in
    the history of the country?
        Secretary Panetta. Well, obviously, if we repeated the
    mistake of not paying for the war that we decide to engage in,
    whatever that might be, the result would be that you would
    simply add more to the deficit and to the debt of this country
    for the future. You just put that burden on our kids for the
    future.
        And, you know, look, I think we always have to be careful
    when you make the decision to put our men and women in uniform
    into harm's way. That's number one.
        But number two, if that decision is made, then I think for
    the sake of the country, it's important that we recognize the
    costs that are involved and that, frankly, all of us bear some
    responsibility to pay those costs if we're willing to engage in
    war.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    for your service, all three of you.

                       NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

        Secretary Panetta, since the end of the cold war, North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has grown from 16 to 28
    members, and yet we know that the threat of a Soviet invasion
    into Europe has virtually disappeared, with only five alliance
    members spending the obligatory standard of 2 percent of their
    Nation's gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.
        And several countries as we know refused to participate in
    combat assignments or limit what they will do.
        We're contributing 23 percent of the military construction
    (MILCON) for NATO which is approximately $254 million this year
    alone. And then virtually the same amount of percent of
    expenditures for operations of NATO.
        My question is, are you looking at the NATO alliance and
    determining if it is serving the function for which it was
    intended, and if there is a commensurate effort by all of the
    members? Or whether, perhaps, we are paying more than our fair
    share for what we are getting in return?
        Secretary Panetta. Senator, you've raised a legitimate
    concern here, you know, with regards to the responsibility of
    NATO nations to assume a greater responsibility for developing
    their capabilities and improving their defense posture.
        One of the things that came out of the NATO meeting in
    Chicago was developing greater capabilities for NATO with
    regards to missile defense, intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR), with regards to other areas, to try to
    ask them to assume greater responsibilities in those areas.
        But I also think as I stated to my fellow defense
    ministers, we have great concerns because of the budget
    situation that faces many of those nations in Europe that one
    of the dangers here is that they'll constantly go back to
    defense and seek further savings there, which I think would be
    dangerous.
        Right now, for example, when it comes to a NATO deployment,
    Libya is a good example, I think we provided probably about 60
    percent of the support for the forces that went into Libya. Now
    they tell me that if we were to engage, the United States would
    probably have to pick up 80 percent of that responsibility.
        You know, that's not something that really makes clear to
    those nations the responsibility they have to be able to
    develop their own capability. So I think it's very important to
    continue to stress to those countries that they have to
    continue to invest in their basic security.
        There are some countries that are doing that. There are
    some countries that are investing well over 2 percent of their
    GDP in the defense budgets. We commend them for that.
        But other countries have to recognize that the last thing
    that we need right now is for them to do further cuts in the
    defense budgets that they have because that will put more of a
    burden on our shoulders in the future.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just take Germany as an
    example. And Germany is certainly going through the hard times,
    and we understand, and they're burdened with regard to the rest
    of Europe.
        But on our side, representing our interests, Germany, in
    military construction, Germany contributes 7 percent to the
    infrastructure costs that we would make in their country, as
    compared, for instance, to Japan, which provides at least 40,
    and sometimes more, percent.
        Germany has refused to contribute any resources into Libya.
    In Afghanistan, they limit what they will do, and their number
    of troops has been around 5,000.
        Now, the army is planning this year to spend 7 percent of
    its military construction budget in Germany, that's on top of
    the NATO part. It will be about $243 million this year, to
    build Landstuhl, which is fine, that's a priority of ours. I'm
    for that.
        But the other half, a $113 million, is for new schools,
    elementary and high schools. Now, obviously, if our troops are
    there, we need to furnish the schools that are good.
        But my question is, the troops that are there. Are we
    overspending the military construction for the amount of troops
    that we have there?
        And are we looking at the future on whether, in fact, it
    might be the rotational forces that you mentioned, is more of
    the strategy in the Pacific, that maybe we would start doing
    that in Germany and other places and cut back on this enormous
    military construction cost?
        Secretary Panetta. I'll ask General Dempsey to comment on
    this as well.
        But we're doing exactly that. We're bringing two brigades
    home from Europe. One of the things we intend to do is to
    emphasize more of the rotational presence that we have there,
    and to be able to do exercises.
        We do have some important infrastructure there. It's very
    important to our deployments to the Middle East and to the war
    zone, and that's the reason some of that is continuing.
        But I think you're right. I think we've got to increase our
    rotational deployments. We've got to ask them to make a greater
    contribution to the infrastructure needs to do this.
        At the same time, let me make very clear, the NATO alliance
    is extremely important to our ability to deal with some of the
    challenges in the world. We can't do it alone.
        We've got to be able to have alliances like NATO, be able
    to work with us in confronting the many challenges that we face
    in the world.
        General Dempsey. Yes, we're out of time, Senator.
        But what I would offer is a briefing to you on what we
    consider to be the enormous and important benefits of being
    part of that alliance. And I know some of them are self-
    evident.
        But we've got initiatives, Baltic Skies, allied ground
    system, the activities in Kosovo, things that are kind of
    behind the scenes that we really need to expose to you so that
    you understand the reason we're still so deeply integrated into
    the NATO command structure.
        And acknowledging your point about their investment and the
    fact that it's declining. But let's, if I could, take that one
    as a task.
        Senator Hutchison. I appreciate it, and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        I do just hope we're looking at an equalization of effort
    according to the return that we're getting. Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, and Mr. Hale.
        First of all, we want to welcome you, and we want to thank
    you for your service.
        Mr. Panetta, you came to the House of Representatives in
    1976. We came together. We were part of the bicentennial year.
    And the way we're going, we're going to be here for the
    tricentennial.
        And, General Dempsey, you graduated from West Point just
    about the time Secretary Panetta and I were getting started in
    the Congress.
        But you two represent close to 70 years, 35 years in each
    military and through a variety of exemplary civilian posts. So
    we thank you for your dedication and your service to the
    country.
        And, Mr. Hale, your being here, shows what is often
    overlooked when we talk about national security, the role of
    the civilian work force in supporting our military, its
    commanders, and the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in
    Chief. So we want to thank the civilian work force.

                                     CYBER

        I want to raise some questions about new priorities and new
    threats, acknowledging that Maryland has really a strong
    military presence from the Naval Academy to Walter Reed, Naval
    Bethesda, helping those with the wounds of war, to Fort Meade,
    our new cyber command, the 10th Fleet, Pax River, Andrews,
    Aberdeen, Fort Detrick, we're really proud of the presence
    here.
        But I want to go to the issues of cyber. Mr. Secretary,
    you've said publicly, and even at our debriefings, that you
    viewed cyber as the potential digital Pearl Harbor.
        And, General Dempsey, you, and again, at meetings,
    briefings and our cyber exercise, talked about the great sense
    of urgency. Could you talk about what you mean when you say a
    digital Pearl Harbor?
        Do you feel that, as you indicate on page 6 in your
    testimony, Sir, you have the right money? And do you also have
    the authorities that you need to do to protect the Nation?
        You have here, in addition to the Appropriations chair
    Senator Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran, but you have the
    chair of the Intelligence Committee, you have one of the co-
    authors of the Lieberman-Collins bill.
        So we want to make sure that we don't have a digital Pearl
    Harbor. So could you elaborate on what you meant? Do you have
    what you need? And should we have a greater sense of urgency in
    getting some things done, and what would you say they'd be?
        And, General Dempsey, I'd like your comments as well, Sir.
        Secretary Panetta. Senator, I appreciate the question.
        I think there has to be a greater sense of urgency with
    regards to the cyber potential, not only now, but in the
    future.
        I think this is a, obviously, it's a rapidly developing
    area. The reality is that we are the target of, you know,
    literally hundreds of thousands of attacks every day. It's not
    only aimed at Government; it's aimed at the private sector.
        There are a lot of capabilities that are being developed in
    this area. I'm very concerned that the potential in cyber to be
    able to cripple our power grid, to be able to cripple our
    Government systems, to be able to cripple our financial
    systems, would virtually paralyze this country.
        And, as far as I'm concerned, that represents the potential
    for another Pearl Harbor, as far as the kind of attack that we
    could be the target of, using cyber.
        For that reason, it's very important that we do everything
    we can, obviously, to defend against that potential. I feel
    very good about our capabilities in terms of defending our
    systems with the help of the National Security Agency (NSA) and
    their great technological capabilities.
        I do think that authorities, and the ability to try to not
    only, it's not only in the defense sector, it's in the civilian
    sector, that we have to improve this. And I think that's the
    area where we have to deal with the additional authorities.
        And I think the Lieberman-Collins bill is one that
    addresses that, and we support the Congress enacting that in
    order to try to facilitate that capability.
        General Dempsey. I would just add, Senator, that we've seen
    the world go from distributed denial of services, you know,
    just hackers overwhelming a Web site, to incredible
    intellectual property theft and technology theft, to now
    destructive cyber.
        It's in the open press. And that has all happened in a
    matter of a few years. And this particular domain, the cyber
    domain, is changing rapidly.
        And so to your question about sense of urgency, I can't
    overstate my personal sense of urgency about that.
        Second, I'd like to pile on to the Secretary in support of
    the pending legislation that encourages information sharing and
    takes a good necessary but only first step.
        And then, third, I'll tell you on the issue of authorities.
    The President does have the authorities he needs. What we need
    to develop are some rules of engagement, if you will, because
    these things occur at network speed.
        This is not something where we can afford to, you know,
    convene a study after someone has knocked out the east coast
    power grid. So, we're working on that.
        Senator Mikulski. So, I know my time is up, but what you
    say is that you feel that there's enough money in the DOD
    approach to meet the protection of the .mil.
        What gives you heartburn and concern is the protection of
    .com.
        Secretary Panetta. That's right.
        Senator Mikulski. And as you develop rules of engagement,
    the Congress now has to really have a sense of urgency at
    developing the legislative framework, starting with Lieberman-
    Collins, in the protecting of .com.
        Does that sound right?
        General Dempsey. If I could just, maybe just sharpen that a
    bit.
        I don't have any intention of, you know, the .com would
    include your personal email address. I'm fine with you doing
    what you do in your own personal email domain.
        But I'm concerned about the defense industrial base, and
    I'm concerned about the critical infrastructure of this
    country. That's where we should focus our efforts.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I have other questions
    related to military medicine, and if I could, one final note.

                                    COMFORT

        Mr. Secretary, I wouldn't be the Senator from Maryland if I
    didn't raise the ship, the Comfort. Today's the beginning of
    our sail, tall ships coming into Baltimore Harbor.
        As ancient ships come in, we're saying goodbye to the
    hospital ship, the USNS Comfort. I take no comfort in that.
    Could you take a look at it and see if I could keep the
    Comfort, or Maryland can keep the Comfort.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Secretary, General Dempsey, and Mr. Hale.

                                     BUDGET

        Mr. Chairman, you recalled your time in the House of
    Representatives, and at one point you chaired the House Budget
    Committee, and I was one of your loyal acolytes.
        You set the stage in our budget deliberations for us to
    reach a balanced budget, which I'm very proud of that
    achievement, and I know it wasn't easy.
        I asked the Appropriations Committee staff to compare
    spending when our budget was in balance to where it is today,
    in three categories, using constant dollars, and here's what
    they came up with.
        Going back to 2001, in domestic discretionary spending,
    there has been zero increase in spending. When it comes to
    entitlement spending, there has been 30-percent increase in
    spending since we were in balance.
        With the budget we are proposing, the base budget, not the
    OCO, but the base budget we're proposing for the Department of
    Defense, it will be a 73-percent increase over what we were
    spending when we were in balance in constant dollars.
        I might also say to you though I think the sequestration
    clearly hits hard, maybe too hard, and too fast, at the end of
    the day under sequestration, Defense would end up with the same
    percentage of the gross national product (GNP) that it had when
    the budget was in balance.
        So my question to you is one to take a step back, perhaps
    from your role, and go back to your history with the budget.
    What is a fair number for us when it comes to the defense of
    this country and security?
        I know we need every dollar it takes to be safe. But if we
    are going to cut back in healthcare and education to provide
    more money on the military side, isn't that going to have an
    impact on the men and women who volunteer to serve in our
    military, and whether they are qualified to serve?
        Secretary Panetta. Well, first and foremost, you know, with
    regards to the defense budget, I do believe we have to play a
    role. And the fact is that we're going to be cutting half of $1
    trillion from the defense budget over the next 10 years.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Senator Durbin. Under sequestration.
        Secretary Panetta. And this is part of----
        Senator Durbin. In addition to sequestration.
        Secretary Panetta. And then if you add sequestration to
    that, you're looking at another chunk, $500 billion, on top of
    that.
        So, I think, defense, it does have to play a role. At the
    same time, I think we have a responsibility, obviously, to
    protect the strongest military in the world, and to help defend
    this country.
        On the larger issue, Senator, you know this as well as I
    do, and I think every member of this subcommittee knows it,
    you're dealing with a very serious deficit issue and debt
    issue. And you can't keep going back to the same well to try to
    resolve those issues.
        You can't keep going back to domestic spending. You can't
    keep going back to the discretionary side of the budget in
    order to solve a multitrillion dollar problem that faces this
    country.
        I mean, if you're serious about taking this on, it's what
    we had to do, frankly, beginning in the Reagan administration,
    that's what we did in the Bush administration, it's what we did
    in the Clinton administration.
        If you're serious about taking this on, you got to put
    everything on the table. You've got to look at mandatory
    spending. You've got to look at revenues. You also have to look
    at, you know, how you cap domestic discretionary.
        But you're not going to solve this problem with the
    domestic discretionary budget. You're just not.
        Senator Durbin. May I ask you this question?

                       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS

        When we brought--in the Simpson-Bowles Commission, when we
    brought the experts in to talk about the Department of Defense
    and where we might save money, the most startling testimony
    came when we asked about private contractors who work for the
    Department of Defense.
        The basic question we asked is, how many are there? And the
    answer was, we don't know. We really don't know.
        Estimate somewhere, you know, maybe Governmentwide, some 7
    million. There are 2 million Federal civil service employees,
    to give you some context here.
        And when you look at the dollar amounts that are being
    spent in the Department of Defense for contractors, as opposed
    to the civilian work force at the Department of Defense, and
    those in uniform, it is substantially higher.
        For many of us, this outsourcing just became a passion, and
    people stopped asking the most basic question: Is this serving
    the Nation well? Is it saving us money?
        I notice that you are in-sourcing more. You're bringing
    some jobs back into the Department of Defense. And in your
    earlier testimony, you said you need to reduce the service
    support contractors.
        So it seems to me that there has been documented waste when
    it comes to these service contracts. When it comes to the
    contracts for big ticket items, I will tell you the cost
    overruns on the F-35 equal 12 Solyndras.
        I haven't heard too many press conferences on those, but
    it's an indication to me that there is money to be saved there,
    and I know that you would take that personally and want to do
    it.
        How much is built into your cost savings and cuts when it
    comes to this potential overspending on contractors and cost
    overruns on projects?
        Secretary Panetta. Well, obviously, on the efficiency
    front, this is an area of principal focus. We did $112, or $125
    million last year?
        Mr. Hale. On service contracts.
        Secretary Panetta. On efficiencies.
        Mr. Hale. $150 billion.
        Secretary Panetta. $150 billion last year with regards to
    those efficiencies. We're adding another $60 billion on top of
    that. A lot of that is aimed at trying to reduce the
    contractors, and to try to gain greater efficiencies there.
        Look, I'd be the last one to say that we can't find those
    savings in the Defense Department budget. We can, and that's
    what we did.
        But the goal is not simply to whack away at it without
    tying it to a strategy about what kind of defense system do we
    need for the future in order to protect the country.
        As long as we can tie it to that strategy, as long as we
    can make sense out of how we achieve these savings, then we can
    achieve, as I said, the $500 billion in savings that we've been
    asked to do by the Congress, and we can achieve and be more
    efficient in the future.
        But don't think that Defense alone is going to solve the
    bigger problem that you're facing in this Congress and in the
    country.
        Chairman Inouye. Senator Harkin.
        Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Secretary, welcome back.

                                 DISCRIMINATION

        I have two kind of disparate issues I wanted to cover with
    you.
        One, last November, we had a short conversation about what
    I was hoping to be perhaps the next step in breaking down the
    discrimination against people with disabilities in our country.
        And that was allowing people with disabilities to serve in
    our Armed Forces. We had a unique case of a young man who had
    gone through Reserve Officers Training Corp (ROTC) in
    California, had done extremely well in all of his tests, all of
    his scores and stuff, but was denied entry into the military
    because he was deaf.
        And I reported to you at that time perhaps having a pilot
    program, of bringing people in to the military, who could add
    to the defense of this country, who would be exemplary
    employees, but they might not be able to be the Chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff. They may not be a pilot in the Air Force
    or other things they might not be able to do, but they can do a
    lot of other things.
        And so, since that time, I must tell you that we've had
    some problems with the Department of Defense in moving ahead on
    this. You even requested, Mr. Secretary, a briefing on this
    from people down below, but nothing is happening.
        I can tell you that my staff has tried to work on this
    since the first of this year. Numerous phone calls and meetings
    have been cancelled. We could never get any response on this
    about setting up such a pilot program until a couple of days
    ago when they found out that I was going to ask you about this,
    and we now have a meeting set up next week, which is fine, I
    understand all that.
        I'm just saying that I know that you were going to look at
    that. I just think this is one place where again, we've got to
    break down some of these barriers. There's a lot of people with
    disabilities that want to serve their country, can serve in the
    Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines.
        They may not be able to do exactly everything that people
    can do, but they can do within their abilities. They can
    provide a lot of support. And then I would just ask you,
    please, once again, to really take a look at this and set up a
    pilot program.
        And, if you can't do it, Mr. Secretary, if you can't do
    this, if something is prohibiting you from doing that, let me
    know, and we'll try a legislative approach on it.
        Secretary Panetta. No, I appreciate your leadership on this
    issue. You've led on this issue for a long time during your
    career here on the Hill, and I respect it, but, more
    importantly, I agree with you.
        And for that reason, you know, I think we can try to set up
    a pilot program. I mean, look, right now, when we have wounded
    warriors, and let me tell you, wounded warriors come out of
    there with new legs, new arms, and sometimes they're back at
    duty, and they're doing the job, and they're doing it well.
        Senator Harkin. Exactly.
        Secretary Panetta. So if we can do it for wounded warriors,
    I think we can reach out and do it for others as well that can
    be part of it. So you have my assurance, we'll look at
    something.
        Senator Harkin. I appreciate it. Especially looking at some
    of these young people that are coming through schools right now
    and stuff who have a lot of abilities and want to serve.
        That was one. The second one had to do with another issue
    that I briefly raised with you. In Afghanistan, the Department
    of Defense has been involved in a program of spurring small
    businesses in Afghanistan.
        Obviously, you get people off of the drug business and
    stuff. And one of that was in the carpet industry. The Afghan
    law, there's an Afghan labor law. There's U.S. law. There's
    International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 182 about
    child labor, using child labor in this thing.

                               INSPECTION SYSTEM

        We asked that you work with the Department of Labor, our
    Department of Labor, on this to incorporate, to use a
    nongovernmental organization (NGO), in terms of monitoring this
    and setting up an inspection system, an independent, third-
    party inspection and verification system to make sure that no
    U.S. taxpayers' dollars are used to support businesses that
    employ children in the worst forms of child labor.
        Now, we've had some progress in that, but as we tend now,
    as we're going to turn this over to them, we're not setting up
    a mandatory verification system, and that bothers me.
        So, in other words, we were kind of doing a pretty good
    job, but now that we're handing it over in our agreement, we're
    not making an agreement to make sure that they adhere to the
    independent third-party verification system there.
        I know it's a small thing. You got a lot on your plate, Mr.
    Secretary. You're talking about all of our budgets and stuff
    like that, but to me, this is just again, one of those areas
    where we can do a lot of good while also supporting an industry
    in Afghanistan.
        And, again, I would ask you to look at those contracts that
    we have to safeguard that verification, and that third-party
    verification system in Afghanistan.
        Secretary Panetta. I know we're aware of your concerns in
    this area. Let me ask Bob Hale to comment on that.
        Mr. Hale. Senator Harkin, I think you're referring in part
    at least to some contracts through the Task Force for Visits
    and Stability Operations.
        Senator Harkin. That's the name.
        Mr. Hale. They did do some delays trying to make sure that
    there were appropriate safeguards on child labor. It's a
    difficult area to work in, a country that has different rules
    and standards than we do.
        Senator Harkin. No, there's an Afghan law.
        Mr. Hale. Say again?
        Senator Harkin. There's a law in Afghanistan. We just want
    them to adhere to their own law, that's all.
        Mr. Hale. Okay. I hear you. They are aware of the concerns,
    and I think they have made some steps in the right direction,
    but I promise you, I'll go back and make sure that we're doing
    all we can.
        Senator Harkin. Thank you. If you could just give me a
    point person to work with in your office down there, because my
    staff and I know this pretty well, and we know what needs to be
    done in terms of that verification. That's the big sticking
    point.
        Mr. Hale. Okay. We'll do that.
        Senator Harkin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Collins.
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me thank my colleague from Maryland for bringing
    up the very important issue of cyber security. She along with
    Senator Feinstein, Senator Lieberman, Senator Rockefeller, and
    I have been working very hard and agree that it's absolutely
    critical that we set standards for critical infrastructure, and
    that that has such important consequences.
        And I very much appreciate the endorsement of our efforts
    that I heard this morning. I also appreciate, Mr. Secretary,
    your urging as to act sooner rather than later to avert what
    would be the disastrous consequences if sequestration were
    allowed to go into effect.
        I think it would be a huge mistake for us to wait until the
    lame duck, that's too late, and we do need to tackle that issue
    now. We really do.
        And I think it would help if you provide us with even more
    detail, and I know the Armed Services Committee has asked for
    that.

                                  SHIPBUILDING

        Let me turn to another issue that refers to our priorities.
    As I review the Department of Defense's budget, I'm very
    concerned that the ship building account is significantly
    undervalued.
        Shipbuilding represents a mere 2.2 percent of the budget
    requested by the Department of Defense. Sixteen ships were
    eliminated or delayed outside the 5-year budget window.
        And just to put this in perspective, our country currently
    spends as much on interest payments on the national debt every
    month than we do for shipbuilding in the entire year.
        Further, the executive branch as a whole spends slightly
    more than the equivalent of the entire shipbuilding budget, $15
    billion a year, on Federal agency travel and conferences.
        Now, I know the administration's trying to address travel
    and conferences, but that really says something about our
    priorities.
        I'm concerned that the combatant commanders have testified
    repeatedly about the increasing importance of the maritime
    domain and their areas of responsibility.
        I recently returned from a conference in Southeast Asia,
    and I know Secretary Panetta, you were over there as well, in
    which I heard about China's aggressiveness in the South China
    Sea, and its maritime claims, its harassment of vessels from
    the Philippines, for example.
        The importance of our Navy and to our ability to project
    power, particularly with the pivot to the Asia Pacific region,
    cannot be overstated.
        So I'm concerned that the budget projects only 285 ships by
    fiscal year 2017 when every study I've seen, whether it's
    within the Department or outside of the Department, independent
    reviews, have said that we need a minimum of between 300 and
    315 ships.
        And the fact is that while our ships are increasing in
    their ability, that quantity still counts, if you're going to
    try to project power.
        So I would ask you to address my concern and how the
    Department settled on 285 ships when virtually every study
    calls for 300 to 313.
        Secretary Panetta. Senator, I appreciate the concerns that
    you've indicated.
        And what I asked the Navy to do, and the Navy Chief to do,
    is to make very certain that we have the ships we need in order
    to project the power we have to project in the Pacific, in the
    Middle East and elsewhere, and be able to do that effectively.
        And their recommendation was that based on, you know, the
    number of ships that are in line to come on, the ones that we
    are already producing, that to do this and do this in a way
    that meets our needs, that the 285 ship approach is a good
    baseline, and we're ultimately going to move to 300 ships by
    2020.
        You know, we're maintaining 11 carriers. We're going to
    maintain, you know, a number of the amphibs. We're going to
    maintain our destroyer and our key fleets. With regards to the
    Pacific, we're obviously going to maintain a strong submarine
    force as well.
        And I'm convinced based on the Navy Chief's
    recommendations, that we can do this, you know, obviously
    meeting our fiscal needs here, but we can do this in a way that
    protects a strong Navy for the future.
        Now, I'm willing to keep going back and looking at those
    numbers to make sure that we're in the right place, because I
    share the same concern. If we're going to have a strong
    presence in the Pacific, if I'm going to have a strong presence
    in the Middle East, I have got to have a Navy that's able to
    project that.
        And right now, I think everybody I've talked to in our shop
    and in the Joint Chiefs says, we've got the force we need to be
    able to make that happen.
        General Dempsey. Senator, I know we're over time, but I
    really feel obligated to comment on this, because I mentioned
    in my opening statement that the budget we submitted is a joint
    budget.
        It's not the individual service budgets kind of bundled
    together. We really worked this as a joint team.
        We were faced with the Budget Control Act, $487 billion.
    And so every service paid a bit of that bill. I will tell you
    the Navy paid least of all because we prioritized exactly the
    issue you're talking about.
        But, you know, quantity counts, not only at sea, it counts
    in the air, and it counts on the land.
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It's good to see you. I've known
    you for a very long time. I was sitting here thinking. Your
    first appearance before the Intelligence Committee when you
    became Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), you
    were somewhat tentative, somewhat reserved.
        And today, I saw you at full volume. Totally in control.
    So, it's been quite an evolution.
        Let me begin by thanking you for the help you gave us on
    our intelligence congressional delegation (CODEL) to
    Afghanistan. It's very much appreciated.

                          GROUND LINE OF COMMUNICATION

        I wanted to see what I might be able to talk with you a
    little bit about on the ground line of communication (GLOC)
    subject. You were good enough to facilitate a meeting with
    General Allen, and the four of us had an opportunity to spend
    some time.
        He was most impressive. And I think we learned a great
    deal. And one of the things that came up was the incident in
    November. And it became rather clear to me that there were
    mistakes made on both sides.
        And General Allen, much to his credit, has taken at least I
    think it's six or seven steps to remedy some of the problems.
    Here enter the GLOCs.
        You raised the question of the GLOCs. It is my information
    that Pakistan wants most of all some civilian announcement that
    mistakes were made on our side. And I think mistakes were made
    on their side as well as I've looked into this.
        And that the GLOC problem could be solved. As a matter of
    fact, I think there was a meeting on the 11th, a day or so ago,
    unless it was cancelled. And so, they are prepared to rather
    dramatically lower the cost.
        But the apology is all important. As we have discussed, and
    I think the position is, that the national security of this
    Nation is best served if we can develop a positive relationship
    with Pakistan.
        And both you and I and others know what the road has been.
    And that there might be an opportunity to make a change in that
    direction, particularly with the new head of the Inter-Services
    Intelligence (ISI), as well as some other things.
        So my question of you, and I guess my lack of
    understanding, is why there can't be some form of statement
    that in essence says, if it's believed, I happen to believe it,
    that mistakes were made on both sides.
        And, of course, the United States apologizes for any
    mistakes that we made, and we have taken steps to correct that
    and see that it will never happen again.
        Secretary Panetta. Senator, I appreciate your concern, and
    you understand these issues by virtue of your chairmanship of
    the Intelligence Committee and the dealings that we've had to
    have with Pakistan.
        You're right. I mean, it's a complicated relationship, but
    it's also a necessary relationship by virtue of our security
    needs in that area.
        This is an issue that is still under negotiation. There are
    discussions that continue with regards to how we can resolve
    this. The issue you discussed is one of those areas. I think
    General Allen, the United States, has made clear that mistakes
    were made and they were made on our side. They were also made
    on the Pakistani side.
        And that we expressed condolences for the mistakes that
    were made. We've made that clear, and we certainly have
    continued to make clear the mistakes that were made.
        I think the problem is that, at this point, they're asking
    not only for that, but there are other elements of the
    negotiation that are also involved, that have to be resolved.
        So that alone, isn't the only issue that's being discussed
    and that needs to be resolved in order to get the GLOCs opened.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. Thank you for that answer.
        Do you believe that the Afghan military will be fully ready
    to take over come 2014?

                                  AFGHAN ARMY

        Secretary Panetta. I was just there in Afghanistan on this
    last trip and had a chance to meet with Minister Wardak.
        Every time I go there, I get the opportunity to see the
    Afghan army and the improvements in terms of their operations.
    There's no question, right now, they're at about 346,000.
    They're going to go to 352,000. They're way ahead in terms of
    achieving the target that they want to achieve.
        They are doing an incredible job in terms of maintaining
    security, particularly in the transition areas that we've
    provided. I think that they are improving.
        Our goal over these next 2 years is to continue to train,
    continue to assist them in their capabilities. And I have to
    tell you that I am confident that we're going to be able to
    complete all of the transition in the areas that we have as
    part of General Allen's plan.
        That we can do this because we have the Afghan army in
    place, but also because we continue to have ISIF in places well
    to provide the support necessary. So I think the combination of
    an Afghan army that's able to do the job plus the kind of
    enduring presence that we need to have there as well in order
    to assure that the training and assistance continues.
        I think that combination does make clear that they're going
    to be able to govern and secure themselves at that point.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I know that my time
    is up.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Coats.
        Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just two things I would like to raise in the time that I
    have.
        One is, Mr. Secretary, as CIA Director, you had operational
    control over the bin Laden raid. As you know, three of us on
    this Committee also serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee
    which Senator Feinstein chairs.
        And we've been alarmed, I think it's fair to say, with this
    recent spate of leaks that have occurred. We are working
    together in a bipartisan way to try to address this.
        But one of the areas of concern is over the question of
    this accommodation with Hollywood filmmakers regarding the bin
    Laden raid. It's been alleged that the name of one of the
    participants in that, one of our uniformed participants in
    that, has been made public.
        We are wondering, the question is whether other details
    have been shared about that. This comes on the heels of a
    series of devastating leaks that have compromised very
    sensitive operations, put peoples' lives at risk.
        Devastating negative consequences going forward in working
    with sources, et cetera, et cetera. You're well aware of all
    that.
        I guess my question here is simply the role of the
    Department of Defense relative to this Hollywood situation and
    other situations where your forces are involved.
        And I think it's just fair to say, the Chairman would
    agree, that we're looking at every possible avenue to try to
    minimize, mitigate, eliminate these types of leaks.
        And so working with you and your people in your Department
    I think is going to be helpful as one of the areas that we're
    going to need to work with in a comprehensive way of trying to
    get a handle on this.
        I'm really not asking you for details regarding all this.
    We all love to go see these Hollywood movies. They're exciting
    and so forth.

                             CLASSIFIED OPERATIONS

        But to the extent that information is shared relative to
    classified operations and personnel to make the movie a little
    more exciting and realistic and so forth and so on, contributes
    to the problems that we have.
        And so I think we want to make sure that each department,
    whether it's the agency or whether it's the intelligence
    community or whether it's the Department of Defense is aware of
    the fact that we need to thoroughly investigate all this and
    put in place measures which will prevent this from happening in
    the future.
        Whether you want to comment on that or not, I'll leave that
    to you.
        Secretary Panetta. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
        Look, let me first say as a former Director of the CIA, I
    deplore the unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
        Senator Coats. I know you do.
        Secretary Panetta. I think that this is something that does
    have to be fully investigated, and it has to be very clear that
    this is intolerable if we're going to try to protect the
    defense of this country. We've got to be able to protect those
    who are involved in clandestine operations.
        Having said that, I also want to make clear that, you know,
    no unauthorized disclosures were provided to movie producers or
    anybody else. What we do have is we do have an office at the
    Pentagon that almost every day deals with people that want to
    do something about, you know, either a movie or a book or an
    article or something related to our defense.
        And we want to make sure that the information that they do
    use is accurate. And we do assist them with regards to the
    accuracy of that information. But I can assure you, I've asked
    that question, in this instance, nobody released any
    information that was unauthorized.
        Senator Coats. Well, I hope you would join us in a thorough
    review of procedures just to make sure that our policies are
    straight on this.
        Secretary Panetta. We will. Absolutely.
        Senator Coats. Thank you.
        And, General Dempsey, you and I were posted to Europe
    during the same timeframe, and I do agree with Senator
    Hutchison that, you know, with this rebalancing and global
    posture and with our financial fiscal issues, we have to be
    very careful with taxpayers' money.
        And I think she raised some legitimate questions in terms
    of infrastructure and MILCON money going to that. By the same
    token, I'd just like to get your take and make sure that we're
    not rebalancing too far.
        I mean, as you look across this arc of terrorism and arc of
    threats starting in Pakistan and Afghanistan and coming across
    to Iran and Israel and Syria, the Arab Spring, all those
    countries involved and so forth, everything from the Khani
    network to Al-Shabaab in Somalia.
        I mean, there are a lot of threats out there. And the
    question is, some of these threats require a rapid response.
        And Germany has always been a place where we have
    facilities to house and train those people who can be that
    rapid response to emergency situations and as well as just
    normal operations.
        Have we gone too far? Or, I mean, are we on the cusp of
    leaving too much too fast?
        And then when you also add the NATO component in terms of
    our need to continue to utilize and keep that organization
    dynamic and vibrant and effective as a partner. What is your
    take on all that?
        General Dempsey. Well, as you know, Senator, former
    Ambassador, I've had 12 years of service in NATO, and so I tend
    to see the world in many cases through our North Atlantic
    Alliance.
        And, in fact, I think that's legitimate because it is the
    track record of this country that when we enter into conflict,
    the first people we turn to to be partners with us in that
    regard are the members of the North Atlantic Alliance.
        Second, you know, we shouldn't discount the benefit of
    being there to also build partners, build their capacity. And
    we do that at places like Hohenfels and Grafenwoehr and
    elsewhere.
        And I think that building their capability makes it certain
    that we won't always have to be in the lead, even if sometimes
    there is some political reluctance that has to be overcome to
    do that.
        I mention the Allied Ground Surveillance System which is a
    SMART defense initiative. I didn't mention the European phase,
    adaptive approach, ballistic missile defense cooperation. We've
    just gone through a NATO command structure review and shrunk
    the number of headquarters from about 12 to about 6.
        So, I mean, I will just tell you that I tend to be very
    strong on our relationship with NATO, notwithstanding the
    Senator's concerns about the investment.
        Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you both for your service. I think we have a vote on
    so I'll try to cover as much ground as possible.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Secretary, if we do not change the sequestration
    dilemma, if we don't do something about it before the election
    as a Congress, when can we expect layoff notices to hit?
        Secretary Panetta. Well, obviously, industries make that
    decision, but under the law, I think they've got, they got to
    do it at 60 days.
        General Dempsey. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining
    Notification (WARN) Act, anywhere from 60 to 90 days.
        Secretary Panetta. Yes, 60 to 90 days before it takes
    effect.
        General Dempsey. So, September.
        Senator Graham. Will you have to lay off any civilian
    employees as a result of the sequestration?
        Secretary Panetta. I suspect that if in fact it ultimately
    takes effect, we're going to have to do the same thing, sure.
        Senator Graham. Well, would you do the same thing, 60 to 90
    days before? I would urge you to do it sooner rather than
    later.
        Secretary Panetta. We have to. We have to.
        Senator Graham. Well, I just want you to make it real to
    us.
        It seems like the biggest bipartisan accomplishment we've
    had in recent memory is to destroy the Defense Department. It's
    not something I'm very proud of, and it's going to take
    bipartisanship to undo this.
        So the sooner you can tell us about the number of jobs to
    be lost and how it will affect our Defense base, I think the
    better for the Congress as a whole.
        Now, you're telling us about TRICARE. You're telling us you
    have a budget problem. When is the last time TRICARE premiums
    have been adjusted for the retired force?
        General Dempsey. 1993.
        Secretary Panetta. 1993.
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Now, members of this subcommittee and I know we all love
    our retired military members, and I hope to be one one day, but
    isn't it unsustainable for you, if we do not bring this program
    into some kind of a sustainable footprint, you're having to
    compete with retiree healthcare against modernization, against
    benefits for today's force, against the ability to fight and
    win wars; is that correct?
        Secretary Panetta. I mean, as I said, we're paying $50
    billion now in the healthcare arena, and if we don't control
    those costs, it's going to eat up other areas that are vital
    for our defense.
        Senator Graham. So, you're telling the Congress, it's
    unsustainable.
        Secretary Panetta. Exactly.
        Senator Graham. You're having to make choices between the
    retired healthcare costs and fighting this war and future wars.
        Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
        Senator Graham. And I hope we can find a way to be fair to
    the retired force, but also to maintain a sustainable military
    budget.
        When it comes to retirement, you're talking about reshaping
    retirement benefits in the future not for people who exist
    today, right?
        Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
        Senator Graham. Because if you retire at 38, you get half
    pay for the rest of your life. Maybe that's something we need
    to revisit. I want to be generous, but I want it to be
    sustainable.
        That's the message to the Congress, right?
        Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
        Senator Graham. Okay. And your message about sequestration
    is, I'm doing my best to handle $450 to $500 billion. If you
    want to double that, you're going to destroy the best military
    we've ever had.
        Is that simply put?
        Secretary Panetta. That's right.
        Senator Graham. Okay.

                             GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

        Now, GDP spending on the military. What's been the
    historical average for the last 45 years of GDP spent on the
    military?
        General Dempsey. Back to the last 20 years, maybe 4 or 5
    percent.
        Senator Graham. Okay. It's 5.5 percent over the last 45
    years.
        General Dempsey. You knew the answer.
        Senator Graham. September 11, 2001, it was 3 percent.
    Today, it ranges from 4 percent to 5.78 percent. In World War
    II, it was 5.72 to 42 percent. The Korean War was 8.25 to 18
    percent. Vietnam, 7.65 to 10.86.
        I would argue to my friends on both sides of the aisle,
    that you're right. We're not going to get out of the debt by
    lowering the military spending alone.
        I'm all in for reforming the way we spend money. Costs plus
    contracts seem to be a bad idea. Do you agree?
        Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
        Senator Graham. The longer it takes, the more you make. The
    more it costs, the longer it takes for the contractor, the more
    they make.
        You're looking at doing a fixed-price contract for future
    weapons acquisitions, right?
        Secretary Panetta. That's right.
        Senator Graham. Where everybody's got skin in the game. Go
    down that road. I applaud you tremendously for doing that.
        Aid to Pakistan. Do you consider the Foreign Ops budget a
    benefit to the military? The Foreign Operations account, the
    State Department's role in the world.
        Secretary Panetta. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Would you recommend to us to stop aid
    to Pakistan right now?
        Secretary Panetta. I'd be very careful about, you know,
    just shutting it down.
        What I would do is look at conditions for what we expect
    them to do.
        Senator Graham. What about Egypt?
        Secretary Panetta. No, I would not, I think, at this point
    in time, support that----
        Senator Graham. Could you and General Dempsey write me a
    letter recommending to the Congress what we should do about our
    aid programs to the Pakistani military, the Pakistani
    Government, to the Egyptian military and to the Egyptian
    Government?
        Secretary Panetta. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        The last thing I want to talk to you about very briefly is
    you said something that just kind of went over everybody's head
    I think. That there's a Pearl Harbor in the making here.
        You're talking about shutting down financial systems,
    releasing chemicals from chemical plants, releasing water from
    dams, shutting down power systems that could affect the very
    survival of the Nation.
        What's the likelihood in the next 5 years that one of these
    major events will occur?
        Secretary Panetta. Well, you know, all I can tell you is
    that----
        Senator Graham. Is it a high probability or low
    probability?
        Secretary Panetta. All I can tell you is that,
    technologically, the capability to paralyze this country is
    there now.
        Senator Graham. Is there a growing will to use that
    capability by our enemies?
        Secretary Panetta. I think the more this technology
    develops, the more the will to potentially use it is going to
    dictate the will.
        Senator Graham. Would you say there is a high probability,
    that the capability, and the will?
        Secretary Panetta. I think there's a high risk.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you both for your service.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be
    brief. Gentlemen, thank you.

                              AIR FORCE IN ALASKA

        Secretary Panetta, you have mentioned that this budget
    needs to relate to the full-defense strategy. We certainly
    understand that with the attention to Asia and the Pacific. We
    think that Alaska plays a large and a significant role. We
    have, historically.
        But we think going into the future, that that role actually
    accelerates. There has been a proposal by the Air Force to move
    the F-16 Aggressor Squadron from Eielson. We've raised many,
    many questions.
        Unfortunately, it seems that there are more questions that
    are being raised after we receive some of the information from
    the Air Force.
        We just got the site activation task force review that was
    assigned to look at the feasibility of this move. The concern
    that we have is in addition to additional questions being
    raised, you've got a situation where the other forces are, I
    think, are impacted.
        You've mentioned that this needs to--this budget needs to
    be a balance between all forces. We're looking at the impact to
    the Guard which has the 168th Refueling Wing, and how it will
    be impacted if Eielson is put to reduced hours.
        We look at the incredible Army training ranges that we have
    up north that could be comprised. At J-Bear, we've got some
    very serious housing issues that need to be assessed.
        We are in a situation now where we are trying aggressively
    to get some very concrete answers from the Air Force on this.
    We have determined that this proposal is going to cost us this
    next year $5.65 million in fiscal year 2013, which does not
    fall in line with the President's budget.
        The very direct question that I have to you, Secretary
    Panetta, General Dempsey, is whether or not you will encourage
    the Air Force to abandon this plan for Eielson Air Force Base
    in 2013.
        Take this proposal back to the drawing board, give it the
    thorough, very comprehensive vetting that it must have, to
    ensure that in fact we are operating with the focus, the vision
    towards the Asia Pacific, and that this truly does reflect the
    new defense strategy.
        Secretary Panetta. I will have General Dempsey respond to
    this as well.
        Let me make clear that, you know, the Air Force was looking
    for, obviously, ways to save money because of the
    responsibility to respond to the Budget Control Act.
        There are F-15s located at Eielson. There's F-15s located
    at Elmendorf, and they felt that it was better to try to unify
    those.
        I just want you to know, and I've shared this with your
    colleague as well, that we have no intention of closing down
    Eielson. It's a very important base for us. It's important in
    terms of air refueling. It's important in terms of the role
    that we want to be able to play with regards to the Pacific.
        And so nothing that is being recommended here in any way is
    intended to impact on Eielson itself as a future base for the
    Air Force.
        General Dempsey. I'll just add.
        I know that you and Senator Begich are in contact with the
    Air Force. I won't commit to going back and talking the nut of
    their plan. I will commit to you to go back and make sure I
    understand their plan better. And then, I'll engage with you on
    it personally, you and Senator Begich.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that.
        I do recognize though that part of the proposed savings
    that the Air Force is looking to is demolishing several
    buildings within Eielson. The replacement value of these is
    about $150 million.
        So it puts it in a situation where it would appear to be a
    backdoor BRAC, and that is the concern, the consideration.
        So again, if I can ask you to do a very comprehensive
    review, work with us, General Dempsey, I will look forward to
    your conversation.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you. And I will conclude my comments
    with just a direct appeal. The focus, as we look at the
    infrastructure is all very keen, but it always comes down to
    our human assets.

                                    SUICIDE

        I remain very, very troubled with the high level of suicide
    that we are seeing with our military, also with our veteran
    population. I think most are staggered to learn that we're
    actually seeing more deaths due to suicide than we are actually
    out in theater in Afghanistan.
        How we deal with this reflects on how we are as a Nation
    and our commitment to those who serve us. So I know you are
    focused on that, but I felt compelled to raise it here.
        Secretary Panetta. Senator, I thank you for pointing that
    out.
        I'm very concerned by the high rate of suicides. Talking
    with the Service Chiefs, they share that concern. And, as a
    matter of fact, highlighted the fact that they were seeing, you
    know, a higher rate in suicide than they had seen in the past.
        And what I've asked all of them to do, plus the
    undersecretaries that are responsible for this, is to
    immediately look at that situation and determine what's behind
    it, what's causing it, and what can we do to make sure it
    doesn't happen.
        Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murray.
        But before you do, we'll be leaving because there's a vote
    pending.
        Senator Murray [Presiding]. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to continue the thought process of
    Senator Murkowski. I, too, am very alarmed by the suicide rate
    among our servicemembers and our veterans.
        New analysis is showing us that every day in 2012 one of
    our servicemembers committed suicide, and as you just
    commented, outpacing combat deaths. In our veteran population,
    we know a veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes, every 80
    minutes.
        Now, I think we can all agree on two things. First of all,
    our servicemembers and their families have risen to the
    challenge. They have done everything this country's asked of
    them throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're all
    eternally grateful.
        Second, the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs
    (VA) are losing the battle on mental and behavioral health,
    conditions that are confronting a lot of our servicemembers,
    loved ones and as we just talked about, resulting in such
    extreme things as suicides.
        Secretary Panetta, our servicemembers and veterans can't
    get needed treatment or access to needed resources without
    correct diagnosis. As you know, this has been a major problem
    for soldiers in my home State of Washington.

                         POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

        At Madigan, to date, more than 100 soldiers and counting,
    have had their correct post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
    diagnoses now restored after being told they were exaggerating
    their symptoms, lying, and accused of shirking their duties.
        So, understandably, a lot of our servicemembers' trust and
    confidence in the disability evaluation system has been
    seriously shaken in the wake of these events.
        As you know, I have continually raised concerns about the
    consistency and accuracy of behavioral health evaluations and
    diagnosis within the entire disability evaluation system and
    have offered my recommendations on how to improve the system.
        And, as you also know, the Army has now taken some
    critically important steps forward in beginning to address
    these concerns.
        Secretary McHugh has announced a sweeping, comprehensive
    Army-wide review of behavioral health evaluations and diagnosis
    back to 2001 to correct the errors of the past and to make sure
    our servicemembers get the care and services that they need and
    that they deserve.
        But I wanted to ask you today, because this is not just an
    Army disability evaluation system; this is a joint Department
    of Defense and VA program, covers all the services. So I wanted
    to ask you why the Department has not taken the lead in
    evaluating and making improvements to the entire system.
        Secretary Panetta. Senator, we are.
        What I've asked is the other service chiefs' view,
    implement the same approach that the Army's taking here.
        Senator Murray. To go back to 2001 and review all cases?
        Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
        Senator Murray. Throughout the entire system?
        Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
        Senator Murray. Okay.
        So they are all following the Army's lead now, and we will
    be told the evaluations and the progress of that.
        Who's heading that up?
        Secretary Panetta. Our Under Secretary for Personnel and
    Healthcare. That's the individual that you need to contact.
        Senator Murray. Well, I would very much like to be kept
    informed as I'm sure all of our Members of Congress would. I
    think this needs to be transparent and clear.
        We need to make sure that people are accessing the system,
    getting back if they need it, and the only way to do that is to
    be clear, open, and honest with everyone.
        So I didn't know that we were looking at all the other
    Services, and I'd like more information and to be informed on
    that as soon as possible about how that's taking place and what
    the timetable is, and how that's going to occur.
        Secretary Panetta. I appreciate your leadership on this,
    Senator, and I'm not satisfied either.
        I think, you know, the misdiagnosis that took place, what's
    happening in this area between, look, we're doing everything we
    can to try to build a better system between the Pentagon, the
    Department of Defense, and VA.
        But there are still huge gaps in terms of the differences
    as to how they approach these cases, how they diagnose these
    cases, and how they deal with them. And, frankly, that's a
    whole area that we've just got to do much better on.
        Senator Murray. Well, you can't imagine what it's like to
    talk to a soldier who was told he had PTSD. His family was
    working with him, and then when he went through the disability
    evaluation system was told he was a liar, or a malingerer. He
    was taken out of it, and then he went out into the civilian
    world, not being treated.

                          DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM

        That is a horrendous offense. You know, I'm chair of the
    Veterans Affairs Committee, and I recently held a hearing on
    the joint disability evaluation system. And I just have to tell
    you, I am really troubled by what I'm hearing.
        Enrollment is continuing to climb. The number of
    servicemembers' cases meeting timeliness goals is unacceptably
    low. The amount of time it takes to provide benefits to a
    servicemember who is transitioning through the system has risen
    each year since we began this.
        In response to these problems, we heard from DOD and VA
    together about how 5 years after, 5 years after the Walter Reed
    scandal, and this program was piloted, they're just now
    beginning to map out business processes to find room for
    improvement.
        You know, that's just unacceptable. The public, all of us,
    really believe that this was being taken head on, that we were
    dealing with it. At 5 years out, unacceptable numbers that
    we're seeing.
        So I wanted to ask you what you are doing at your level to
    deal with this, 5 years into this program, and we're still
    hearing statements from Army leaders about how the disability
    evaluation system is fundamentally flawed, adversarial,
    disjointed.
        Tell me what we're going to do.
        Secretary Panetta. Let me do this.
        Secretary Shinseki and I have been meeting on a regular
    basis to try to do what we can to implement improvements. And,
    very frankly, we're not satisfied either by the progress that's
    being made here.
        Part of it is bureaucratic, part of it is systems, part of
    it is just the complicated and----
        Senator Murray. You can't image what it sounds like to hear
    that.
        Secretary Panetta. Pardon me?
        Senator Murray. It's bureaucratic. I mean, if you're in
    this system, that's not the word you want to hear.
        Secretary Panetta. Yes, okay.
        And, you know, I see it every day. I'm in charge of a very
    big bureaucracy. And the fact is that sometimes just the
    bureaucratic nature of large departments prevents it from being
    agile enough to respond and do what needs to be done.
        And so a large part of this is just making sure that people
    are willing to operate out of the box, and do what needs to be
    done in order to improve these systems.
        What I would offer to you is let Secretary Shinseki and I
    sit down with you and walk through the steps we're taking to
    try to see if we can try to shake the system and make it do a
    better job.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, I really appreciate that
    commitment.
        I know you have not been there the entire 5 years, but I
    will tell you this, we've been told for 5 years that DOD and VA
    are sitting down on a regular basis addressing this.
        Secretary Panetta. I know. Yes.
        Senator Murray. And I'm talking to soldiers that are stuck
    in this disability evaluation system. There are bureaucratic
    delays. The people that are supposed to be helping them,
    they're training them because they've been in the system longer
    than the trainers who are supposed to come in and work with
    them.
        Their families are facing, you know, horrendous challenges
    as they try and figure out what the future brings, months on
    end. You know, people at the top are saying this is
    fundamentally flawed. You ought to hear what the people at the
    bottom who are in it are saying.
        Secretary Panetta. Yes.
        Senator Murray. So I totally appreciate your saying that to
    me today, but sitting down and talking with Secretary Shinseki
    is something we've been hearing for a long time. We need some
    recommendations. We need to move forward. We need this to be a
    top priority at the Pentagon.
        As we transition now out of Afghanistan, this is not going
    to get more simple.
        Secretary Panetta. I agree with you. No, you're absolutely
    right.

           POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CASES

        Senator Murray. Add to that, the complexities of now going
    back and reviewing all of these PTSD and behavioral health
    cases, you have people who are in the IDs system right now who
    are saying, what's going to happen to me while you go back and
    review all these people?
        Are we putting more personnel in to deal with this? Or, now
    am I going to take another back seat as we deal with that? This
    is complex. It's hard. It's problematic, but it needs every
    single effort from top to bottom.
        Secretary Panetta. Listen, I share all of your
    frustrations, and my job is to make sure that we don't come
    here with more excuses, but we come here with action. I
    understand.
        Senator Murray. And I truly appreciate that comment, and I
    want to work with you. All my efforts are at your disposal. We
    do a fantastic job of training our men and women to go into the
    service. We still today have not gotten this right after this
    war in making sure that they transition back home.
        We have families and soldiers and airmen throughout the
    Service who are really stuck in a process that they shouldn't
    be stuck in. We've got to get this right, and we got to get it
    right now, and we need every effort at it.
        And I will sit down with you the minute you tell me you are
    available, but I want more than a meeting.
        Secretary Panetta. Okay. I agree.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Murray. Okay. All right. I believe, is Senator
    Shelby on his way?
        I understand that Senator Shelby is on his way. We have a
    second vote. I have to get back for that. If I would just ask
    you gentlemen patience for him to return so that I can return
    for the second vote, I would appreciate it.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted to Secretary Leon E. Panetta
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department of Defense (DOD) has become
    increasingly concerned over the past few years regarding our military's
    dependence on petroleum-based fuels. These concerns relate to both the
    ready availability of fuels during times of conflict and to the
    increasing costs of such fuels.
        For example, it's been reported that the Pentagon spent $17.3
    billion on petroleum in 2011, a 26-percent increase from the previous
    year with practically no change in the volume purchased.
        It has also been reported that for every $0.25 increase in the
    price of jet fuel, the DOD must come up with an extra $1 billion
    annually.
        Relative to future supplies and prices, we can all see that global
    fuel demands will continue to increase steadily as the economies of the
    BRIC nations--Brazil, Russia, India, and China--and similar nations
    grow and demand more fuel for transportation and industrialization.
        Obviously, some of our leaders in the Pentagon see these future
    threats as well, and I commend the Department of the Navy for signing a
    memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Energy (DOE)
    and with United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the
    development of commercial biofuels production capabilities. I
    understand that under this MOU, the DOD intends to fund multiple drop-
    in biofuel production facilities under the Defense Production Act.
        Could you please speak to DOD's long-term strategy for assuring
    future fuels supplies and the role that you believe domestic biofuels
    can and should play in that? More specifically, could you comment on
    the role that this joint Navy/DOE/USDA procurement activity plays in
    DOD's longer term fuels security strategy?
        Answer. In DOD's ``Operational Energy Strategy,'' our goal is to
    ensure our forces have the energy they need to protect the Nation. The
    ``Strategy'' rests on three principles:
      --reducing demand;
      --diversifying supply; and
      --building the future force.
    Reducing demand, or getting more military output for our energy input,
    is the top energy security priority for the Department. Ninety percent
    of the Department's investment in operational energy improvements in
    fiscal year 2013 will go toward these sorts of energy efficiency and
    performance gains. Improved energy efficiency not only benefits the
    Department's bottom line, but more importantly, helps produce forces
    that are lighter, more mobile or flexible, and have greater range or
    endurance. Building an energy-efficient future force means that the
    Department needs to integrate operational energy considerations into
    the full range of planning and force development activities.
        The second principle of diversifying supply is where domestic
    biofuels and other similar efforts are important. The Department needs
    to diversify its energy sources in order to have a more reliable and
    assured supply of energy for military operations. We are going to have
    ships, planes, and vehicles designed to use liquid fuels for decades to
    come so we have an interest in the ability of drop-in biofuels to, over
    the long term, provide the Department with new, sustainable, and
    reliable sources of the fuel we need to accomplish the defense mission.
    We are looking for fuels that are compatible with existing equipment
    and storage infrastructure, exploring where and how biofuels will be
    available and affordable to our forces, and leveraging the expertise of
    other Federal agencies where appropriate.
        The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have been certifying
    aircraft, ships, tactical vehicles, and support equipment to use
    alternative liquid fuels. Such activities represent a relatively small
    but important investment in drop-in alternative fuels--less than 0.6
    percent of the more than $15 billion the Department spent on petroleum
    fuel last year. This investment ensures that our equipment can operate
    on a wide range of alternative fuels, which is important to ensuring
    our military readiness over the long term.
        To aid the Military Services in this effort, on July 5, 2012, the
    Department of Defense Alternative Fuels Policy for Operational
    Platforms was released. The policy, which was required by the National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2012, states that the
    Department's primary alternative fuels goal is to ensure operational
    military readiness, improve battlespace effectiveness, and further
    flexibility of military operations through the ability to use multiple,
    reliable fuel sources. It makes clear that all DOD investments in this
    area will be subject to a rigorous, merit-based evaluation. The policy
    also lays out clear guidance for our future fuel certification efforts,
    field demonstrations, and ongoing purchases. Of note, the policy
    formalizes what is already the practice for all the Services: That DOD
    will not make bulk purchases of alternative drop-in replacement fuels,
    outside of certification and demonstration activities, unless they are
    cost competitive with petroleum products. With this policy, the
    Department will continue to steward its alternative fuels investments
    wisely as we ensure the long-term readiness and capability of our joint
    force.
        Another important component of the Department's longer term fuels
    security strategy is the Defense Production Act Advanced Drop-In
    Biofuels Production Project, which is focused on creating public-
    private partnerships to incentivize private-sector investment in cost-
    competitive biofuel production capability. The U.S. Navy and the
    Departments of Agriculture and Energy developed the initial strategy
    for this project, which is now under the oversight and technical review
    of an interagency team that will ensure the best value for the taxpayer
    and the Department.
        Question. As DOD has worked to strengthen the Afghan carpet
    industry, for the past 2 years, I have been raising with the Department
    the need to ensure that DOD funds do not, either directly or
    indirectly, support child labor in the carpet industry. I've not been
    wholly satisfied with DOD's efforts in this regard. The contract into
    which DOD entered to prevent the use of child labor in the carpet
    industry stopped short of mandating an independent third-party
    monitoring and certification system. Subsequent to that, the contractor
    offered a no-cost extension of the contract to do just that, but DOD
    refused.
        Quite frankly, I think the Department needs direction from the top
    that it should examine all of its efforts in the Afghan rug industry to
    make sure that it's doing all that it can to ensure U.S. taxpayer
    dollars are not being used to exploit children in any sector of the
    economy. Mr. Secretary, we have a legal and moral obligation to require
    that no child labor be used when U.S. tax dollars are paying for
    economic development projects. What actions will you take moving
    forward to ensure that relevant DOD contracts will include safeguards
    so U.S. funding does not subsidize child labor?
        Answer. DOD is committed to promoting stability in Afghanistan
    responsibly through strategic business and economic activities. DOD
    takes this issue very seriously and is committed to our treaty
    obligations under the International Labor Organization Convention No.
    182 on child labor and receives policy guidance from the U.S.
    Department of State as the U.S. Government's lead on these issues. The
    DOD, through the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, will
    continue to work with the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and State on
    the issue of child labor in Afghanistan should it arise in future
    projects.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. How is the Department ensuring that critical, Government-
    owned and -operated facilities in the Nation's organic industrial base,
    like Rock Island Arsenal, are properly and strategically modernized so
    that these facilities have the equipment and skillsets they need to
    respond to wartime needs?
        Answer. Section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, sets forth a
    congressional mandate for minimum capital investments for certain
    depots of the Department, including the Rock Island Arsenal.
    Specifically, section 2476 dictates each military department shall
    invest in each fiscal year in the capital budgets of those depots a
    total amount at least equal to 6 percent of the average total combined
    maintenance, repair, and overhaul workload funded at all the depots of
    that military department for the preceding 3 fiscal years. The Army,
    for example, has exceeded the 6-percent threshold with an investment in
    its facilities of approximately $290 million from fiscal year 2009
    through fiscal year 2012.
        The Army has developed an Organic Industrial Base Strategic Plan
    that provides a disciplined framework for ensuring that all the Army's
    arsenals and depots remain viable and relevant in a post-war funded
    environment. The plan addresses a Capital Investment Strategy that
    includes investment in new technology, training, and plant equipment at
    the same rate that the Army modernizes its weapon systems. The plan is
    in the final stages of approval by Headquarters Department of the Army
    (HQDA).
        Further, the Department is mandated under 10 U.S.C. 2464, to
    maintain a core depot-level repair capability. The purpose of the core
    requirement is, among other things, to ensure a ready and controlled
    source of technical competence and resources needed to respond to
    military mobilization, contingencies, and other emergencies. The
    Department applies and enforces the core requirement through an annual
    and biennial capability and workload review, completed by the Services,
    and reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. To efficiently
    maintain maintenance capabilities, DOD facilities, equipment, and
    personnel accomplish a broad range of workloads in support of peacetime
    operations. Most of these workloads involve the maintenance, repair,
    and overhaul of combat weapons systems and components ensuring a
    defined skill set and wartime repair capability. Additionally, the
    preservation of core capability requires ongoing capital investments
    consistent with section 2476 as well as the introduction of new weapon
    systems.
        Question. The Senate and House versions of the National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2013 each carry authorizations
    for some of the reforms you announced earlier this year to combat
    sexual assault in the military. Is the Department planning for the
    implementation of those authorized authorities, assuming they are
    signed into law? If so, please describe the Department's implementation
    timeline.
        Answer. The Department is prepared to review and expeditiously
    implement the provisions of the fiscal year 2013 NDAA once it is in
    effect. The proposed Leadership, Education, Accountability and
    Discipline on Sexual Assault Prevention Act of 2012 (LEAD Act) contains
    six major elements, each requiring a unique timeline and implementation
    plan. Assuming the bill is passed, we offer an approximate timeline for
    each element as follows:
      --Establish Special Victim's Capability within each of the services
            comprised of specially trained investigators, judge advocates
            and victim-witness assistance personnel. Each service have
            identified and are already training investigators and judge
            advocates to establish this capability. Following passage,
            victim witness liaisons will be identified and trained to
            complete this capability. Once the fiscal year 2013 NDAA is
            passed, it will take approximately 6 months to 1 year for all
            of the services to have a functioning Special Victim's
            Capability for each service.
      --Require that all servicemembers have sexual assault policies
            explained within 14 days of entrance into active service,
            educating our newest members right away to understand our
            culture will not tolerate sexual assault. Once the fiscal year
            2013 NDAA is passed, this element will take approximately 3
            months for full implementation.
      --Require a record of the outcome of disciplinary and administrative
            proceedings related to sexual assault be centrally located and
            retained for a period of not less than 20 years. Once the
            fiscal year 2013 NDAA is passed, it will take approximately 6
            months to 1 year to implement this requirement.
      --Require Commanders to conduct an annual Organizational Climate
            assessment, obtaining information about the positive and
            negative factors that impact unit effectiveness and readiness.
            Once the fiscal year 2013 NDAA is passed, this element can be
            implemented within a 6-month time period.
      --Provide Reserve and National Guard personnel who have been sexually
            assaulted while on active duty to request to remain on active
            duty or return to active duty until line of duty determination
            is done, allowing servicemembers who file an Unrestricted
            Report to receive services and/or complete a line of duty
            investigation. Once the fiscal year 2013 NDAA is passed, this
            element will take approximately 6 months to 1 year to
            implement.
      --Require greater availability of information on Sexual Assault
            Prevention and Response resources to include DOD workplaces,
            dining facilities, healthcare, and residential facilities will
            have prominently placed Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
            resources information to assist servicemembers, military
            dependents, and civilian personnel. Once the fiscal year 2013
            NDAA is passed, this element will take approximately 6 months
            to implement.
        Question. Recently, the Department opened up approximately 14,000
    battalion-level combat-related positions to female servicemembers. What
    is the Department's timeframe for examining and possibly reclassifying
    other combat-related provisions in order to permit women to serve on a
    broader basis?
        Answer. In March of this year, the Department eliminated the co-
    location restriction that opened more than 13,000 combat support
    positions to both men and women, as well as opened more than 1,000
    positions at the battalion level in direct ground combat units in order
    to evaluate the performance of women in these positions and inform
    policy. I have directed the Secretaries of the military departments to
    advise me on their evaluations of women's performance in these
    positions, as well as any additional positions that can be opened and
    assessment of remaining barriers to full implementation of the policy
    of allowing all servicemembers to serve in any capacity, based on their
    abilities and qualifications. This assessment will occur no later than
    November 2012.
                                vision research
        Question. In the fiscal year 2013 budget submission, the President
    requested $21.374 million for core vision/eye research and all sensor
    systems.
        Would you discuss the importance of this funding?
        Answer. Research to improve the prevention, mitigation, treatment,
    rehabilitation, and restoration of military eye and vision trauma is
    critically important since most human activity is visually guided. In
    current conflicts, eye injuries account for approximately 15 percent of
    all battlefield trauma, and have resulted in approximately 183,000
    ambulatory and more than 4,000 hospitalized cases involving eye injury.
    In addition to injuries that blind or impair vision immediately, hidden
    injuries such as retinal breaks, iris disinsertion, lens damage, and
    optic nerve trauma have been found to go undetected at the time of the
    battlefield trauma and dramatically increase the risk of future vision
    loss. Even in the absence of direct eye injury, blast exposures,
    concussions, and traumatic brain injuries (TBI) cause visual and
    associated vestibular neurosensory dysfunction in 75 percent of exposed
    individuals. All of these problems negatively affect the ability of
    servicemembers and veterans to reintegrate in both military and post-
    service employment and life skills.
        The DOD/Veterans Affairs (VA) Vision Center of Excellence has been
    a leader in the analysis of research gaps in blindness and vision
    impairment, including TBI-related vision syndrome. Under the aegis of
    its Vision Research Portfolio (VRP), DOD has developed a comprehensive
    inventory of needed research in blindness, vision impairment, and TBI-
    related visual neurosensory dysfunctions caused by military trauma. The
    range of these research topics spans:
      --the discovery of better methods of protecting deployed individuals,
            improved battlefield treatments that will save the sight of the
            wounded;
      --development of long-term treatments for chronic visual
            dysfunctions;
      --the need for better surveillance tools for as yet undetected
            problems; and
      --developing valid approaches to the restoration of sight.
    At present, vision restoration is in its infancy compared to other
    areas of prosthetics, such as amputations, where dramatic strides are
    continually being made. We are fortunate that VRP funding announcements
    are being met by research proposals of the highest quality, which will
    greatly benefit the care of our servicemembers and veterans. We have an
    obligation to our servicemembers and veterans to ensure that they have
    access to our best possible solutions for their readiness, ocular
    health and visual quality of life. Maintaining and enhancing funding of
    DOD research targeted to these areas is a critical need.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                    united states relationship with pakistan
        Question. Last month, at the full Committee mark-up of the fiscal
    year 2013 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, this
    Committee cut $33 million in Foreign Military Financing for Pakistan to
    protest the 33-year prison sentence for Doctor Shakil Afridi, who
    helped the United States track down Osama bin Laden.
        What are your current views on United States foreign assistance to
    Pakistan and how do you see the United States-Pakistan relationship at
    this time?
        Answer. The United States-Pakistan relationship is fundamental to
    our vital national security interests. We need to cooperate with
    Pakistan on defeating al-Qaeda, supporting Pakistani stability, and
    reaching a lasting peace in Afghanistan. I support assistance to
    Pakistan that is targeted at achieving our core interests and
    sustaining our engagement--civilian and military--with the Government
    of Pakistan. By comparison, cutting off assistance to Pakistan in 1990
    led to an era of decreased engagement which still adversely affects our
    relationship today.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) programs--especially Coalition
    Support Fund reimbursements--will play an important role in re-starting
    our engagement with Pakistan as we seek a way forward on advancing
    broader United States national security interests. Passing amendments
    limiting assistance to Pakistan will jeopardize our ongoing discussions
    on all avenues of cooperation, including the ground lines of
    communication (GLOC) negotiations. If we can restart the relationship,
    the next year would require that we be flexible enough to respond to
    potential additional strains that may occur, and to take advantage of
    any improvement in Pakistan's willingness to cooperate on issues that
    advance United States national interests. Any conditions applied to DOD
    programs for Pakistan should, therefore, be designed to support these
    interests. Funding restrictions or unachievable certification
    requirements for those programs would have direct, negative
    consequences on our core interests, our strategic posture in
    Afghanistan, and long-term regional stability.
        Question. What do you see happening with the border situation in
    Pakistan? Are we able to resupply our troops in Afghanistan without
    using the Pakistani border?
        Answer. We--and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)/
    International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) partners--have been
    able to support our forces in Afghanistan during the closure of the
    Pakistan-based GLOC since late November. However, we have done so by
    relying heavily on northern distribution network (NDN) lines of
    communication as well as costly, multimodal shipments using rail and
    air. Maintaining redundant supply routes into Afghanistan, including
    the Pakistan GLOC, will enable logistics flexibility at a critical time
    for coalition forces. Working with Pakistan to open the GLOC will
    reduce the burden on the United States taxpayer, will allow us to
    transit supplies to forces more quickly, and will be important for
    United States and coalition retrograde from Afghanistan and equipping
    of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).
        Question. When will the administration finally declare the Haqqani
    Network a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)?
        Answer. The authority to make FTO designations rests with the
    Secretary of State. I understand that Secretary Hillary Clinton is
    undertaking a review of an FTO designation of the Haqqani Network, and
    I defer to her on the results of that review.
                                south china seas
        Question. Secretary Clinton has stated that the peaceful resolution
    of disputes in the South China Sea is in the ``national interest of the
    United States,'' and that multilateral solutions should be pursued. In
    response, the People's Liberation Army insisted that China had
    ``indisputable sovereignty'' over the sea, though it would allow
    freedom of navigation.
        What is your assessment of China's behavior in the South China Sea?
        Answer. My assessment is that China should clarify the nature of
    its claims in the South China Sea and resolve disputes through
    diplomatic means consistent with international law without coercion or
    the threat or use of force. We encourage China to work with Association
    of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on developing a binding code of
    conduct for behavior in the South China Sea and to work toward the
    peaceful settlement of territorial disputes. It is long-standing U.S.
    policy that we do not take a position on specific territorial disputes,
    and we have consistently called upon all parties to clarify their
    claims in the South China Sea in terms consistent with international
    law. Finally, it is important that China recognize and respect the full
    breadth of high seas freedoms in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ),
    which includes the freedoms of navigation and overflight and other
    internationally lawful uses of the seas related to these freedoms.
        The region and the world are watching the situation in the South
    China Sea carefully, and forming impressions based on how claimant
    states manage these disagreements.
        Question. Who is driving this assertiveness, the military or
    civilian leadership?
        Answer. We have questions about the level of coordination between
    the political and military leadership in China, and suspect there are
    areas of friction between them. However, we believe that recent actions
    taken in the South China Sea are in accordance with the broader goals
    of the civilian leadership and do not represent a rift within China's
    leadership. The People's Liberation Army's (PLA) top decisionmaking
    body, the Central Military Commission, remains subordinate to civilian
    leadership. China's consensus driven decisionmaking process continues
    to prevent one entity from challenging the status quo.
        Question. How concerned are you that an incident in the South China
    Sea, such as the current standoff between China and the Philippines
    over the Scarborough Shoal, could erupt into a wider conflict that
    could drag in the United States?
        Answer. We are watching the situation in the South China Sea
    closely, and support a collaborative diplomatic process by all
    claimants to resolve disputes. The United States opposes the use or
    threat of force or coercion by any claimant in pursuing its claims. We
    support ASEAN and China's efforts to negotiate a full code of conduct
    that:
      --is based on the principles of the U.N. Charter, customary
            international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea
            Convention, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, and the
            Declaration on Conduct; and
      --creates a rules-based framework for managing and regulating the
            conduct of parties in the South China Sea, including preventing
            and managing disputes.
        To reduce the risk of conflict in the South China Sea, I believe
    the United States should use its position in several regional
    organizations, including the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional
    Forum, and the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus, to facilitate
    initiatives and confidence-building measures that will help claimant
    states reach an agreement on a binding code of conduct in the South
    China Sea. Additionally, the United States should continue serving as a
    positive example of a nation that adheres to recognized international
    norms of behavior through policy implementation, effective training,
    and proper accountability. These include the ``rules of the road,''
    such as the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
    (COLREGs), the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
    (SOLAS), and other established international safety and communication
    procedures, such as the Code for Unalerted Encounters at Sea (CUES).
    The United States should also encourage all South China Sea claimants
    to abide by these behavioral norms to ensure greater operational safety
    and reduce the risk of dangerous incidents at sea.
        Question. What lines of communication do we have with China's
    military in a crisis situation and are they sufficient?
        Answer. DOD maintains contact with the PLA through a variety of
    mechanisms, including China's Defense Attache Office at its Embassy in
    Washington and the U.S. Defense Attache Office at the U.S. Embassy in
    Beijing. Additionally, in 2007, a Defense Telephone Link (DTL) was
    established between the United States and China, intended for exchanges
    between the United States Secretary of Defense and China's Minister of
    National Defense. Secretary of Defense Gates made the first call to his
    counterpart in April 2008. We seek a military-to-military relationship
    with China that is healthy, stable, reliable, and continuous--these
    lines of communication, which are sufficient, help us meet that goal.
                                  afghanistan
        Question. The number of U.S. forces will be reduced to 68,000 by
    September, down from a peak of approximately 100,000 in June 2011.
    President Obama has said that further reductions will continue ``at a
    steady pace'' until the end of 2014 when Afghan forces will assume full
    responsibility for the security of their country.
        What factors will influence the pace of additional reductions?
        Answer. The recovery of the final 23,000 surge forces is expected
    to be completed by September 2012. Following the completion of the
    surge recovery, fewer than 68,000 U.S. military personnel will remain,
    as laid out in the President's surge plan. As DOD senior leaders have
    stated many times, any future decisions on force reductions will be
    conditions based. This fall, General Allen will prepare his 2012
    fighting season analysis, assessment of the Afghan National Security
    Forces (ANSF) readiness, and will develop and assess options for post-
    surge force levels.
        General Allen's assessment and recommendations will inform, along
    with the Chairman's military advice, my recommendations to the
    President. Primary considerations include the capabilities of both the
    ANSF and the insurgency, the overall security situation across the
    country at the end of the 2012 fighting season, and the projected 2013
    security environment. Security must be considered along with other
    factors, such as progress in transitioning districts and Afghan
    governance development. The security transition process will be
    particularly important, as Afghanistan prepares for the final two
    tranches of Afghan districts that will enter transition. We must ensure
    we have the right mix of United States, International Security
    Assistance Force (ISAF), and ANSF units available to allow the Afghan
    forces to assume the lead in these last transitioning districts.
    Finally, General Allen will assess the required composition of U.S.
    forces on the ground in order to achieve the correct balance of
    conventional, security force assistance, special operations, and
    enabling forces for the future security environment.
        Question. Are Afghan forces still on track to take the lead in
    security matters by mid-2013?
        Answer. ANSF remain on schedule to assume the lead for security in
    Afghanistan in 2013 once Tranche 5 districts begin transition. The ANSF
    continue to grow in capability and size and are increasingly taking the
    lead in planning and conducting operations. Both the Afghan National
    Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police are becoming increasingly
    independent, and the ANA are in the process of establishing its first
    division-sized special operations forces unit.
        Tranche 3 districts will begin transition in July 2012 and at that
    time more than 75 percent of the Afghan population will live in areas
    where the ANSF are in the lead for security. We expect the Afghan
    Government to announce the districts composing Tranche 4 this winter
    and Tranche 5 in mid-2013. Additionally, security conditions are
    assessed as stable in locations where Afghan forces have assumed a lead
    security role. In 2012, enemy-initiated attacks in transitioning
    districts have fallen year to date overall by approximately 15 percent
    from 2011 levels.
        Question. How confident are you that they will be able to assume
    and sustain the lead for security matters?
        Answer. ANSF remain on schedule to assume and maintain the lead for
    security matters. The ANSF are on track to assume lead security across
    Afghanistan as Tranche 5 is implemented in 2013. The International
    Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will continue to train, advise, and
    assist the ANSF as transition process continues through the end of
    2014. At that Point, the Afghans will assume full responsibility for
    security in Afghanistan in accordance with the Lisbon transition
    strategy and timeline.
        However, the international community will not end its commitment to
    Afghanistan in 2014. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
    Summit in Chicago reaffirmed the international community's enduring
    commitment to Afghanistan. The United States remains committed to a
    mission that trains, advises, and assists Afghan forces post-2014, as
    expressed in the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed in May 2012.
    The United States and Afghanistan are committed to a series of 6-month
    reviews to assess the development and structure of the ANSF. These
    collaborative reviews will ensure that the ANSF size and force
    structure are suitable and sustainable for the projected security
    environment.
        Question. What is your current assessment of the ability of Afghan
    forces to assume full responsibility for security matters by the end of
    2014?
        Answer. ANSF are currently on track to assume full responsibility
    for security in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, in accordance with the
    timeline agreed to at the NATO Lisbon Summit, and as reaffirmed at the
    NATO Chicago Summit. The ANSF are on track to reach their October 2012
    goal of 352,000 personnel. The ANSF also continue to grow in
    capability. Currently, more than 90 percent of all combat operations
    are partnered between ANSF and ISAF forces, and the ANSF have the lead
    for more than 50 percent of these operations. Additionally, the ANSF
    have increasingly been accepting custody of detainees detained by U.S.
    forces and are taking the lead in the conduct of special operations.
         the united states-afghanistan strategic partnership agreement
        Question. The U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement
    would allow U.S. forces to remain in Afghanistan after 2014 for
    training Afghan security forces and targeting al-Qaeda.
        How many U.S. troops do you anticipate will remain in Afghanistan
    after 2014?
        Answer. The United States, along with its NATO allies, intends to
    maintain an enduring presence to support the continued training and
    development of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and to
    engage in counterterrorism efforts aimed at combating al-Qaeda and its
    affiliates. Future force-level requirements will be determined by
    taking into account what assets are needed to support those missions,
    and will be guided by the need to ensure that Afghanistan has the
    ability to secure itself against internal and external threats.
        Towards that end, an Afghanistan-U.S. Bilateral Commission was
    established under the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) to advance
    cooperation and monitor progress toward implementing the SPA. A U.S.-
    Afghanistan Working Group on Defense and Security will conduct regular
    assessments of the threat level facing Afghanistan, as well as
    Afghanistan's security and defense requirements. This working group
    will make recommendations about future cooperation between the United
    States and Afghanistan on Afghanistan's security and defense
    requirements. Recommendations will be made to the Bilateral Commission.
        The nature and scope of the future presence and operations of U.S.
    forces are expected to be addressed in a future U.S.-Afghanistan
    Bilateral Security Agreement.
        Question. How long will they be engaged in the missions described
    in the Agreement?
        Answer. The Strategic Partnership Agreement will remain in force
    through 2024. The United States is committed to seek funds on a yearly
    basis during that period to support the missions described in the
    Agreement. The duration and nature of our enduring presence will be
    determined through an examination of what assets are needed to support
    the sustainment of ANSF, and U.S. counterterrorism efforts against al-
    Qaeda and its affiliates.
        Towards that end, an Afghanistan-U.S. Bilateral Commission was
    established under SPA to advance cooperation and monitor progress in
    the implementation of the SPA. A U.S.-Afghanistan Working Group on
    Defense and Security will conduct regular assessments of the threat
    level in Afghanistan as well as Afghanistan's security and defense
    requirements. The nature and scope of the future presence and
    operations of U.S. forces is expected to be addressed in a future U.S.-
    Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement.
        The SPA was designed to provide a long-term political framework for
    relations between the United States and Afghanistan that promotes the
    strengthening of Afghan sovereignty, stability, and prosperity, and
    that contributes to the shared goal of defeating al-Qaeda and its
    extremist affiliates. The enduring partnership established by the SPA
    sends a clear signal to the Afghan people that they are not alone as
    they take greater responsibility for their country.
        Question. What will be the major challenges to concluding a
    Bilateral Security Arrangement to supersede our Status of Forces
    Agreement?
        Answer. As with other negotiations, we generally do not publicly
    discuss U.S. negotiating positions, nor those of our negotiating
    partners. The Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) is expected to set the
    parameters for the nature and scope of the future presence and
    operations of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and the related obligations
    of Afghanistan and the United States.
        There are a number of elements common to most status of forces
    agreements (SOFAs). SOFAs typically address the majority of day-to-day
    issues that may arise regarding the presence of U.S. forces in a host
    nation. As a result, SOFAs generally include provisions addressing
    criminal and civil jurisdiction over U.S. forces and DOD civilian
    personnel, use of agreed facilities and areas, movement of vehicles,
    tax and customs exemptions, contracting procedures, access to and use
    of utilities and communications, and entry into and exit from the host
    nation, among others.
        The BSA will also take into account the particular circumstances
    and requirements of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, such as continued
    access to and use of Afghan facilities for the purposes of combating
    al-Qaeda and its affiliates, training the ANSF, and other mutually
    determined missions to advance shared security interests. The transfer
    of U.S. detention facilities and the conduct of special operations,
    currently guided by U.S.-Afghanistan memoranda of understanding, may
    also be issues that are discussed during the BSA negotiations.
        Question. The Agreement requires the administration to seek funding
    from the Congress for the ``training, equipping, advising and
    sustaining of Afghan National Security Forces, as well as for social
    and economic assistance.''
        How much will this cost?
        Answer. Preliminary plans for the long-term training, equipping,
    advising, and sustaining of the ANSF call for an estimated annual
    budget of $4.1 billion. The plan calls for the ANSF to achieve a surge
    strength of 352,000 personnel by October 2012, which would be sustained
    through 2015 before drawing down to a sustainable long-term force by
    2017. We have received commitments and pledges from the Afghan
    Government and the international community to assist in funding the
    ANSF, and we will continue to pursue international contributions in the
    future. We will also continue to work closely with the Government of
    Afghanistan and our allies and partners to evaluate the security
    conditions on the ground that may alter the assessment of future ANSF
    structure and the associated budget estimate.
        Question. How confident are you that our NATO partners will
    contribute and the United States will not be left with the whole bill?
        Answer. At the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago, our NATO allies and
    other international partners reaffirmed their strong commitment to an
    enduring partnership with Afghanistan that will last beyond the
    transition of full security responsibility to the Afghan forces by the
    end of 2014. The Afghan Government pledged to provide at least $500
    million a year for the ANSF beginning in 2015 and to increase this
    amount progressively over time as its economy continues to grow. The
    international community also recognized Afghanistan's current economic
    and fiscal constraints and pledged to provide significant additional
    funding.
        Additionally, over the past 6 months, Afghanistan has signed
    partnership agreements with a number of other countries around the
    world, many of them NATO allies and ISAF partners, including:
      --the United Kingdom;
      --France;
      --Italy;
      --Germany;
      --Norway;
      --Australia; and
      --India.
    Afghanistan is also negotiating a long-term partnership agreement with
    the European Union. We believe this web of long-term partnerships will
    help support Afghanistan after the security transition, ensuring that
    the international community remains engaged in support of the Afghan
    people in the years following the conclusion of ISAF's mission.
        The international community continued to show its support at the
    recent conference on Afghanistan's continued economic and social
    development after 2014, the Tokyo Conference, agreeing to provide $16
    billion in civilian aid over 4 years.
                         afghanistan--counternarcotics
        Question. The drug trade is a major source of Taliban funding, with
    the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimating that in 2009, the Taliban
    earned about $155 million from the drug trade by taxing farmers,
    shopkeepers, and traffickers in return for security protection. The
    Helmand Food Zone is generally regarded as a success in reducing poppy
    cultivation. The administration has indicated support for expanding
    this program; however, this depends on international funding, local
    political will, and especially security.
        With the 2014 U.S. departure date, what steps is your Department
    taking to limit poppy cultivation and drug profits to the Taliban
    following the U.S. withdrawal?
        Answer. We continue to build the Afghan capacity to counter the
    drug trade and reduce drug-related income to the Taliban. United States
    forces have trained units within the Counternarcotics Police of
    Afghanistan that are currently capable of conducting counternarcotics
    (CN) operations with limited enablers from Coalition forces. We have
    built aviation enablers for the CN effort that will be merged with
    aviation assets to support the Afghan counterterrorism effort. Training
    for this unit includes operations that insert CN forces under the cover
    of darkness.
        United States forces in Afghanistan do not directly support poppy
    eradication efforts other than to provide in extremis support to
    eradication teams under attack, consistent with North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO)/International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF)
    policy. The U.S. Department of State supports the Afghan Government's
    ``Governor Led Eradication'' (GLE) program. While final, verified
    results are not available for the GLE at this time, the program is on
    track to more than double last year's result of 3,810 hectares of poppy
    eradicated.
        I believe that the eradication effort must be carefully planned to
    inflict the most damage on major drug producer's poppy crop and include
    alternative livelihood efforts to provide poor farmers with an
    alternative to poppy cultivation. This requires a whole-of-government
    approach led by the Afghan Government with enabling support from the
    U.S. Government.
        Question. What programs and methods do you see as most effective in
    curbing Afghan drug production and Taliban involvement in the drug
    trade given the security situation in Afghanistan and the impending
    departure of international troops?
        Answer. I believe the most effective method in reducing the Afghan
    illicit drug production, and the Taliban's involvement in the drug
    trade has been conducting joint military and law enforcement operations
    against key nexus targets and involving the Afghans in these
    operations. The counter narco-terrorist effort, however, must engage a
    whole-of-government approach. All of the tools to engage the drug trade
    must be coordinated to achieve the greatest effect. The Afghan
    Government outreach to farmers occurs in the fall when farmers are
    determining what crops they will plant for the next season. The Afghan
    Government should strongly push tribal elders and farmers to not plant
    poppy. Alternative development needs to be available to farmers so they
    have support for other options over growing poppy. Eradication needs to
    target wealthy land owners that gain the most profit from poppy
    production. Corrupt Afghan Government officials involved in the drug
    trade and those police forces establishing unauthorized road
    checkpoints and harassing farmers as they try to get their licit
    produce to market, should be arrested and tried in a court of law
    without political interference. We need to continue to train and mentor
    Afghan CN forces so they can take on this responsibility. Security will
    be key, and the Afghan security forces need to be up for the task.
        The U.S. Government will need to continue to support the CN effort
    in Afghanistan post 2014 including continuing to build the Afghan CN
    capacity and providing enabling support.
        Question. As the Chair of the Senate Caucus on International
    Narcotics Control, I have concerns that illicit drug organizations will
    proliferate and increase aggression towards remaining United States and
    Afghan CN personnel following a military withdrawal.
        Given the link between drug trafficking organizations and terrorist
    organizations, can you advise the future role the Department of Defense
    (DOD) will have in a ``post withdrawal era'' in supporting CN efforts
    in the Afghanistan region?
        Answer. Over the past 8 years, DOD has worked closely with other
    U.S. departments and agencies to build the Afghan CN capacity primarily
    with specialized units. We seek to expand that capacity to the
    provincial-level forces for greater effect. We have also built
    enablers, specifically an aviation capacity, that is currently being
    merged with Afghan counterterrorism efforts. U.S. Special Operations
    Forces are expected to continue to operate in Afghanistan beyond 2014
    and could support training and mentoring the Afghan CN forces.
        DOD has also been building CN capacity within the region,
    specifically in Central Asia. This support has focused on border
    security operations in an attempt to interdict drug shipments from
    Afghanistan into and through Central Asia. DOD's CN efforts in Pakistan
    have been limited lately, although we have supported the U.S. Drug
    Enforcement Administration's efforts to build the capacity of
    Pakistan's Anti-Narcotics Force. I look forward to the potential of
    providing more support to the Pakistan coastal forces and assisting
    them with training and equipment in support of drug interdiction
    operations at sea.
        Subject to funding being provided, DOD will continue to support CN
    efforts in Afghanistan and the region.
                                taiwan and f-16s
        Senator Cornyn agreed to lift his hold on the nomination of Mark
    Lippert to be the next Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and
    Pacific Security Affairs after he received a letter from the
    administration indicating that it would give ``serious consideration''
    to a proposal to sell Taiwan 66 new F-16 fighters. Last year, the
    administration declined to sell the new F-16s to Taiwan and, instead,
    agreed to a $5.8 billion upgrade of Taiwan's existing fleet of F-16s.
    Senator Cornyn and others denounced the administration's decision
    arguing that Taiwan needed the newer F-16s to better match China's air
    superiority. China strongly opposes the sale of new F-16s to Taiwan.
        Question. What does ``serious consideration'' mean?
        Answer. The Taiwan Relations Act provides that ``. . . the United
    States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense
    services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to
    maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' The Department of
    Defense takes this responsibility seriously and endeavors to work
    closely with the interagency to evaluate Taiwan's needs and provide
    recommendations to the President on what defense articles and services
    are appropriate for Taiwan.
        Recommendations are based on the projected threat from the mainland
    and an evaluation of the China-Taiwan relationship--political and
    military--which is an on-going process.
        Question. Has the security situation across the straits changed
    significantly since the administration agreed to upgrade Taiwan's
    existing fleet of F-16 A/B models?
        Answer. No. As detailed in the 2012 report to Congress on the
    Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of
    China (PRC), the People's Liberation Army continues to focus on
    building the capacity to coerce Taiwan to reunify with the PRC. In
    light of China's continued development and deployment of advanced
    weapons systems to the military regions opposite Taiwan, we judge that
    the military balance continues to shift in the mainland's favor.
        Question. I understand that there is not much difference in
    capabilities between the upgraded F-16 A/B models and the new F-16 C/D
    models.
        What new capabilities would the C/D models provide?
        Answer. The U.S. Government-approved F-16 A/B retrofit capabilities
    are very similar to those featured in new F-16 C/Ds. The F-16 A/B
    retrofit will enhance avionics, survivability, combat effectiveness,
    and the cockpit environment of Taiwan's current fleet of F-16s, as well
    as contribute to the refurbishment of aging structural airframe
    components. F-16 C/D has a more robust engine and an option for
    conformal fuel tanks providing additional fuel capacity.
        Question. What threats would they respond to?
        Answer. The F-16 is a combat aircraft capable of providing air-to-
    air combat and air-to-surface support. F-16s provide Taiwan the
    capability to defend the island against air attacks.
        Question. 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?
        Answer. The Taiwan Relations Act provides that ``the United States
    will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense
    services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to
    maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' Evaluation of the
    China-Taiwan relationship--political and military--is an on-going
    process; sales of arms and defense services to Taiwan are evaluated in
    this context.
        DOD along with other U.S. departments and agencies provide
    recommendations to the President on what defense articles and services
    are appropriate for Taiwan. DOD bases its recommendations on the
    projected threat from the mainland. This threat is steadily increasing
    across multiple mission areas.
        China's Anti-Secession Law, expansive military, and extensive
    doctrine and plans to invade Taiwan leave little doubt about China's
    intentions. China would need to make significant and permanent changes
    to its military that would reduce the threat to Taiwan. DOD has not
    seen any indications that would imply that China is currently making
    the necessary changes that would cause DOD to reconsider future arms
    sales to Taiwan.
                           al-qaeda threats in africa
        Question. For the past few years, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
    (AQIM) has been almost an afterthought, but obviously DOD is actively
    working to defeat al-Qaeda wherever they find a safehaven.
        What threat does AQIM pose in light of the current instability in
    North Africa?
        Answer. AQIM is a regional affiliate of al-Qaeda and the Department
    takes the threat it poses very seriously. DOD works to build the
    capacity of front line states, like Mauritania, Niger, and others, to
    counter the threat posed by the group. The fluid political situation in
    North Africa and the Sahel--and the limited ability of governments to
    control their territory--raises the possibility that AQIM could enjoy
    greater freedom of movement. That freedom of movement might enable the
    group to more effectively target local, U.S., and other Western
    interests.
        Question. Do you see indications of links among AQIM, al-Shabaab in
    Somalia, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen?
        Answer. We are always concerned about the possibility that regional
    terrorist organizations will cooperate and share capabilities. A
    classified answer to this question is being provided separately
                                nuclear weapons
        Question. The House fiscal year 2013 Defense Authorization bill
    contains a number of troubling provisions related to nuclear weapons:
      --if the President does not spend $88 billion to upgrade our nuclear
            labs and $125 billion over 10 years to replace aging bombers,
            submarines, and land-based missiles our reductions to our
            nuclear stockpile mandated by the New Strategic Arms Reduction
            Treaty (New START) would be halted;
      --it places significant restrictions on reducing or withdrawing
            tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and mandates a report on re-
            introducing these weapons in South Korea; and
      --it would provide $160 million for a new plutonium facility the
            National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) says it does
            not need.
        If the United States ceased complying with the terms of the New
    START agreement, how would Russia respond?
        Answer. I can only speculate how Russia might respond if, for some
    reason, the United States were forced to cease complying with the terms
    of the New START. Russia might choose to delay or halt its own
    compliance activities. This would leave open the possibility that
    Russia might act to increase the size of its nuclear forces above the
    New START Treaty (NST) limits.
        Question. What would be the long-term impact on our strategic
    relationship with Russia?
        Answer. The most probable long-term impact of withdrawing from the
    NST would be a weaker and more unpredictable strategic relationship
    with Russia because of the increased uncertainty that would come from
    reduced transparency. NST provides both the United States and Russia
    with a degree of transparency that helps promote strategic stability.
    For both the United States and Russia, accurate knowledge of each
    other's nuclear forces helps to prevent the risks of misunderstanding,
    mistrust, and worst-case analysis and policymaking.
        It is important to note that greater instability in the United
    States-Russian relationship would have an impact on others, including
    our allies (who highly prize strategic predictability) and China (which
    might perceive a need to significantly increase its forces).
        Question. What would be the impact on our ability to convince Iran
    and North Korea to forgo their nuclear programs?
        Answer. It is unclear what, if any, impact a hypothetical United
    States withdrawal from NST would have on Iran and North Korea. Both
    countries desire to possess weapons of mass destruction not because of
    U.S. nuclear capability, but because of the conventional superiority of
    the United States and its allies and partners. However, as we negotiate
    to encourage both Iran and North Korea to abandon nuclear weapon
    programs, a hypothetical United States withdrawal from its NST
    commitments could work against efforts because it would create a
    negative image of the United States' commitment to its own
    international obligations.
                                 sequestration
        Question. Secretary Panetta, I'm going to paraphrase some points
    you made in a letter you sent to Senator McCain this past November as
    follows:
      --``. . . the reduction in defense spending under maximum
            sequestration would amount to 23 percent if the President
            exercised his authority to exempt military personnel.''
      --``. . . Under current law, that 23 percent reduction would have to
            be applied equally to each major investment and construction
            program and would render most of our ship and construction
            projects unexecutable--you cannot buy three quarters of a ship
            or a building.''; and
      --``. . . We would also be forced to separate many of our civilian
            personnel involuntarily and, because the reduction would be
            imposed so quickly, we would almost certainly have to furlough
            civilians in order to meet the target.''
        Secretary Panetta, has Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    provided further clarification on how the cuts would be applied to our
    accounts and do you still believe if the President does exempt our
    military personnel that the reductions would still amount to 23
    percent, and we would need to furlough civilians?
        Answer. As of June 13, 2012, OMB has not provided further
    clarification. Should the President exempt military personnel, our best
    estimate at this time is the reductions will amount to around 23
    percent. We strongly believe the Congress should act to halt
    sequestration. We have not announced reductions-in-force or furloughs
    and will make that decision if and when we have to implement the
    sequestration reductions.
                            prescription drug abuse
        Question. The Department of Defense (DOD) has utilized the Pharmacy
    Data Transaction Service (PDTS) that records information about
    prescriptions filled worldwide for Defense Department beneficiaries.
    However, I understand that DOD does not currently share this
    information with State Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP) at
    Defense Department hospitals and facilities. Sharing of this
    information would help to prevent an individual from obtaining a
    prescription from a private hospital then receiving that same
    prescription at a Defense Department hospital.
        When does DOD plan to implement guidelines to allow prescription
    drug information sharing with state prescription drug monitoring
    programs?
        Answer. PDTS records information about prescriptions filled for DOD
    beneficiaries through medical treatment facilities (MTFs), TRICARE
    Retail Network Pharmacies and the mail order pharmacy (MOP) program.
    PDTS conducts on-line, real-time prospective drug utilization review
    (clinical screening) against a patient's complete medication history
    for each new or refilled prescription before it is dispensed to the
    patient. The clinical screenings identify potential patient safety,
    quality issues, or drug duplication issues which are immediately
    resolved to ensure the patient receives safe and quality care.
        DOD is currently sharing data with PDMP through the TRICARE Mail
    Order Pharmacy and Retail Network Pharmacies. However, the MTF
    pharmacies, in general, have not been sharing information with State
    PDMPs due to lack of information technology (IT) capability to
    interface with the 50 different programs and 50 different sets of
    requirements for accessing the States' systems. The challenge remains
    that there is not a national standard for PMDPs, and the State programs
    are at varying levels of maturity, operationally and technologically.
    Each State controls who will have access and for what purpose. Since
    the State PMDPs requirements are inconsistent, DOD as a single, Federal
    entity, cannot conform to 50 different PMDP standards. In addition,
    information sharing is limited because access to PDMPs is usually
    limited to providers who are licensed in the State. Since MTF providers
    who work on Federal facilities are only required to have one State
    license, and generally not licensed in the State in which the facility
    is located; therefore, they typically do not have access to the PDMP
    prescription data.
        TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) Pharmaceutical Operations
    Directorate (POD) is currently assessing various technical approaches
    and levels of effort (i.e., funding requirements) to determine the best
    solution for MTF data sharing with State PMDPs. TMA is looking at the
    best file format and data transfer mechanisms to support this effort
    and what the costs to DOD will be. TMA and the services are assessing
    current policies, Federal legislation, and privacy considerations
    (i.e., Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)) to
    determine the best approach for participation in the various PMDPs by
    MTF pharmacies. In addition, TMA POD and the contractor that supports
    PDTS are currently working on an approach to support the State PMDPs
    and determine if there are any privacy and legal requirements/
    implications. Once the Government approves the approach, a rough order
    of magnitude cost estimate will be developed. The TMA POD anticipates
    determination of the level of effort for supporting PDMPs by October
    2012.
                       evolved expendable launch vehicle
        Question. Secretary Panetta, I am concerned that the Air Force is
    entering into an acquisition strategy on the Evolved Expendable Launch
    Vehicle (EELV) program that will prevent new entrants to compete prior
    to fiscal year 2018.
        Have you looked at the terms and conditions of this proposed
    contract structure and can you guarantee the Government can walk away
    without any liability from the contract if new entrants become
    certified prior to fiscal year 2018?
        Answer. The terms and conditions of the proposed contract have been
    reviewed. The Air Force's plan expects new entrants, as soon as they
    are certified, to compete for National Security Space launch missions
    not covered under EELV's Phase I minimum commitment. Thus, there is no
    need for the Government to ``walk away'' from its existing contractual
    commitments.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
        Question. The administration has announced a new strategy focused
    on Asia and the Pacific Ocean. Part of this strategy includes deploying
    the USS Freedom to Singapore. The Freedom is the first of what we hope
    will be many littoral combat ships (LCSs) built in Wisconsin.
        The Navy has on many occasions described the LCS as one of the
    backbones of our Nation's future fleet. Do you believe, as I believe,
    that the LCS is indeed a key part of executing our new defense
    strategy?
        Answer. LCS is a key component of the Navy's current and future
    force and will fulfill multiple mission requirements of the Defense
    Strategic Guidance (DSG). LCS will meet warfighting needs in the areas
    of mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-swarm defense
    to counter adversary anti-access/area-denial efforts. Beyond the
    warfighting demands, these ships will also be called upon to defend the
    homeland by conducting maritime intercept operations; providing a
    stabilizing presence by building partner capacity, strengthening
    alliances and increasing U.S. influence; and conducting stability and
    counterinsurgency operations through security force assistance and
    other engagement missions. Owing to their speed, smaller size, and
    relatively shallow draft, these ships offer partner navies compatible
    ships with which to operate on a more equivalent basis.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
        Question. Please list the 15 oldest hospitals that are still in use
    at domestic U.S. Army installations.
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Name                           Acquisition date
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ireland Army Community Hospital...........  1957 (Fort Knox).
    Irwin Army Community Hospital.............  1957 (Fort Riley).
    Martin Army Community Hospital............  1958 (Fort Benning).
    General Leonard Wood Army Community         1965 (Fort LW).
     Hospital.
    Darnall Army Medical Center...............  1966 (Fort Hood).
    Weed Army Community Hospital..............  1968 (Fort Irwin).
    William Beaumont Army Medical Center......  1972 (Fort Bliss).
    Moncrief Army Community Hospital..........  1972 (Fort Jackson).
    Eisenhower Army Medical Center............  1975 (Fort Gordon).
    Keller Army Community Hospital............  1977 (West Point).
    Blanchfield Army Community Hospital.......  1982 (Fort Campbell).
    Winn Army Community Hospital..............  1983 (Fort Stewart).
    Bayne-Jones Army Community Hospital.......  1983 (Fort Polk).
    Evans Army Community Hospital.............  1986 (Fort Carson).
    Madigan Army Medical Center...............  1990 (Joint Base Lewis
                                                 McCord).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please also provide clarification on the criteria the
    Army uses for determining the need for replacing hospitals on U.S.
    military installations. What thresholds need to be met to justify a
    hospital replacement?
        Answer. The TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) uses a Capital
    Investment Decision Model (CIDM) to support validation of facility
    requirements, ensure that facility investments are aligned with the
    Military Health System priorities and strategic goals, and improve
    inter-service and inter-agency collaboration. CIDM criteria include:
      --Mission change needs (e.g., change in scope of clinical services to
            be provided, increases or additions to programs, implementation
            of new care delivery models). Externally imposed changes, such
            as population changes in the Army stationing plan or unit re-
            stationing plans, are considered when identifying locations
            that require facility projects.
      --Collaborative synergies (e.g., the extent that the facility is a
            constraint to achieving greater collaboration and integration
            among the Departments of Defense (DOD), Veterans Affairs (VA),
            other Federal agencies, or the private sector).
      --Location constraints (e.g., remoteness, medically underserved).
      --Effectiveness of infrastructure (e.g., physical and functional
            deficiencies).
      --Life, health, or safety issues that cannot be addressed through
            Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization resources.
        The CIDM provides the multi-faceted threshold for facility scoring
    that is used by a tri-service Capital Investment Review Board (CIRB) to
    derive an Order of Merit list (OML). The OML supports the determination
    of which hospital will be replaced and in what order.
        Question. Last, when analyzing a hospital's usage data, does the
    Army also take into account the number of military patients who would
    prefer to receive care at a medical facility on-base, but who are
    unable to do so because services and specialists are not currently
    available?
        Answer. The Army medical planning process is designed to support
    the mission of the medical facility by focusing on the staff and the
    space available to support the population and workload demand. A market
    analysis is conducted to review the availability of healthcare
    providers and services in the market, as well as the utilization of
    these services by the beneficiary population. The combination of site/
    facility and market analysis drives the requirements for facility
    planning. Market utilization serves as a proxy for health services
    demand. Beneficiary preference is not explicitly considered as part of
    this process.
        Question. I am told that the Navy has not modernized the Mk 45
    large caliber naval gun--designed in the mid-1970s--although it was
    apparently intended to have an overhaul after 15 years of service.
        Can you please explain why the Navy has modernized similarly aged
    guns on Destroyer ships, but has not overhauled or upgraded Mk 45 guns
    on Cruiser ships?
        Are there any plans to overhaul or upgrade these guns?
        More generally, is the Navy concerned about maintenance of large
    caliber naval gun capability?
        Answer. Beginning in 2008, the Navy has been actively overhauling
    and upgrading the Cruiser Mk 45 guns, via the Cruiser Modernization
    Program. To date, gun overhauls and upgrades have been made on nine
    Cruisers. Additional Mk 45 gun overhauls and upgrades are being
    executed on two Cruisers.
        Outside of the planned overhauls in the Cruiser Modernization
    Program, the Navy continues to overhaul and upgrade Mk 45 guns from
    decommissioned ships for installation on DDG-51 new construction ships.
    The Mk 45 guns that remain in service in their as-built configuration
    will continue to receive regular pier-side maintenance availabilities
    at 5-year intervals.
        The Navy plans to keep the guns in service to the end of the
    service life of the ships and will continue to maintain the guns
    through an effective pier-side maintenance program.
        Question. Does the Navy have any plans to enhance the capability of
    the Mk 45 gun system to execute ship to shore missions in the future?
        Answer. We are reviewing our options to develop a precision guided
    munitions program for our 5-inch projectiles. The Center for Naval
    Analysis is conducting a follow-on study to the Joint Expeditionary
    Fires Analysis of Alternatives. This study will analyze the
    contributions of all joint and fleet fires to support Navy science and
    technology efforts, existing campaign analysis and the development of a
    long-term Naval Gun transition plan. This study is expected to be
    complete this fall and will ultimately contribute to an extended range,
    precision guided munitions program. Our desire is to augment Naval
    precision fires with viable and cost-wise 5-inch naval gunfire
    solutions.
        Question. Does DOD support the co-production and participation of
    the U.S. aerospace industry in the Iron Dome defense program? If so,
    what plans does DOD have to incorporate the U.S. aerospace industry
    into co-production of this program? Has DOD communicated any such plans
    to its counterparts at the Israeli Ministry of Defense?
        Answer. Yes, DOD supports fully Iron Dome co-production and
    participation of the U.S. aerospace industries in the Iron Dome defense
    program. In an Exchange of Letters with the Israeli Ministry of Defense
    concerning Iron Dome funding, the United States specifically requested
    Israeli support for exploring co-production opportunities.
        The Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) recently engaged
    with its prime contractor and potential U.S. sub-contractors to develop
    an acquisition strategy supporting U.S. co-production of Iron Dome
    interceptor components.
        Question. Is there precedent from the Arrow and David's Sling
    programs for such an arrangement?
        Answer. There is precedent for both dual-source component
    production and for U.S. industry being the sole supplier of missile
    components to an Israeli prime contractor's production line.
        Under the terms of the Arrow System Improvement Program (ASIP)
    memorandum of understanding, IMDO directed Israeli Aerospace Industries
    to establish itself as a dual-source supplier with U.S. industry for
    Arrow-2 booster motors and major subcomponents to increase missile
    production capacity. U.S. industry completed deliveries of Arrow-2
    components in 2010.
        The David's Sling Weapon System and Arrow-3 production agreements
    are still being discussed, but the development programs for both of
    these systems assume that the Israeli prime contractors will establish
    subcontract agreements with U.S. suppliers for certain components to be
    built in the United States, including motors, guidance computers,
    launch systems, and batteries.
        Iron Dome is an Israeli-developed and produced system used solely
    by the Israeli military. Israeli industry has subcontracted with U.S.
    firms for some subcomponents. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has
    asked IMDO for a list of those firms and subcomponents as part of our
    effort to explore co-production opportunities. This effort is ongoing.
        Regarding co-production of Iron Dome for U.S. defense purposes
    (including the Tamir interceptor), there is no U.S. operational
    requirement for this weapon system. MDA intends to pursue data rights
    and technical data packages (TDPs) that would enable production of the
    Iron Dome weapon system should a U.S. operational requirement arise in
    the future. Additional acquisition steps would need to be taken to
    execute a co-production program, even if the United States had TDPs and
    data rights. MDA would have to develop an acquisition strategy,
    determine a production decisionmaking authority, establish source
    selection, and budget funds for procurement, operations, and
    sustainment. These activities are not currently planned due to the lack
    of a U.S. operational requirement.
        Question. Would a second source of U.S. manufactured interceptors
    and launchers provide greater supply chain readiness in the production
    of this system and better support for the inventory objectives of our
    ally, Israel?
        Answer. Although a second source of inventory is typically
    preferred, Israel has not raised improved Iron Dome supply chain
    readiness and support for inventory objectives as a concern. Moreover,
    the cost to establish or maintain a second source was not included in
    Israel's funding profile, and Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD)
    officials have stated that their industry can meet their Iron Dome
    production needs.
        Question. Admiral Gary Roughead provided a plan to sustain the
    Phalanx Block 1B Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) in a December 2010
    letter, stating ``a seven-year overhaul cycle provides the most
    efficient path to maintaining operational availability . . . our CIWS
    Program Manager assesses that 36 overhauls per year will be needed
    beginning in FY12.''
        I am told that the Navy later determined a more affordable 20-year
    plan would necessitate 20 overhauls per year coupled with 52
    reliability, maintainability, and availability (RMA) kits per year,
    beginning in fiscal year 2013, to maintain the required operational
    availability.
        To date, I am informed that the Navy has not made funding requests
    sufficient to meet the requirements outlined in either plan above.
        What will be the overall impact of this shortfall across the Future
    Years Defense Program?
        Answer. Based on the President's budget for fiscal year 2013 CIWS
    maintenance funding profile, which established a threshold of 52
    Reliability, Maintainability and Availability (RM&A) kits and 20 Class
    A overhauls, there will be no overall impact across the Future Years
    Defense Program. In fiscal year 2013, our funding request includes 24
    RM&A kits and 8 Class A overhauls. The profile then ramps up to exceed
    the threshold for RM&A kits in fiscal year 2015 and to exceed the
    threshold for Class A overhauls in fiscal year 2016.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
        Question. How does the Department of Defense (DOD) plan on
    commemorating the 100th anniversary of World War I and the 75th
    anniversary of World War II?
        Answer. Looking ahead to the 75th anniversary commemoration of
    World War II and the centenary of World War I, DOD anticipates a range
    of activities to honor the men and women who served in those immense
    conflicts. As with previous commemorations, we expect to work closely
    with organizations that share our commitment to these events, including
    veterans groups, educational institutions, and State and local
    governments. Because the dates for these observances are still several
    years away (2016 for World War II and 2017 for American involvement in
    World War I), plans have not yet taken shape.
        Question. A December 2011 Navy Inspector General (IG) report
    concluded ``. . . the history and heritage of the U.S. Navy is in
    jeopardy.'' Is the Naval History & Heritage Command (NHHC) the only
    military history program in DOD that stores its collection of
    documents, photographs, art works, and artifacts in facilities with
    broken or nonexistent temperature and humidity controls or is this
    common throughout the history programs of the Marine Corps, Air Force,
    and Army? Is our Navy's history and heritage worth preserving in your
    view?
        Answer. The Air Force Historical Research Agency is the official
    repository for some 750,000 historical documents. Following the
    installation of an archival-quality heating, ventilation, and air
    conditioning system in 2010, its archival material is currently stored
    in a facility with highly effective, archival-standard temperature and
    humidity controls. The system also screens particulate matter. In
    addition, the lights have ultraviolet light screens to limit damage to
    documents. The Air Force Art Program, which contains more than 10,000
    pieces, stores its art in climate controlled conditions as well and
    requires that items on loan be properly protected while on display. The
    National Museum of the Air Force, certified by the Association of
    American Museums, maintains its heritage collection of artifacts and
    photographs in climate controlled conditions. Although the most
    valuable of the aircraft collection are indoors, some aircraft because
    of their large sizes, are displayed outdoors and maintained under clear
    guidelines for the protection and preservation of these artifacts.
        The Army also has a large collection of documents, photographs, art
    works, and artifacts, but the facilities for such activities are, on
    the whole, sufficient to preserve them. The U.S. Army Museum Support
    Center at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was recently opened as a state-of-
    the-art facility for conserving and preserving the Army's central
    artifact collection worth approximately $1 billion and its priceless
    Army Art Collection comprising more than 12,000 works of original
    soldier art. The facility was built with an heating, ventilation, and
    air-conditioning (HVAC) system that maintains the proper humidity and
    temperature to preserve them in an optimal state. Many of the other
    artifact collections in the Army museum system, some 107 museums and
    historical holdings throughout the world, have less effective
    preservation means at their disposal, but the U.S. Army Center of
    Military History constantly monitors their status and assists in their
    preservation to the extent permitted by always scarce resources. No
    significant collections are currently at risk. As for document and
    photograph holdings, the Army Heritage and Education Center and its
    component Military History Institute, which are part of the Army War
    College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, serve as the Army's
    principle archives for non-official records, photographs, and
    documents. Those items are housed in a facility with temperature and
    humidity controlled space specifically designed for such collections.
        We believe that our service history and heritage is worth
    preserving. Our service history is the thread that connects our
    soldiers to those who have preceded them. It forms the foundation for
    all of our soldiers. As such, our service history and heritage is
    eminently worth preserving for future generations of soldiers and
    Americans to enjoy and become inspired.
        As noted, the December 2011 Navy IG report identified significant
    facilities issues at NHHC, particularly at its headquarters at the
    Washington Navy Yard. Since November 2011 the command has engaged in
    removing its most at-risk collections to environmentally adequate
    locations, and where that is not possible, has worked with the local
    public works office to perform repairs to provide adequate
    environmental conditions for particular collections. (CNIC) has
    provided funding to develop a facilities plan to ultimately house NHHC
    HQ's collections in fully compliant facilities. [NHHC cannot provide
    information on Marine Corps, Air Force, and Army facilities.]
        The Navy's history and heritage is worth preserving. Information
    about past naval operations is valuable not only to historians, but to
    modern-day naval decisionmakers and to our future naval leaders. In
    addition, naval history provides an important reminder to the American
    people about the timeless maritime nature of this country and its
    economy, and therefore of the necessity of a strong Navy to protect it.
    Historical artifacts provide a direct connection to past events that
    complements documentary history, and for some audiences is a more
    effective vehicle for telling the Navy's story. Historical items--
    archives, artifacts, artwork, photographs, digital media--require
    careful management if they are to relate the Navy's history to future
    generations of citizens and scholars. Appropriate facilities are a
    fundamental necessity for proper stewardship of these important and in
    some cases irreplaceable resources.
        The Marine Corps takes considerable pride in our heritage and is
    invested in preserving our historical records, photographs, oral
    histories, and objects related to that heritage. These items inform the
    training and education of our Marines, and provide material and
    information that can be applied to new programs, such as weapons and
    uniforms. Marine Corps heritage is an organizing principal and source
    of information necessary for scholarly efforts within the formal
    schools, including the Marine Corps War College. Historical collections
    also assist in developing written histories, case studies, and student
    master's theses, all of which are published by Marine Corps University.
    Further, the pictorial, written, and material history of the Corps is
    used to support outreach and recruitment efforts necessary to maintain
    good public relations and a well-staffed force.
        In 2006, the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation opened the National
    Museum of the Marine Corps, a state-of-the-art facility that is the
    centerpiece of the Marine Corps Heritage Center. This facility houses
    approximately 10 percent of the total collection. While the majority of
    the Marine Corps' historical objects, including our records and
    photographs, are stored in satisfactory conditions at Marine Corps Base
    Quantico and at other locations, the Marine Corps houses some objects
    in spaces with inadequate temperature and humidity controls. To the
    extent possible, items stored in less-than-ideal conditions include
    more durable objects, such as ground vehicles and aircraft. Works of
    art are in excellent storage at a rental facility near the Museum.
        The Marine Corps has developed a comprehensive long-range plan for
    the care of its collections. Existing storage buildings have been
    improved in recent years and will continue to be maintained. Some of
    these have potential to be further improved to provide long-term
    solutions; however, there remains a requirement for additional climate-
    controlled space to house collections and provide work space for
    conservators. A large museum support facility has been recommended as a
    potential solution. Marine Corps Base Quantico and the Museum are
    working proactively on interim solutions that promise improved
    conditions and accessibility. The Marine Corps Heritage Foundation
    remains committed to building a second and final phase of the National
    Museum, which will extend the Marine Corps story from Beirut to
    Afghanistan and provide a home for some additional artifacts and works
    of art. The Marine Corps remains committed to preserving our history
    and heritage that we have invested so much in since 1775.
        Question. The competition for the C17 Globemaster's F117 engine
    sustainment supply chain fails to apply better buying guidelines to
    gain readily apparent savings. This engine is more than 90 percent
    common with the commercial PW2000 engine family, yet the United States
    Air Force (USAF) has neither accepted Federal Aviation Administration
    (FAA) certifications for common repairs and parts, nor established a
    source approval request (SAR) process to review and certify alternative
    sources to enable competition, despite informing the Congress that it
    has had the F117 maintenance technical data via a General Terms
    Agreement with the OEM since last December. Consequently, the USAF has
    essentially disqualified alternative vendors, since the OEM remains the
    only approved source. The annual savings from competing the F117 supply
    chain would likely be $200 million per year; yet, the USAF's
    sustainment strategy would gain no efficiencies from supply chain
    competition until 2018.
        What process is being used to identify and pursue opportunities for
    efficiencies, such as competition for the F117 supply chain, and how
    did this program escape oversight for cost accountability by the USAF
    and OSD?
        Answer. In the case of the F117 (C-17) engine, officials of the
    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
    and Logistics (AT&L) participated in reviews of the proposed costs and
    negotiation strategy for C-17 sustainment. In the process of doing so,
    AT&L learned of the Air Force's plan to break out engine sustainment
    into a separate contract from the Boeing Globemaster III Integrated
    Sustainment Program in order to reduce costs. While current acquisition
    plans call for the transition to competition for overhaul and supply
    chain management of F117 in the 2016 to 2018 timeframe, the Department
    is exploring opportunities to reduce costs further by accelerating the
    transition. The Department is working to improve the opportunity for
    competition and improved cost oversight of C-17 sustainment.
        Question. Has OSD evaluated whether a more robust and immediate SAR
    process could result in greater savings for the Air Force?
        Answer. As part of the ongoing Office of the Secretary of Defense
    review of the acquisition strategy for F117 sustainment, the Department
    is reviewing the Air Force Source Approval Request process to seek
    opportunities for greater savings.
        Question. Has OSD evaluated the savings associated with
    accelerating competition for F117 repairs and parts ahead of the Air
    Force's proposed timeline, which unnecessarily accepts the OEM as the
    only qualified supply chain source for at least the next 5 years?
        Answer. The Department is exploring opportunities to reduce costs
    by accelerating the transition to a competitive engine overhaul and
    supply chain management construct.
        Question. The Senate version of the fiscal year 2013 National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as reported by the Senate Armed
    Services Committee contains a bipartisan provision requiring you to
    submit a report detailing the effects of budget sequestration on DOD by
    August 15. There is also a similar standalone bill in both the House
    and Senate that would require similar transparency concerning the
    scheduled sequestration for both defense and non-defense cuts.
        Do you support this reporting requirement in the Defense
    authorization bill to allow a full understanding where the defense cuts
    will occur and to what degree?
        If the Defense authorization bill has not yet been enacted by
    August, would you pledge to still submit such a report to the Congress
    by August?
        Answer. The Department has no official comment about this
    particular legislation pending before the Congress.
        Question. Absent the provision in the fiscal year 2013 NDAA bill
    and the freestanding bills in the House and Senate that would provide
    important transparency about such cuts, do you currently have this
    level of detail internally at DOD now that we are less than 6 months
    away from these cuts being carried out?
        Answer. The Department has no official comment about this
    particular legislation pending before the Congress. While the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet officially engaged agencies in
    planning, the OMB staff is conducting the analyses needed to move
    forward if necessary. Should it reach the point where it appears the
    Congress does not do its job and the sequester may take effect, OMB,
    DOD, and the entire administration will be prepared.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to General Martin E. Dempsey
                    Question Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
        Question. General Dempsey, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
    become increasingly concerned over the past few years regarding our
    military's dependence on petroleum-based fuels. These concerns relate
    to both the ready availability of fuels during times of conflict, and
    to the increasing costs of such fuels.
        For example, it's been reported that the Pentagon spent $17.3
    billion on petroleum in 2011, a 26-percent increase from the previous
    year with practically no change in the volume purchased.
        It's also been reported that for every $0.25 increase in the price
    of jet fuel, the DOD must come up with an extra $1 billion annually.
        Relative to future supplies and prices, we can all see that global
    fuel demands will continue to increase steadily as the economies of the
    BRIC nations--Brazil, Russia, India, and China--and similar nations
    grow and demand more fuel for transportation and industrialization.
        Obviously, some of our leaders in the Pentagon see these future
    threats as well, and I commend the Department of the Navy for signing a
    memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Energy (DOE)
    and with United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the
    development of commercial biofuels production capabilities. I
    understand that under this MOU, the DOD intends to fund multiple drop-
    in biofuel production facilities under the Defense Production Act.
        Could you please speak to DOD's long-term strategy for assuring
    future fuels supplies and the role that you believe domestic biofuels
    can and should play in that? More specifically, could you comment on
    the role that this joint Navy/DOE/USDA procurement activity plays in
    DOD's longer term fuels security strategy?
        Answer. DOD's strategy for operational energy is focused on
    ensuring our armed forces have the energy resources required to meet
    21st century security challenges. Our strategy includes efforts
    designed to reduce demand, protect, and secure access to energy
    supplies and to integrate operational energy considerations into the
    full range of planning and force development activities. Each of our
    services recognizes the important role energy plays in support of
    national security and is pursuing initiatives designed to better
    understand how much energy is being consumed, where, and for what
    purposes in order to reduce demand and minimize risk to the warfighter.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
        Question. To help with this transition, we are expanding job
    training programs for veterans and studying how military skills can be
    maximized in civilian occupations.
        General Dempsey, the programs available to troops transitioning to
    civilian life are spread out across several different Federal agencies.
    How is the Department of Defense (DOD) making sure that servicemembers
    know how to access the programs that are available to them when they
    leave the military?
        Answer. The Department has many efforts to ensure our
    servicemembers know how to access transition programs. Three such
    noteworthy efforts are:
          The Transition Assistance Program Re-Design.--The new re-designed
            Transition Assistance Program (TAP) provides an individualized,
            servicemember specific series of modules that assist the
            servicemember in preparing for civilian life. It also includes
            our interagency partner's aid in preparing all servicemembers
            for a successful transition into our Nations' communities and
            their civilian life.
          The Presidential Task Force.--In August 2011, the President
            called for the creation of a Task Force led by the DOD and
            Veterans Administration, with the White House economic and
            domestic policy teams and other agencies, including Department
            of Labor to develop proposals to maximize the career readiness
            of all servicemembers. The vision of moving TAP from an end of
            career event to the Military Life Cycle was used as a partial
            response to President Obama's call to improve education and
            training of military members to make them career ready. On
            December 27, 2011, the Task Force submitted a report outlining
            and conceptualizing its 28 recommendations to improve the
            career readiness of military members. The President accepted
            the recommendations and encouraged the Task Force and the
            agencies to carry forward in implementing the recommended
            programs.
          Long-Term Goal.--The Department's long-term aim of the new
            transition service delivery model is to embed the
            servicemembers' preparation for transition throughout their
            military lifecycle--from accession through separation, from
            service and reintegration, back into civilian life. This will
            require thoughtful goal setting and planning to apply military
            experience to longer term career goals in the civilian sector,
            whether after a single enlistment term or a 20-plus year
            military career. Servicemembers and military leadership will be
            engaged in mapping and refining development plans to achieve
            post-military service goals--a significant culture change.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                           airstrikes in afghanistan
        Question. General Dempsey, on June 12 in Afghanistan, President
    Karzai clarified his position on airstrikes stating ``. . . an
    agreement has been reached clearly with NATO that no bombardment of
    civilian homes is allowed for any reason'', that coalition forces could
    not use airstrikes ``even when they are under attack.'' Is this the
    correct interpretation of the agreement with Afghanistan? And how does
    this impact our ability to protect our forces who come under fire?
        Answer. As always, Afghan and coalition forces retain the inherent
    right to use aerial munitions in self-defense if no other options are
    available. On June 12, 2012, the Commander, International Security
    Assistance Force and United States Forces-Afghanistan, gave the order
    to coalition forces that no aerial munitions be delivered against
    civilian dwellings with the exception of the self-defense provision.
    This order was in accordance with an understanding made with Afghan
    President Hamid Karzai. This measure was taken to protect the lives of
    Afghan civilians.
                     amphibious warships--operational risk
        Question. General Dempsey, as you are putting together your
    thoughts to address my question on the level of risk being assumed with
    amphibious lift capability and capacity, it might be helpful to the
    subcommittee if you touch on operational availability. Again, the Navy
    and Marine Corps agreed on a fiscally constrained minimum force of 33
    amphibious warships to meet a 38 amphibious warship force requirement.
    Currently, there are 29 ships in the Navy's amphibious fleet, and a
    common planning factor is that 10 to 15 percent of warships are in
    overhaul and unavailable at any given time. Just doing the straight
    math, it is obvious that the number of operationally available ships is
    well below the requirement acknowledged by the Department of the Navy.
    What other class of warship is the Department accepting this level of
    risk? And if any, are those ships in as high demand by the combatant
    commanders? Secretary Panetta talked to the agility of these ships; I
    understand that the combatant commanders ask for these ships because
    they are agile and can address a multitude of missions and situations.
        Answer. Each year, the combatant commanders submit force
    requirements to my staff, which include capabilities that reside in all
    services. These requirements, in total, routinely exceed the services'
    capacity to meet them. Within the Navy, this includes not only demand
    for amphibious platforms, but also aircraft carriers, cruiser/
    destroyers, coastal patrol boats, and frigates. The strategic risk
    associated with these capacity shortfalls is balanced among the
    combatant commanders based upon Secretary of Defense policy and
    guidance, which reflect the National Military Strategy. In general, the
    military sizes to strategy-based requirements, not on operational
    availability. It manages availability based on threat.
        Specific to the issue of amphibious ship capacity, the Navy remains
    committed to providing 30 operationally available amphibious ships to
    meet Naval amphibious ship demand. With some risk, 30 amphibious
    landing ships can support a two-Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)
    forcible entry operation. This force accepts risk in the arrival of
    combat support and combat service support elements of the MEB, but this
    risk is appropriately balanced with the risk in a wide range of other
    important warfighting requirements within today's fiscal limitations.
        Navy can achieve this operational availability goal by sustaining
    an inventory of about 32 amphibious ships in the mid to long-term. The
    32-ship amphibious force being procured to meet this need will
    optimally be comprised of 11 LHA/D, 11 LPD 17, and 10 LSD. To support
    routine forward deployments of Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs), the
    amphibious force will be organized into nine, three-ship CONUS based
    Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), and one four-ship ARG based in Japan,
    with an additional big-deck amphibious ship available to support
    contingency operations worldwide. Two LSDs will be taken out of
    commission and placed in reserve status allowing Navy to reconstitute
    an eleventh ARG as required in the future, or to build up the number of
    ships in the active inventory, if necessary.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
        Question. Why is there no definition of ``victory'' in Joint
    Publication (JP) 1-02: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and
    Associated Terms?
        Answer. JP 1-02 supplements common English-language dictionaries
    with standard terminology for military and associated use. The term
    ``victory'' does not require inclusion in JP 1-02 because it is
    adequately defined by Merriam-Webster as:
        1. The overcoming of an enemy or antagonist.
        2. Achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor
    against odds or difficulties.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Murray. I would put the subcommittee into recess
    until Senator Shelby appears.
        Secretary Panetta. We aren't going anyplace.
        Senator Murray. Good. You want to meet now, Mr. Secretary?
        Thank you very much. And with that, the subcommittee is in
    recess until Senator Shelby arrives. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 13, 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

    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   139
        Statements of.........................................120, 327, 346
    Amos, General James F., Commandant, United States Marine Corps,
      Office of the Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of
      Defense........................................................    33
        Prepared Statement of........................................    34
        Question Submitted to........................................    91
    Arthritis Foundation, Prepared Statement of the..................   556

    Binns, James, Chairman of Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War
      Veterans' Illnesses, Prepared Statement of.....................   562

    Castaldo, Anthony, President, U.S. Hereditary Angioedema
      Association....................................................   465
        Prepared Statement of........................................   467
    Coane, Rear Admiral Casey, United States Navy (Retired),
      Executive Director, Association for the United States Navy.....   545
        Prepared Statement of........................................   546
    Coats, Senator Daniel, U.S. Senator From Indiana:
        Questions Submitted by......................147, 207, 446, 630, 635
        Statements of...............................................59, 122
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   87,
                            90, 137, 210, 305, 312, 318, 379, 381, 385, 634
        Statements of...................2, 96, 150, 216, 326, 347, 455, 566
    Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine:
        Questions Submitted by.................................87, 205, 212
        Statement of.................................................    68
    Connor, Captain Charles D., United States Navy (Retired),
      President and Chief Executive Officer, American Lung
      Association....................................................   488
        Prepared Statement of........................................   490
    Corash, Laurence, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Cerus Corporation.   535
        Prepared Statement of........................................   537
    Curie, Hon. Charles, Member, National Board of Directors and
      Public Policy Council, American Foundation for Suicide
      Prevention.....................................................   485
        Prepared Statement of........................................   486

    Davis, John R., Director, Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve
      Association....................................................   522
        Prepared Statement of........................................   523
    Davis, Major General Andrew, United States Marine Corps
      (Retired), Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association of
      the United States..............................................   505
        Prepared Statement of........................................   507
    Debbink, Vice Admiral Dirk J., Chief, Navy Reserve, United States
      Navy, Department of Defense....................................   387
        Prepared Statement of........................................   388
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   442
    Dempsey, General Martin E., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
      Department of the Army, Office of the Secretary, Department of
      Defense........................................................   582
        Prepared Statement of........................................   584
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   633
    Donley, Michael B., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.............    95
        Prepared Statement of........................................    99
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   131
    Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   617

    Eckerle, Dr. Wayne A., Vice President, Research and Technology,
      Cummins Inc., Prepared Statement of............................   560

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
        Questions Submitted by..................80, 132, 304, 308, 314, 619
        Statement of.................................................   126

    Ginyard, Robert, Member, Board of Directors, Zero--The Project To
      End Prostate Cancer............................................   495
        Prepared Statement of........................................   497
    Goraleski, Karen, Executive Director, American Society of
      Tropical Medicine and Hygiene..................................   517
        Prepared Statement of........................................   518
    Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
      Questions Submitted by........................................88, 146
    Green, Lieutenant General Charles B., Surgeon General, Department
      of the Air Force, Department of Defense........................   215
        Prepared Statement of........................................   219
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   303
        Summary Statement of.........................................   217
    Greenert, Admiral Jonathan W., Chief of Naval Operations, Office
      of the Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense    18
        Prepared Statement of........................................    21
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    89

    Hale, Hon. Robert F., Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller,
      Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense.................   565
    Hanson, Captain Marshall A., United States Navy (Retired), Acting
      Chairman, Associations for America's Defense...................   499
        Prepared Statement of........................................   500
    Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
      by......................................................131, 615, 633
    Haubner, Mark, Arthritis Foundation..............................   554
    Hesdorffer, Mary, ARNP, MSN, Mesothelioma Applied Research
      Foundation.....................................................   528
        Prepared Statement of........................................   530
    Hicks, Lieutenant Colonel Carl, United States Army (Retired),
      Pulmonary Hypertension Association.............................   468
        Prepared Statement...........................................   469
    Horoho, Lieutenant General Patricia, Surgeon General, Department
      of the Army, Department of Defense.............................   236
        Prepared Statement of........................................   239
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   312
    Hummer, Lieutenant General Steven A., Director, Reserve Affairs,
      United States Marine Corps, Department of Defense..............   415
        Prepared Statement of........................................   417
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   449
    Hutchinson, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas:
        Questions Submitted by......................205, 212, 379, 383, 385
        Statement of.................................................   124

    Ingram, Lieutenant General William E., Jr., Director, Army
      National Guard, Department of Defense..........................   356
        Prepared Statement...........................................   357
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   383
    Inouye, Chairman Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii:
        Opening Statements of..............95, 149, 215, 325, 345, 455, 565
        Prepared Statement of........................................   150
        Questions Submitted by.................................78, 91, 303,
           306, 360, 318, 320,  322, 341, 377, 380, 383, 442, 447, 449, 452
    Isaacs, Stephen T., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Aduro
      Biotech........................................................   531
        Prepared Statement of........................................   533

    Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   136
        Statement of.................................................   123
    Keenan, Major General Jimmie O., Chief, Army Nurse Corps,
      Department of the Army, Department of Defense..................   288
        Prepared Statement of........................................   289
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   322
    Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin:
        Questions Submitted by.................135, 203, 207, 384, 628, 633
        Statement of.................................................    67

    Linde, Dee, Patient Advocate, Dystonia Advocacy Network..........   476
        Prepared Statement of........................................   477

    Mabus, Hon. Ray, Secretary of the Navy, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Navy, Department of Defense..................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     4
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    78
        Summary Statement of.........................................     2
    McCauslin, Chief Master Sergeant John R. ``Doc'', United States
      Air Force (Retired), Chief Executive Officer, Air Force
      Sergeants Association..........................................   455
        Prepared Statement of........................................   457
    McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
      Submitted by............................................204, 211, 628
    McHugh, Hon. John M., Secretary, Department of the Army, Office
      of the Secretary, Department of Defense........................   149
        Prepared Statement of........................................   153
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   202
        Summary Statement of.........................................   151
    McKinley, General Craig R., Chief, National Guard Bureau,
      Department of Defense..........................................   345
        Prepared Statement of........................................   349
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   377
        Summary Statement of.........................................   347
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Statements of........................................     1
        Questions Submitted by........................81, 89, 202, 309, 315
        Statement of.................................................   216
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Questions Submitted by..............................88, 90, 92, 140
        Statements of...............................................63, 129
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington:
        Questions Submitted by.....................................204, 208
        Statement of.................................................   262

    Nathan, Vice Admiral Matthew L., Surgeon General, Department of
      the Navy, Department of Defense................................   225
        Prepared Statement of........................................   227
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   306
    Nevin, Remington, M.D., MPH, Mefloquine Research.................   557
        Prepared Statement of........................................   558
    Niemyer, Rear Admiral Elizabeth S., Director, Navy Nurse Corps,
      Department of the Navy, Department of Defense..................   277
        Prepared Statement of........................................   279
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   320

    O'Reilly, Lieutenant General Patrick J., Director, United States
      Army, Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense............   325
        Prepared Statement of........................................   329
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   341
        Summary Statement of.........................................   327
    Odierno, General Raymond T., Chief of Staff, Department of the
      Army, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense...........   176
        Prepared Statement of........................................   153
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   207

    Panetta, Hon. Leon E., Secretary, Office of the Secretary of
      Defense, Department of Defense.................................   565
        Prepared Statement of........................................   573
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   615
        Summary Statement of.........................................   566
    Pollak, Andrew N., M.D. Treasurer, American Association of
      Orthopaedic Surgeons...........................................   551
        Prepared Statement of........................................   552

    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Statement of.    58

    Schwartz, General Norton A., Chief of Staff, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense..   118
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   131
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Statements
      of............................................................62, 326
    Simha, Joy, Member, Board of Directors, National Breast Cancer
      Coalition......................................................   478
        Prepared Statement of........................................   480
    Siniscalchi, Major General Kimberly A., Assistant Surgeon General
      for Nursing Services, Department of the Air Force, Department
      of Defense.....................................................   266
        Prepared Statement of........................................   268
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   318
    Smith, Danny L., United States Army (Retired), Scleroderma
      Foundation.....................................................   473
        Prepared Statement of........................................   474
    Smith, Sharon, Executive Director, National Trauma Institute.....   539
        Prepared Statement of........................................   541
    Stenner, Lieutenant General Charles E., Jr., Chief, Air Force
      Reserve, United States Air Force, Department of Defense........   430
        Prepared Statement of........................................   432
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   452
    Strickland, William J., Ph.D., American Psychological Association   491
        Prepared Statement of........................................   492
    Stultz, Lieutenant General Jack, Chief, Army Reserve, United
      States Army, Department of Defense.............................   395
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   447

    Thompson, F. Neal, Treasurer, Board of Directors, Interstitial
      Cystitis Association...........................................   471
        Prepared Statement of........................................   472

    Vink, Elisabeth, Program Assistant, International Foundation for
      Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders..........................   462
        Prepared Statement of........................................   464

    Wyatt, Lieutenant General Harry M., III, Director, Air National
      Guard, Department of Defense...................................   352
        Prepared Statement of........................................   353
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   380

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   131
    Air Force Core Functions.........................................   109
    C-27J Versus C-130 Operational Costs.............................   138
    C-130 Move From Fort Worth.......................................   124
    Constrained Resources, Adapting to...............................   103
    Eielson Air Force Base...........................................   129
    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Competition....................   127
    F-16 to F-15 Conversion at Fresno................................   126
    Global Hawk......................................................   132
    Joint Base Elmendorf Environmental Analysis......................   130
    Light Attack Support Procurement.................................   137
    MC-12............................................................   135
    New Defense Strategic Guidance, Realignment to the...............   101
    Strategic Environment............................................   100

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   202
    Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.......................................   190
    Alaska, U.S. Army in.............................................   197
    All-Volunteer Army...............................................   181
    America's Army:
        Implications for.............................................   156
        The Nation's Force of Decisive Action........................   154
    Armed Aerial Scout Helicopter....................................   210
    Aviation Modernization...........................................   189
    Behavioral Health Re-Evaluation..................................   191
    Brigade Combat Team:
        Elimination of Army..........................................   211
        Inactivation of the 172nd Heavy..............................   205
    CH-47 Chinook Helicopter, Multiyear Contract for the.............   205
    Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station.........................   213
    Depots...........................................................   188
    Electronic Medical Records.......................................   204
    End-Strength Reduction Risk Mitigation...........................   179
    Evaluations, Medical and Disability..............................   206
    Fiscal Environment...............................................   155
    Focus Areas:
        Army.........................................................   177
        The Army's...................................................   157
    Force Structure..................................................   186
    Global Strategy, Army............................................   176
    High-Demand Soldiers Dwell Time..................................   212
    Intra-Theater Lift.............................................181, 198
    Ireland Army Community Hospital at Fort Knox, Replacement of.....   204
    Leaner Army, A...................................................   158
    Missile Defense..................................................   189
    Modernization....................................................   178
        Aviation.....................................................   189
    Movement Tracking System/Blue Force Tracking.....................   202
    National Defense, Army Role for..................................   201
    Overseas Contingency Operations..................................   207
    Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence Program.............   207
    Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury........   204
    Posture Statement, 2012 Reserve Component Addendum to the Army...   164
    Responsible Stewardship..........................................   157
    Security Environment.............................................   156
    Sequestration..................................................183, 194
    Strategic Context, The...........................................   153
    Stress on the Force..............................................   184
    Suicide..........................................................   200
        Hiring of Behavioral Health Specialists......................   206
        Vest Detection...............................................   212
    Tactical Fuel Systems............................................   210
    Transition:
        2011--The Army in............................................   154
        Out of the Military, Preparing Soldiers for the..............   208
    Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and.......   204
    United States Military Academy at West Point Board of Visitors...   182
    Vehicles:
        High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled...........................   203
        Light Tactical...............................................   195
        Medium Expanded Capability...................................   205
        MQ-8B Fire Scout Unmanned Aerial.............................   210
        Tactical Wheeled, Strategy...................................   203

                             Department of the Navy

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    78
    Air-Sea Battle...................................................    10
    Alaska...........................................................    94
    Amphibious:
        Combat Vehicle...............................................    91
        Ship Requirements............................................    73
    Arctic Operations................................................    64
    Bases, Stations, and Support Facilities, Providing Capable.......    49
    Biofuels.........................................................79, 90
    Broad Area Maritime Surveillance--Global Hawk....................    80
    Budget:
        For Fiscal Year 2013 Shaped by Three Main Priorities of the
          Chief of Naval Operations, President's.....................    25
        Highlights, Fiscal Year 2013.................................    37
        Submission, Fiscal Year 2013.................................     5
    DDG-51...........................................................    87
        Program......................................................    69
    DDG-1000 Program.................................................    68
    Department of Defense and Navy's Turning Point--and the Need for
      a New Strategy.................................................    28
    Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System........................    89
    End-Strength Reductions..........................................    78
    Energy Initiatives...............................................    88
    F-35 Test and Evaluation.........................................    84
    First Principles, Establishing...................................    23
    Force Size and Deployment Impact.................................    74
    Future, We Have Worked Diligently to Prepare for the.............    42
    History and Background...........................................    92
    Individual Training..............................................    93
    Investments Support the Department's Most Important Missions, Our
      Fiscal Year 2013...............................................    30
    Joint:
        High Speed Vessel Procurement................................    62
        Pacific Alaska Range Complex.................................    90
        Strike Fighter...............................................    80
    LHA 8 Amphibious Assault Ship....................................    87
    Law of the Sea...................................................     8
    Littoral Combat Ship:
        Mission Module Readiness.....................................    63
        Procurement Program..........................................    67
    Marine:
        Corps:
            Cold Weather Training....................................    92
            Drawdown, United States..................................    82
        The Indomitable Spirit of the U.S............................    34
    Marines:
        In the Future Security Environment, The Role of..............    38
        Investing in the Education and Training of Our...............    50
        Sailors, and their Families, Keeping Faith With..............    51
    Mission..........................................................    92
    Naval:
        Force:
            Capabilities/Needs.......................................    57
            Needs....................................................    56
        Operations in 2011...........................................     8
    Navy:
        And What We Believe, My Guidance for the.....................    24
        Fleet Size and Capability....................................    70
        Has Been Important to Our Nation's Security and Prosperity,
          The........................................................    21
        Turning Point--and the Need for a New Strategy, Department of
          Defense and................................................    28
    New Defense Strategic Guidance, Evaluating Impacts of the........    32
    Next Generation Enterprise Network...............................    88
    Ohio-Class Submarine Program.....................................    58
    Priorities:
        Departmental.................................................    11
        Our..........................................................    43
    Sequestration Impact.............................................    60
    Servicemember Transition:
        Assistance...................................................    77
        Programs.....................................................    76
    Sexual Assault Prevention Programs...............................    65
    Shipbuilding Production Rates....................................    90
    Ultra High Frequency Satellite Fleet.............................    85
    Unit Training....................................................    92
    Virginia-Class Submarine Procurement.............................    58
    USNS Comfort.....................................................    81
        Relocation...................................................    70

                            Medical Health Programs

    Addiction to Prescriptions.......................................   317
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   302
    Advancing a Culture of Inquiry...................................   275
    Army:
        Medicine and Health Service Support, Innovate................   243
        Profession, Support the......................................   249
    Body, Mind, and Spirit, Healing in...............................   229
    Care Experience..................................................   241
        Enhancing the................................................   292
    Corps Chief Position Legislative Proposal........................   312
    Deployable Capability, Transform.................................   219
    Develop Leaders..................................................   249
    Education:
        Force Multipliers: Research and Development and Graduate
          Medical....................................................   233
        Training, and Research, Invest in............................   223
    Force:
        Development..................................................   271
        Health Protection, Our Mission is............................   228
        Management...................................................   273
        Multipliers: Research and Development and Graduate Medical
          Education..................................................   233
        Support the..................................................   239
    Global Operations................................................   268
    Health Service Support...........................................   296
        Innovate Army Medicine and...................................   243
    Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy.................................305, 312, 318
    Information Management/Communication.............................   287
    Interoperability and Collaborative Engagement....................   234
    Medical:
        Home.........................................................   314
            Port: Patient- and Family-Centered Care..................   229
        Pain Management..............................................   310
        Professionals, Recruitment and Retention of..................   313
    Mefloquine................................................304, 308, 314
    Mental Health Care Provider Gap..................................   316
    Military:
        Health System................................................   314
            Structure................................................   308
        Medical Program Funding......................................   256
    New Challenges...................................................   237
    Nonmedical Caregivers............................................   309
        Support for..................................................   315
    Nurse:
        Case Management..............................................   301
        Corps:
            Chief Rank...............................................   306
            Rank, Chief............................................252, 298
            Training Army............................................   322
        Recruitment and Retention....................................   299
    Nurses: Service Integration......................................   323
    Nursing:
        Issues, Joint..............................................318, 320
        Knowledge/Clinical Excellence................................   284
        Leaders, Development of......................................   297
        Research.....................................................   285
            Issues.................................................319, 321
        Supporting the Force, Globally Ready.........................   289
    Operational, Humanitarian, and Disaster Relief Support...........   279
    Patient Care:
        Improve......................................................   288
        Touch System.................................................   322
    Patient-Centered:
        Care.........................................................   274
            Build....................................................   220
        Medical Home...............................................319, 321
    People--Our Most Important Asset.................................   235
    Pharmacy Waiting Time............................................   306
    Physician Staffing...............................................   307
    Resources, Optimize..............................................   248
    Strategic Partnerships...........................................   286
    Suicide:
        Prevention...................................................   307
        Rate.........................................................   313
    TRICARE..........................................................   313
        Fees.......................................................253, 306
    Training Army Nurse Corps........................................   322
    Transition From Wartime........................................320, 322
    Unity of Effort..................................................   242
        Through Joint Teams and Coalition Partnerships...............   295
    Way Ahead, The.................................................224, 277
    Workforce, Our...................................................   283
    Worldwide Influence..............................................   250
    Wounded Warrior and Family Support Programs......................   259

                             Missile Defense Agency

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   341
    Developing New Capabilities......................................   333
    Homeland Defense, Enhancing......................................   329
    International Cooperation........................................   334
    Missile Defense Capabilities, Additional.........................   332
    Pacific Missile Range Facility...................................   341
    Regional Defense, Enhancing......................................   331

                                 National Guard

    601st Air Operations Center......................................   382
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   377
    Aerospace Alert..................................................   371
    Air Force:
        Budget.......................................................   362
        Force Structure..............................................   367
        Restructure..................................................   381
    Air Guard:
        Force Structure Changes......................................   380
        Reserve Component Costing, Army and..........................   378
    Air National Guard:
        The Future of the............................................   355
        Units, Alaska................................................   375
    Air Operations Groups............................................   382
    Army:
        And Air Guard--Reserve Component Costing.....................   378
        Guard Suicide Rates..........................................   383
        National Guard Installations--The Foundation of Readiness....   360
    Bomb Squads......................................................   372
    C-5 and C-17.....................................................   366
    C-23.............................................................   376
    Deployments: The Accessibility Advantage, Ready and Reliable.....   358
    Domestic Operations..............................................   359
        Aviation's Role in...........................................   359
    Funding Levels...................................................   365
    Governors and Analysis, Role of..................................   373
    High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.......................   370
    Innovative Programs Leverage Our Range of Civilian Skills........   360
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance...................   369
    National Guard, The:
        And Reserve Equipment Account................................   377
        Civil Support Teams...................................379, 381, 385
        Future of....................................................   373
        Security America Can Afford..................................   349
        Value and Unique Capabilities..............................351, 360
    Operational Force for:
        Domestic and Overseas Missions, An....................350, 354, 358
        The 21st Century, Equipping an...............................   358
    Reserve Component Equipment......................................   364
    Southwest Border and A-10 Aircraft...............................   368
    Sports Sponsorship...............................................   371
    Suicide..........................................................   363
    Support:
        For Airmen and Families......................................   355
        Of Soldiers and Their Families...............................   361
        Soldiers, Airmen, and Families...............................   351

                       Office of the Secretary of Defense

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   615
    Afghan Army......................................................   604
    Afghanistan......................................................   621
        Airstrikes in................................................   634
        Counternarcotics.............................................   623
    Air Force:
        And Navy Inventory...........................................   569
        Budget.......................................................   591
        In Alaska....................................................   610
    Al-Qaeda Threats in Africa.......................................   625
    All-Volunteer Force, Ensuring Quality of the.....................   579
    Amphibious Warships--Operational Risk............................   634
    Balanced Package, A..............................................   581
    Budget...........................................................   597
        Air Force....................................................   591
        Defense....................................................567, 583
        Situation, Fiscal Year 2012..................................   582
        Strategy to Fiscal Year 2013.................................   574
    Classified Operations............................................   606
    Comfort..........................................................   597
    Cyber............................................................   595
    Defense:
        Budget.....................................................567, 583
        Contractors, Department of...................................   598
        Dollars, More Disciplined Use of.............................   575
        Strategy Review..............................................   574
    Deployed Warfighters, Fully Supporting...........................   580
    Disability Evaluation System.....................................   613
    Discrimination...................................................   599
    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle................................   627
    Force Structure and Programs, Strategy-Driven Changes in.........   576
    Global Military Operations.......................................   584
    Gross Domestic Product...........................................   609
    Ground Line of Communication.....................................   603
    Healthcare Costs.................................................   571
    Inspection System................................................   601
    Investment, A Responsible........................................   586
    National Guard and Reserve Units.................................   571
    Navy Inventory, Air Force and....................................   569
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization...............................   593
    Nuclear Weapons..................................................   626
    Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder...................................   612
        And Behavioral Health Cases..................................   615
    Prescription Drug Abuse..........................................   627
    Sequestration..............................572, 584, 588, 598, 607, 626
    Shipbuilding.....................................................   602
    Ships............................................................   589
    South China Seas.................................................   620
    Suicide..........................................................   611
    Taiwan and F-16s.................................................   624
    Transition, A Time of............................................   585
    United States:
        Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, The.............   622
        Relationship with Pakistan...................................   619
    Vision Research..................................................   618

                                    Reserves

    Achievements.....................................................   397
    Active Force End-Strength Reductions and Potential Transition to
      Reserve Forces.................................................   437
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   441
    Air Force Reserve--Force Structure Changes.......................   453
    Army Reserve:
        2012 Posture Statement, The United States....................   396
        Commitments..................................................   401
        From Strategic to Operational, Transformation of.............   434
        Modernization................................................   436
        Snapshot.....................................................   413
        Soldiers and Economic Impact by the State....................   413
        Today's Readiness and Strategic Agenda, The Posture of the...   399
    Army Reserved, Your..............................................   412
    Budget Request: Where We Are Going, The Fiscal Year 2012.........   402
    Citizen Airmen...................................................   434
    Conclusion: The Force is in Good Hands...........................   412
    Continuum of Service............................406, 442, 447, 449, 452
    Cost-Effective Capability........................................   433
    Equipment........................................................   421
    Facilities.......................................................   424
    Family Support and Yellow Ribbon Programs............445, 448, 451, 453
    First Principles.................................................   389
    Force Structure Changes, Air Force Reserve.......................   453
    Health Services and Behavioral Health............................   426
    Human Capital....................................................   402
    Materiel.........................................................   411
    Operational Command While Maintaining Strategic Reserve..........   432
    Operational Reserve..............................................   417
        Utilizing the................................................   449
    Personnel........................................................   420
    Predictability...................................................   420
    Quality of Life..................................................   428
    Readiness........................................................   407
    Ready Now--and Into the Future...................................   393
    Reserve Equipment Shortfalls.........................443, 447, 450, 452
    Sailors..........................................................   390
    Services and Infrastructure......................................   409
    Ship Building Program Adequacy...................................   441
    Total Force, Providing Indispensable Capabilities to the.........   396
    Training.........................................................   423
    Transition:
        Assistance...................................................   437
        From Active to Army Reserve..................................   439
    Wounded, Ill, and Injured Marines and Their Families, Supporting
      Our............................................................   430

                                       -