[Senate Hearing 111-701, Part 1]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-701, Pt. 1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3454
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
PART 1
MILITARY POSTURE AND TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE ``DON'T ASK,
DON'T TELL'' POLICY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND, AND U.S. JOINT FORCES
COMMAND
U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND
U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND
U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND, U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND, AND U.S. FORCES KOREA
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ACQUISITION
----------
FEBRUARY 2, 23, 25; MARCH 4, 9, 11, 16, 26; APRIL 20; DECEMBER 14, 2010
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011--Part 1
MILITARY POSTURE AND TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE ``DON'T ASK,
DON'T TELL'' POLICY b DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY b DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY b DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE b U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND, U.S.
AFRICA COMMAND, AND U.S. JOINT FORCES COMMAND b U.S. NORTHERN
COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND b U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
AND U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND b U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND, U.S. STRATEGIC
COMMAND, AND U.S. FORCES KOREA b BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POLICIES
AND PROGRAMS b LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ACQUISITION
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
62-155 PDF
______
2011
S. Hrg. 111-701, Pt. 1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3454
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 1
MILITARY POSTURE AND TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE ``DON'T ASK,
DON'T TELL'' POLICY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND, AND U.S. JOINT FORCES
COMMAND
U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND
U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND
U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND, U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND, AND U.S. FORCES KOREA
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ACQUISITION
__________
FEBRUARY 2, 23, 25; MARCH 4, 9, 11, 16, 26; APRIL 20; DECEMBER 14, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
?
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(Before July 22, 2010)
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
BILL NELSON, Florida LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK UDALL, Colorado RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
______
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(After July 22, 2010)
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BILL NELSON, Florida SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JIM WEBB, Virginia ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
MARK UDALL, Colorado SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
CARTE P. GOODWIN, West Virginia
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Military Posture and to Receive Testimony Relating to the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell'' Policy
february 2, 2010
Page
Gates, Hon. Robert M., Secretary of Defense...................... 11
Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff..... 21
Department of the Army
february 23, 2010
McHugh, John M., Secretary of the Army........................... 180
Casey, GEN George W., Jr., USA, Chief of Staff of the Army....... 228
Department of the Navy
february 25, 2010
Mabus, Hon. Raymond E., Jr., Secretary of the Navy............... 316
Roughead, ADM Gary, USN, Chief of Naval Operations............... 324
Conway, Gen. James T., USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps...... 342
Department of the Air Force
march 4, 2010
Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force.............. 453
Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.. 464
U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Joint Forces
Command
march 9, 2010
Stavridis, ADM James G., USN, Commander, U.S. European Command... 538
Ward, GEN William E., USA, Commander, U.S. Africa Command........ 576
Mattis, Gen. James N., USMC, Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command 595
U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command
march 11, 2010
Renuart, Gen. Victor E., Jr., USAF, Commander, U.S. Northern
Command, and Commander, North American Aerospace Defense
Command........................................................ 655
Fraser, Gen. Douglas M., USAF, Commander, U.S. Southern Command.. 672
U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Central Command
march 16, 2010
Olson, ADM T., USN, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command... 735
Petraeus, GEN David H., USA, Commander, U.S. Central Command..... 742
U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Forces Korea
march 26, 2010
Chilton, Gen. Kevin P., USAF, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command.. 839
Willard, ADM Robert F., USN, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command..... 851
Sharp, GEN Walter L., USA, Commander, United Nations Command,
Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces-Korea..................... 867
Ballistic Missile Defense Policies and Programs
april 20, 2010
Miller, Hon. James N., Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy............................................. 919
Gilmore, Hon. J. Michael, Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, Department of Defense.............................. 929
O'Reilly, LTG Patrick J., USA, Director, Missile Defense Agency.. 933
Macy, RADM Archer M., Jr., USN, Director, Joint Integrated Air
and Missile Defense Organization, and Deputy Director for Force
Protection, J-8, The Joint Staff............................... 942
Littoral Combat Ship Acquisition
december 14, 2010
Mabus, Hon. Raymond E. Jr., Secretary of the Navy................ 1018
Roughead, ADM Gary, USN, Chief of Naval Operations............... 1020
Stackley, Hon. Sean J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition......................... 1021
Pandolfe, RADM Frank C., USN, Director, Surface Warfare Division
OPNAV N86...................................................... 1023
Labs, Eric J., Ph.D., Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and
Weapons, Congressional Budget Office........................... 1023
O'Rourke, Ronald, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional
Research Service............................................... 1032
Francis, Paul L., Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, Government Accountability Office................... 1042
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MILITARY POSTURE AND TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE ``DON'T ASK,
DON'T TELL'' POLICY
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m. in room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman), presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill,
Udall, Hagan, Begich, Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions,
Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, and Collins.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel;
Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Richard
W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; Jessica L. Kingston, research
assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Gerard
J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; Jason W.
Maroney, counsel; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; Michael J.
Noblet, professional staff member; Roy F. Phillips,
professional staff member; John H. Quirk V, professional staff
member; and William K. Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member;
Christian D. Brose, professional staff member; Pablo E.
Carrillo, minority investigative counsel; Paul C. Hutton IV,
professional staff member; Michael V. Kostiw, professional
staff member; Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member;
David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
professional staff member; Christopher J. Paul, professional
staff member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member;
Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel; and Dana W. White,
professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Jennifer R.
Knowles, Christine G. Lang, and Breon N. Wells.
Committee members' assistants present: James Tuite,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Christopher Griffin, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Carolyn A. Chuhta, assistant to Senator
Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher
Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Ann Premer, assistant
to Senator Ben Nelson; Patrick Hayes, assistant to Senator
Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Tressa
Steffen Guenov, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Jennifer
Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall; Lindsay Kavanaugh,
assistant to Senator Begich; Roosevelt Barfield, assistant to
Senator Burris; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator
Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator
Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss;
Adam G. Brake, assistant to Senator Graham; Jason Van Beek,
assistant to Senator Thune; Erskine W. Wells III, assistant to
Senator Wicker; Brian Walsh, assistant to Senator LeMieux; and
Chip Kennett, assistant to Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning everybody. The committee this
morning welcomes Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Admiral Michael Mullen for
our hearing on the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal year 2011
budget request and the associated Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP), the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and the 2010
Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR).
Gentlemen, as always we are thankful to you and to your
families for your dedicated service to our Nation, to the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines at home, and in harm's
way around the globe, and to their families. Your commitment to
the welfare of our troops and their families shines through all
that you do. The American people are grateful for that and we
are grateful and eager to help whenever we can.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $549 billion
for the base budget and $159 billion for the ongoing wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of this $708 billion request for
2011, the administration has included a 2010 supplemental
request of $33 billion to fund the additional 30,000 troops to
support the President's Afghanistan policy announced last
December.
The budget request continues the defense reforms begun last
year to rebalance the force toward the military capabilities
necessary to prevail in today's conflicts, to buy weapons that
are relevant and affordable, and to assure that tax dollars are
used wisely.
The long-anticipated 2009 QDR report was also submitted on
Monday with the Department's 2011 budget. This is, and the
report is explicit, a wartime QDR. The Department's analysis
and decisions place the focus and priority on policies,
programs, and initiatives that support the current fight in
Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda. The QDR makes and
justifies tough choices and indicates that more tradeoffs will
be necessary in the future.
I'll note that along with the budget request the
administration submitted the BMDR. This review was required by
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year
2009. This is the first comprehensive policy and strategy
framework for missile defense and it is long overdue.
Secretary Gates' cover memo to the report notes that ``I
have made defending against near-term regional threats a top
priority of our missile defense plans, programs, and
capabilities,'' and that statement is consistent with what
Congress has been urging for many years.
The report also says that before new missile defense
programs will be deployed, they must first be tested
realistically to demonstrate that they are effective and
reliable. It also states that our missile defense programs must
be fiscally sustainable over the long term, and emphasizes
international cooperation with our allies and partners, and
expresses an interest in cooperation with Russia. Those are all
important elements of a sound missile defense policy.
Consistent with the reform goals set out by Secretary Gates
and the results of the QDR, a top priority for DOD must be the
critical requirements for the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan
and Iraq. This committee has sought to ensure that our
combatant commanders have what they need to succeed in those
conflicts, including technologies to counter improvised
explosive devices (IEDs); mine resistant ambush protected
(MRAP) all-terrain vehicles (ATVs); intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) assets; and additional helicopters.
This committee will continue to support the needs of our men
and women who are in those conflicts.
I have long argued that the principal mission in
Afghanistan should be training the Afghan security forces so
that they can take responsibility for the security of their
country. What we heard during our recent visit to Afghanistan
was that President Obama's speech at West Point in December had
a tangible, positive effect on the recruitment of Afghan
security forces. Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell, the head of
NATO training mission in Afghanistan, told us that President
Obama's setting of the July 2011 date for the beginning of U.S.
troop reductions in Afghanistan energized Afghanistan's
leadership, made clear to them that President Obama means
business when he says our commitment is not open-ended, and got
them to focus on planning for the shift in responsibility for
Afghan security that is highlighted by that 2011 July date.
Even more than a pay raise, General Caldwell told us, the
July 2011 date increased recruiting of Afghan soldiers because
Afghan leaders called for and reached out to local leaders to
produce new recruits across the country. The number of Afghan
recruits in training has jumped from 3,000 in November to over
11,000 as of last month.
Key to the success of the mission of strengthening the
Afghan Army will be the partnering of coalition and Afghan
units together on a one-to-one unit basis and for Afghans to
take the lead in operations. The budget the President sent over
yesterday includes significant resources for the training and
partnering mission, including increased funding for the Afghan
Security Forces Fund in both the 2010 supplemental and the 2011
request. The fully-integrated partnering of coalition and
Afghan units, living together and integrating their lives
daily, is at the heart of our troops' mission.
Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the Commander of the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Joint Command in
Afghanistan, has promised to get us data, indicated on a chart
that I have up behind me and a handout which is circulated, on
the number of Afghan units fully-integrated with coalition
forces and how many of those Afghan units are in the lead-in
operations. This effort is key to the transition to an Afghan
lead-in providing for the Nation's security and we will track
this data very closely.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Levin. While I'm pleased with the increased
partnering in the field, we were disappointed with the
shortfall in trainers for the initial training needed for the
Afghan Army and police. General Caldwell told us that he had
only 37 percent of the required U.S. and NATO trainers on hand
and NATO countries were about 90 percent short of meeting their
commitment to provide about 2,000 non-U.S. trainers. That's
simply inexcusable and our NATO allies must do more to close
the gap in trainers.
In the area of personnel, I am pleased that this budget
request provides increased funding for military personnel and
for the defense health program. The budget request includes
funding to support the care and treatment of wounded warriors,
including $1.1 billion for the treatment, care, and research of
traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and psychological health. The
budget would also increase funding for family support programs
by $500 million over last year's levels and include the funding
necessary to support the temporary increase to the Army's
active duty end strength to 569,400, which will help improve
dwell time and reduce stress on the force.
The catastrophic January 12 earthquake that struck Haiti
reminded all of us just how indiscriminate natural disasters
can be and renewed America's commitment to Haiti. DOD has
mobilized resources and manpower to aid in the relief effort in
support of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Just last week, the committee approved a $400 million
reprogramming to ensure that DOD was adequately resourced for
that important support mission. We are prepared to continue to
work with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to ensure DOD is
able to continue providing support to this critical
humanitarian disaster response effort in the weeks and months
ahead, and we all greatly appreciate the skill shown by U.S.
Service personnel in response to the Haiti disaster.
Now, following this hearing, as previously announced, at
around noon we're going to turn to the issue of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell (DADT). I would appreciate questions on that subject
being asked after Secretary Gates' statement on the subject at
that time.
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, we look forward to your
testimony, and now I turn to Senator McCain for any opening
remarks that he may have.
[The prepared statement by Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Carl Levin
This morning, the committee welcomes Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael
Mullen, for our hearing on the Department of Defense's (DOD) fiscal
year 2011 budget request and the associated Future Years Defense
Program, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and the 2010
Ballistic Missile Defense Review.
Gentlemen, as always we are thankful to you and your families for
your dedicated service to the Nation and to the soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines at home and in harm's way around the globe and to
their families. Your personal commitment to the welfare of our troops
and their families shines through all that you do. The American people
are grateful for that and we are grateful and eager to help wherever we
can.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of Defense
includes $549 billion for the base budget and $159 billion for the
ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of the $708 billion
request for 2011 the administration has included a 2010 supplemental
request of $33 billion to fund the additional 30,000 troops to support
the President's Afghanistan policy announced last December. The budget
request continues the defense reforms begun last year to rebalance the
force toward the military capabilities necessary to prevail in today's
conflicts, to buy weapons that are relevant and affordable, and ensure
that tax dollars are used wisely.
The long anticipated 2009 QDR Report was also submitted on Monday
with the Department's fiscal year 2011 budget submission. This is, and
the report is explicit, a wartime QDR. The Department's analysis and
decisions places the focus and priority on policies, programs, and
initiatives that support the current fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
against al Qaeda. The QDR makes and justifies tough choices--and
indicates that more tradeoffs will be necessary in the future.
It is also worth noting that this QDR's force sizing framework is
no longer based on a combination of simultaneous or sequential major
regional conflicts, as it has in the past, such as the ability to fight
and prevail in two major wars. Instead, the analysis used a series of
wargames through a range of plausible strategic scenarios to inform
decisions on force structure and capability or capacity adjustments.
The QDR assumes that our security challenges and the operational
environment will be as taxing into the future as it is today.
Therefore, the emphasis remains on appropriately sufficient force
capability and capacity to support current operations and ensuring the
sustainability of the All-Volunteer Force through the rotational
demands that appear likely over the next several years. As we all hope,
over time, forces no longer needed to support operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, will shift their focus to preparing for and deterring
future adversaries--in other words, rebuilding our military strategic
depth, which is critically important for long-term security of our
Nation.
I would note that, along with the budget request, the
administration submitted the Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR).
This review was required by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009. This is the first comprehensive policy and strategy
framework for missile defense, and it is long overdue. Secretary Gates'
cover memo to the report notes, ``I have made defending against near-
term regional threats a top priority of our missile defense plans,
programs, and capabilities.'' This is consistent with what Congress has
been urging for several years.
In addition to outlining our national priorities for defending the
homeland against missile threats from nations like North Korea and
Iran, and for flexible and adaptable regional missile defense, the
review describes several important policies. For example, it says that
before new missile defense systems will be deployed, they must first be
tested realistically and demonstrate that they are effective and
reliable. It also states that our missile defense programs must be
fiscally sustainable over the long term. It emphasizes international
cooperation with our allies and partners, and expresses an interest in
cooperation with Russia. I believe these are all important elements of
a sound missile defense policy.
Consistent with the reform goals set out by Secretary Gates and the
results of the Quadrennial Defense Review, a top priority for the
Department must be the critical requirements for the ongoing conflicts
in Afghanistan and Iraq. This committee has sought to ensure that our
combatant commanders have what they need to succeed in those conflicts,
including technologies to counter improvised explosive devices; MRAP-
All Terrain Vehicles; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
assets; and additional helicopters. I am confident that this committee
will continue to support the needs of our men and women who are in
these conflicts.
The next 12-18 months will be critical in Afghanistan. Based on
what I saw and heard during my visit to Afghanistan in January, I am
somewhat more optimistic than I was after my last visit in September
that the fully-resourced, counterinsurgency strategy announced by
President Obama is the right strategy and is starting to take hold.
This strategy focuses on the security of the Afghan people. Our troops
understand and embrace this people-centered approach.
I have long argued that our principal mission in Afghanistan should
be training the Afghan security forces so they can take responsibility
for the security of their country. What we heard during our visit to
Afghanistan was that President Obama's speech at West Point in December
had a tangible, positive impact on the recruitment of the Afghan
security forces. Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell, the head of the NATO
Training Mission in Afghanistan, told us that President Obama's setting
of the July 2011 date for the beginning of U.S. troop reductions in
Afghanistan energized Afghanistan's leadership, made clear to them that
President Obama means business when he says our commitment is not open-
ended, and got them to focus on planning for the shift in
responsibility for Afghanistan's security that is highlighted by that
July 2011 date. Even more than the pay raise, General Caldwell told us
the July 2011 date has increased recruiting because Afghan leaders
called for and reached out to local leaders to produce new recruits
across the country. As a result, the number of Afghan recruits in
training jumped from 3,000 in November to over 11,000 as of last month.
Key to the success of the mission of strengthening the Afghan Army
will be the partnering of coalition and Afghan units together, on a one
unit-to-one unit basis, and for Afghans to take the lead in operations.
The budget the President sent over yesterday includes significant
resources for the training and partnering missions, including increased
funding for the Afghan Security Forces Fund in both the fiscal year
2010 Supplemental and the fiscal year 2011 request.
The fully integrated partnering of coalition and Afghan units--
living together and integrating their lives daily--is at the heart of
our troop's mission. Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the commander
of the ISAF Joint Command in Afghanistan, has promised to get me data,
indicated on the chart behind me and the handout that was circulated,
on the number of Afghan units fully integrated with coalition forces
and how many of those Afghan units are in the lead in operations. This
effort is key to the transition to an Afghan lead in providing for
their nation's security. Accordingly, I intend to track the data on
this chart very closely.
While I am pleased with the increased partnering in the field, I am
disappointed with the shortfall in trainers for initial training needed
for the Afghan Army and police. Lieutenant General Caldwell told us he
had only 37 percent of the required U.S. and NATO trainers on hand, and
NATO countries were about 90 percent short of meeting NATO's commitment
to provide about 2,000 non-U.S. trainers. This is simply inexcusable,
and our NATO allies must do more to close the gap in trainers.
Other areas where progress appears to be happening are in equipping
the Afghan security forces, including with equipment coming out of Iraq
as U.S. forces draw down there, and in putting in place a plan for
reintegrating lower-level Taliban fighters willing to lay down their
arms and abide by the Afghan Constitution. In both of these areas, U.S.
efforts in Afghanistan have been aided by authorities provided by
Congress in last year's National Defense Authorization Act.
Also challenging over the coming months will be maintaining
security and stability in Iraq. Following Iraq's national elections,
the posture and mission of U.S. forces in Iraq will change
significantly, as they draw down from over 100,000 to under 50,000
soldiers, and the U.S. combat mission comes to an end in August of this
year, as called for by President Obama. The U.S.-Iraq status of forces
agreement sets a December 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S.
forces from Iraq.
Even as operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, we also must
continue to bring the fight to al Qaeda and its affiliates as they look
for new operational hubs. We have already seen al Qaeda's interest in
places like Yemen and Somalia, but we must attempt to ensure we are a
step ahead of al Qaeda in places like West Africa and the South
Pacific. Assisting our allies and partners in these regions is critical
and DOD's focus on building the capacity of our allies and partners is
welcome.
Turning to the readiness of our Armed Forces, the fiscal year 2011
budget request provides adequate levels of funding including support
for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding request
includes $21.3 billion for repairing and replacing equipment and $2.8
billion in the base budget to reset and reconstitute equipment. This
committee has long advocated for the Department to shift funding for
reset and reconstitution from the war budget into the base budget and
it appears they have finally begun to do so in this year's budget
request. We must recognize however that the $2.8 billion is a modest
down payment against our long term reset and reconstitution
requirements and this level of funding will need to be sustained
several years after forces have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Readiness funding in this year's budget request increases by 8.5
percent to account for additional costs associated with depot
maintenance, flying hours, steaming days, training, force growth, and
other increases in operational tempo. It is imperative these vital
readiness accounts are protected and fully funded. However, while our
deployed forces remain ready as they go into combat, until there is a
decrease in operational tempo, force readiness for non-deployed units
will continue to suffer historical lows, which poses significant risk
and adverse impacts to our National Military Strategy.
In the area of personnel, I am pleased that this budget request
provides increased funding for military personnel and the Defense
Health Program. The budget request includes funding to support the care
and treatment of Wounded Warriors, including $1.1 billion for the
treatment, care, and research of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and
psychological health. The budget would also increase funding for family
support programs by $500 million over last year's levels and include
the funding necessary to support the temporary increase of the Army's
active-duty end strength to 569,400, which will help improve dwell time
and reduce stress on the force.
I am disappointed, Secretary Gates, that you have announced that
you will recommend a veto if the Defense bills include funding for the
F136 alternate engine. Apart from the attributes afforded by
competition in improving technology and ensuring better contractor
performance, I believe that the business case today may be different
than the one the Department faced 4 years ago when the Department made
the original termination decision. Based on the information that I have
been provided, it would appear to me that the additional investment
that Congress has made in the program since that original decision
would change the business case for going forward with this program. At
the time of the original decision, the Institute for Defense Analyses
(IDA) assessed that the F136 alternate engine would have to achieve
savings of roughly 18 percent to make economic sense, a figure in
excess of the historical averages achieved in previous procurement
programs, which IDA assessed as being 14.6 percent. With the additional
investment that we have made since that time, it would appear that the
required savings threshold would now be closer to 13 percent, or a
figure below the average that procurement competitions have yielded in
the past.
The catastrophic January 12 earthquake that struck Haiti reminded
all of us just how indiscriminate natural disasters can be and renewed
America's commitment to Haiti. DOD has mobilized resources and manpower
to aid in the relief effort in support of the Department of State and
U.S. Agency for International Development. Just last week, the
committee approved a $400 million reprogramming to ensure DOD was
adequately resourced for this important support mission, and we are
prepared to continue to work with the Secretary and Admiral Mullen to
ensure DOD is able to continue to provide support to this critical
humanitarian disaster response effort in the weeks and months ahead. We
appreciate the skill shown by U.S. Service personnel in response to the
Haiti disaster.
Following this hearing, as previously announced, at around noon, we
will turn to the issue of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I would appreciate
questions on that subject being asked after Secretary Gates' statement
on the subject.
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, we look forward to your testimony.
Now I will turn to Senator McCain for any opening remarks he may have.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
join you in welcoming the witnesses to discuss the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2011 and the 2010 QDR and its
impact on the FYDP for DOD.
Secretary Gates, I greatly appreciate that you continue to
place the highest priority of the Department on supporting the
men and women of the Armed Forces. I am consistently amazed and
heartened by the courage, commitment, and dedication of the
brave men and women who choose to answer the call to defend the
Nation. We all know they endure long, hard work under very
demanding conditions and in some cases making the ultimate
sacrifice. They in turn ask their families to endure unwelcome
separations and the burden of managing the homefront. Your
country's volunteer force and their families are a national
asset and they deserve our steadfast and united support.
Informed by the 2010 QDR, your 2011 base budget request of
$549 billion builds upon the substantial changes you outlined
in last year's budget by establishing strategic priorities and
identifying where DOD needs to spend scarce resources.
Secretary Gates, last year I supported your view that winning
the wars of today, while deterring and preparing for the
conflicts of tomorrow required a balancing of risks. I look
forward to your assessment of why this year's budget and the
QDR that it's based on entail an acceptable amount of risk
between our present and future priorities.
The 2011 overseas contingency operations (OCO) request of
$159 billion and 2010 supplemental request of $33 billion
support our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I fully
support your efforts to use OCO and supplemental funding to
address many operational shortfalls in Afghanistan through
increased funding for ISR assets, electronic warfare
capabilities, and increasing the end strength of our Special
Operations Forces (SOF).
Your request includes significant funding for building the
Afghan security forces. I remain very concerned that we're not
on pace to achieve the end strength of 400,000 by 2013 as
recommended by General McChrystal. I'm eager to hear whether
you think your funding request will enable us to achieve that
goal.
On the issue of a 2011 withdrawal, from speaking with the
President of Pakistan to the tribal leader in Kandahar who
fought against the Russians, there's great uncertainty out
there because of the President's statement. There's great
uncertainty whether we're going to stay, and it was raised to
me by every leader that I met with, including the tribal chief
who had fought against the Russians, who looked at me and said:
``Are you going to stay or are you going to leave like you did
last time?''
Our allies and friends in the region need to be reassured
that 2011 is not the date for withdrawal and, although your
words and that of the Secretary of State have been excellent,
the President has not made that statement in a way that would
be reassuring to our allies as well as to our enemies.
Because we ask our men and women in uniform and their
families to sacrifice so much, both Congress and the
administration must be ready to make some tough funding
decisions, something we've failed miserably at in previous
years. Despite numerous calls last year for earmark reform, the
fiscal year 2010 defense appropriations bill signed into law a
bill that contained over $4 billion in earmarks and $3 billion
in unrequested and unwanted funding for C-17s and the
alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). That's
$7 billion that the Department had to eat in programs that it
didn't request or need.
This business as usual spending that we've come to accept
is unnecessary, wasteful, and it diverts precious funding from
other, more pressing military priorities.
Secretary Gates, I was encouraged in your rollout of the
budget yesterday that you laid an early marker with Congress by
indicating that if we added funds to continue the C-17 and
alternate engine for the JSF in 2011 you would recommend that
the President veto the bill. I strongly support such a
recommendation, but feel it may fall on deaf ears up here
unless that veto threat comes early, consistently, and directly
from the President.
We cannot continue to condone spending billions of dollars
on programs that the Department doesn't want or need. If the
President is really serious, if he's really serious about not
wasting billions of dollars more of the taxpayers' money, he
should also say that he will veto any appropriations bill that
comes across his desk with earmarks and pork barrel spending on
it. It has to stop.
On the F-35 JSF program, I appreciate the management
decisions you announced yesterday to replace the program
executive officer and withhold more than $600 million where
accountability required that those changes be made. As you
appropriately stated yesterday during your press conference:
``When things go wrong, people will be held accountable.'' I'd
like to see that happen in some other areas of government.
I am nonetheless concerned about your comment during the
press conference that it was clear there were more problems
with the F-35 than you were aware of when you visited the Fort
Worth plant last August. With your recently announced
management decisions, I hope the process by which you get
reliable, up to date information about important aspects of the
program when you need it has improved.
However, I am still concerned about whether the Services
will get sufficiently capable JSFs when they need them. Just a
few weeks ago, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
found that continued production concurrent with the slow
increase in flight testing over the next 2 years will commit
DOD and the Services to test, training, and deploy plans with
substantial risk. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) recently
determined that the Marine Corps and the Navy's version of the
JSF may end up being too expensive to operate, with each flight
hour flown costing about $31,000 compared with around $19,000
per flight hour for the Services' current F/A-18 Hornets and
AV-8B Harriers. I'd appreciate if you could comment on these
and potentially other issues you see facing this program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I join you in welcoming Secretary Gates
and Chairman Mullen today to discuss the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2011, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and its
impact on Future Years Defense Programs for the Department of Defense.
Secretary Gates, I greatly appreciate that you continue to place
the highest priority of the Department on supporting the men and women
of the U.S. Armed Forces. I am consistently amazed and heartened by the
courage, commitment, and dedication of the brave men and women who
choose to answer the call to defend our Nation. They endure long hard
work under very demanding conditions, and in some cases making the
ultimate sacrifice. They, in turn ask their families to endure
unwelcome separations and the burden of managing the homefront. Our
country's volunteer force and their families are a national asset. They
deserve our steadfast and united support.
Informed by the 2010 QDR, your 2011 base budget request of $549
billion builds upon the substantial changes you outlined in last year's
budget by establishing strategic priorities and identifying where the
Department needs to spend scarce resources. Secretary Gates, last year
I supported your view that winning the wars of today while deterring
and preparing for the conflicts of tomorrow required a balancing of
risk. I look forward to your assessment of why this year's budget, and
the QDR that it is based on, entail an acceptable amount of risk
between our present and future priorities.
Your 2011 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request of $159
billion and 2010 supplemental request of $33 billion supports our men
and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. I fully support your efforts to use
OCO and supplemental funding to address many operational shortfalls in
Afghanistan through increased funding for intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities
and increasing the end strength of our Special Operations Forces. Your
request includes significant funding for building the Afghan security
forces. I remain concerned that we are not on pace to achieve the end
strength of 400,000 by 2013, as recommended by General McChrystal. I am
eager to hear whether you think your funding request will enable us to
achieve that goal.
Because we ask our men and women in uniform and their families to
sacrifice so much, both Congress and the administration must be ready
to make some tough funding decisions--something that we have failed
miserably at in previous years. Despite numerous calls last year for
earmark reform, the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill signed
into law contained over $4 billion in earmarks and $3 billion in
unrequested and unwanted funding for C-17s and the alternative engine
for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's $7 billion that the Department had
to eat in programs that it didn't request or need. This business-as-
usual spending that we have come to accept is unnecessary, wasteful and
it diverts precious funding from other more pressing military
priorities. Secretary Gates, I was encouraged in your rollout of the
budget yesterday that you laid an early marker with Congress by
indicating that if we added funds to continue the C-17 and alternate
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter in 2011, you would recommend that
the President veto the bill. I strongly support such a recommendation,
but feel it may fall on deaf ears up here unless that veto threat comes
early, consistently and directly from the President. We cannot continue
to condone spending billions of dollars on programs that the Department
doesn't want or need. If the President is serious about not wasting
billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, then he should use every
opportunity this year to vow to veto any appropriations bill that that
is laden with pork barrel spending.
Mr. Secretary, on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, I
appreciate the management decisions you announced yesterday--to replace
the program executive officer and withhold more than $600 million--
where accountability required that those changes be made. As you
appropriately stated yesterday during your press conference, `When
things go wrong, people will be held accountable.' I am, nonetheless,
concerned about your comment during the press conference that it was
clear there were more problems with the F-35 than you were aware of
when you visited the Fort Worth plant last August. With your recently
announced management decisions, I hope the process by which you get
reliable, up-to-date information about important aspects of the Program
when you need it, has improved.
However, I am still concerned about whether the Services will get
sufficiently capable Joint Strike Fighters when they need them. Just a
few weeks ago, the Director, Operational Testing and Evaluation found
that continued production concurrent with the slow increase in flight
testing over the next 2 years will commit the Department and Services
to test, training, and deployment plans with substantial risk. NAVAIR
recently determined that the Marine Corps and the Navy's version of the
Joint Strike Fighter may end up being too expensive to operate, with
each flight hour flown costing about $31,000, compared with around
$19,000 per flight hour for the Services' current F/A-18 Hornets and
AV-8B Harriers. I would appreciate it if you could comment on these and
potentially other issues you see facing this program.
Thank you Chairman Levin.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
I will put the balance of my statement in the record and if
there's part of your statement that you didn't give, of course,
that will be made part of the record, too, if you wish.
Secretary Gates, we welcome you, Admiral Mullen, and Mr.
Hale. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Secretary Gates. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011.
I first want to thank you for your support of the men and
women of the United States military these many years. These
troops are part of an extraordinary generation of young
Americans who have answered their country's call. They have
fought our wars, protected our interests and allies around the
globe, and, as we have seen recently in Haiti, they have also
demonstrated compassion and decency in the face of
incomprehensible loss.
I have a brief opening statement to provide an overview of
the budget request. My submitted statement includes many more
details that I know are of interest to the committee.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Secretary, I'm going to interrupt you
at this time and do something which I know you would love us to
do, which is to approve a number of nominations. We have a
quorum present and we should take advantage of that. Forgive
the interruption. I will ask the committee now to consider 5
civilian nominations and 1,802 pending military nominations.
First, the civilian nominations of Douglas Wilson to be
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; Malcolm Ross
O'Neil to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology; Mary Sally Matiella to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller;
Paul Luis Oostburg Sanz to be General Counsel of the Department
of the Navy; and Jacqueline Pfannenstiel to be Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment.
Is there a motion to report these nominations?
Senator McCain. So moved.
Chairman Levin. Second?
Senator Inhofe. Second.
Chairman Levin. All in favor say aye. [Chorus of ayes.]
That is approved.
Finally, I'll ask the committee to consider the 1,802
pending military nominations. They've been before the committee
the required length of time. Is there a motion?
Senator McCain. So moved.
Chairman Levin. Second?
Senator Inhofe. Second.
Chairman Levin. Second. All in favor say aye. [Chorus of
ayes.]
Opposed, nay. [No response.]
The motion carries. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Gates. A most worthwhile interruption.
The budget requests being presented today include $549
billion for a base budget, a 3.4 percent increase over last
year, or 1.8 percent real increase after adjusting for
inflation, reflecting the administration's commitment to
modest, steady, and sustainable real growth in defense
spending. We're also requesting $159 billion in fiscal year
2011 to support OCOs, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus
$33 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year to support
the added financial costs of the President's new approach in
Afghanistan.
The base budget request reflects these major institutional
priorities: first, reaffirming and strengthening the Nation's
commitment to care for the All-Volunteer Force, our greatest
strategic asset; second, rebalancing America's defense posture
by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current
conflicts while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in
the future; and third, continuing the Department's commitment
to reform how DOD does business, especially in the area of
acquisitions. Finally, the commitments made and the programs
funded in the OCO and supplemental requests demonstrate the
administration's determination to support our troops and
commanders in combat so they can accomplish their critical
missions and come home safely.
The budget continues the Department's policy of shifting
money to the base budget for enduring programs that directly
support warfighters and their families, whether on the
battlefield, recovering from wounds, or on the homefront, to
ensure that they have steady, long-term funding and
institutional support.
The base budget request was accompanied and informed by the
2010 QDR, which establishes strategic priorities and identifies
key areas for needed investment. The 2010 QDR and fiscal year
2011 budget build upon the substantial changes that the
President made in the fiscal year 2010 budget request to
allocate defense dollars more wisely and reform the
Department's processes.
The fiscal year 2010 budget proposals cut, curtailed, or
ended a number of programs that were either performing poorly
or in excess of real world needs. Conversely, future-oriented
programs where the United States was relatively underinvested
were accelerated or received more funding.
The fiscal year 2011 budget submissions and QDR are
suffused with two major themes. The first is continued reform,
fundamentally changing the way this Department does business,
the priorities we set, the programs we fund, the weapons we
buy, and how we buy them. Building on the reforms of last
year's budget, the fiscal year 2011 request two additional
steps aimed at programs that were excess or performing poorly.
They include terminating the Navy EPX intelligence aircraft,
ending the Third Generation Infrastructure Surveillance
Program, cancelling the Next Generation CGX Cruiser,
terminating the Net-Enabled Command and Control Program, ending
the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS)
due to cost overruns and performance concerns, completing the
C-17 program and closing the production line, as multiple
studies in recent years show that the Air Force already has
more of these aircraft than it needs, and ending the alternate
engine for the F-35 JSF, as whatever benefits might accrue are
more than offset by excess costs, complexity, and associated
risks.
I am fully aware of the political pressure to continue
building the C-17 and proceed with an alternate engine for the
F-35. So let me be very clear: I will strongly recommend that
the President veto any legislation that sustains the
unnecessary continuation of these two programs.
The budget and reviews are also shaped by a bracing dose of
realism, with regard to risk, and with regard to resources. We
have in a sober and clear-eyed way assessed risks, set
priorities, made tradeoffs, and identified requirements based
on plausible real-world threats, scenarios, and potential
adversaries.
Just one example. For years, U.S. defense planning and
requirements were based on preparing to fight two major
conventional wars at the same time, a force-sizing construct
that persisted long after it was overtaken by events. The
Department's leadership now recognizes that we must prepare for
a much broader range of security challenges on the horizon.
They range from the use of sophisticated new technologies to
deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air,
space, and cyberspace to the threat posed by non-state groups
delivering more cunning and destructive means to attack and
terrorize, scenarios that transcend the familiar contingencies
that dominated U.S. planning after the Cold War.
We have learned through painful experience that the wars we
fight are seldom the wars that we planned. As a result, the
United States needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities
with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of
conflict. This strategic reality shaped the QDR's analysis and
subsequent conclusions, which directly informed the program
decisions contained in the budget.
Before closing, I would like to offer two thoughts to
consider when assessing the U.S. investment in national
defense. First, the requests submitted this week total more
than $700 billion, a massive number to be sure. But at 4.7
percent of gross national product, it represents a
significantly smaller portion of national wealth going to
defense than was spent during most of America's previous major
wars, and the base budget represents 3.5 percent of GDP.
Second, the President recently exempted the defense budget
from spending freezes being applied to other parts of the
government. It is important to remember, however, that, as I
mentioned earlier, this Department undertook a painstaking
review of our priorities last year and as a result cut or
curtailed a number of major programs. These programs had they
been pursued to completion would have cost the American
taxpayer about $330 billion.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and members of
this committee again for all you have done to support our
troops and their families in light of the unprecedented demands
that have been placed upon them. I believe the choices made and
the priorities set in these budget requests reflect America's
commitment to see that our forces have the tools they need to
prevail in the wars we are in, while making the investments
necessary to prepare for threats on or beyond the horizon.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Gates follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Robert M. Gates
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
President's budget requests for fiscal year 2011. I first want to thank
you for your support of the men and women of the U.S. military these
many years. I know they will be uppermost in your thoughts as you
deliberate on these budget requests. Our troops are part of an
extraordinary generation of young Americans who have answered their
country's call. They have fought this country's wars, protected our
interests and allies around the globe, and, as we've seen recently in
Haiti, they have also demonstrated compassion and decency in the face
of incomprehensible loss.
The budget requests being presented today include $549 billion for
the base budget--a 3.4 percent increase over last year, or 1.8 percent
real growth after adjusting for inflation, reflecting this
administration's commitment to modest, steady, and sustainable real
growth in defense spending. We are also requesting $159 billion in
fiscal year 2011 to support Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus $33 billion for the remainder
of this fiscal year to support the added financial costs of the
President's new approach in Afghanistan.
The base budget request was accompanied and informed by the 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which establishes strategic
priorities and identifies key areas for needed investment. The 2010 QDR
and fiscal year 2011 budget build upon the substantial changes that the
President made in the fiscal year 2010 budget request to allocate
defense dollars more wisely and reform the department's processes.
The base budget request reflects these major institutional
priorities:
First, reaffirming and strengthening the Nation's
commitment to care for the All-Volunteer Force, our greatest
strategic asset;
Second, rebalancing America's defense posture by
emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current
conflicts, while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in
the future; and
Third, continuing the department's commitment to
reform how the Department of Defense (DOD) does business,
especially in the area of acquisitions.
Finally, the commitments made and programs funded in the OCO and
supplemental requests demonstrate this administration's determination
to support our troops and commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq so they
can accomplish their critical missions and return home safely.
At this point, I would like to offer two thoughts to consider when
assessing the U.S. investment in national defense:
First, the requests submitted this week total more than $700
billion--a massive number, to be sure. But, at 4.7 percent of gross
national product, it represents a significantly smaller portion of
national wealth going to defense than was spent during America's
previous major wars.
Second, the President recently exempted the defense budget from
spending freezes being applied to other parts of the government. It is
important to remember, however, that this department already undertook
a painstaking review of our programs and priorities last year, and
proposed to cut, curtail, or end a number of programs. These programs,
had they been pursued to completion, would have cost the American
taxpayer about $330 billion.
care for our all-volunteer force
The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $138.5 billion for
military pay and allowances, an increase of $3.6 billion--or 2.6
percent--over last year. This includes an increase of 1.4 percent for
military basic pay, which will keep military pay increases in line with
those in the private sector. This amount funds bonuses and other
incentives to meet recruiting and retention quality and quantity
goals--especially for our most critical skills and experience levels.
The military deserves generous pay because of the stress and danger
these jobs entail. In recent years, Congress has added 0.5 percent to
the administration's requested military pay raise--an action that adds
about $500 million a year to our budget now and in future years, and
reduces the funds available for training and equipping the force. In
this time of strong recruiting and retention, I urge Congress to
approve the full requested amount for the fiscal year 2011 military pay
raise but not to add to the request.
Wounded, Ill, and Injured
This budget supports the department's intense focus on care for our
wounded, ill, and injured military members. As I've said before, aside
from winning the wars themselves, this is my highest priority. Key
initiatives include:
Achieving a seamless transition to veteran status for
members leaving the military and increased cooperation between
the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs;
Ensuring a high standard at facilities caring for
wounded warriors, including first-rate hospitals and the Army's
Warrior Transition Units;
Enhancing case management of individuals transitioning
to civilian life--especially those needing long-term care;
Establishing a better Disability Evaluation System--to
create a simpler, faster, more consistent process for
determining which members may continue their military service
and helping them become as independent and self-supporting as
possible; and
Working with the VA to create Virtual Lifetime
Electronic Records to improve veteran care and services by
improving the availability of administrative and health
information.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $2.2 billion for
enduring programs for our wounded, ill, and injured. It also includes
$300 million to complete the Army's Warrior Transition complexes and
new medical facilities in the Washington, DC, capital region. The $2.2
billion for these programs is $100 million more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted amount and is more than double the fiscal year 2008 level
of $1 billion.
Military Health System
The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $50.7 billion for the Unified
Medical Budget to support the Military Health System that serves 9.5
million eligible beneficiaries. Over the past decade, U.S. health-care
costs have grown substantially, and defense health costs have been no
exception, more than doubling between fiscal year 2001 ($19 billion)
and fiscal year 2010 ($49 billion). These costs are expected to grow
from 6 percent of the department's total budget in fiscal year 2001 to
more than 10 percent in fiscal year 2015.
Military Family Support Programs
The department remains fully committed to providing assistance to
our troops and their families in light of the unprecedented demands
that have been placed on them. As the President stated in the State of
the Union Address last week, our men and women in uniform and their
families have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. The
budget reflects the department's policy of shifting money to the base
budget for enduring programs so that they will not disappear as war
funding declines. The fiscal year 2011 base budget includes $8.1
billion for a variety of family-support programs vital to the morale
and well-being of our military members and their families--an increase
of $450 million over last year. The OCO request includes $700 million
for family support--bringing the total to $8.8 billion.
Build and Sustain Facilities
The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $18.7 billion to fund critical
military-construction and family-housing requirements, including
substantial funding to recapitalize many department schools for
children of servicemembers.
The fiscal year 2011 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) investment
funding of $2.4 billion is less than prior years because most of the
funding needed to implement the 2005 round of BRAC decisions has
already been appropriated for 24 major realignments, 24 base closures,
and 765 lesser actions--all of which must be completed by September 15,
2011, in accordance with statute.
We have requested $14.2 billion to modernize the department's
facilities; to support the recently completed growth in the Army and
Marine Corps; to support the relocation of 8,000 marines from Okinawa
to Guam; and to recapitalize medical facilities and schools for
servicemembers' children.
rebalancing the force--the wars we are in
Achieving our objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq has moved to the
top of the institutional military's budgeting, policy, and program
priorities. We now recognize that America's ability to deal with
threats for years to come will largely depend on our performance in the
current conflicts. The fiscal year 2011 budget request took a number of
additional steps aimed at filling persistent shortfalls that have
plagued recent military efforts, especially in Afghanistan.
Rotary-Wing Aircraft
To increase these capabilities, this request includes more than
$9.6 billion for the acquisition of a variety of modern rotary-wing
aircraft, including the creation of two Army combat aviation brigades
by fiscal year 2014. The goal is to train 1,500 new Army helicopter
pilots per year by 2012.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
The fiscal year 2011 budget request continues efforts to increase
ISR support for our fighting forces. The ISR Task Force was formed in
April 2008 to generate critical operational ISR capacity--primarily in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then, the department has worked to secure
substantial funding to field and sustain ISR capabilities. In the
fiscal year 2011 budget, that includes:
$2.2 billion for procurement of Predator-class
aircraft to increase the Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) available to
deployed forces from 37 to 65 by 2013; and
Doubling procurement of the MQ-9 Reaper over the next
few years.
Electronic Warfare (EW)
The fiscal year 2011 budget request supports the QDR's call for
better EW capabilities for today's warfighters. The Navy procurement
budget includes $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2011 and $2.3 billion in
fiscal year 2012 for the addition of 36 EA-18G aircraft, with 12
procured in fiscal year 2011 and 24 in fiscal year 2012. These
resources and capabilities will help fill an imminent EW shortfall that
has been consistently highlighted by the combatant commanders as one of
their highest priorities.
Special Operations Forces (SOF)
The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $6.3 billion for USSOCOM--
nearly 6 percent higher than in fiscal year 2010. The department plans
to call for SOF funding to increase sharply over the next several
years, including an increase of about 2,800 personnel in fiscal year
2011.
rebalancing the force--preparing for the future
The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $189 billion for total
procurement, research, and development. This investment reflects the
fact that the United States needs a broad portfolio of military
capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible
spectrum of conflict, including conventional conflict with the
technologically advanced military forces of other countries. To meet
the potential threats to our military's ability to project power, deter
aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners in environments
where access to our forces may be denied, this budget request includes
substantial funds for conventional and strategic modernization.
Tactical Aircraft
The fiscal year 2011 budget funds programs to develop and buy
superior aircraft to guarantee continued air dominance over current and
future battlefields, most importantly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF). The fiscal year 2011 base budget includes $10.7 billion for
continued development of the F-35, and for procurement of 42 aircraft.
An additional JSF is purchased in the OCO budget. This budget reflects
a restructuring of the JSF program to stabilize its schedule and cost.
The department has also adjusted F-35 procurement quantities based on
new data on likely orders from our foreign partners and realigned
development and test schedules.
Mobility and Tanker Aircraft
The fiscal year 2011 budget continues to support development of a
new aerial refueling tanker. The KC-X, the first phase of KC-135
recapitalization, will procure 179 commercial derivative tanker
aircraft to replace roughly one-third of the current aerial refueling
tanker fleet at an estimated cost of $35 billion. Contract award is
expected in the summer of 2010 and procurement should begin in fiscal
year 2013. To support this long-range effort, $864 million has been
requested for research into the next-generation tanker.
The fiscal year 2011 budget ends production of the C-17, supports
shutdown activities for production of new aircraft, and continues the
modification of existing C-17s. With the completion of the program, the
United States will have 223 of these aircraft, more than enough to meet
current and projected requirements.
Shipbuilding
The fiscal year 2011 budget reflects the department's formulation
of a realistic, executable shipbuilding plan through the Future Years
Defense Program. Overall, the fiscal year 2011 budget includes $25.1
billion for fiscal year 2011 procurement of new ships, equipment and
research and development into future construction--including $15.7
billion for Navy shipbuilding and conversion activities. It reinforces
the ongoing transition to a naval force that can meet the needs of
today's warfighters and reduce reliance on very costly and increasingly
vulnerable large surface combatants in the future. The fiscal year 2011
request and planned out-year funding would allow the department to:
Build a new aircraft carrier every 5 years;
Shift large-deck amphibious ship production to a 5-
year build cycle to maintain a long-term force structure of
nine large-deck aviation ships to support amphibious
operations;
Stabilize near-term production quantities for the
Littoral Combat Ship and the Joint High Speed Vessel to support
irregular warfare operations;
Produce two attack submarines per year beginning in
fiscal year 2011 and continue development of a new strategic
deterrent submarine; and
Build three Mobile Landing Platform ships--one ship
per year in fiscal year 2011, fiscal year 2013, and fiscal year
2015.
Ground Forces Modernization
The fiscal year 2011 budget advances restructuring of the Army's
Future Combat Systems, principally through Brigade Combat Team (BCT)
modernization. The fiscal year 2011 request for BCTs is $3.2 billion,
mostly for research and development.
The fiscal year 2011 budget also supports the development of a new
ground-vehicle program to replace aging systems. The new program will
take into account the hard battlefield lessons of recent years,
especially with respect to threats posed by improvised explosive
devices (IEDs), and will include a role for the MRAP and M-ATV vehicles
that have been so important in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Space and Cyber Capabilities
Just about all of our military forces--land, sea, and air--now
depend on digital communications and the satellites and data networks
that support them. The role of space and satellites has never been more
crucial to military operations--from GPS-guided munitions and
navigation to missile defense and communications. The fiscal year 2011
budget continues to strengthen U.S. capabilities in space, with $599
million allocated to procure Advanced Extremely High Frequency
satellites instead of the Transformational Satellite, which was
cancelled in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
With cheap technology and minimal investment, adversaries operating
in cyberspace can potentially inflict serious damage on our command and
control, ISR, and precision strike capabilities. The fiscal year 2011
budget continues to fund the recruiting and training of new experts in
cyber warfare begun in fiscal year 2010, and supports the stand up of a
new U.S. Cyber Command.
Ballistic Missile Defense
DOD continues to pursue missile-defense systems that can provide
real capability as soon as possible while taking maximum advantage of
new technologies. In accordance with the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense
Review, our goal is a missile-defense program that balances
capabilities and risks in order to deter aggression; project power and
protect U.S. and allied interests; and respond to warfighter
requirements.
This year's base budget request includes $9.9 billion total for
missile defense--almost $700 million more than last year, mostly for
the Missile Defense Agency.
This includes funding for:
Enhanced missile defenses for deployed forces, allies,
and partners to defend against regional threats--including
THAAD battery ground components and interceptors, as well as
the conversion of additional Aegis ships.
The ``Phased Adaptive Approach'' for missile defense:
a flexible, scalable system to respond to developing threats.
This has particular applicability to Europe, where the new
approach allows us to adapt our systems more rapidly as new
threats develop and old ones recede. In the short-term, we will
be able to provide immediate coverage and protection by
deploying current and proven systems such as the Aegis and SM-
3.
A viable homeland defense against rogue threats--
including ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, AK, and
Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA.
Expansion of the flight-test program to test
capabilities against medium-, intermediate-, and long-range
threats.
Investments in break-through technologies to improve
our ability to counter threats during the boost phase while
focusing on the most promising new technologies.
Nuclear Weapons
The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) being released in March will
outline the policy framework for achieving the President's objectives
to reduce nuclear weapons with a long-term goal of elimination; and
maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal as long as these weapons
exist. It will also provide steps to strengthen deterrence while
reducing the role of nuclear weapons. While the NPR conclusions are
still being developed, the President's budget requests for the Defense
and Energy departments reflect several priorities already established
in our review:
Funding to sustain a nuclear triad of ICBMs, SLBMs,
and heavy bombers under the New START Treaty; and
Increased National Nuclear Security Administration
funding for infrastructure, warhead life extension, and science
and technology.
Details of these and other elements of our nuclear posture will be
presented in the final NPR report in March.
Building Partner Capacity
In a world where arguably the most likely and lethal threats will
emanate from failed and fractured states, building the security
capacity of partners has emerged as a key capability--one that reduces
the need for direct U.S. military intervention, with all of its
attendant political, financial, and human costs. To provide more
resources, predictability, and agility to this important mission, the
department will seek an increase in Global Train and Equip authority in
the fiscal year 2011 budget to $500 million--authority that includes
coalition activities to support current operations.
reforming how the department of defense does business
President Obama is committed to ending unneeded and troubled
programs and achieving a better balance between capabilities needed to
succeed in current conflicts and capabilities needed to prepare for the
conflicts we are most likely to see in the future.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request builds on the reforms of last
year by ending a number of unneeded or troubled programs:
Next Generation Cruiser CG(X): Cancelled due to
concerns about costs and utility in future combat scenarios.
Any resulting capability gap will be filled by an enhanced Navy
destroyer program.
Navy Intelligence Aircraft EP(X): This Navy-planned
EP-3 replacement was cancelled because of cost and its
redundancy with other technologies and systems.
Third Generation Infrared Surveillance: This sensor
system was cancelled because there are better alternatives.
The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
(DIMHRS): DIMHRS has been in development for over 10 years and
cost $500 million--with little to show and limited prospects.
Net Enabled Command and Control: This joint program
has had cost overruns and performance shortfalls.
JSF Alternate Engine
One of the tougher decisions we faced during this budget process
was whether or not to formally add the alternate engine to the Joint
Strike Fighter program. It has been the position of this department
since 2007 that adding a second JSF engine was unnecessary and too
costly.
Over the past year, as part of our thorough review of the overall
JSF program, we took a fresh look to determine whether the second
engine option had reached a point in funding and development that
supported a different conclusion. We considered all aspects of this
question and, in the end, concluded that the facts and analysis simply
do not support the case for adding an alternate engine program. There
are several rationales for this conclusion:
First, even after factoring in Congress' additional funding, the
engine would still require a further investment of $2.5 billion over
the next 5 years.
Second, the additional costs are not offset by potential savings
generated through competition. Even optimistic analytical models
produce essentially a break-even scenario.
Third, the solution to understandable concern over the performance
of the Pratt & Whitney program is not to spend yet more money to add a
second engine. The answer is to get the first engine on track. Further,
the alternate engine program is 3 to 4 years behind in development
compared to the current program, and there is no guarantee that a
second program would not face the same challenges as the current
effort.
Fourth, split or shared buys of items, particularly from only two
sources, do not historically produce competitive behavior since both
vendors are assured some share of the purchase. Another reality is that
the JSF is designed to support a wide diversity of military customers,
including the Navy, Marine Corps, and overseas buyers, many of whom are
unable or unwilling to purchase from two engine manufacturers.
For all these reasons, we are firm in our view that the interests
of the taxpayers, our military, our partner nations, and the integrity
of the JSF program are best served by not pursuing a second engine.
I believe most proponents of this program are motivated by the
genuine belief that a second engine is the right thing to do. I look
forward to engaging Congress in this discussion and sharing with them
our facts and analysis. However, we have reached a critical point in
this debate where spending more money on a second engine for the JSF is
unnecessary, wasteful, and simply diverts precious modernization funds
from other more pressing priorities. Accordingly, should Congress add
more funds to continue this unneeded program, I will strongly recommend
that the President veto such legislation.
C-17
The fiscal year 2011 request completes the C-17 program and begins
shutting down the production line. At present, we have 194 C-17s (plus
111 C-5s) in our strategic airlift fleet. By the end of this fiscal
year, the department will have procured 223.
Three department studies completed over the past 5 years have
concluded that the U.S. military has more than enough strategic airlift
capacity, and that additional C-17s are not required. Some factors to
consider:
In 2004, the Air Force Fleet Viability board
determined that the fleet of C-5As--the oldest variant--will
remain viable until at least 2025. The Air Force and the
manufacturer believe that the C-5 fleet will remain viable
until 2040. Ongoing modernization and refurbishment efforts are
intended to increase the reliability, availability, and
maintainability of the C-5 fleet;
Despite the demands of the current military campaigns,
the existing C-17 fleet is not being ``burned up.'' With the
exception of 2003--when there were only 111 aircraft in the
fleet that were being surged to begin the Iraq war--the annual
use of the C-17 inventory has been within program limits; and
While it is true that the C-17 can land places where
the C-5 cannot, of the 200,000 landings made by C-17s since
1997, less than 4 percent were in places that were not
accessible to the C-5. In summary, for these and other reasons,
the department has concluded that the current C-17 is more than
sufficient to meet the military's airlift needs. Should
Congress add funds to continue this program, I will strongly
recommend a presidential veto.
Acquisitions
The department is implementing initiatives that will increase the
numbers and capabilities of the acquisition workforce, improve funding
stability, enhance the source-selection process, and improve contract
execution. Our intent is to provide the warfighter with world-class
capability while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
To operate effectively, the acquisition system must be supported by
an appropriately-sized cadre of acquisition professionals with the
right skills and training to perform their jobs. To address these
personnel deficiencies, DOD will increase the number of acquisition
personnel by 20,000 positions--from about 127,000 in fiscal year 2010
to about 147,000 by fiscal year 2015. We will be making significant
increases in training and retention programs in order to bolster the
capability and size of the acquisition workforce.
Civilian Workforce
The fiscal year 2011 budget funds a pay raise of 1.4 percent for
DOD civilians--the same as the military pay raise. The request includes
funding to transition out of the National Security Personnel System
(NSPS)--as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010.
About 225,000 DOD employees are covered by NSPS. These employees
must convert to a successor statutory personnel system. The fiscal year
2011 budget includes $23 million to implement NSPS transition and $239
million for estimated higher civilian pay for employees transitioning
out of NSPS.
The request supports the DOD plan, announced last year, to grow its
civilian workforce by in-sourcing--replacing contractors with DOD
civilian employees. DOD is on track to reduce the number of support
service contractors from the current 39 percent of our workforce to the
pre-2001 level of 26 percent, and replace them with full-time
government employees. DOD will hire as many as 13,400 new civil
servants in fiscal year 2010, and another 6,000 in fiscal year 2011, to
replace contractors and up to 33,400 new civil servants in place of
contractors over the next 5 years. This includes 2,500 acquisition
personnel in fiscal year 2010 and 10,000 through fiscal year 2014.
fiscal year 2010 supplemental request
As the President stated, the goal of the United States in
Afghanistan and Pakistan is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda
and to prevent its resurgence in both countries. The international
military effort to stabilize Afghanistan is necessary to achieve this
overarching goal. Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if
not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of al Qaeda and its affiliates
operating along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I believe the strategy
announced by the President represents our best opportunity to achieve
our objectives in a part of the world so critical to America's
security.
The fiscal year 2010 supplemental requests $33.0 billion to support
the President's buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan for the rest of
this fiscal year and fund other related requirements, including $1
billion for Iraqi security forces. DOD urges Congress to approve this
supplemental by the spring to prevent disruption of funding for our
troops in the field.
The fiscal year 2010 supplemental includes $19.0 billion to support
an average troop level in Afghanistan of 84,000 U.S. troops--16,000
higher than the 68,000 assumed in the enacted fiscal year 2010 budget.
Troop levels are expected to reach 98,000 by September 30, 2010. The
additional troops will consist of:
Two Army counterinsurgency BCTs;
An Army Training BCT;
A USMC Regimental Combat Team; and
Enablers such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams.
The supplemental also includes $1.1 billion--on top of the $11.3
billion already enacted--to field and sustain critically important
lifesaving MRAPs and M-ATVs for troops already there and for the
additional forces being deployed this fiscal year.
fiscal year 2011 overseas contingency operations
To fund military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in fiscal year
2011, we are requesting $159.3 billion, comprised of these major
categories:
Operations ($89.4 billion): Incremental pay for
deployed troops, subsistence, cost of mobilizing Reserve
Component personnel, and temporary wartime end-strength
allowances.
Force Protection ($12.0 billion): Body armor,
protection equipment, and armored vehicles to protect forces--
including the rapid deployment and sustainment of MRAPs and M-
ATVs.
IED Defeat ($3.3 billion): To develop, procure, and
field measures to defeat improvised explosive devices
threatening U.S. and coalition forces.
Military Intelligence ($7.0 billion): To enhance U.S.
intelligence capabilities and operations including ISR.
Afghan Security Forces ($11.6 billion): To build and
support military and police forces capable of conducting
independent operations and providing for Afghanistan's long-
term security.
Iraqi Security Forces ($2.0 billion): To continue
building and sustaining Iraq's efforts to defend its people and
protect its institutions as the United States removes troops by
the end of 2011.
Coalition Support ($2.0 billion): Reimbursements and
logistical sustainment for key cooperating nations supporting
U.S. military operations.
Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) ($1.3
billion): To provide flexible funds for commanders in the field
to finance urgent humanitarian and reconstruction needs.
Reconstitution/Reset ($21.3 billion): To fund the
replenishment, replacement, and repair of equipment and
munitions that have been consumed, destroyed, or damaged due to
ongoing combat operations. This request includes funding to
procure one Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to replace the combat
loss of an F-15.
Military Construction ($1.2 billion): To expand the
logistical backbone and operational foundation for our fighting
forces.
Temporary Military End Strength ($2.6 billion): To
support temporary end-strength increases in the Army and Navy
for ongoing military operations.
Non-DOD Classified Programs ($5.6 billion): To fund
non-DOD classified activities that support ongoing military
operations--the President's counterterrorism strategy in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the drawdown of U.S. forces in
Iraq.
Iraq Force Levels
This request supports the President's goal of a responsible
drawdown of U.S. forces and transfer to full Iraqi responsibility and
control. Troop levels in Iraq are projected to decrease to 50,000 by
August 31, 2010. Further reductions will occur in accordance with the
U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. The projected forces levels would be:
Six Advisory and Assistance Brigades (AABs) by August
31, 2010.
Six AABs for the first part of fiscal year 2011,
decreasing to approximately four AABs (approximately 35,000
personnel) in Iraq by the end of fiscal year 2011.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and members of this committee for
all that you have done to support our troops and their families. I
believe the choices made and priorities set in these budget requests
reflect America's commitment to see that our forces have the tools they
need to prevail in the wars we are in while making the investments
necessary to prepare for threats on or beyond the horizon.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral Mullen.
STATEMENT OF ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF
Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, distinguished
members of this committee: Thank you for the chance to appear
before you and discuss the state of our military as well as the
President's fiscal year 2011 defense budget submission. I also
thank you all for the extraordinary support you provide each
and every day to our men and women in uniform as well as their
families. That they are well equipped, well trained, well paid,
and enjoy the finest medical care anywhere in the world is
testament in no small part to your dedication and stewardship.
I've seen many of you in the war zone, in hospitals, and at
bases all over this country. So have our troops. They know you
care. Just as critically, they know their fellow citizens care.
All they want right now is guidance on the mission before them
and the tools to accomplish it. That's why I'm here today to
speak on their behalf about the guidance they are getting from
this Department and to secure your continued support for the
tools we want to give them.
Secretary Gates has already walked you through the major
components of the QDR and the President's fiscal year 2011
defense budget submission, both of which, when combined with
the new BMDR and our OCOs fund request, build upon the reform
effort of last year and represent as comprehensive a look at
the state of our military as I have seen in my experience.
I will not endeavor to repeat his excellent summation and I
would ask you to accept without further comment my endorsement
of the findings contained in each of these documents. Let me
leave you rather with three overarching things to consider as
you prepare to discuss these issues today and as you prepare to
debate this budget request in the future.
First, there is a real sense of urgency here. We have well
over 200,000 troops deployed in harm's way right now and that
number includes only those in Operations Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom. Tens of thousands more are meeting our
security commitments elsewhere around the globe and many of
those missions are no less dangerous, certainly no less
significant.
I am sure you have stayed abreast of our relief efforts in
Haiti, where more than 20,000 of your soldiers, sailors,
marines, airmen, and coastguardsmen are pitching in feverishly
to help alleviate the suffering of the Haitian people. It is
truly an interagency and international mission and these troops
are blending in beautifully, doing what is required, where and
when it is required, to support the Government of Haiti, USAID,
and the U.N. mission there.
We also continue to do what is required to win the wars we
fight, and the one that needs fighting the most right now is in
Afghanistan. You've seen the reports and you know the
situation. The Taliban have a growing influence in most of
Afghanistan's provinces and the border area between that
country and Pakistan remains the epicenter of global terrorism.
You no doubt followed with great interest the development of
the President's strategy to deal with this threat, a strategy
that in my view rightly makes the Afghan people the center of
gravity and the defeat of al Qaeda the primary goal.
We have already moved over 4,500 troops to Afghanistan and
expect that about 18,000 of the President's December 1st
commitment will be there by late spring. The remainder of the
30,000 will arrive as rapidly as possible over the summer and
early fall, making a major contribution to reversing the
Taliban momentum in 2010. Indeed, by the middle of this year
Afghanistan will surpass Iraq for the first time since 2003 as
the location with the most deployed American forces.
Right now, the Taliban believe they're willing. Eighteen
months from now, if we've executed our strategy, we'll know
they aren't, and they'll know that they can't.
Getting there will demand discipline and hard work. It will
require ever more cooperation with Pakistan, and it will most
assuredly demand more sacrifice and more bloodshed. But the
stakes are far too high for failure. That's why we're asking
you to fully fund our fiscal year 2010 supplemental and the
fiscal year 2011 OCOs request. It's why we want a 6 percent
increase for Special Operations Command. It's why we need your
support to develop and field a Next Generation Ground Combat
Vehicle, to allow us to grow two more Army combat aviation
brigades, and to continue rotary wing production, including
nearly $3 billion for the V-22 Osprey program.
In keeping with the Secretary's strong emphasis on ISR, an
emphasis more than justified by our long experience in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we are asking for more capability in unmanned
aircraft and ground-based collection systems, including nearly
$3 billion to double the procurement rate of the MQ-9 Reaper by
fiscal year 2012.
Our future security is greatly imperiled if we do not win
the wars we are in. As the QDR makes clear, the outcome of
today's conflicts will shape the global security environment
for decades to come. I'm very comfortable that we can and will
finish well in Iraq, remaining on pace, despite a spate of
recent violence to draw down American forces to roughly 50,000,
ending our combat mission there, and transitioning to an advise
and assist role.
But without your continued support, we will not be able to
show the meaningful progress in Afghanistan that the Commander
in Chief has ordered, the American people expect, and the
Afghan people so desperately need. This is no mission of mercy.
This is the place from which we were attacked in 2001, the
place from which all--from which al Qaeda still plots and
plans. The security of a great nation, ours and theirs, rests
not on sentiment or good intentions, but on what ought to be a
cold and unfeeling appraisal of self-interest and an equally
cold and unfeeling pursuit of the tools to protect that
interest, ours and theirs.
That leads me to the second thing I'd like to consider:
proper balance. Winning our current wars means investment in
our hard-won irregular warfare expertise, a core competency
that should be institutionalized and supported in the coming
years, and we are certainly moving in that direction. But we
must also maintain conventional advantages. We still face
traditional threats from regional powers who possess robust
regular and in some cases nuclear capabilities. These cannot be
ignored. The freedom to conduct operations in support of joint,
allied, and coalition efforts, assuring access and projecting
combat power, can only be preserved through enduring
warfighting competencies.
In the air, this means sufficient strike aircraft and
munitions capable of assuring air superiority. At sea, it means
having enough ships and enough sailors to stay engaged globally
and keep the sea lanes open. On the ground, it means
accelerating the modernization of our combat brigades and
regiments. On the whole, it means never having to fight a fair
fight.
Thus, the President's budget request will buy us another 42
F-35s. It will maintain a healthy bomber industrial base and it
will fund development of a prompt global strike system, as well
as efforts to upgrade our B-2s and B-52s.
For ship construction, the spending plan totals some $18
billion, procuring 10 new ships in 2011, including 2 Arleigh
Burke destroyers, 2 Virginia-class submarines, 2 Littoral
Combat Ships (LCSs), and a brand-new Amphibious Assault Ship.
It puts the Navy on track to maintain aircraft carrier
production on a 5-year build cycle, resulting in a long-term
force structure of 10 carriers by 2040.
Our budget request also seeks $10 billion for ballistic
missile defense programs, including $8.4 billion for the
Missile Defense Agency, and it develops ample resources to
improving our cyber defense capabilities. Again, it's about
balance, it's about deterring and winning the big and the small
wars, the conventional and the unconventional--two challenges,
one military.
But where balance is probably most needed is in the
programs and policies concerning our most important resource,
our people. That's my final point. This QDR and this budget
builds upon superb support you and DOD have provided our troops
and their families for much of the last 8 years. Stretched and
strained by nearly constant combat, many of them on their
fifth, sixth, and seventh deployments, our men and women are
without question, and almost inexplicably, the most resilient
and battle-ready in our history.
On the one hand, we keep turning away potential recruits,
so good is our retention and so attractive our career
opportunities. On the other hand, we keep seeing an alarming
rise in suicides, mental problems, prescription drug
addictions, and mental health problems. Deborah and I meet
regularly with young troops and their spouses and, though proud
of the difference they know they are making, they are tired.
Quite frankly, many of them are worried about their futures,
their children.
So you will see in this budget nearly $9 billion for family
support and advocacy programs. You will see child care and
youth programs increased by $87 million over last year, and you
will see a boost in warfighter and family services, to include
counseling, to the tune of $37 million. Military spouse
employment will get a $2 million plus-up and we will increase
the budget to $2.2 billion for wounded, ill, and injured
members. In fact, the health care funding level for fiscal year
2011 is projected to provide high-quality care for 9.5 million
eligible beneficiaries.
Lastly, we are pushing to dramatically increase the number
of mental health professionals on staff and advance our
research in TBIs and post-traumatic stress. We know the strain
of frequent deployments causes many problems, but we won't yet
fully understand how--we don't yet fully understand how or to
what extent.
So even as we work hard to increase dwell time, aided in
part by the additional temporary end strength you approved last
year for the Army, we will work equally hard to decrease the
stress of modern military service. Indeed, I believe over time
when these wars are behind us we will need to look closely at
the competing fiscal pressures that will dominate discussions
of proper end strength and weapons systems. A force well suited
for long-term challenges and not necessarily married to any
current force planning construct will be vital to our national
security.
Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, thank you again
for your time and for the longstanding support of this
committee to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. They
and their families are the best I have ever seen. On their
behalf, I stand ready to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Mullen follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the
committee; it is my privilege to report on the posture of the U.S.
Armed Forces.
I begin by thanking you for your support of our service men and
women, their families, and the communities that do so much to help
them. We can never repay them for their sacrifices, but we can support
their efforts. As leaders, we necessarily debate the best course of
action to secure our Nation in a dangerous world. But our service men
and women do not hesitate. When the decision is made, they go where
they are needed most, where dangers must be confronted and adversaries
defeated. I'm humbled as I visit them around the world, defending our
Nation in very trying conditions. They care deeply for this country,
and they care most that they have the Nation's clear backing. The
support of Congress and the American people remain essential to their
strength and resolve. I am grateful for your unwavering recognition of
the service of our forces and their families.
Today's Armed Forces are battle-hardened, capable, and ready to
accomplish the Nation's missions. They are the most combat experienced
yet most compassionate force we have ever fielded, and continue to
learn and adapt in ways that are truly remarkable. They are the best I
have ever seen. I thank the committee for taking the time to understand
the stresses, strains and concerns of our servicemembers. Your
continuing legislative support of our Armed Forces makes all the
difference.
key developments
Over this past year, our wartime focus has shifted to Afghanistan
and Pakistan. As I have testified before Congress on many occasions,
the threats to our national security from al Qaeda and affiliated
movements based in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region remain real and
persistent. We require a stable and reasonably secure Afghanistan and
Pakistan--inhospitable to al Qaeda's senior leadership, capable of self
defense against internal extremist threats, and contributors to
regional stability.
Our increasing focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan confirmed the
border region to be al Qaeda's center of gravity. It also showed the
situation to be more dire than previously understood. The Afghan-
Taliban's post-2005 resurgence produced a widespread paramilitary,
shadow government and extra-judicial presence in a majority of
Afghanistan's 34 provinces. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the Pakistan
Taliban) showed itself to be a bold and audacious enemy of the
Pakistani people, ruthlessly seizing control of Swat in late spring.
Nine Pakistani military operations against the Taliban that began last
March have reversed their territorial gains. Throughout this year, we
have constantly and carefully reviewed our objectives for the region. I
concur completely with the President's strategy, and believe we have
now matched the right strategy with the required resources. The
decision to authorize an additional 21,500 American forces into
Afghanistan in early 2009, followed by the President's commitment of
additional forces in December set conditions to reverse Afghan-Taliban
gains. It will also enable the Government of Afghanistan to build the
security and governance necessary to eliminate the insurgency as a
threat. Setbacks marked much of 2009, but with a new leadership team,
appropriate resources, improved organization, and a better strategy, we
are confident of success against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Success will
not come easily or swiftly, but we will succeed. The hardest work to
achieve our regional aims remains ahead of us, especially in 2010-2011.
Al Qaeda's central leadership has suffered significant losses over
the past several years. Though its operational capacity has declined,
al Qaeda's senior leaders remain committed to catastrophic terrorist
attacks against the United States and our allies. Actions in the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border area, in Iraq, and elsewhere have met with
marked success. That said, al Qaeda successfully sought new approaches
to plot attacks. The disrupted terrorist plot against New York City was
planned in al Qaeda's Pakistani safe haven and intercepted in Denver.
The failed Christmas Day bombing attempt over Detroit was crafted by
and ordered from those in Yemen's growing safe havens. Both incidents
demonstrate the resolve of al Qaeda and its ever-evolving strategy.
While the danger remains real, like-minded governments and people
around the world--especially those in the Muslim community--
increasingly reject al Qaeda, its affiliates and what they stand for.
Most want a brighter future for their children and grandchildren, not
al Qaeda's endless war and intolerance. They see daily evidence that al
Qaeda and its affiliates deliberately target and kill thousands of
innocent Muslims in cold blood. They know al Qaeda continues a ruthless
and deadly campaign against the people of Islam in Iraq, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey, and elsewhere.
Continued progress against violent extremism will require enhanced, but
prudent, partnerships with key governments and movements, including
consistent efforts to counter al Qaeda's bankrupt message.
The behavior of the Iranian Government is of grave and growing
concern. Tehran's leadership remains on a trajectory to acquire a
nuclear capability, in defiance of international demands and despite
widespread condemnation. Iran's government continues to support
international terrorist organizations, and pursues a coercive and
confrontational foreign policy. These efforts exist alongside some of
the greatest internal unrest Iran has faced since the Islamic
Revolution in 1979. These events and conditions risk further
destabilizing an already unstable region.
The unpredictable has also galvanized our military, requiring a
significant force commitment in Haiti, making it one of our most
significant humanitarian missions in history. As of January 31, nearly
20,000 American troops are in direct support of the Government of
Haiti, the United Nations, USAID and supporting American and
international aid agencies. From port openings, to security and
distribution of supplies, U.S. Southern Command's military Joint Task
Force has delivered over 1.6 million bottles of water, 67,000 meals and
56,000 pieces of medical supplies to Haiti's earthquake survivors.
Military medical teams also supplement the U.S. Health and Human
Services, and have already have seen over 2,800 patients and performed
nearly 100 surgeries. We are committed to this assistance until the
situation on the ground stabilizes.
Several policy initiatives over the past year have provided the
military with new direction. President Obama's June speech in Cairo set
the stage for a new relationship between the United States and more
than a billion people across the Muslim world. Throughout 2009, this
Congress supported the rapid and necessary deployment of more forces to
Afghanistan. We also began negotiations with Russia for a Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty follow-on treaty, which will reduce nuclear
weapons stockpiles while maintaining U.S. deterrence. As mandated by
Congress, we have reviewed current and future threats and developed
appropriate strategies in the Quadrennial Defense Review. We look
forward to working with Congress to forge a common understanding of the
threats our Nation faces, and how best to counter them.
Key alliances continue to matter greatly in our global security
efforts. Our North American Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and other
non-NATO partners expanded support in Afghanistan over the past year.
We now work there with 43 countries and nearly 40,000 international
troops. Although the world avoided a widespread economic depression in
2009, many of our partners were financially challenged and may spend
less on combined security and stabilization efforts. Other critical
allies faced internal considerations that could adversely affect U.S.
and regional security interests if not managed closely. Our close
alliance with Japan, in particular, suffered strain around basing
rights in Okinawa. I am confident we will work through these and other
issues, but it is a reminder that even our strongest allies cannot be
taken for granted.
Against this backdrop, the strategic priorities for the military
remain unchanged from my last annual testimony before Congress:
defending our interests in the broader Middle East and South/Central
Asia; ensuring the health of the Force, and balancing global strategic
risk. With your ongoing help and support, we continue to address each
of these priorities.
defend our interests in the broader middle east and south/central asia
The Broader Middle East and South/Central Asia, remains the most
dangerous region of the world.
Our main effort within the region has changed. The Government of
Iraq is taking firm control of its own security. We have shifted our
priority to Afghanistan and Pakistan, long under-resourced in many
ways. That shift in focus will take the movement of some quarter of a
million troops and their equipment in and out of the Central Command
theater over the next several months. This is a herculean logistics
effort. By the middle of 2010, Afghanistan will surpass Iraq for the
first time since 2003 as our location with the most deployed American
forces.
Despite this surge, the security situation in both Afghanistan and
Pakistan remains serious. The Afghan-Taliban have established shadow
governments--featuring parallel judicial, taxation and local security/
intimidation systems--in a clear majority of Afghanistan's 34
provinces. Attacks by the Taliban have become far more numerous and
more sophisticated. We are now establishing conditions--with military
forces and expanded civilian agency presence--to reverse the Taliban's
momentum. Yet we face both a resilient Taliban insurgency and an Afghan
public skeptical of their government's good will, capacity, and
capability.
As of late January 2010, we have already moved nearly 4,500 troops,
and expect that 18,000 of the President's December 1st commitment will
be in country by late spring. The remainder of the 30,000 will arrive
as rapidly as possible over the summer and early fall, making a major
contribution to reversing Taliban momentum in 2010.
These forces are joining some 68,000 U.S. forces and more than
30,000 coalition forces already in Afghanistan--all of which have
undertaken a fundamental shift in how they are being employed across
the country. Our troops are now focused on protecting key population
centers--separating them from the intimidation and influence of the
Taliban. Simultaneously, they are training and partnering with Afghan
security forces to enable Afghans to assume lead security for their own
country as soon as possible. The next 12-18 months must be the time to
reverse insurgent momentum and assess partnership progress.
The brave men and women we charge to implement this fundamental
shift in Afghanistan security strategy need the strong support of this
Congress. We need your assistance in key areas like funding for Afghan
National Security Forces, who will ultimately bring about success and
security. In the short term, the Commander's Emergency Response Program
is needed to adequately protect the population, and enhanced special
construction authorities and equipment procurement accounts will be
critical to putting enough force on the ground to make a difference.
The border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan is the epicenter
of global terrorism. This is where al Qaeda plans terrorist attacks
against the United States and our partners--and from where the Taliban
leadership targets coalition troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan's ongoing
military operations against extremists in these areas are critical to
preventing al Qaeda and associated groups from gaining ground.
In Pakistan, the extremist threat, a fractious political system,
economic weakness and longstanding tensions with India continue to
threaten stability. We are working to rebuild our relationship with
Pakistan and re-establish trust lost between our two countries. We aim
to demonstrate to Pakistan--in both our words and our actions--that we
desire a long-term relationship. Our recent concerns with Pakistan's
approach to U.S. visa requests is further testimony to the challenges
of the relationship; and, it will affect increased capacity for
counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, to include support for
development projects. Nevertheless, the Pakistani Counterinsurgency
Fund and the Coalition Support Funds earmarked for Pakistan remain
essential components of our support to this critical ally. I urge you
to continue them. Enhanced contact and engagement between Pakistan and
the United States is a critical component of a maturing, long-term
partnership. Thus, we are focusing on expanded military education
exchange programs, joint training opportunities and especially Foreign
Military Sales and Financing. The budget before you requests additional
funds for these critical partnership endeavors.
South Asian security tensions and political dynamics significantly
impact our objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The longstanding
animosity and mistrust between Pakistan and India complicates regional
efforts. Yet India and Pakistan must both be our partners for the long
term. Bilateral military relationships are an essential component in a
wide array of cooperative activities. We must recognize this and
address it as part of our policy. While we acknowledge the sovereign
right of India and Pakistan to pursue their own foreign policies, we
must demonstrate our desire for continued and long-term partnership
with each, and offer our help to improve confidence and understanding
between them in a manner that builds long-term stability across the
wider region of South Asia. As part of our long-term regional approach,
we should welcome all steps these important nations take to regenerate
their `back channel' process on Kashmir.
While Afghanistan and Pakistan remain the critical terrain, we must
remain vigilant in denying al Qaeda unfettered physical safe havens
elsewhere across the Broader Middle East and South Asia, including
Northern and Eastern Africa. These efforts will not require tens of
thousands of American troops. Instead, we can work quietly and
persistently with regional allies and Coalition partners to deny al
Qaeda territory from which to plot, train, and project global terror
operations. Similarly, we continue to undertake collaborative,
supporting efforts with like-minded governments across the broader
Middle East. We now work to help the Yemeni government build the
information base and the military capacity necessary to combat the al
Qaeda threat within its borders. We applaud Yemeni efforts to confront
al Qaeda operatives, and continue to offer Sana'a the support necessary
to achieve this aim. We have worked with the concerned neighbors of
Somalia to contain the worst aims and objectives of the Islamic Courts
Union and al Shabaab. This must continue. In these areas--as well as
others including Indonesia and the Philippines--our military engages
with willing partners in a manner detrimental to al Qaeda's
aspirations. We undertake these partnerships in conjunction with those
from American intelligence, diplomatic and economic organizations. I
must stress that in today's environment, training and equipping partner
security forces to defend and protect their own territory and coastal
waters is a core military mission. We appreciate Congress' continuing
support for these important undertakings.
The Iranian Government continues to be a destabilizing force in the
region. The government's strategic intent appears unchanged--its
leaders continue on a course to eventually develop and deploy nuclear
weapons. This outcome could spark a regional arms race or worse. It
will be profoundly destabilizing to the region, with far-ranging
consequences that we cannot fully predict. Tehran also continues to
provide a range of support to militant proxy organizations, including
Hamas and Hezbollah, fomenting instability outside its borders. Its
increasingly reckless nuclear and foreign policy agenda is now playing
out against the backdrop of a shrinking economy and a growing rift
between the Iranian Government and its people. I remain convinced that
exhaustive--and if necessary coercive--diplomacy with Iran remains the
preferred path to prevent these grave outcomes. To this extent, the
Joint Chiefs, combatant commanders, and I support all efforts to steer
the Government of Iran off of its hazardous course. However, as with
any potential threats to our national security, we will have military
options ready for the President, should he call for them.
Iraq continues to progress, although more is needed. U.S.
partnership with Iraqi security forces has been fundamental to this
progress since 2005. Last year's level of violence was the lowest since
2003, testifying to the success of our approach. Al Qaeda is still
present and has carried out a few large-scale attacks. But, Iraqi
Security Forces and government leaders responded to them in a
restrained, professional, and relatively apolitical manner. Upcoming
elections will not be free from tension. However, I believe Iraqis are
now more concerned about economic growth than domestic security
threats. Credible elections are important. Foreign direct investment
and expanded political engagement by other regional powers are also
important as more diplomatic and economic progress will spotlight
Iraq's return to the world stage as a sovereign nation.
U.S. Forces-Iraq (USF-I) remains on track to draw down American
forces to roughly 50,000 and end our combat mission by August 31, 2010.
Our security partnership will then shift to training, advising, and
supporting Iraqi security forces. More broadly, the U.S. military will
transition from a supported to a supporting effort in Iraq as we
normalize relations. The State Department will increasingly be the face
of U.S. efforts in Iraq. The U.S. military will strongly support their
leadership. We request continuing congressional support for the Iraqi
Forces Fund and for the Equipment Transfer Provision of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. These transfers are a
critical component America's transition to a limited, but reliable
partner in Iraq's assumption of a responsible and Baghdad-led security
future.
health of the force
Our Nation's security is founded upon a well-trained, well-equipped
All-Volunteer Force. We must care for our people and their families,
reset and reconstitute our weapon systems, and take on new initiatives
that increase wartime effectiveness. Care for our People
Our service men and women, their families, and their communities
are the bedrock of our Armed Forces. Their health, resilience, and
well-being are at the heart of every decision I make. Frankly,
investing in our people remains the single greatest guarantee of a
strong military. Competitive pay, selective bonuses, expanded access to
mental health care, continued health benefits for tens of thousands of
our Wounded Warriors--those with seen and unseen wounds--and their
families are critical to this investment.
Our military families and communities continue to play a unique and
growing role in our national security fabric, one not seen in more than
a generation. They support us and sustain us in ways we do not yet
fully understand. They deserve the admiration and support of a grateful
nation. I applaud the efforts of this body's Military Family Caucus,
and encourage significant attention and funding for their programs of
greatest concern. My conversations with spouses and children around the
world tell me these concerns center on caring for those affected by
these wars, child care, education, health and deployment issues.
We remain competitive in attracting the country's best talent. For
the first time in the history of the All-Volunteer Force, the Active
Duty, Guard, and Reserve components all exceeded annual recruiting
goals for 2009. This success was reflected in the quality of our
recruits as well as their numbers. Ninety-six percent of our accessions
earned a high school diploma or better. Each Service also met or
exceeded its 2009 retention goals. Our ability to recruit and retain
underscores the fact that this is the best military I have seen in my
42-year career. While competitive pay is a critical factor in this
success, it does not stand alone. Other critical `people' programs
supported by Congress--like the new GI Bill, adequate housing, access
to quality schooling for military children, and attractive family
support centers--come together to make the harsh burdens of military
life acceptable.
We must not forget the challenges that this excellent All-Volunteer
Force faces every day. More than 8 years of wartime operations have
come at a cost. Most Army brigade combat teams are preparing for their
fourth major deployment since September 11, with some of them preparing
for their fifth--unprecedented in our history. The Marines Corps is in
the same boat--their deployments are shorter but more frequent, and
their pace is grueling. Our people spend less time at home, and this
shorter dwell time between deployments does not allow for respite or
for training along the entire spectrum of military operations. Our
irregular warfare expertise--hard won over the last 8 years--has come
at a price. Conventional warfighting skills have atrophied and will
require attention. Yet this overdue attention will have to wait. The
gains we anticipate from the coming draw-down in Iraq will be absorbed
by our necessary efforts in Afghanistan for at least 2 more years.
Resetting the force requires significant effort and sustained
commitment now and post-conflict. We will continue to rely heavily on
our Navy and our Air Force.
Dwell time--the ratio of time deployed to time home--remains a
concern, and one we must manage closely this year and into 2011. Dwell
time for the Army is at 1:1.2 and the Marine Corps is slightly better
at 1:1.5. We will not see significant dwell time improvements across
all Services until 2012. Deployment rates for Special Operations Forces
(SOF) and other low-density, high-demand specialties also remain very
high. While our force is strong and resilient, these trends cannot
continue indefinitely.
The challenges remain significant, but are manageable thanks to the
support of Congress for increased end-strengths in the Army and Marine
Corps. We are only now starting to feel the positive impact from these
2007-authorized increases in the baseline force--stabilizing deployment
rates and dwell times. Coupled with the additional temporary increase
of 22,000 troops within the Army, Congressional support for our wartime
military manning needs has been critical.
The stresses of protracted war extend beyond the deployments
themselves. Our number of dead and wounded continues to rise, as does
the strain on their families and their communities. Other social costs
of war--divorce, domestic violence, depression, and post-traumatic
stress syndrome--are unacceptably high and continue to increase. We
have much more to do.
Suicide deserves special attention. Despite our best efforts, 2009
witnessed a record level of suicides, with increases in both the Active
and Reserve components. We have not begun to study suicides among
family members and dependents. While there is not one cause for
increased servicemember suicides, we know enough to be certain that
better prevention training programs for leadership, for at-risk
servicemembers, and robust funding and attention toward sober study of
the problem are absolutely necessary.
We should provide a lifetime of support to our veterans. I urge you
to continue funding the programs supporting those that have sacrificed
so much, including those aimed to reduce veteran homelessness and that
focus on rural health care options. The demands on our active and
veterans care services will continue to grow, and require the attention
found in this budget. Yet we must conceive of Wounded Warrior Support
in a manner that goes beyond the traditional institutions. Public,
private, and individual sources of help represent a ``sea of goodwill''
towards our veterans. Our focus must be more on commitment than
compensation; and more attuned to transition and ability than upon
disability. Our veterans want the opportunity to continue to serve, and
we should enable that opportunity.
Reset and Reconstitute
My concerns about the health of our force go beyond our people. Our
systems and capabilities are under extraordinary stress as well. The
high pace of operations is consuming our capital equipment much faster
than programmed. The Air Force and Navy have been essentially
performing non-stop, global operations for 19 years, since Operation
Desert Storm. The Army and Marine Corps have had the majority of their
combat forces and equipment in the combat theater of operations for
nearly 6 years. The unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan and Iraq causes
extensive wear and tear, especially on our ground vehicles,
helicopters, and supporting gear.
The demands of the current fight mean we must increase capacity in
several areas, including rotary wing, ISR, electronic warfare and SOF.
We sustain necessary rotary wing capacity through the addition of two
active Army Combat Aviation Brigades, continued production of the tilt-
rotor V-22, as well as our helicopter force, and a seventh SOF
helicopter company. I support this budget's rebalancing in favor of
more commercial airborne ISR capabilities for combatant commanders.
This budget continues increasing the number of unmanned combat air
patrols, coupled with the ability to fully exploit the intelligence
coming from these platforms. We should expand current technologies to
fill electronic warfare shortfalls and develop next-generation
technologies for manned and unmanned aircraft.
New initiatives
Too many of our processes and programs remain geared to a peacetime
clock, but several new initiatives focused on supporting our war
efforts show promise. I strongly support the Afghanistan/Pakistan Hands
program and ongoing initiatives that increase the number and skill of
our civil affairs and psychological operations personnel. I also
strongly back the USAF's initiative to use light aircraft for enhanced
capacity building of key allies and partners for light mobility and
attack.
Our current acquisition process remains too unwieldy and
unresponsive. Adding 20,000 more acquisition experts by 2015 will help,
as will increasing the rigor and efficiency of our internal processes.
Stability in our programs, comprehensive design reviews, better cost
estimates, more mature technology and increased competition will make
the process more responsive. Once fielded, our systems are the finest
in the world, because of the experienced and capable program managers
and engineers building them. We need more of managers and engineers,
and they need better support and leadership.
Finally, I am growing concerned about our defense industrial base,
particularly in ship building and space. As fiscal pressures increase,
our ability to build future weapon systems will be impacted by
decreasing modernization budgets as well as mergers and acquisitions.
We properly focus now on near-term reset requirements. However, we may
face an eroding ability to produce and support advanced technology
systems. Left unchecked, this trend would impact war fighting
readiness. The Department, our industry leaders, and Congress need to
begin considering how to equip and sustain the military we require
after our contemporary wars come to an end.
balancing global strategic risk
Balancing global risk requires sustained attention to resetting the
force. It also means making prudent investments to meet the challenges
of an increasingly complex and challenging worldwide security
environment. As the President recently noted, it is the United States
that has helped underwrite global security with the blood of our
citizens and the strength of our military. America's interests are
global, and our military must secure these interests. Where possible,
we will act first to prevent or deter conflict. When necessary, we will
defeat our enemies. Whenever able, we will work in concert with our
many allies and partners.
For many decades, but especially since 1989, U.S. conventional
overmatch has guaranteed our security and prosperity, as well as that
of our many allies and partners. We have helped protect expanding
global commons, including into space and cyberspace. We have seen the
likelihood of conventional war between states drop. We have used the
tools designed for war not against human adversaries, but instead to
support humanitarian operations. Most recently in Haiti, but elsewhere
over the past 60 years, the military's unmatched capacity to transport
goods and services have provided relief in the face of tragic natural
disasters. In short, many nations have benefited from an
extraordinarily capable and ready U.S. military, even as we have
defended our own interests.
That capability must continue to span the full range of military
operations. But in this post-Cold War era--one without a military near-
peer competitor--we should not be surprised that adversaries will
choose asymmetric means to confront us. They will seek to use both old
and new technology in innovative ways to defeat our advantages.
Terrorism will remain the primary tactic of choice for actors to
conduct warfare ``on the cheap''. Both state and non-state actors will
seek weapons of mass destruction through proliferation. Increasingly,
states will attempt to deny our ability to operate in key regions,
through the development and proliferation of ballistic missile systems,
or by exploiting space and cyberspace. Taken together, these are
diverse threats that require a broad set of means.
Winning our current wars means investment in our hard won irregular
warfare expertise. That core competency must be institutionalized and
supported in the coming years. However, we must also stay balanced and
maintain our advantage in the conventional arena. In the air, this
advantage requires sufficient strike aircraft and munitions capable of
assuring air superiority and holding difficult targets at risk. At sea,
we require sustained presence and capacity supported by a robust ship-
building program. On the ground, we must accelerate the modernization
of our combat brigades and regiments. Without question, these are
expensive undertakings. But our present security challenges demand
them.
Countering weapons of mass destruction means investing in new
research, securing nuclear materials, and preparing a layered defense.
Improving our ability to neutralize and render safe critical targets is
vital. We maintain the ability to respond to their use against our
citizens. But while improving responsiveness to the use of such weapons
is critical, more important is to counter their proliferation and deter
their use. I advocate diverse investments in nuclear forensics and
expanding our biological threat program, in addition to continuing
investment in the highly effective counterproliferation programs that
are central to our success in this critical endeavor. These relatively
small funds will have a disproportionately positive impact on our
security.
The ability of potential adversaries to challenge our freedom of
movement and the peaceful use of the global commons--sea, air, space,
and cyberspace--has grown in recent years. Anti access-technologies and
capabilities are proliferating, which could prevent us from deterring
conflict in some regions. We must preserve our ability to gain access
even when political, geographical or operational factors try to deny us
the same. This requires funding for improvements to our missile defense
capabilities, expanded long range and prompt global strike systems, and
hardened forward bases. Threats in cyberspace are increasing faster
than our ability to adequately defend against them. Cyber attacks can
cripple critical infrastructure, impose significant costs, and
undermine operational capabilities. Meanwhile, space-based systems
critical to our global awareness and connectivity are aging and have
proven vulnerable. A determined enemy could degrade existing space
systems, significantly impacting our strategic intelligence and warning
capabilities, as well as global positioning and communication. I ask
Congress to support the stand-up of U.S. Cyber-Command and provide
funding for cyber and space initiatives to redress these growing and
worrisome vulnerabilities.
Rising states may present a strategic challenge, but also offer
opportunities. China's economic strength, military capability, and
global influence continue to grow. While our military relations remain
generally constructive, we seek much more openness and transparency
from China regarding the growth of its conventional and nuclear defense
forces. We also believe that China can--and should--accept greater
responsibility for and partner more willingly to safeguard the global
trade and investment infrastructure. This requires Beijing to work more
collaboratively when determining fair access to transportation
corridors and natural resources. China also should demonstrate greater
clarity in its military investments. Absent a more forthcoming China in
these critical areas, we must prudently consider known Chinese
capabilities, in addition to stated intentions. As we seek to establish
a continuous military-to-military dialogue to reconcile uncertainties
and gain trust, we will pursue common interests in agreed upon areas
such as counter-piracy, counter-proliferation, search and rescue,
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. As a Pacific Rim nation
with longstanding interests throughout Asia, we will continue to play a
vigorous regional role.
Our present dialogue with Russia is multi-faceted. It acknowledges
points of contention as well as opportunities to ``reset'' our
relationship on a positive trajectory. We seek Moscow's cooperation in
reducing the number and role of strategic nuclear weapons. These
discussions have been constructive, and negotiations are near fruition.
I believe the resulting treaty will benefit the United States, Russia,
and the world. Moscow has also helped us establish a supplemental
logistics distribution line into Afghanistan. Russia also helped our
diplomats pressure Iran, and we look toward Moscow to do even more in
this process. On the other hand, Russia continues to reassert a special
sphere of influence with its neighbors. The Russian military is
simultaneously modernizing its strategic forces and many conventional
forces. Our obligations under Article V of NATO remain clear and we
remain poised to fulfill them.
North Korea's autocratic government makes it a persistent wild card
in Asia. Today, Pyongyang continues to pursue intercontinental
ballistic missile technologies, develop nuclear weapons, and export
weapons in contravention to international law and treaties. It also
maintains an unfortunate and threatening posture toward our ally South
Korea, and an unhelpful disposition toward our ally Japan.
Of course, we can best defend our interests and maintain global
order when we partner with like-minded nations. By forging close
military-to-military relations with an expanding number of nations--
providing training, equipment, advice, and education--we increase the
number of states that are interested and capable of partnering with us.
While tending to long-term allies, we should also cultivate our
relationships with other liked-minded powers around the world. Making a
small investment now will pay dividends in reducing our security burden
and global risk.
We need full funding of Defense Theater Security Cooperation
programs, International Military Education and Training activities, and
the many security assistance programs managed by the Department of
State. Preventative strategies require providing foreign partners with
the capacity to promote stability and counterterrorism. With your help,
we have made considerable strides in adapting our tools for security
force assistance, but more is needed. I urge your complete support of
the Global Train and Equip initiatives (under section 1206
authorities), the future evolution of the Global Stability fund (under
section 1207 authorities), as well as funding for special operations to
combat terrorism (under section 1208 authorities).
The majority of threats facing the United States require integrated
interagency and international initiatives. Supporting interagency
cooperation programs, to include expanding the number of exchanges
between the Department of Defense and other Executive Agencies, will
improve interagency capacity to meet future security threats as well.
Please urge your colleagues who oversee the Department of State to
fully fund Secretary Clinton's requests. I ask Congress to promote
legislation that increases the expeditionary capacity of non-military
Executive Agencies. Our future security concerns require a whole-of-
government effort, not just a military one.
conclusion
This past year witnessed significant achievements by America's men
and women in uniform. Their efforts and sacrifices--as part of a
learning and adapting organization--have sustained us through more than
8 years of continuous war. Thanks to them we are in position to finish
well in Iraq. Thanks to them, we can begin to turn the corner in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. In conjunction with our many partner nations,
they've provided humanitarian relief assistance to millions, helped
contain a threatening H1N1 pandemic, expanded support to national law
enforcement for enhanced border security, and disrupted terrorist
sanctuaries world-wide. Thanks to them, we have a global presence
protecting our national security and prosperity.
The demands of the present remain high, and our military role in
national security remains substantial. This will continue for the
foreseeable future. Yet as I have testified before this body in past
appearances, the military serves America best when we support, rather
than lead U.S. foreign policy.
On behalf of all men and women under arms, I wish to thank Congress
for your unwavering support for our troops in the field, their families
at home, and our efforts to rebalance and reform the force to assure
that we win the wars we are in and are poised to win those we are most
likely to face in the future.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Admiral.
We'll try a 5-minute first round here. Mr. Secretary, the
change in our Afghanistan policy is what drove the requirement,
apparently, for a supplemental funding request this year. Is it
your goal to avoid a supplemental funding request for fiscal
year 2011?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir, it is. Our hope would be that
the OCO's approach is a preferred way to do this. As we saw
this time unforeseen circumstances brought us up here to defend
another supplemental. I think I'm on the record last year as
expressing the hope we wouldn't be doing another one of those,
but here I am. But it is our intent that for fiscal year 2011
the OCO fund would be sufficient.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Secretary, the President, you, the
Admiral, and others have all pointed out that a principal
mission for our forces in Afghanistan is the training up of the
Afghan security forces to take over responsibility for the
security of their country. Yet our NATO allies are 90 percent
short of meeting their commitment for trainers for the Afghan
troops. These are the ones who are in that early 8-week basic
training period, not out in the field, where I think we're
doing very well and we are meeting what the goals are in terms
of kind of on-the-job training, partnering unit with unit.
But back to that basic training, the NATO non-U.S.
countries committed 2,000 trainers. They've produced 200. Now,
what are we going to do to get General Caldwell those
additional trainers which are so essential?
Secretary Gates. My understanding is that General
Caldwell's short about 1700 trainers. Our hope is that with the
additional commitments of somewhere between 7 and 10,000
additional forces by our NATO and other partners, that out of
that number we can more than fill the requirement for trainers.
Certainly Admiral Stavridis, General Petraeus, and General
McChrystal have been talking to them about this. But I might
add, Admiral Mullen just met with the heads of the European
militaries last week. I might ask him for a comment.
Chairman Levin. If you could just briefly say, are you
confident that the need is going to be filled, because it's
just totally unacceptable that the commitment is made and then
not kept?
Admiral Mullen. We all agree it's unacceptable. It's the
top priority there and it's a top priority from this meeting
with some 28-plus CHODs to go back to their capitals and meet.
There's a conference later this month to focus specifically on
that.
Chairman Levin. The ``CHOD,'' what does that mean?
Admiral Mullen. Sorry. My counterparts, the chiefs of
defense for these countries in NATO.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Secretary Gates, the BMDR report says that, in contrast to
the practice over the last decade of fielding missile defense
capabilities that were still being developed, that the
administration ``will take a different approach, best described
as fly before you buy, which will result in a posture based on
proven technology in order to improve reliability, confidence,
and cost control.'' That's a welcome change.
My question: Will we be deploying ground-based interceptors
(GBIs) that have not been tested and demonstrated?
Secretary Gates. We have deployed GBIs at Fort Greely. We
have a very aggressive test program that has been successful.
We believe that those interceptors give us the capability to
deal with launches from either Iran or North Korea, a small-
scale threat.
The fact is we are continuing--in addition to robustly
funding increases in theater level missile defense, we will
also continue to spend. We have in this budget $1.35 billion to
continue the development and test program for the GBIs, both
the three-stage that are now deployed and the two-stage that we
were going to deploy in Poland.
So I think we, both for homeland security and for our
allies and our troops in the field, have very strong programs
going forward.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, do you believe that the
Christmas bomber should be tried in civilian court or by
military commission?
Secretary Gates. Senator, I would defer to the Attorney
General and the proper jurisdiction for such people.
Senator McCain. When you fill out your form when we confirm
you for the U.S. Senate, you sign that you would give your
honest and candid opinion in response to questions. Do you want
to give me an opinion?
Secretary Gates. My honest opinion is that I think that the
Attorney General is in the best position to judge where these
people get tried. After all, we have----
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
It was reported in the media that ``When President Obama
convened his national security team on January 5 to discuss the
Christmas incident, the decision to charge the suspect in
Federal court was specifically discussed and again nobody
present raised any objection to it. In fact, Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates made the point that even if Abdulmutallab
had been transferred to military custody, it is unlikely that
any more information could have been gleaned from him since
enhanced interrogation techniques have been banned by the
administration.''
Is that a true depiction of your view?
Secretary Gates. What I actually said was that I believed
that a team of highly experienced Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and other interrogators could be as
effective in interrogating the prisoner as anyone operating
under the Military Field Manual.
Senator McCain. So that's a direct contradiction to the
Michael Isikoff piece in Newsweek magazine. So you agree with
Director of National Intelligence Blair when he said ``We did
not invoke the HIG''--that's the trained interrogators--``in
this case. We would have.'' Do you agree with Admiral Blair?
Secretary Gates. I think we did not have the high-level
interrogators there that we now have protocols in place to
ensure would be present in such a situation.
Senator McCain. Do you agree that they should have been
there?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Do you believe it was possible in 50
minutes to exhaust the possibilities for getting all of the
information that was needed from the Christmas bomber?
Secretary Gates. I'm just not in a position to know the
answer to that, Senator.
Senator McCain. I see. Again, media reports state that you
thought so.
Is it your view that, absent enhanced interrogation
techniques, that the Intelligence Community provides no value
in the interrogation of a terrorist?
Secretary Gates. No, I don't believe that.
Senator McCain. Well, I thank you.
On the issue of the F-35, to what do you attribute the fact
that you were not appraised of all the major problems
associated with the program last summer, when it seems to me
you needed to be?
Secretary Gates. We had not yet undertaken at that time,
Senator McCain, an independent cost analysis that is now one of
the requirements under the Acquisition Reform Act that you
passed last year. Our Under Secretary for Acquisition launched
such an exercise. He himself spent about 2 weeks full-time
looking into the F-35 program, and as a result of the
independent cost estimate and his own investigation came to the
conclusions that the program required restructuring.
Senator McCain. Can you give us, either verbally or in
writing, the delays and cost overruns that we now expect?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. I would say that, in terms of
delivery, even with the restructured program, we still expect
the training squadron to be at Eglin in 2011. We expect initial
operational capability (IOC) for the Marine Corps in 2012, for
the Air Force in 2013, and the Navy in 2014, the fourth quarter
of 2014.
There will be fewer delivered aircrafts at IOC. That's the
result of reducing the production ramp, as has been recommended
to deal with some of the issues associated with that.
[The information referred to follows:]
At the time of this hearing, the Department knew that the Joint
Strike Fighter Program would need additional funding of approximately
$3 billion to complete the System Development and Demonstration (SDD)
phase. Additionally, SDD would require an additional 13 months to
complete. Procurement costs were also estimated to be higher. The
Department reduced the procurement ramp to align with recommendations
from an Independent Manufacturing Review Team, to pay for the increased
development costs and to reduce concurrency.
Since the hearing, the Department has benefited, and will continue
to benefit, from insight gained during the Nunn McCurdy review, and the
subsequent bottoms up Technical Baseline Review of the development and
test program. The Department is utilizing all of the independent
reviews, analysis, and actual program performance from the past year to
develop the fiscal year 2012 budget, and document the cost and schedule
for the program going forward. That work is still ongoing.
Senator McCain. Well, in conclusion, given your
responsibilities to the men and women who are serving in the
military in the defense of this Nation, I hope you will come to
a conclusion as to how enemy combatants should be treated as
far as their trials are concerned and our ability to assure the
American people that they will not be returning to the
battlefield, and whether they should be tried and incarcerated
in the United States rather than Guantanamo. I look forward to
your views on that because I view that clearly in your area of
responsibility, not the Attorney General, who has obviously
botched this one very, very badly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to add my welcome to Secretary Gates and Admiral
Mullen for being here to discuss the 2011 defense budget, and
to thank you for your service and the service of all the men
and women in our Armed Forces, and I also welcome Mr. Hale.
Secretary Gates, you have mentioned that beyond winning the
wars themselves, the treatment of our wounded and ill is your
highest priority. As a result of today's continuing conflicts,
the psychological effects of those conflicts within the ranks
of the U.S. military have never been more profound. Secretary
Gates, what do we need to improve our treatment of mental
illness and how does this budget address that?
Secretary Gates. Well, as Admiral Mullen mentioned in his
opening statement, there is over $1 billion in this budget for
the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and TBI.
All of the Services have very extensive programs for dealing
with psychological problems. All of the leadership, I think,
have weighed in on this very heavily.
I would say that there are two problems that we still are
wrestling with. One is the shortage of mental health care
providers. We are--and frankly, we've discovered it's a
national shortage; it's not just a shortage in the military,
because we're all over the country trying to hire these people.
We've hired a lot, I think something on the order of 1,000 or
1,400 over the last 18 months or so. But we still need more.
The second is still overcoming the stigma of seeking help,
of getting not only our soldiers, but also their families, to
get the psychological help that is available to them.
But let me ask Admiral Mullen if he'd like to add a word or
two.
Admiral Mullen. I think the Secretary has captured the two
big issues. We dramatically increased the number of mental
health providers in recent years, but we're still short. We're
just beginning to understand the real impacts of TBI.
Then the other piece I would ask for your help on is, how
do we work with other committees here? Secretary Gates and
Secretary Shinseki have certainly set the standard shoulder-to-
shoulder that both DOD and VA need to work this together,
because many of these young people transition certainly from
DOD to VA. I really believe it has to be a three-part team that
includes communities throughout the country.
So how do we ensure that those who sacrifice so much
receive the care across this entire continuum, and we
understand their needs, which change over time. It's those who
suffer greatly in uniform, but it's also families who have been
under great stress. So that would be the third piece that I
would add to the Secretary's answer.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Secretary, IEDs remain the number one
cause of casualties in Afghanistan. The administration recently
announced the deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to
Afghanistan. As a result, more of our men and women will be
exposed and vulnerable to this deadly form of attack. The Joint
IED Defeat Organization was created to lead and coordinate all
DOD actions in support of combatant commanders' efforts to
defeat IEDs as weapons of strategic influence. Mr. Secretary,
what is your assessment of DOD's efforts in protecting our
troops against IEDs, and if improvement is needed what can be
done to improve those results?
Secretary Gates. Senator, I think that we have a number of
very forward-leaning efforts to try and deal with the challenge
of IEDs. My concern a few months ago was that these efforts
were not adequately integrated and put together in a way that
we derive maximum benefit from the efforts that we had under
way.
I asked the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, as well as General Jay Paxton, to
co-chair an effort, a short-term effort, to see what more we
could do, both in terms of better structure for how we deal
with this problem, but also if there were some specific areas
where additional attention was needed. They've brought to me
some recommendations in terms of significant enhancements for
long-term full-motion video so we can watch roads, we can watch
the areas around our encampments, aerostats, a variety of other
technical solutions.
The commanders have increased the requirement for the MRAP
vehicles, particularly the ATVs, so there is an additional
requirement that actually is already funded or is taken care of
in this budget for about 10,000 more MRAPs. 6,600 of those will
be the all-terrain version that are designed especially for
Afghanistan to protect our troops.
So we have a number of efforts. There were identified
problems, such as the labs we had--we had a lot of labs working
the IED problem in Iraq. We hadn't put as many labs into
Afghanistan yet. So this is a dynamic process and I would say
to you we have a number of initiatives under way to improve the
strong work that was already being done, because this is
absolutely the worst killer and maimer of our troops and we
are, with your support, sparing no expense and no effort to try
and reduce those casualties.
The MRAPs have made a huge difference, but the enemy is a
thinking enemy and they change their tactics and their
structures.
Another thing we're doing is, a very high percentage in
Afghanistan of these IEDs are made from the fertilizer
component ammonium nitrate, which is illegal in Afghanistan. So
now we're establishing an effort to try and hit the smuggling
networks that bring this ammonium nitrate in to be used for
these IEDs.
But we have a lot of different efforts going on, and if the
committee is interested I'd be happy to have Secretary Carter
and General Paxton come up and brief on their endeavors.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start off by saying I disagree with Senator McCain
on his statements on the C-17 and I disagree with him on the
statements, his past statements on the F-22. It concerns me
that we keep hearing, well, this is something that the military
doesn't want, they didn't ask for, and all that. Then I go over
there and that's not their attitude at all. They have needs
over there. Our lift capacity is in dire straits. We're still
using those old, beat-up C-130E models that we keep losing
engines on. We actually lost two engines on one not too long
ago when I was over there.
The state of the art is still there in the C-17s and I
think that we are going to have to do some surgery on that and
some of the other things on this budget when the Senate Armed
Services Committee gets together.
Now, on the F-22, just yesterday we read about the T-50
that they're coming out with, a fifth generation that the
Russians have. I'm not at all as confident as everyone else is
that our F-35s are going to be on line when we say; as Senator
McCain just said, that we have cost overruns, we have problems
that just recently have surfaced. I'm concerned about this.
I guess if we're down to 187 F-22s, and I think out of that
what, only 120 are actually combat-ready and used for combat.
Yet, as I read this article on the T-50, they're starting to
crank these things out and India, is talking about buying 200
of them. Who knows who else is going to be buying them?
So I am concerned about it. I guess it goes beyond just
that. I look at the Senate Armed Services Committee. On these
two vehicles I mentioned, the F-22 and the C-17--in Oklahoma I
don't have a dog in that fight. We don't have any parochial
interest there. But it's the capability that we're going to
need.
I look and I see and remember so well testimony that our
defense for 100 years averaged 5.7 percent of gross domestic
products (GDP). It's now down to 3.7 and, as you project it by
the figures that I'm getting, it will go down to 3 percent by
2019. This is what really concerns me, is we're just not doing
the job that we need to be doing to defend America, if you
consider that the number one function of government, which I
happen to.
I do agree with Senator McCain on his concern over pulling
the rug out from under Eastern Europe on the third site. I read
something yesterday that Russia doesn't want us to have any
ground-based capability. I don't know.
I guess the first thing I would ask you, Mr. Secretary--and
I should know this, but I don't: If we're talking about having
the capability of the SM-3 and getting that working, where
would it be used? Is this Aegis or where would we have this
capability?
Secretary Gates. In the initial phase it would be based on
ships, but we have money in the budget for a land-based
Standard missile. So it would be deployed in Europe and perhaps
elsewhere, depending on the agreements that we reached with
other countries.
Senator Inhofe. You don't think you'll have a little bit of
a problem, in that we negotiated, and we went over there, with
the Czech Republic for its radar and then Poland for the site
of the GBI, and then changed our minds? Isn't that going to
create a little bit of a problem, or have you already initiated
any kind of a discussion with any of the European countries to
have that capability there?
Secretary Gates. Yes, and in fact we've reached agreement
with the Poles already to move advanced Patriots into Poland.
So I think, frankly, we----
Senator Inhofe. That's a different capability than getting
up, what we were talking about before.
Secretary Gates. As I say, I don't think we'll have a
problem.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. All right.
Well, Army modernization, I've been concerned about that.
:ook at our capability on the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) cannon.
First we were going to have a Crusader and then that was axed
by the Republicans, by President Bush, right when we were in
negotiations, I might add, in the Senate Armed Services
Committee on putting together a program. So I'm concerned about
that.
Now we do have the Paladin Integrated Management program
and that's good on the Paladin. But I have to tell you, that's
the same technology they had when I was in the U.S. Army, so I
am concerned about that.
I'm concerned that General Casey and General Chiarelli both
have stated many times that we're burning up equipment as soon
as they can be procured. Yet the Army procurement funding
decreased in this budget by $31 billion from fiscal year 2008
to fiscal year 2010. Is that a good idea?
Secretary Gates. I think a good part of that was for the
Army's Future Combat Vehicle and we're restructuring that
program, and I think that you'll see a significant increase
when the Army moves into production of that vehicle.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I hope that's the case and I hope
that we're here to be able to see that as a reality.
My time has expired, but just one last question if I could,
Mr. Chairman. On the section 1206, 1207, 1208, and so forth,
the 1206 is fine. I appreciate the fact that we have enhanced
that program and some of the others. The 1207, that's the
civilian-to-civilian. That now is going to go back to the State
Department, and one of the original reasons we wanted to have
this in the DOD was the timing, so that when a decision is made
we'll be able to get it done. Do you think that's a good move
or do you think we should try to reverse that in terms of the
1207 in the train and equip program to bring it back the way it
is today?
Secretary Gates. First of all, Senator, I want to thank you
for your support and your help on section 1206, 1207, and 1208.
But I think when I testified here last year the plan was to
begin transferring the 1207 money to the State Department. I
think the plan you have in front of you essentially simply
accelerates that process.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me add my appreciation to you and your families for
your distinguished service.
I've long been an advocate for benchmarks or measures of
progress and I think we need to continue to do so objectively
so we can gauge our efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I
know this administration, as well as our NATO allies, are
committed to objective benchmarks for measurement and we've
done so with past strategies, and we've all talked about this
so many times, most recently in December, about both
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
During that hearing in December, it was noted that measures
of progress were being used and evaluated. I thought at that
time those benchmarks would be forthcoming to our committee,
but at least I have yet to see them. It seems to me that one of
the most important times to inform the process is at the very
onset of any change, and as this mission changes course, the
way in which we measure efforts will change as well.
Have comprehensive and final benchmarks or measures of
progress been developed to reflect this new strategy, and if so
when will these be made to the committee? Secretary Gates?
Secretary Gates. I think they have and I frankly thought
that they had already been provided to the committee, and I'll
check on it after the hearing.
[The information referred to follows:]
In accordance with section 1117 of the Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), the President submitted to Congress on
September 24, 2009, a statement of the objectives of U.S. policy with
respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the metrics to be utilized to
assess progress toward achieving such objectives. Section 1117 also
includes a reporting requirement to provide Congress an assessment of
the progress of U.S. Government efforts in achieving the objectives of
U.S. policy by March 30, 2010, and every 180 days thereafter using the
metrics submitted in September 2009. The President will submit the
first report in Mach 2010 and semi-annually thereafter.
Senator Ben Nelson. Okay, thank you.
Could you talk a little bit about some of the areas of
measurement that would be in these measures of progress?
Secretary Gates. I think a couple that are pretty obvious
are are the Afghans meeting their recruitment goals for the
Afghan national security forces, are they meeting their goals
in terms of limiting attrition, how many--are they meeting the
number of units being fielded that are in the plan, are they--
there are benchmarks associated with their training. So I think
those are the kinds of things, at least with respect to the
security forces, that we're talking about.
Senator Ben Nelson. Do we have anything that we might
relate to our measures of progress with respect to our
particular efforts?
Secretary Gates. I think in some respects the President has
made his expectations pretty clear. He has some clear
expectations and is benchmarking us on how fast we can get
30,000 troops into Afghanistan and watching that carefully. I
think he has clearly set a marker in terms of beginning to
transfer security authority to the Afghans beginning in July
2011, so that's a clear benchmark that must be met. So I think
we do have some.
Another for us is the number of civilians we're getting
into Afghanistan from the State Department, USAID, and other
agencies.
Senator Ben Nelson. Are you working with the State
Department jointly in that effort? Because I know they've set
some measures of progress of their own.
Secretary Gates. Absolutely. This is as integrated an
effort as I've ever seen the U.S. Government undertake.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
I'd like to talk to you just a second about our contractor
conversion efforts. You announced in the spring of 2009 that
DOD would scale back the role of contractors in support
services. Quite honestly, my sense is that for too many years
we were outsourcing too much with perhaps too little emphasis
on why and whether it was justified.
But regardless of the makeup, outsourcing or insourcing has
to make sense and be oriented towards the best utilization of
resources, both money and people. Is there in place a strategic
plan for the right mix of contractor, government, civilian, and
military personnel, and what are we doing to execute such a
plan?
Secretary Gates. First of all, our goal is to take the
number of contractors in DOD as a percentage of the workforce
back to where it was prior to September 11, which would mean
taking it from 39 percent to 26 percent. The plan--first of
all, I think one of the effects of what we have seen in Iraq in
particular has been the revival of acquisition in a couple of
the Services where that as a career field had withered. I think
this is particularly true in the Army, where a number of
measures, including the allocation of general officer positions
and so on, to revive that career field as an attractive career
field. Some other Services have done better.
I think that Under Secretary Carter has a clear idea of the
right mix between contractors and civilians. But I think that
the first place we need to look is that we probably shouldn't
have contractors evaluating contractors. So I think that's the
first area as we make these conversions, which I might add are
on track 1 year in.
Senator Ben Nelson. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Just to implement the point Senator Nelson
made, I believe in this year's budget proposal you are
proposing maybe 10,000 contractor jobs be eliminated and
changed over to employees of DOD. I don't know the exact
number, but is that not true? It's in the budget?
Secretary Gates. Our goal is 20,000, to increase the number
of acquisition professionals from 127,000 to 147,000. 10,000 of
those will be the conversion of contractor jobs to civil
service jobs. Another 10,000 will be new hires.
Chairman Levin. That's in this year's budget, is that
correct?
Secretary Gates. That's correct.
Chairman Levin. I just wanted to clarify that point.
Admiral Mullen. 20,000 total is over 2010 to 2014, Senator
Levin.
Chairman Levin. Over 4 years.
Admiral Mullen. Right.
Chairman Levin. How many in this year's budget?
Admiral Mullen. The total is about 6,000. That would
include acquisition and everything else. I'll have to get you
the number specifically for acquisition.
Chairman Levin. To clarify the benchmarks point made by
Senator Nelson, which he's been very persistent on, to the
benefit of everybody in the Nation, the only thing that we've
received from DOD is a draft set of benchmarks and they were
classified. So he is right, we have not received benchmarks,
although we were promised them. We need both the benchmarks,
but also in an unclassified way.
Secretary Gates. The benchmarks that I was talking about
were interagency benchmarks that had been agreed, and those
were the ones that I thought had been delivered and I'll pursue
after the hearing.
[The information referred to follows:]
In accordance with section 1117 of the Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), the President submitted to Congress on
September 24, 2009, a statement of the objectives of U.S. policy with
respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the metrics to be utilized to
assess progress toward achieving such objectives. Section 1117 also
includes a reporting requirement to provide Congress an assessment of
the progress of U.S. Government efforts in achieving the objectives of
U.S. policy by March 30, 2010, and every 180 days thereafter using the
metrics submitted in September 2009. The President will submit the
first report in march 2010 and semi-annually thereafter.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your good
leadership. You're an excellent chairman. We do have a lot on
the agenda today: talking about the defense budget, the QDR,
two wars, the BMDR, DADT, terrorist trials. I guess I would
just say, I don't think we can do it all justice today. I hope
we'll have more hearings as we go forward. Some of them, we
need the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs.
Just briefly, Mr. Secretary, on the Christmas Day bomber. I
saw your former colleague, Attorney General Mukasey, this
morning on the television pointing out that, yes, they tried
Moussaui in Federal court, he tried the case as a Federal judge
at the time, but he pled guilty and the sentencing phase took a
year. He said it was made into a circus. He pointed out that
Guantanamo was created for the purpose of these kind of trials.
When a person like the Christmas Day bomber leaves Yemen
armed with a bomb from al Qaeda, on directions of al Qaeda, and
flies into the United States, I suggest he's an unlawful enemy
combatant and perfectly suited for detention and trial, if need
be a trial, in military custody. I think DOD needs to know
about those things because the intelligence that could be
gathered from a prolonged interrogation by people knowledgeable
in Yemen could have added greatly to this.
Now he's been advised he has a right to a lawyer. He's no
longer going to cooperate or talk. He's going to be entitled to
a speedy trial. There are a lot of problems with that.
So I just hope you will be alert to that as it goes by. I
think the military has a real responsibility.
I just would briefly say that I've come to understand and
feel more strongly about the concern Senator McCain has about
setting an absolute date for beginning to leave in 2011. We'll
hardly have our troops in place by then, the surge in place by
then. We see things like President Karzai beginning to talk to
the Taliban. It makes you wonder if he's looking beyond our
departure date. I worry about that.
Mr. Secretary, you talked about the supplemental. I've been
baffled a bit by that. It seems to me that when you're in a
war, a supplemental is an appropriate way to handle funding for
that. To try to force into the baseline budget funding
specifically for these two operations, with a couple hundred
thousand troops deployed, is not a good policy. Why do you feel
like we should do this only within the baseline budget?
Secretary Gates. I absolutely do not believe we should do
it within the baseline budget. I think that the purpose of
providing the OCOs funding budget is I think that it's actually
in response to considerable pressure from Congress for
greater----
Senator Sessions. I know you have gotten pressure from
Congress on that.
Secretary Gates.--greater predictability----
Senator Sessions. But not out of me.
Secretary Gates.--greater predictability about how much is
going to be spent in these wars, and so that those budgets can
be considered within the framework of the normal consideration
of the budget. So I think that it's certainly not a part of the
base budget, but it is provided in advance in a way that gives
Congress the opportunity to review it in the same way it
reviews the rest of the budget.
Senator Sessions. I'm not sure. It seems we should be able
to review the supplemental as well. But I guess in a way you're
creating a discrete funding program that we could review, and
maybe that would be acceptable.
Admiral Mullen, with regard to our procurement of major
weapons systems, I know that DOD has focused on life cycle
costs, and I guess you would agree that things such as fuel and
maintenance are important factors to evaluate if you're going
to evaluate the cost of a weapons system over a period of
years?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. I know we did that on the tanker
aircraft. In fact, fuel and that sort of things are counted as
evaluating that aircraft. Should that be applied to a
procurement program like the LCS; the cost of fuel over its
lifetime, should that be accounted for?
Admiral Mullen. I've long been concerned about life cycle
costs. Senator Sessions, I think you know that long before now.
The Secretary pointed out, and I think very importantly, in his
opening statement that the programs that he cut last year
actually had some life cycle value focused on about $330
billion. As far as what's in a request for proposal (RFP) and
what it's going to be focused on, that's something that I
really can't comment on----
Senator Sessions. I don't know. We have an RFP in the LCS
that I'm told does not have any factor for fuel costs.
Admiral Mullen. You know more about it than I do. I haven't
seen it.
Senator Sessions. If that's so, would you be willing to
look at it and ask questions if that's a wise decision?
Admiral Mullen. Again, as I said, for a long time I've been
concerned about life cycle costs. Actually, I think one of the
weaknesses of the acquisition system is typically that the line
is not involved in it. The uniformed side is not involved in
that. So I'm not involved from that point of view and would
under actually no circumstances see an RFP or look at its
evaluation criteria in what I'm doing right now.
Senator Sessions. I would think it would be your ultimate
responsibility as part of the procurement of the Department to
see that at least basic requirements are being met. I think I
hear you say that life cycle costs, which certainly would
include fuel, should be a factor in evaluation of the bids or
the proposals. Wouldn't it?
Admiral Mullen. I've said life cycle costs are an important
factor and have been for a long time.
Senator Sessions. We'll have to follow up on that.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall is next.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for being here with us
today.
Secretary Gates, we have a proposal from the President
which I fully support, to freeze nondiscretionary spending for
nondefense programs in fiscal year 2011. I think we're going to
face tighter budgets in future years and we may have the
potential need to trip Pentagon budgets as well. Could you talk
about how you're posturing DOD to be able to react to that
potential?
Secretary Gates. First of all, I think that the situation
out there in the world doesn't change, and the world is
becoming more complex and I would say more dangerous, rather
than less so. I think that as people think about where we are,
there are many reasons for the deficit and DOD certainly spends
a lot of money. But if you look at where DOD is today, it's
very much within historical norms in terms of both GDP and a
percentage of the budget in terms of what we're spending.
That said, I would tell you that if DOD received
significant reductions in its budget, that we would have to
sacrifice force structure. We cannot do it any other way. So
the result of that would be a reduction in military capability
and a reduction in our flexibility.
Senator Udall. If I might, let me thank you for your focus
on acquisition reform. I want to associate myself with Senator
McCain's remarks and I hope that this committee will continue
to support you as you make some tough decisions, so that we
extract every penny of value from every dollar that we spend. I
just want to acknowledge the important work you've done there.
Let me turn to Afghanistan. Senator Sessions expressed some
concern, but I would like to comment that you make peace with
your enemies, not with your friends. I've been interested,
Admiral Mullen, in the re-integration of the low-level Taliban
proposals that have been forthcoming. There was a recent
conference I believe in the United Kingdom some significant
monies pledged.
Could you comment on those plans to the extent that you're
comfortable?
Admiral Mullen. The reintegration piece is clearly an
important piece of this, and every commander feels that way.
Very specifically, the reintegration is really bringing those
who are literally the fighters who are against us right now,
bringing them into the fold. In fact, General McChrystal is
very focused on that. We are in the execution of this strategy
which includes that, so getting everybody on the same page for
exactly what it means and how rapidly it happens or doesn't
happen is where we are very much at the beginning. But we think
it is an important part. There is no view at this point that is
a panacea, because we just don't see that many at this point.
The other term that is used that I think it's very
important to understand is the reconciliation piece, which is a
term that is focused on I would call the senior leadership of
the Taliban or the senior leadership of the enemy--much more
complex, and President Karzai has made it clear that he wants
to get on this path. But again, it's at the beginning. We're at
the beginning of that process.
I think we have to be clear about the terms and what they
mean, and also look at a realistic pace in terms of both
expectations and actually what's happening. In that regard,
we're just at the beginning.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to Iraq. We have elections
looming. There is some increased violence. Do you still believe
we're on schedule to redeploy, as General Odierno has put in
place?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir, I do. We were very focused on the
elections in early March. It's the elections after which we
start coming down fairly dramatically, 104,000 today is what we
have on the ground. We will come down to approximately 50,000
by August. In that timeframe, another big issue is they will be
standing up a government and it will take them several months
to do that, sort of the summertime, to stand up this newly-
elected government.
So it's a great time of transition. General Odierno, and
Ambassador Hill on the civilian side, are very focused on all
aspects of that. But right now, overall the indicators are
positive.
Senator Udall. I see that my time's expired. I want to
thank you again for your leadership and for this comprehensive
set of statements today and for a budget, Secretary Gates, that
I think clearly leads us in the right direction.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Admiral, thank you for your outstanding
service and for appearing today and responding to some of our
questions.
Secretary Gates, I wanted to take up with you the
recommendations in the budget and the QDR. Going back to the
2006 QDR, there was a recommendation in there to develop a
follow-on bomber. You've made it clear that you support the
development of a new bomber. Last April you opted not to pursue
a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until
you had a better understanding of the need, the requirement,
and the technology.
As part of the effort to better understand the requirement
for a new bomber, I also understand that you stood up a Tiger
Team to do an in-depth study of long-range strike in the new
QDR. In reading the new QDR on page 33, it looks, however, like
you have still not made a decision to move forward with the new
bomber program, but instead have commissioned yet another
study.
My question is, what conclusions were drawn by the Tiger
Team regarding the development of a new bomber and are those
conclusions available to us, at least in writing for the
record?
Secretary Gates. I will get you an answer for the record on
that, Senator. But there is, I think, $1.7 billion in the
budget for next generation bomber and long-range strike. I
think one of the issues that we're still wrestling with is what
kind of a bomber would we be looking for. Do we want a stand-
off bomber? Do we want an attack bomber? Do we want a manned
bomber or an unmanned bomber? Or do we want variations, where
you could have a platform that could serve both purposes?
I think we still have a lot of life left in the B-52s, as
old as they are, and there is modernization money for both them
and the B-2s in the budget. We're talking about a bomber that
would probably not appear into the force until the late 1920s.
So we're just trying to figure out, looking ahead a generation,
what the right configuration for that would be.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Tiger Team to which you refer was formed to study the need,
requirement, and technology for a follow-on Air Force long-range strike
aircraft. That team completed its work last November. The team was
supportive of pursuing a new long-range strike aircraft, but recognized
that additional analysis was needed to explore options for reducing
overall program costs and determining fielding timelines. Another
conclusion of the Tiger Team's study was that the Department should
sustain the industrial base for early-stage design work and
technologies for a new long-range strike aircraft while the Department
continues to study all options. Through the Quadrennial Defense Review,
the Department provided industrial base funding for fiscal year 2011
and fiscal year 2012 to prepare for the potential start of a new long-
range strike program. I decided that a more in-depth analysis was
required in order to evaluate and compare the capabilities of new long-
range strike aircraft designs in the context of the full range of
supporting capabilities that would be relevant to the operation of such
aircraft in future combat scenarios.
The Department is now undertaking a follow-on effort to examine the
appropriate mix of long-range strike capabilities; upgrades to legacy
bombers; manned and unmanned options; stand-off and penetrating
requirements; new and improved cruise missiles; electronic warfare
improvements; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance demands;
and conventional prompt global strike options. The goal of this ongoing
assessment is to ensure that the Department fully understands how all
potential long-range strike options and supporting capabilities could
contribute to U.S. security goals before committing to one or more
major development programs. I anticipate that our analysis will inform
decisions shaping the Department's fiscal year 2012 budget submission.
Senator Thune. The 2006 QDR had suggested, I think,
fielding a new bomber by 2018. I understand the concerns that
you raised about what type of bomber that might be. But I
guess--and by the way, I think the $1.7 billion is a multi-year
number. Isn't that like a 4-year number?
Secretary Gates. Yes.
Senator Thune. But why is it necessary to have another
study? I mean, the thing has been studied and studied and
studied and studied, on whether or not we want to move forward
on developing a follow-on bomber. When would you expect that
study to be completed?
Secretary Gates. I'll have to get an answer for the record.
I think what the studies up to now have been is whether, and
now the study is what.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Tiger Team that was initially formed to study the need,
requirements, and technology for a follow-on Air Force bomber completed
its work last November. The team's conclusions were supportive of
pursuing a new bomber, but the team recognized that additional analysis
was needed to explore options for reducing overall program costs and
determining fielding timelines. Additionally, I decided that a more in-
depth analysis of how a new bomber might compare with other long-range
strike options was required. Consequently, the Department chartered
another study to look at a broader array of long-range strike options
to include upgrades to legacy bombers; manned and unmanned options for
future bombers; stand-off and penetrating options for future bombers;
new and improved cruise missiles; and conventional prompt global strike
options, such as land-based and sea-based conventional ballistic
missiles. The new study will also examine the support requirements for
various long-range strike options, such as electronic warfare,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and secure, high-data-
rate communications.
The rationale for this new study is to ensure the Department fully
understands how all potential long-range strike options could
contribute to U.S. goals before we spend billions of dollars. I
anticipate that results from the new study will be available in time to
support the formation of the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Another of the initial Tiger Team's conclusions was that the
Department should sustain the industrial base for early-stage design
work and technologies for a new bomber while the Department continues
to study long-range strike options. Consequently, the Department
provided industrial base funding for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year
2012 to prepare for a potential start for a new bomber program.
Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, with regard to the FYDP
force structure that's set out in the new QDR for the Air
Force, the QDR proposes five long-range strike wings with up to
96 primary mission aircraft. According to the latest Air Force
Almanac, the Air Force has 153 bomber aircraft and I understand
some of these aircraft are dedicated to testing, but over 50
aircraft for testing seems like a lot. Do you plan on retiring
any bomber aircraft in the near future? I guess a follow-on
question would be, what are the assumptions underlying what
appears to be a substantial reduction in the number of bombers?
Admiral Mullen. Senator, I'm not aware that we are,
although I certainly would want to check for the record to make
sure that I have that right. But there certainly hasn't been
any big discussion about the retirement of bombers.
If I could speak just briefly to the other issue you raise,
one of the things that's happened in the last two budgets in my
view is it's put us on a pace and with a view that evolves.
Some of the previous laydowns, the 2006 QDR, were from my
perspective incredibly aggressive. So part of my answer to the
question of why we're still doing this is because this is a
very difficult problem. We want to get it right, and it has a
huge impact, quite frankly, on the future of the Air Force
because of the capability requirement.
I think what you're seeing is a process that is led by
Secretary Gates to move us through a deliberative process that
really focuses on getting it right for the future. As he
indicated, the previous study was as to whether or not, and now
we look to the future as what it should be. I'm supportive of
that. These are tough decisions we absolutely want to get
right.
Senator Thune. Could you for the record get to that
question, though, of the number? Of the 96 bombers that are
assumed in the five wings, with 153 Air Force bombers, a
certain number of them allocated to testing, but that does seem
like a significant number, whether or not there is any plan to
retire and any assumptions underlying that, what would appear
to be a substantial reduction in the number of bombers.
Admiral Mullen. We'll supply it for the record, but I think
a lot of them may be for training. I think you're talking about
primary aircraft, coded aircraft. There are a number designated
for training and testing, as you say. But we'll supply the
details for the record.
Senator Thune. That would be great.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Deleted.]
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd like to get
for the record a response to a question dealing with the START
Treaty in sort of the same vein. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Deleted.]
Chairman Levin. We will expect that answer for the record
relative to Senator Thune's question on START.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, for
your testimony today and for your dedication to our men and
women in the military.
Secretary Gates, I applaud you for the tremendous job DOD
has done in carrying out and supporting the relief efforts that
have been under way in Haiti. The ability of our maritime
forces to operate from a sea base while rapidly transitioning
personnel and equipment ashore is something that I believe is
an excellent demonstration of what our military is capable of
doing and especially useful in a situation in Haiti where
there's limited capacity for air transport.
I believe it's important that we maintain our advantage in
projecting sea power across the range of military operations
from humanitarian relief to combat. My question, Secretary
Gates and Admiral Mullen, is do the military departments and
combatant commanders have sufficient amphibious operational
capabilities to address the full spectrum of requirements, both
military and humanitarian, anticipated within the QDR?
Admiral Mullen. Ma'am, as I go back over the last 10 to 15
years and then look at the future, my overall answer to that
would be yes. We certainly have this within DOD over the years,
debated this and there's been tension. I think it's good
tension to get this right, and it focuses very specifically on
the amount of amphibious lift capability that we have.
Actually, one of my concerns specifically--so right now,
yes. One of my concerns about the future--and I'm certain that
the Commandant of the Marine Corps shares this--how is the
Marine Corps has become very heavy. Obviously, it's now in the
sixth or seventh year of fighting a land war, which is not what
it wants to do. So there are an awful lot of adjustments that
have to be made for the future. The Marine Corps is going to
have to get lighter than it's been in the past.
So I think this discussion will continue. But as far as my
view of the future, I think we have it about right as we sit.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
I know that we've already discussed some of the IEDs, but I
know that in Afghanistan the mountainous terrain and the
limited communication infrastructures certainly pose a
distinctly different IED threat as opposed to what we have seen
in Iraq. We need additional personnel at the battalion and
company levels with the appropriate expertise and technical
equipment to detect the IEDs in areas such as Afghanistan,
where the insurgents utilize the primitive forms of IEDs with
very little metallic content that is buried into the ground.
What type of feedback are you receiving from CENTCOM and
the component commanders in theater with respect to their
personnel requirements encountering the IEDs, and what do you
expect to do to address any shortages that exist?
Secretary Gates. A substantial number of the 30,000 troops
that will be going are in the category of what we call
enablers. That includes engineers, route clearance specialists,
counter-IED specialists, all of whom are--and people associated
with ISR--all of which are part of the counter-IED effort.
One of the initiatives that this temporary task force that
I've set up under General Paxton and Dr. Carter is looking at
is establishing, at the battalion level, what we would call a
warehouse approach for counter-IEDs, which would basically,
instead of giving every battalion the same set of equipment,
rather have an array of equipment that is available to that
battalion, so that each of the teams going out can select the
equipment that seems most appropriate to that mission that day.
We have a wide range of these detectors and intelligence
capabilities and so on, and the idea is some of these units are
better, frankly, with certain kinds of equipment than others.
There's more than a little art in this. So what we're trying to
do is figure out how, at the battalion level, we in essence
could have an array of equipment that a team going out could
take advantage of.
So I think that there is an understanding on the part of
General McChrystal and General Petraeus that we are pouring
every bit of counter-IED capability into Afghanistan that we
can.
Senator Hagan. Thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, gentlemen. We do have a lot to
talk about, and I share Senator Sessions' view that it would be
nice to have you back. I hope the chairman will be able to
arrange that.
My first question is about the 313-ship Navy, Admiral
Mullen. The Congressional Budget Office recently testified that
the current shipbuilding budgets are not enough to fund the
Navy's plan to increase the fleet to 313, and I think we all
know that. I assume you agree with that. At 283, the Service
has the smallest fleet since 1916. That's pre-World War I. We
need to build more than 12 ships per year for the next 18 years
to arrive at 313.
Is 313 still the requirement, Admiral Mullen? How does this
budget, how does this QDR, support the goal of a 313-ship Navy?
Admiral Mullen. It is still the goal. It was when I led
that analysis and generated that requirement as Chief of Naval
Operations. It remains the floor. It was a number that was
achieved with an understanding of what the risk would be. We,
the total ``we''--that's the Services, the Department, those
that build ships, certainly congressional support--have been
working for years to get more money into the shipbuilding
account. I think, as we laid out, there's some $15 billion this
year. It's 10 ships, 1 of which is an Army ship.
One of the things that we're not going to be able to do is
build to that number if ships keep costing a whole lot more
than we expect they will. The acquisition reform is really a
critical part of that. I'll use the littoral combat ships as an
example. That has cost--while I had expectations the costs
would go up, certainly not to the degree that it has.
So that has to be contained. We don't need the perfect ship
or the perfect airplane as we look to the future. So I argued
for years there has to be a strategic partnership across all
three of those entities in order to get shipbuilding and major
procurement right. I think this budget takes some steps in that
direction. But you can just do the math and see that we're not
going to get to 313, and I would not want to be satisfied with
283, which is sort of what the projection is right now, given
the demands that we have for our military and our Navy.
Senator Wicker. So it's going to take acquisition reform to
get us to that floor number of 313. When do you think we might
be able to actually make some progress in that regard?
Admiral Mullen. I think the Secretary and many others,
myself included, have taken steps to really put our--get our
arms around requirements growth, having expertise there,
holding people accountable. Those are some of the things that
are certainly in great focus right now, and there's more to do.
But it's going to take a few years, I think, before that
really takes a grip and starts to have the kind of impact to be
able to generate the kind of capability you need within cost.
I'm encouraged by this shipbuilding program. It has two
submarines in it. This is the first year it has. I can tell you
it took almost 10 years to make that happen. So we will
continue to--I think it continues to need to be an area of
focus. It's a vital capability for our country and, as you
indicated, it's the smallest Navy we've had for many, many
decades. For a country that has big bodies of water on both
coasts, that's a maritime country, that's a great concern.
Senator Wicker. Would it be fair to say we are
shortchanging part of the mission? Could you enlighten us as to
what aspects of our mission are we shortchanging because of the
lack of these 313 ships?
Admiral Mullen. The Navy is very pressed right now,
operating at a very high tempo. I think Admiral Roughead, who
will certainly have an opportunity to speak for himself, would
say that he is sort of at the edge of being able to meet the
commitments in terms of global commitments. He and our Navy is
heavily focused in the Gulf as well. The sea base that was just
created very quickly in Haiti is certainly well within what we
expect and can do. But given the operational tempo (OPTEMPO)
that our Navy and our Air Force, quite frankly, is under, which
sometimes gets lost in the focus on our ground forces--their
OPTEMPO has increased as well, and so Admiral Roughead's
concern is that we are wearing capability out and we're not
replacing it at a rate that gets to that kind of number that
you're talking about.
Senator Wicker. I see.
Let me move back to a point that Senator McCain was making.
I just returned also from Afghanistan and Pakistan. I agree
with Senator McCain that this July 2011 date is mentioned when
you talk to leaders over there. There was a term that we came
back with from our Congressional Delegation with Leader
McConnell, and that was a ``deficit of trust.'' It's not just
the date for the beginning of the drawdown, but also
specifically with regard to Pakistan it's the decade of really
very ill will between the United States and the Government of
Pakistan.
Do you agree, Secretary Gates, that there is a deficit of
trust about the United States' intention to be a long-term
strategic partner with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and what are
we doing to address that deficit of trust?
Secretary Gates. I think there definitely is such a deficit
of trust with Pakistan, and I think it's historical. The
Pakistanis will speak of three or four American betrayals, only
the most recent of which are turning our backs on Afghanistan
and them after the Soviets withdrew, and the other the
implementation of the Pressler amendment and cutoff of military
to military relationships.
I think, frankly, the way that trust is rebuilt is with
time, effort, and actions. I think Admiral Mullen at this point
has in his 2\1/2\ years as Chairman been to Pakistan probably
15 or 16 times. He has an extraordinary relationship with
General Kayani. I think there is a good personal trust there.
But I think for Pakistanis as a whole, it is our sticking
with them. It is our attention to their problems, including
their economic problems. So we commend the Kerry-Lugar-Berman
bill, which is very important. But I think being steadfast is
important.
I was in Pakistan just a couple of weeks ago and spoke
directly to this, and I would say that in some areas it's more
than a deficit of trust. There are conspiracy theories over
there about our wanting to take their nuclear weapons, about
our wanting to divide them up, all kinds of things. I spoke to
that directly. So I think honesty in dealing with them, but a
long-term effort, is what's going to be required.
In Afghanistan, my personal sense is that we have--in the
various visits that I have made and Admiral Mullen and others,
they understand that July 2011 is the beginning of a process
and that there is no deadline on that process. But there also
is an acknowledgment by some of the Afghans that in effect they
needed that kind of wakeup call in order to begin to realize
they were going to have to take responsibility themselves for
defeating the Taliban, that this wasn't something that
everybody else could do for them.
So I think that what we need to continue to communicate to
the Afghans is that even as our security forces draw down over
the next several years, that our presence there, our
willingness to partner with them, our willingness to be a part
of their economic and political life going forward, is a long-
term, decades-long commitment by the United States to that
country, not to having huge military forces there, but helping
them get control of their security situation and then them
being in charge of their country.
But I think the July 2011 timeline is controversial. My own
view is that it provided exactly the right incentive for them
to begin to accept responsibility, but by having no terminal
date on it, it allows us to do a conditions-based withdrawal
that I think makes sense.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, we have the recommendations of the QDR. We have
your budget proposal. This is not the moment to comment from
our side of the table on the details in there.
I would like to thank Senator Wicker for his comments about
the size of the Navy and the challenges in the Navy. Obviously,
I do not think it is an appropriate budget item for the Navy to
think that they can spend a billion dollars in upgrading a
nice-to-have facility in Mayport at the same time when we're
looking to try to build a fleet up to 313 ships. Admiral
Mullen, you'll recall when you and I were commissioned in 1968
we had 930 ships in the United States Navy. We went down to
479. When I was Secretary of the Navy it went up to 568.
But I want to set that aside. I want to make sure you know
we're still going to continue that discussion. I want to set
that aside because I only have 5 minutes and I want to talk
about something else. That is that I don't believe, quite
frankly, that the DOD budget should be sacrosanct when it comes
to looking at the constraints and the examinations that we
ought to be putting on different programs.
Secretary Gates, I take your point about not wanting to go
into force structure reductions. But at the same time, I
believe you can meet the challenges and adapt for the future
and still clean up a lot of unnecessary programs that exist in
the Pentagon by taking a hard look at programs that don't
produce a clear bottom line and are not simply hardware systems
or force structure issues.
I very much appreciate the efforts that you've made in
terms of program reductions, which you mentioned in your
opening statements. But I think there comes a time every now
and then to sort of shake things down. I remember when I was
Secretary of the Navy the Gramm-Rudman Act was passed over
here, 1987. We had to implement it in 1988. It mandated a 10
percent across-the-board reduction in defense programs, because
it was a 5 percent government-wide mandate and half of the
programs at that time were fenced.
They went too far. They clearly went too far. I resigned as
Secretary of the Navy because they cut into force structure too
far. But it doesn't hurt to really get into efficiencies in an
area where we're not getting an appropriate bottom line.
Let me give you three data points and I would ask today for
you to make a commitment to really examine these types of
programs. You and I are familiar with the Blackwater program
that I wrote you about in 2007, and we came to some resolution
on it, where out in San Diego they were going to spend more
than $60 million for a private contractor to train sailors how
to do their job, basically how to defend themselves on-board a
ship.
The first question I had on that was the fact that this is
something that active duty people should have been doing, not a
contractor. But the major concern I had was that this program
came from operations and maintenance block funding. It had
never been authorized. It had never been specifically
appropriated as a program. It was just approved by a lower
level official in the Department of the Navy based on the needs
of the fleet. As we examined it, we found out that the
Secretary of the Navy didn't even have to review that program
unless it was a $78 million program.
There's a program existing right now, and I don't know the
extent of it, where we're basically sending military officers
over to staff and fund think tanks. Your own Under Secretary of
Defense was part of creating a think tank, CNAF. My
understanding of these programs is they get military fellows.
These are active duty people. They go over, they get their full
pay and allowances. But not only that, they get tuition. The
numbers that I saw were $17,000 a ``semester,'' whatever a
semester is while you're over there, to pay the rent, the
computers and all the rest of that.
Essentially what that means is the American taxpayer is
funding think tanks, basically to keep them in business. They
don't produce any really added value to DOD in my view in terms
of a direct contribution.
Another example that just came up over the past couple of
months is this mentors program, where, according to news
reports, you can have retired high-ranking general officers and
admirals making well in excess of $100,000 a year in their
retirement, 80 percent of these people working with defense
contractors, and then going in and making up to $2,600 a day to
give their advice. In other words, a retired admiral or general
can make more in a day than a corporal in Afghanistan will make
in a month, basically to do what he's supposed to do anyway,
and that is fulfill his stewardship from having spent a career
in the military.
I don't know the full cost of that, but according to USA
Today these people are being paid between $200 and $340 an hour
plus expenses. They are hired as independent contractors, so
they're not subject to government ethics rules. They operate
outside public scrutiny, and many of them work for weapons
makers and in effect are able to either gain information for
companies or exchange data.
That's not the military I grew up in. That's not the
military you and I served in, Admiral. That's not the Pentagon
that I served in in the 1980s.
So these are the kinds of things, Mr. Secretary, I think we
can do and not affect force structure.
Secretary Gates. We certainly will continue to look at
these things. I will tell you on the mentoring program, the
Deputy Secretary has been reviewing this and I think you will
see some--we think there is great value in the program, but you
will see some fairly dramatic changes in the way it's
administered.
Senator Webb. I would certainly hope so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Senator LeMieux.
Senator LeMieux. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service and
for being here today to answer our questions.
Secretary Gates, when we capture an enemy combatant in
Afghanistan or Iraq, do we read them their Miranda rights?
Secretary Gates. No.
Senator LeMieux. So why should we do so if we capture one
in this country?
Secretary Gates. That's a question better addressed to the
Attorney General, Senator.
Senator LeMieux. You were the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency before you were the Secretary of Defense?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator LeMieux. So I assume you have an opinion on this.
Secretary Gates. My view is that the issue of whether
someone is put into the American judicial system or into the
military commissions is a judgment best made by the chief law
enforcement officer of the United States.
Senator LeMieux. Before they get into either commission,
there's a question of being able to ask questions, and
certainly we know there's a chilling effect when we give
someone their Miranda rights. So if we're not doing it
overseas, I'm not sure why it makes sense that we would be
doing it in this country.
Secretary Gates. We have in place protocols now that--and
there is authority under the law--that if a person is deemed to
be a threat to the national security as a self-confessed
terrorist would be, that there can be delays in Mirandizing to
allow time for questioning. So we have the authority to do that
even in the Article III system.
Senator LeMieux. My colleague from Virginia was just
talking about Mayport and that he has a different view than you
expect that I would. You put in the QDR that, to mitigate the
risk of a terrorist attack, accident or natural disaster, the
Navy will homeport an east coast carrier in Mayport. I know you
support that and I appreciate that.
But there is no money in the budget, as I understand it,
for the nuclearization projects or other projects that need to
be completed.
Admiral Mullen. There's $239 million in the FYDP for
military construction for Mayport.
Senator LeMieux. Okay, thank you.
Admiral Mullen, will you officially designate a ship to
Mayport in the coming months?
Admiral Mullen. Actually, it's not mine. I think that in
the end that would be a decision that the Navy would recommend
and it would come up to the Secretary.
Senator LeMieux. Are you planning on making a
recommendation soon?
Admiral Mullen. As soon as the Navy brings one up, and I
just don't know where they are in that process.
Senator LeMieux. Maybe we can follow up on that later.
I want to speak a little bit about acquisition reform. A
number of my colleagues have mentioned this. Specifically, Mr.
Secretary, about the JSF, we recently were given some
information about the fact that it's 35 percent over budget,
which I think is about $18 billion if my numbers are correct.
This program started in the mid-1990s. It occurs to me I think
we went to the moon quicker than we've produced this plane.
So I appreciate your efforts to try to get this under
control, and I saw that there was a suspension in the
performance bonuses. My question to you is, in terms of
acquisition reform, it seems to me that there needs to be
reform across DOD, probably across the government, and not just
performance bonuses being withheld, but performance penalties
under the contracts that we have with vendors.
Is there a person that you charged as responsible solely to
lead the effort on acquisition reform, and are you looking at
these contracts to make sure that the vendor would bear the
cost if programs were delayed?
Secretary Gates. Under Secretary Carter is responsible for
that and he is taking a very close look at a large number of
contracts.
Senator LeMieux. I had an opportunity to be at CENTCOM
yesterday and I spoke with General Petraeus. In the follow-up
to my trip to Afghanistan at the end of October, which I went
on with Senator Burr and Senator Whitehouse, one thing that we
noted is that our information work there in terms of trying to
get the message out to the Afghan people may be not doing as
good of a job as it could be.
General Petraeus talked about the fact that we were
successful in the surge in Iraq because of the power of ideas,
not just the power of our forces. I'm wondering if this is on
your radar screen, the need to commit more focused energy and
potentially more funds to providing information to the Afghan
people to counteract what the Taliban does. The Taliban will go
in and say, oh, we just killed a bunch of children. It's
misinformation.
There are some good efforts that are being done. I met with
a Colonel Kraft who was doing some very good work with trying
to get radios out there to folks, working with territorial
governors to get information out quickly so that we could
counteract propaganda from the Taliban.
Is that something that's risen to your level and do you
understand the need to maybe improve our efforts?
Secretary Gates. Absolutely, and in fact we have spent a
good bit of time on this in the situation room with our
interagency.
Senator LeMieux. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
ask just one more question for the Admiral.
On the 313-ship Navy, the plan I guess is currently to have
10 carriers. Is that sufficient? We're refitting the
Enterprise. Do we need to keep the Enterprise in operation
until the Ford comes on line? What's your thoughts?
Admiral Mullen. I think that the current requirement is for
11 and I support that. The 10-carrier issue is to be decided
literally decades down the road. Obviously, how we build them
generates how many of them there are and when we retire them.
I don't think we should keep the Enterprise. I think the
Enterprise is unique, incredibly costly, and the decision to
decommission it after its next deployment and take the risk in
that gap I think--it is a decision that I support, recognizing
there is some risk associated with that.
Senator LeMieux. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator LeMieux.
Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to add my thanks, gentlemen, for the wonderful
service that you do for our country. For those of our military
personnel in Haiti, I just want to extend my thanks to them,
and also remind our government that we're there to assist and
not to take over or occupy a country, as some people are
concerned about. So make sure that we keep that message going
forward.
Mr. Secretary, the DIMHRS, the largest enterprise resource
planning program ever implemented for the human resource
system, would replace over some 90 legacy systems. It's
intended to bring all payroll and personnel functions of the
military into one integrated, web-based system.
In August 1996, a DOD task force concluded that the
multiple service-unique military personnel and pay systems
causes significant functional shortcomings, particularly in the
joint arena, and excessive development and maintenance costs.
Their central recommendation was that DOD should move to a
single all-Service, all-component, fully-integrated personnel
and pay system with common core software.
This is a program that DOD said at one time was necessary.
Why is it considered a poorly performing program today, Mr.
Secretary, and why is it not necessary and what has changed?
Secretary Gates. Well, this is one where I think both
Admiral Mullen and I have something to say. First of all, after
10 years of effort, poor performance and difficulties with that
program, I would say that what we've gotten for half a billion
dollars is an unpronounceable acronym. Many of the programs
that I have made decisions to cut have been controversial
within DOD. I will tell you this one was not.
Admiral Mullen. Both in my prior life as head of the Navy
and actually even before that as a budget officer and certainly
through this, this program has been a disaster. The
characteristics you describe, Senator, are good characteristics
to have. I talked earlier about making a program too perfect
and you just can't get there, too complex. It was proven that
DIMHRS couldn't get there time and time again.
So I applaud the termination of the program. That doesn't
mean we shouldn't try to create the kind of enterprise effort
that you just described, but we have to do it in a way where
we're not spending the kind of money that we were spending
going nowhere in DIMHRS.
Senator Burris. Gentlemen, is that where we run into a
military bureaucracy, that people don't want to give up
something? I think it's more of that. If we can pay under the
Office of Personnel Management all civilian employees under one
payment system, why can't the military also exercise one
payment system? It would be my assessment that you would run
into turf problems that the military is not willing to say that
a person at a grade 6 in the Navy should be paid as a person
who's a grade 6 in the Army, with the same system. So you cut a
paycheck and you don't have all these--what have you got, five
or six different payroll systems in the military? We can save
millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars by combining those
systems.
Admiral Mullen. I don't disagree that theoretically we
could get there and we should have that. However, it was
costing us a tremendous amount of money to go nowhere in this--
--
Senator Burris. Then why----
Admiral Mullen. Senator, even in the private sector, when
you talk to individuals who have tried to combine, who have
combined various multi systems, it is always a challenge. So
the challenge is there. I think the goal is one that's a good
goal. We just were not getting there with DIMHRS. We were
wasting our money.
Senator Burris. Are you going to take it up in the future?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir, I'm sure we will. It sounds like
we will.
Senator Burris. Let me shift gears for a minute. Why is the
funding for Iraq security forces nearly doubling from the
fiscal year 2010 budget to the fiscal year 2011 budget? When I
was in Iraq it was my understanding we were standing down and
that we wouldn't need to be spending extra money for training
for the security forces. Is there an explanation why the budget
is increasing?
Secretary Gates. Sir, $300 million in the 2011 OCO is to
set the conditions for the transfer to the State Department for
responsibility for training the police.
Chairman Levin. Repeat what ``OCO'' means?
Secretary Gates. The overseas contingency operations bill.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Secretary Gates. The new supplemental.
So there are a number of categories like that. A lot of
it--there's only $158 million--of the billion dollars for 2010,
for example, only $150 million of that is for equipment. The
rest of it is all connected with our transfer of
responsibilities from--costs associated with transfer of
responsibilities either from ourselves to the Iraqis or from
DOD to the Department of State after our troops come out. So
most of those costs are associated in that area, along with
sustainment of and training for the Iraqis who are going to be
taking our places.
Senator Burris. My time has expired. But gentlemen, I hope
that we will revisit this personnel system. If the civilians
can do it, you get one paycheck and one pay scale system, the
civilians, the military can do it without five or six different
systems existing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Burris.
A couple quick items. Feel free to submit that
unpronounceable acronym for the record.
Secretary Gates. DIMHRS.
Chairman Levin. You made reference in an earlier answer to
the Article III system, and you were referring to the civilian
court system.
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Now, one housekeeping announcement before I
call on Senator Collins. When we begin our hearing on DADT,
which it looks like we're on schedule to begin maybe even
before noon, we're going to follow the same early bird order as
we have for this hearing, so that everybody can be put on
notice. We're going to recognize Senators in the same order as
they appeared for the current hearing when we reach the DADT
hearing.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you. So the last will be first for
that next hearing?
Chairman Levin. I didn't say reverse order. I said the same
order. [Laughter.]
I wish I could say otherwise. We're struggling here with
what is the best way to do it and we decided the best way to do
it is to put everyone on notice.
Senator Collins. Just don't tell them that we're starting
early, then.
Chairman Levin. Okay, you have a deal. [Laughter.]
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Gates, according to the QDR, on any given day
there are more than 7 million DOD computers that are being used
to support our warfighters and for other DOD operations. We
also know that every single day there are attempts to hack into
those computers. Some of these attacks are from nation-states
like China.
What is your assessment of the effectiveness of DOD's
current cyber security efforts?
Secretary Gates. I think that we actually are, particularly
with our classified systems, in good shape. Most of the attacks
that we encounter, too, are to unclassified systems. But
frankly, we're not happy with where we are, and particularly as
we look ahead. That's why we have an initiative to create Cyber
Command and also have money in the budget and have made a
priority in the QDR and in the budget for cyber in terms of
training significant additional individuals who are expert in
this area. We've made it a top priority for the Services to
fill all the slots in the education programs for cyber.
So I would say I think we're in good shape now, but we look
with concern to the future and we think a lot more needs to be
done.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Admiral Mullen, last year the President announced a major
policy change on how our country would extend protection
against ballistic missiles to our NATO allies. I joined Senator
Levin on a trip to talk to the Czech Republic, Poland, and
Russia about this very issue last March. I support the change
in direction.
Part of the change in direction is that sea-based Aegis
surface combatants would become a primary means of
accomplishing that important mission. Now, ships dedicated to
perform this mission will likely be tied to specific areas of
operation. That means that they're not going to be fully
available to perform many of the other more traditional
missions that we've typically assigned our major surface
combatants. A number of analysts have suggested that that means
we will need a larger number of major surface combatants if all
of these missions and roles are to be executed successfully.
How does the decision to assign major surface combatants to
this new dedicated missile defense mission affect your
assessment of the size of the overall fleet?
Admiral Mullen. It starts with an earlier discussion we had
on the need to get to that floor of 313 ships, which we're
below target right now. One of the things that I've worried
about for years is that we would have enough in particular
surface combatants to be able to meet the needs that are out
there, although I do not subscribe to the theory that these
ships would become ships like our strategic ballistic missile
submarines, in other words it's the only thing that they do.
We've invested too much in the broad capability of our surface
ships, wide-ranging capability of our surface ships, to
dedicate them to one mission.
I think as this program has been adjusted, it focuses on
regional, theater, evolving threats and I think that's the
right answer. So we would have certainly some indications and
warning. We have enough ships to flood, if you will, to a
certain area, understanding what the threat is.
So I think we need to look carefully at how many we need. I
also think we need to upgrade the ones that we have. While we
are upgrading some, I think that we need to look pretty
seriously in modernization at do we have enough upgrades for
the ships that we've already built to meet this threat in the
longer term, as well as looking to see if we need more. I'm
more focused on the upgrade right now than I am additional
Aegis ships per se.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Gentlemen, I want to compliment you on
the relief efforts in Haiti.
The American military leads. You are the point of the
spear. You make it happen. Please consider that for the future,
for the long term, we're going to have to do something
different. I was just told a very troubling story of a relief
effort by a group of Floridians, doctors, prominent people,
that took a private planeload of medical supplies down to a
number of our doctors who have been on the ground just doing
heroic stuff. Just before they got there, the customs had been
turned back over to the Haitian Government, and as they're
unloading the plane of all the medical supplies to get it to in
this case to University of Miami doctors, who were there the
day after the earthquake, the customs officials wanted bribes
to release the medical supplies.
We just can't allow this kind of thing. So you have done
tremendous things in getting us to where we are, the
humanitarian mission. But for the long term, we're going to
have to have some kind of international trusteeship that's
going to be led by the international community, that will take
this kind of nonsense away from the people who have done this
for 200 years in Haiti.
I'm not expecting a response. I just want to compliment you
for what you've done.
Now, I have the privilege of chairing the Emerging Threats
and Capabilities Subcommittee and as we withdraw our
conventional forces in Iraq, the requirement for the SOF is
projected to remain. But they, the SOF, rely on the
conventional counterparts for many of the support functions. So
what do we do to ensure that our SOFs are being adequately
supported as we withdraw the conventional forces from Iraq?
Secretary Gates. Senator, I think there's a two-part
answer. I'll take the equipment part and ask Admiral Mullen to
take the people part.
One of the things that we are doing is moving the base--
moving the funding of the Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
from the supplementals into the base budget. We believe SOCOM
is going to have the capability that this country is going to
need far into the future, and so in terms of their equipment,
we're plussing up the equipment that they are supplied with,
much of which is unique to them. We are increasing the number
of slots that they have by this budget for fiscal year 2011,
increases the SOCOM personnel by 2,800 people.
So I think that in terms of equipment and so on, we are
putting ourselves on a long-term footing to sustain that
capability.
Admiral Mullen. Part of--and this is in the QDR and in the
budget--part of moving to the future is investing in the wars
that we're in, and there's no more critical capability to my
view that we are investing in in these wars than the Special
Forces capability. That will serve us well for the future.
I don't know if I'll get these numbers exactly right, but I
think we started these wars at about 38,000. We're at some
56,000 Special Force operators or Special Force military
members now, and these, as the Secretary said, are growing by
2,800. This is, at least from my interaction with Admiral
Olson, this is about as fast as we can grow, as fast as we can
find the people to do this.
A document which has struck both the Secretary and myself
has been Admiral Olson's guidance for this year in 2010. I have
said for years I believe our whole military has to be looking
at the kinds of characteristics--swift, agile, lethal,
engaging, all those kinds of things that is a part of our
Special Forces, as we look to the future for our conventional
forces.
The tension that you describe--and I think it's a healthy
tension--between the Special Forces and the Services that
provide the people, provide a lot of the early training, go out
and recruit them, is a good tension and we'll have to continue
to deal with that.
Senator Bill Nelson. Just a quick comment, if you would,
Admiral, about the role of Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft in Afghanistan? You have
provided adequately in the budget for keeping JSTARS as a
viable option by re-engining these old platforms. What's the
role in Afghanistan?
Admiral Mullen. It is principally tracking targets on the
ground more than anything else. But as you ask that question,
Senator Nelson, I think of JSTARS being the revolutionary
aircraft that it was for Operation Desert Storm--actually, I'm
sorry, even in the mid-1990s, early to mid-1990s in the
Balkans, where we deployed them prior to the time that we
actually finished successfully testing them, and they have
provided an extraordinary capability. Yet, the adaptation in
these wars to the persistence requirement which we've achieved
much more readily with our unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) than
we've been able to do with any manned aircraft per se.
But they're incredibly valuable, particularly in tracking
targets on the ground, which is one of the reasons this
investment is so important.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, sir.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. First I want to thank you, Secretary
Gates, and I hope that your office will continue to cooperate
with information we've requested on a number of different
topics for the subcommittee that I chair in Homeland Security
on contracting.
One of the things we're trying to get to the bottom of is
whether or not some of the contracts on the earmarks have been
competitive. There is--it is said that--I think the chairman
accidentally called on me before Senator Bayh and I want to
make sure--I'm happy to----
Chairman Levin. Just let me thank Senator Bayh. There's a
mistake I made here and I appreciate your courtesy in dealing
with it. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. I want to thank you for the cooperation
in trying to get to the bottom, because I think that there is
in some instances a fiction that some of these earmarks are
being competitively given out, when in reality the Senators'
requests are being honored, maybe informally. But we're trying
to get to the bottom of it and make sure we have as much
transparency as possible.
I've read everything I can get my hands on on the JSF, and
when we're going to actually use these fighters. I'm confused
about the date. Depending on whether you're talking about the
analysis team that went out from DOD or whether--I see quotes
from General Schwartz or whoever--let's get that on the record,
Secretary Gates. When do you think the JSF is going to be
operational for our military?
Secretary Gates. Even with the restructuring of the
program, the training squadron is still scheduled to deploy to
Eglin Air Force Base in 2011. The Marine Corps will have their
IOC in 2012; the Air Force in the second quarter of 2013; and
the Navy the fourth quarter of 2014. Those are the latest
estimates that I've been given.
Senator McCaskill. Okay. I heard you say those earlier. I
just wanted to make sure that it was clarified.
I want to tell you how much I respect the fact that you
fired somebody. You've done this several times. I've watched
you do this, and it is unusual. I don't think anybody around
here realizes how unusual it is for a Secretary of Defense to
fire people when these things happen. Traditionally, there have
not been people that have been fired. I just want you to know I
noticed and I think it's hard to do, but I think it's very
important that you send that signal of accountability.
Let me ask you about the modernization of the C-5s. I'm
going to try to go at the C-17 a little bit differently. I
would like to ask this question: If your hands were not tied by
Congress in terms of the modernization of the C-5s, would you
continue to modernize or would you retire?
Secretary Gates. We would continue to modernize a good
portion of the C-5s. But there would be some of the older C-5As
that we would retire.
Senator McCaskill. Are you advocating that we repeal the
statutory tying of your hands while you're advocating for the
closing of the line on the C-17s? Are you also advocating that
Congress quit tying your hands as it relates to retiring the C-
5s?
Secretary Gates. Any greater flexibility I can have to
manage the program, I would welcome.
Senator McCaskill. I want to make sure that I get your
endorsement for us retiring our hand-tying of you, obviously,
the modernization of the C-5s has had huge problems. It turned
out to be much more expensive than it was ever intended to be.
I know that it's my understanding we're not using C-5s in
Haiti, correct?
Secretary Gates. I don't think so.
Senator McCaskill. In fact, we're using, as we always do,
the reliable, easy to land on short runways, load them up, get
them out, cheaper to fly, C-17 in Haiti; isn't that correct,
Admiral Mullen?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. I just wanted to make sure.
Secretary Gates. Although I would just say for the record,
200 and some, 204,000 landings for strategic lift since 1997, 4
percent have been at airfields that a C-5 could not access, and
half of those were in Iraq.
Senator McCaskill. I understand that and I know that. But
it's important to remember that the Iraq capability was pretty
darn important over the past 6 to 8 years in terms of military
operations. I think we're going to have the same situation in
Afghanistan. Aren't there air strips in Afghanistan that are
certainly more friendly to a C-17 than a C-5?
Secretary Gates. Sure.
Senator McCaskill. I would like to briefly get into
prescription drugs and our military. I think we are all
painfully aware of the suicide problem that we have. I think we
are also aware that there has been a ``modernization,'' of
prescription drug availability in the military as it relates to
PTSD and other mental health issues. I know that we have a task
force looking at prescription drug use.
I wanted to also bring to the attention of the committee,
and to you, I think as this task force is looking at
prescription drug use, not only should we be looking at the
anti-depressants that I think have become ubiquitous in some
instances as it relates to treating our deployed forces when
they're having stress issues, but also the prescription drug
for pain. I particularly have mentioned to General Casey
Oxycontin, and the highly addictive nature of Oxycontin and the
widespread availability of Oxycontin within the military, and
the fact that we now know that in some parts of our country
Oxycontin has a higher street value than heroin because of the
highly addictive nature of the drug.
I wanted to ask your cooperation, Secretary Gates--and I
will be sending you a letter--that the prescription drug task
force also take a look at how widely available Oxycontin is in
the military and whether or not its overall effect has been
harmful or positive.
I wanted to ditto Senator Webb on the mentoring program.
Pretty ugly. We have to get that under control and make sure
it's transparent. The revolving door at the Pentagon deserves
as much attention as the revolving door in Congress.
Thank you, Secretary Gates.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Senator Bayh, again with our thanks.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me compliment Senator McCaskill for her line of
questioning. Claire, Harry Truman would be proud. You're
focused on saving the taxpayers' money. It reminds me in a
previous incarnation when I was our State's governor during
difficult financial times. I used to scrub the budget so
carefully I had a nickname in some quarters as ``Evaneezer.''
So I really do appreciate your efforts.
Mr. Secretary, I'd like to begin by complimenting you and
associating myself with what Senator McCaskill was saying. It
was a breath of fresh air that you're bringing increased
accountability to some of these programs. Some of the practices
that have been allowed to exist for too long in DOD contracting
of weapons systems would never survive in the private sector.
So the fact that people are being held accountable and the
contractors themselves are being asked to share some of the
burden for the delays and the cost overruns I think is
absolutely the right thing to do. I want to commend you for
that and I hope we'll see more of the same.
We are gathered here at a time of great financial and
economic distress for the American people and for our
government. People are being asked to make sacrifices. The
President has called for a freeze and nonsecurity discretionary
spending, and yet we are being asked to appropriate, I think
you indicated, a 3.4 percent increase in Defense spending. Is
that correct?
Secretary Gates. 1 percent, 1.8 percent in real growth.
Senator Bayh. In real growth. My point is I support that
because of the challenges that we face. I just wanted to put it
in the context of people are being asked to make real
sacrifices. It makes even more important your efforts to try
and save tax dollars wherever possible.
It seems to me that, looking at the big items, the prospect
for any real meaningful savings in the future have to do with
our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps the
prospect that they will head in a better direction, allowing us
to perhaps save some money there. So I'd like to ask you about
both of those conflicts.
I know you've given us your best--or your most likely case
estimate about what it will take in both of those conflicts. If
you had to say that it was going to be something other than the
most likely case--let's start with Iraq. The way things are
trending there, would it be more or less likely that we would
be able to withdraw more aggressively there than you're
currently planning on, and in so doing save some of the money
that we're being asked to commit to to Iraq?
Secretary Gates. I think that General Odierno's view would
be that it would be very risky to try and accelerate the
withdrawals beyond the timetable that he already has.
Senator Bayh. So no real prospect for savings beyond what
has been estimated there?
Secretary Gates. I think not.
Senator Bayh. In Afghanistan, my own view is that skeptics
who look at that conflict and say, we're going to do our part,
we're making a major commitment to stabilizing that country, to
keeping the Taliban and the al Qaeda from having a platform to
attack us--there's no doubt in my mind we'll do what is
necessary. The question is whether the Afghans are capable and
willing to do their part. You look at the history of that
country, the complexity of that country, I think skeptics kind
of wonder whether even with our best efforts we'll be able to
get the job done.
Would it be your assessment that there probably is not much
prospect for--well, if events are going to deviate from the
most likely scenario, it's more likely to be on the down side
than the up side in Afghanistan, no real prospect for
additional savings there?
Secretary Gates. I suspect not. But I would tell you,
Senator, that, as the President announced, there will be a
review of our strategy in Afghanistan at the end of this year,
and I think both Admiral Mullen and I are committed that if we
determine that our strategy is not working that we will not
recommend just plunging ahead blindly without a change of
course.
Admiral Mullen. If I could just quickly, I think a healthy
skepticism is good. I think a terminal skepticism at this point
is--it's far too soon. In fact, we see signs in many places now
of uplifted spirits on the part of the Afghan people where
security has turned around. I'm not underestimating the
significance of the challenge, but from a strategy standpoint,
a resourcing standpoint, a leadership standpoint, and a
commitment on the part of the Afghans that we can see as a
result of what the President announced, it's better than it's
ever been and we're just a few months into it.
Senator Bayh. We're all hopeful, but I think we all realize
we have to be realistic as well. Mr. Secretary, I think that's
what you've outlined here: a review in progress, assessing our
partners both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and then making the
hard decisions at the appropriate time.
Let me ask a couple of other questions. Have you requested
all the Predators and Reapers you can use and you need?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. We have pretty much maxed out
the lines. I would just say that those capabilities in some
instances, in more than a few instances, the challenge is not
just the airframe or the platform; it's the ground station,
it's the crews, it's the linguists that enable us to use the
information. So it's the whole package that we have to put
together.
Senator Bayh. For a long time there was a shortage of
pilots as I recall. But we've----
Secretary Gates. It was both airframes and platforms. But I
would say over the last year to 15 months the Air Force has
really leaned into this problem, and General Schwartz has told
me that they are now training more UAV pilots than they are
fighter-bomber pilots.
Senator Bayh. That's quite a change. But it's one of those
systems that's really been delivering for us here. So I'm
delighted at your request.
Finally--and my time has expired--along with five of my
colleagues, I was in Kabul and at the Bagram Air Base earlier
this month, or last month now that it's February, and I just
want to--please convey, we have met with many of the members of
the Armed Forces, and particularly the Special Operations folks
down there at Bagram, they're doing an outstanding job and I
want you to, if you can, please relay our appreciation for the
service they're rendering our country.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Bayh.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. Some points have
been raised with respect to the trial of Abdulmutallab and I
think, Mr. Secretary, you sort of indicated that that decision
was the province of the Attorney General. But just as a matter
of fact, had he been turned over to military custody he would
have been provided a lawyer, I presume; isn't that correct?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Given the fact that we've harmonized the
rules of interrogation between the FBI and other agencies of
the government, including the military, that the tools
available for an interrogation would have been very much the
same?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. I think something else, too. Again, this is
not a question of venue; this is a question more of how we
combat these terrorists. A lot of them describe themselves as
holy warriors, and if we reinforce their self-described holy
warrior description, trying them essentially in a military
trial and not a civilian trial, doesn't that reinforce what
they think they are, which is basically that they're not
terrorist criminals, they are some type of holy warrior?
Secretary Gates. Well, I suppose that that's the case. I
just think that we're in a good place when you have the ability
to use both the civilian court system and the military
commissions and to be able to make decisions on how to
prosecute an individual based on a case by case basis depending
on those specific circumstances. The Attorney General consulted
with me in terms of the decision on the Christmas Day bomber
and I told him that I would defer to him on that. I think we
need to use both of those venues, but I think it will depend on
the circumstances in each case.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral Mullen, in Afghanistan there has been I believe an
increase in recruits to the Afghani forces, which are
absolutely essential to our long-term strategy. I know there's
been a pay increase that has helped. But what other factors
have helped?
Admiral Mullen. I think an intangible that I would put out
there is the fact that the commitment on the part of the United
States and NATO nations specifically to this fight and to the
totality of it, not just the military side. I think the
leadership in Afghanistan visibly more committed, General
McChrystal out in battlefield circulation with the President,
who has connected with his people in ways that have been very
important as well, along with--and I think it's a combination
of standing up for their country, which I am told routinely and
which their leaders feel strongly about, in addition to the
incentivized pay increases specifically.
What we're struggling with is, while the recruiting was at
116 percent over the last couple of months, having the
institutional capacity both from a training infrastructure
standpoint as well as trainers to absorb that many. That's
just, quite frankly, an area that we haven't focused on enough
in the past and we're trying to get right right now.
Secretary Gates. I should correct the record. The Attorney
General consulted with me on the five September 11 terrorists,
not the Christmas Day bomber.
Senator Reed. Thank you, because it's important to have the
record accurate.
Mr. Secretary, you have I think once again proposed robust
funding for basic science in DOD in this budget. I think that's
critical. Could you give an idea of where you're proposing to
spend this money?
Secretary Gates. Let me do that for the record if I might.
[The information referred to follows:]
The $200 million increase relative to the Fiscal Year 2010
Department of Defense request will be directed to basic research in
high-priority areas that are promising for transformational defense
capabilities. These include nano-manufacturing science, synthetic
biology, advanced energy science, materials modeling for force
protection, computational neuroscience and quantum information science,
among other highly promising areas. We have increased the investment in
the Army by $29 million, Navy by $25 million, Air Force by $34 million,
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency by $102 million and with
smaller changes in other Defense Agencies. The research will be
conducted at universities and other nonprofit institutions, industries,
and Government laboratories, in distribution similar to the base budget
for basic research. The increased funds will support individual
investigators and research teams, including students.
Senator Reed. You're quite welcome to do that for the
record.
Admiral Mullen, in the QDR there is a discussion of dealing
with anti-access environments and utilizing the advantages of
sub-surface operations, which I presume is not just submarines,
but also unmanned undersea vehicles. Can you amplify what your
plans are?
Admiral Mullen. Broadly, I think the presumption is exactly
right. We've focused on investments there for some years. I'd
have to get back to you with what the specifics of that would
be. I would only say, from actually every capability area that
we have, that the ability to create and sustain access
globally, oftentimes is very important. Oftentimes this is very
focused on the Western Pacific, but, quite frankly, it's much
broader than that and those capabilities are vital for our
future.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here, and I am the last one
standing I think on this round of activity. So let me try to be
very quick. I have some very Alaskan issues, but first a little
more global.
Again, thank you for all the work you're doing in Haiti and
the impact that we have down there. Can you tell me, just so I
have the number correct, what's our total capacity down there
right now in regards to troops that we have there?
Admiral Mullen. We actually had over 20,000. With the
release of the aircraft carrier Vinson, who actually left her
helicopter capability ashore in Haiti, but with the release of
her we're down to just under 17,000 today.
Senator Begich. Do we have an idea of what the resource
cost has been so far to DOD?
Secretary Gates. It's about $150 million so far.
Senator Begich. Do you have an estimation of what you think
in this budget process that you're planning to expend for the
next year?
Mr. Hale. Well, I am not sure of the duration and length of
this. We estimated $300 to $400 million during the first 30
days, and I think we'll have to revise that depending on how
long we're there and the degree of our commitment.
Senator Begich. Do you have within the budget that the
President has presented the resources to meet that goal?
Secretary Gates. No.
Senator Begich. Okay, that's good. That's what we need to
know.
Secretary Gates. We can cash flow it, but we need to be
repaid.
Senator Begich. Understood.
Mr. Hale. We do have the money right now, thanks to the
committee and Congress, to cash flow it.
Senator Begich. Okay. Do you think and believe you have a
clear mission of what you should be doing Secretary Gates?
Secretary Gates. Yes, I think we do.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. It's very clear and it's in
support of, obviously, first of all the Haitian people, the
Haitian government, the UN mission. We're in support of USAID,
who has also been magnificent in this effort. So it is a
supporting effort specifically.
Senator Begich. Very good. If I can go very quickly on
another subject that Senator McCaskill brought up, on
Oxycontin. The other piece I would like, maybe at another time
for the record, not only what the drug activity in the sense of
distribution, but the efforts for individuals who are trying to
get off of it. I have talked to several soldiers who have had
Oxycontin as their pain management and other things, but now
they're trying to get off it and we have limited resources. So
if you could, maybe for the record, just give me kind of how
that works and what you do for those soldiers that are trying
to now get themselves out of that situation, if you could do
that for the record, Admiral.
[The information referred to follows:]
We have come a long way in identifying and treating substance abuse
in recent years, but our work is not done. The Department continues to
work diligently to assure the appropriate use of pain medications and
prevent their misuse.
Foremost, alternative non-opioid pain treatments are being
developed and used when possible. Physical modalities, non-opioid
adjuvant medications, integrative modalities, and injection and
interventional modalities all provide treatment for pain in some cases
and thus militate against some opioid use.
An excellent example is the Defense and Veterans Pain Management
Initiative (DVPMI). The DVPMI seeks to improve the management of pain
in military and civilian medicine. Through clinical research efforts,
it has become a model for effective integration of acute and chronic
pain medicine. Through the efforts of the DVPMI, peripheral nerve
infusion pumps and patient-controlled analgesia pumps have been
approved for battlefield use and for flights on military aircraft.
The 2010 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary
of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive policy concerning
pain management. The Task Force Report contained numerous
recommendations, and is currently being operationalized into a six
phase Comprehensive Pain Management Campaign Plan that will standardize
and optimize pain management.
Additionally, alternative pain management methods are being
considered which will allow a portion of servicemembers to avoid the
possibility of addiction in many cases where opioid pain medications
would otherwise have been used.
When opioids are the proper choice for patient care, programs and
standards of care are being improved to more effectively manage those
patients. Closely managing patients reduces the likelihood that the use
of opioids will lead to addiction. Efforts to improve the patient
management process include embedding pain physicians in the wounded
warrior clinics. We anticipate that improvements in Health Information
Technology will also reduce duplicative prescribing and dispensing of
medication. This includes tracking beneficiary data for prescription
information and working with civilian organizations on the Prescription
Drug Monitoring Program.
In some cases, a servicemember requires opioids and their use can
lead to addiction. In these cases, there are a variety of treatment
options available. A primary care provider is the first step in a whole
continuum of treatment levels. Patients move through the continuum of
care as more resource intensive treatments may become necessary.
In addition, Military OneSource allows soldiers to receive mental
health counseling. The program leverages civilian resources to prevent
those with addiction issues from failing to seek help.
Senator Begich. Then give me the Iraq status again. We had
how many troops there about a year ago?
[The information referred to follows:]
In February 2009, we had roughly 146,400 military in Iraq: 108,100
Army; 11,100 Air Force; 6,200 Navy; and 21,000 Marines.
Admiral Mullen. Sorry?
Senator Begich. How many troops did we have in Iraq about a
year ago? What was our peak level, do you think? 140?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, I would say 140, 150. We're at 104,000
today.
Senator Begich. 104,000 today?
Admiral Mullen. Right, and the marines are out.
Senator Begich. Then by the end of August, you think we'll
be down to?
Admiral Mullen. About 50.
Senator Begich. 50,000 remaining?
Admiral Mullen. Right.
Senator Begich. Then the other date of next August, where
will we be?
Admiral Mullen. The following year, actually end of 2011,
we'll be out.
Senator Begich. Again to echo what I think you said to
Senator Udall, we're on track?
Admiral Mullen. We are.
Senator Begich. Very good. I'm trying to rapid-fire these,
knowing my time is limited.
In your DOD presentation of the budget, do you still have a
very robust--another issue, separate--alternative, renewable
energy program? I know that's been a big plus, to be very frank
with you, with the military. You have been leaders in this
area. Are you still fairly, in your mind, aggressive in this
arena?
Secretary Gates. Yes.
Senator Begich. Let me now be parochial, as you probably
had anticipated. But first with regards to the GMD, I
appreciate the missile ground defense system and the work
you've been doing in Alaska and the efforts you've done over
the years in kind of transition of what's been going on with
overall missile defense.
The way I understand this is you'll finish off field 2. Do
you have the resources in this budget or do you allocate
utilizing other resources to get to that final completion of
the 12 and then the decommissioning of the 6?
Secretary Gates. That's budgeted for.
Senator Begich. In this cycle?
Secretary Gates. Yes.
Senator Begich. Is there anything beyond even the six
decommissioned? Do you have to budget for that or do you think
you have that also in this cycle?
Secretary Gates. I think it's all in the budget.
Senator Begich. If there is a difference, you'll let us
know?
Climate change, Arctic policy. I know you mentioned it and
you started talking about it within this process, and I think
it's important. There is an issue, and maybe again at a later
time--we have three, the European Command, the Northern
Command, and the Pacific Command that kind of manages it all
together. Is there a process you're going through now to try to
bring some unified command, be it a joint command. How do we
deal with that, because I know that's an issue that keeps
popping up. Are you going through the process now, Admiral?
Admiral Mullen. I think, Senator, we would use the normal
process, which would bring all of that back here certainly from
the combatant commander's standpoint. We do that routinely
across a host of issues. There's no view that I've heard of or
certainly I don't see it from an intention standpoint to create
another command to handle this. But we are looking at the
policy. We actually want to give Thad Allen and the Coast Guard
a lot of credit here because they've actually done great work
and brought it to our attention in the last couple years. We've
moved ahead. We still have a long way to go there.
Senator Begich. My time is up, but that is exactly--you
stated that the Coast Guard's really been hollering out there
at all of us. As you move forward on that, I would love to be
engaged in that. As you're well aware, a huge opportunity, also
potential huge conflicts. So your work there would be greatly
appreciated.
My time is up. I tried to give you a variety pack and you
did a great job.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Begich.
Senator Chambliss is on his way. He has not had a first
round yet. I think maybe we'll just see if anyone has one
question for a second round. I have one, and then I'll see if
others do. Okay, I'll call on you too, Senator Burris.
My question is the following. There was a study that the
Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) did on that alternate
engine for the F-136. My question is: It's now about 3 years
old. They looked at how much was invested, how much would need
to be invested to develop it, what would be the possible
benefits, what would be the costs for that alternate engine. My
question is, will you ask the IDA to update that study, since
we've had a couple of years now of additional investment? Can
you do that, Secretary Gates?
Secretary Gates. Let me take a look at it, Senator, Mr.
Chairman. I don't know why not, but let me get back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Department does not intend to contract with the Institute for
Defense Analyses (IDA) to update their 2007 study. The Fiscal Year 2007
National Defense Authorization Act directed the Department to sponsor a
Federally Funded Research Center (FFRDC) to conduct one of the three
independent studies on the Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system. The
Department selected IDA. The Department's Cost Analysis Improvement
Group (CAIG) was also directed to complete one of the studies. The
Department's Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office,
formerly the CAIG, recently updated their 2007 study to account for
investment in the alternate engine since that time, as well JSF
programmatic changes. The Department is satisfied with the CAPE's
analysis and believes that contracting with an FFRDC to do the same
analysis would not be a prudent use of Department resources.
The Deputy Secretary provided the CAPE's updated analysis to
Senator Levin via separate correspondence.
Chairman Levin. All right. Is there anyone--let's just try
one question for everybody. Senator Burris--well, wait a
minute. Let me see. Senator Collins would be next if you had a
question.
Senator Collins. No.
Chairman Levin. Okay, Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question, gentlemen, goes to the ability of small
contractors to have the opportunity to do business with DOD,
where they may need some type of assistance with their
development project, which I understand that there are millions
of dollars sometimes spent to get a piece of equipment that the
military may need. I have a specific company in mind where it's
been cleared through generals and been authorized, but you
can't get the decision to be made, because we're talking about
saving--this is technical equipment for our space stations and
our drones and other military aircraft. It seems like the
bureaucracy with the bigger companies just seem to charge much
more money and they sometimes try to subcontract or either sub-
contract with these contracts, but this could be sold directly
to the military, but there just seems to be a bureaucracy that
these small companies run into.
Gentlemen, is there some system or device that a small
business can really get an opportunity to sell their product to
DOD, which is a better product and a cheaper product, which
will save taxpayers' dollars?
Secretary Gates. Let me give you an answer for the record
on how we deal with small business, Senator. If you will
provide us with the specifics of the case you have in mind,
we'll look into it.
Senator Burris. Mr. Secretary, I certainly will do that.
Admiral?
Admiral Mullen. If I just could respond briefly, my
experience in this is exactly what you've said, Senator. I
think it's very difficult to get small, innovative, creative
companies into the business. My experience is too often
competing against the bureaucracy, they just can't afford it.
They can't afford the overhead. They don't have the people. It
puts them out of business. So they go too often in the private
sector. There are some great ideas out there. I've seen small
companies go other places, put out of business, or be consumed
by the larger defense contractors.
My engagement with larger defense contractors over the
years has been to try to get them to support these smaller
companies. Some of them have. But it's a real challenge, and I
think it's a shortfall in what we do overall, in our overall
contracting business, if you will, as we try to look to the
future.
Senator Burris. Mr. Secretary, we will get this information
on this small company, because we're talking about saving, if
the numbers are correct, hundreds of millions of dollars.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
If you can just have one question, because we need to take
a 5-minute break here for everybody's sake.
Senator Begich. Mine's very quick. Secretary and Admiral
Mullen, I just want to follow from the comment you made earlier
in regards to I think it was the life cycle of equipment and so
forth and how the procurement process works and how sometimes
the line folks are not engaged in that. I guess the question
is, are you making efforts to change that, because I agree with
you 100 percent, if the line people are not involved you end up
with a product--and a good example might have been the payroll
issue, but I won't go into that. As a former mayor, I dealt
with payroll transformation. It's a nightmare. Is there
something you're working on to make that transition?
Admiral Mullen. I think in the area of acquisition reform,
this is an area of focus. But we have a system right now that
would only allow me to pull something in. It does not come to
me naturally or, quite frankly and more importantly, to the
Service Chiefs naturally, particularly on the acquisition side.
Senator Begich. Are you working to change that?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, I am. But I don't see--I don't see
healthy change coming in that regard in the near future,
because that fundamental principle that was laid out in 1986 in
Goldwater-Nichols that separates us is still there.
Senator Begich. Let us know how we can help. I agree with
you on what you're trying to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
We're going to call just now on Senator Chambliss, Senator
Lieberman. We're going to really break no later than noon here.
We all need a 5-minute break. Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I was not going to get into a discussion on
F-22 particularly. We've been down that road. But when you
responded to Senator McCain's question about why you didn't
discuss the problems with the F-35 when we were having the
debate last summer, your response was that you didn't have the
independent cost analysis that you have now. I thought it was
pretty ironic that the report from the independent commission
came out about 2 days after the vote in the Senate, where the
F-22 in effect was killed. I couldn't understand why you didn't
know about that, didn't know that report was coming.
But really, the 2009 report was simply a validation of
exactly what that same commission reported in 2008. Now, I
assume you knew about the 2008 report and for whatever reason
you didn't give much credence to it. Am I incorrect in that
assumption? Did you not know about the 2008 report from that
independent commission, or did you just seek to ignore it?
Secretary Gates. I honestly don't remember, Senator. The
restructuring of this program has been due not just to the
report of the JET from last fall, but to the time that the
Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
spent on this issue just in the last few weeks, and that's the
reason that the restructuring has only been announced in the
last few days. It's because he completed his investigation, of
which the JET was one part, just within the last couple weeks
or so.
Senator Chambliss. Well, I heard your comment yesterday
about your not intending to in any ways revisit the F-22 issue.
Is that a correct statement?
Secretary Gates. Correct.
Senator Chambliss. That's even in spite of the fact that we
now know that the assumptions that you based your decision on
last year were wrong, that the F-35 is going to slip, and that
your department has no idea of what the cost of an F-35 is
going to be, as we've been told in a hearing by Dr. Carter. Now
it's gotten to the point where I understand you've even
relieved your program manager of his duties as of yesterday on
the F-35.
So you're not going to in any ways revisit that, even
though we're struggling with the issues that we talked about
might come about with regard to the F-35?
Secretary Gates. No, sir, because the IOCs, based on
information that I was given in preparation for this hearing,
the IOCs for the Services, for the arrival of the training
squadron at Eglin, all remain pretty much on track. The
difference will be somewhat fewer aircraft delivered.
Senator Chambliss. Do you intend to allow the expiration of
foreign military sales (FMS) of the F-22?
Secretary Gates. My impression is that that's prohibited by
law.
Senator Chambliss. Well, you've been instructed in the
authorization bill last year that you will do a review of FMS
and the prospect of those sales. There's another independent
commission outside DOD that's also tasked with that. So is that
review not under consideration at this point?
Secretary Gates. I'll have to check, Senator.
Senator Chambliss. Could you get me an answer on that,
please, sir.
Secretary Gates. Sure, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
The report required by section 1250(a)(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 directed the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, and in
consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, to submit a report on
potential Foreign Military Sales (FMS) of the F-22A fighter aircraft.
The report was completed and transmitted to the Defense Committees, the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs on August 26, 2010. Section 1250(c) of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2010 directed the Secretary to contract with a Federally
Funded Research and Development Center to submit an additional report
on the impact of F-22A FMS on the U.S. aerospace and aviation industry.
The Department contracted RAND to complete the report. RAND expects to
complete the report in early 2011.
Senator Chambliss. Let me just ask you a quick question on
the budget. I want to go back to the MRAP that's specifically
designed for Afghanistan. Tell me again about that vehicle?
What's the difference in that and what we're using in Iraq, and
what's the budget difference there?
Secretary Gates. The cost per vehicle is roughly the same
for the ATV and the R-31 MRAP. The MRAP being designed for
Afghanistan is designed to operate off-road, where the MRAPs in
Iraq, designed for Iraq, were designed to operate on the road.
So there's quite a difference in the engineering as well as in
the power train and so on.
Senator Chambliss. Any of those vehicles in Afghanistan
today?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. We probably have somewhere
between 500 and 700 of them now. We're ramping up the
production right now and our expectation is that we'll be
sending in between 500 and 1,000 a month pretty quickly here.
Senator Chambliss. Do you have any idea when that will
begin? Will it begin before the weather warms up?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. Again, we're probably either
this month or next going to be at 500 a month going into the
country.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the witnesses for your service. It strikes me
after 3 hours that we're coming close here to violating your
rights under the Geneva Convention. But I thank you for your
strength as shown here today.
Frankly, seriously, I don't think we've had a better team
than you at DOD in a long time, and I thank you for your
service in every way. I think this is a very good budget.
Obviously, we'll go over it in a series of subject matter
hearings, but I think it meets the needs of our military within
the resources that we have.
I want to ask a question I think hasn't been addressed.
Both of you talked about, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen,
about the proper balance between allocating funds to meet the
unconventional threats we're facing in the war against Islamist
extremism, terrorism, and then being set to meet threats later
on from large potentially peer competitors. Somewhere in the
mix with both of those is Iran, now still the major state
sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to the State
Department.
It seems to me that it is also the most significant threat
multiplier out there if it goes nuclear. We all want to find a
diplomatic way to get the Iranians not to go nuclear. The
Senate passed a very strong sanctions bill last Thursday
unanimously, which goes to conference now and hopefully it will
come back soon.
But I wanted to ask you the extent to which the budget that
you present to us will enable us to deal with this threat. If
Iran goes nuclear, it greatly strengthens their terrorist
proxies, including some that have killed a lot of Americans in
Iraq and are causing some trouble in Afghanistan. It probably
ends the nonproliferation, nuclear nonproliferation regime.
Admiral Mullen, at one point I saw you quoted somewhere a
while ago that said just in the normal dispatch of your
responsibility it's your responsibility to prepare plans for
potential use of military force against Iran regarding nuclear
weapons. Then General Petraeus said something similar recently.
I wanted to ask you if that's the case and how you would
describe that, in what context you would put that preparation?
Admiral Mullen. I put it in the context I think, Senator,
that you laid it out. I think the potential for instability is
still there, that I'm, as many are, hopeful that the engagement
dialogue has legs and actually can produce something. I would
agree with your assessment that them achieving that capability,
it becomes a whole new ballgame in terms of what the down side
potential is. I don't see much upside potential. We certainly
over a long period of time have recognized that and focused on
that. We work contingencies all the time, and it was really in
that context that I was speaking of that.
The President has said, Secretary Gates has said, I've
said, all options remain on the table and certainly the
military is one of them.
Senator Lieberman. Secretary Gates, let me ask you a
different side to this. In recent trips over the last year or
so that I've taken to the Middle East, both to the Arab
countries and to Israel, it seems to me that there is a kind of
increasing military connection in a very positive sense between
ourselves and our allies there. I wonder if you'd comment on
that, and to what extent you see it in relationship to the
current or future Iranian threat?
Secretary Gates. We have made considerable progress over
the past 2 years or so in developing a regional maritime
surveillance, air and missile defense cooperation in the Gulf
region. It is a step at a time. It is in my view clearly
motivated--they are motivated--because of their concerns with
Iran's armaments programs and, leave aside nuclear weapons, the
number of missiles they're building and so on. So we have made
considerable progress in those relationships.
Senator Lieberman. I thank you. My time's up. I know we
want to give you a minute or 2 off. Thank you again.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Lieberman.
That concludes this hearing. The chart I referred to, which
I prepared relative to the Afghan Army, will be made part of
the record. Secretary Gates, we would ask you and Chairman
Mullen to present this chart to your folks, make sure that it's
accurate. If there's any errors in it, please let us know
immediately, and ask General Rodriguez please to provide us the
information that he has committed to provide.
Admiral Mullen, you have your hand up.
Admiral Mullen. Just one for the record, and it's brief. On
Senator Thune's question, he was asking about decommissioning
bombers and in fact what I didn't say was there is
consideration for a reduction in the number of bombers in the
overall START negotiations, which are ongoing and which have
not come to conclusion yet.
Chairman Levin. We will ask his staff to give him that
information.
We're going to recess now for 5 minutes. When we come back,
after opening statements we are going to call on Senators in
the same order that we called on them for the first hearing.
We'll stand adjourned for 5 minutes.
[Recess from 12:03 p.m. to 12:08 p.m.]
Chairman Levin. The committee is now going to receive
testimony from our senior leadership of DOD as we begin the
task of addressing the DADT policy on gays in the military. I
believe that ending the policy would improve our military's
capability and reflect our commitment to equal opportunity. I
do not find the arguments used to justify DADT convincing when
it took effect in 1993 and they are less so now.
I agree with what President Obama said in his State of the
Union address, that we should repeal this discriminatory
policy. In the latest Gallup poll, the American public
overwhelmingly supports allowing gays and lesbians to serve
openly in the military. Sixty nine percent of Americans are
recorded as supporting their right to serve and many in fact
are serving.
As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General John
Shalikashvili said--and he supports ending the policy--``A
majority of troops already believe that they serve alongside
gay or lesbian colleagues.'' One recent study estimated that
66,000 gays and lesbians are serving today, at constant risk of
losing their chance to serve.
Other nations have allowed gay and lesbian servicemembers
to serve in their militaries without discrimination and without
impact on unit cohesion or morale. A comprehensive study on
this was conducted by Rand in 1993. Rand researchers reported
on the positive experiences of Canada, France, Germany, Israel,
and The Netherlands and Norway, all of which allowed known
homosexuals to serve in their Armed Forces. Senator McCain and
I have asked DOD to update the 1993 report.
Ending this discriminatory policy will contribute to our
military's effectiveness. To take just one example, dozens of
Arabic and Farsi linguists have been forced out of the military
under DADT at a time when our need to understand those
languages has never been greater. Thousands of troops, 13,000
by one estimate, have been forced to leave the military under
the current policy. That number includes many who could help
the military complete some particularly difficult and dangerous
missions.
I have long admired the merit-based system of advancement
employed by the U.S. military that allows service men and women
of varied backgrounds to advance to positions of high
leadership. An Army is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy,
where success depends not on who you are, but on how well you
do your job. Despite its necessarily undemocratic nature, our
military has helped lead the way in areas of fairness and anti-
discrimination. It has served as a flagship for American values
and aspirations, both inside the United States and around the
world.
We will hold additional hearings to hear from various
points of view and approaches on this matter. This committee
will hold a hearing on February 11, when we will hear from an
independent panel. The Service Secretaries and Service Chiefs
will all be testifying before this committee during the month
of February on their various budgets, and they, of course, will
be open to questions on this subject as well during their
testimony.
My goal will be to move quickly, but deliberatively, to
maximize the opportunity for all Americans to serve their
country, while addressing any concerns that may be raised. We
should end DADT and we can and should do it in a way that
honors our Nation's values while making us more secure.
My entire statement will be made part of the record. A
statement of Senator Gillibrand will also be inserted in the
record following the statement of Senator McCain.
Senator McCain.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Carl Levin
The committee continues our hearing this afternoon to receive
testimony from the senior leadership of the Department of Defense as we
begin the task of addressing the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy on
gays in the military. I believe ending the policy would improve our
military's capability and reflect our commitment to equal opportunity.
I did not find the arguments used to justify ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' convincing when it took effect in 1993, and they are less so
now. I agree with what President Obama said in his State of the Union
address, that we should repeal this discriminatory policy.
In the latest Gallup poll, the American public overwhelmingly
supports allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans are recorded as supporting their right
to serve--and many are in fact serving. As former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs General John Shalikashvili, who supports ending the policy has
pointed out, a majority of troops already believe they serve alongside
gay or lesbian colleagues. It's hard to know for sure, but one recent
study estimated that 66,000 gays and lesbians are serving today, forced
to hide their orientation and at constant risk of losing the chance to
serve.
Supporters of this policy argue that allowing gays and lesbians to
serve openly would damage unit cohesion and morale, crucial factors in
building combat effectiveness. But there is no evidence that the
presence of gay and lesbian colleagues would damage our military's
ability to fight. Other nations have allowed gay and lesbian
servicemembers to serve in their militaries without discrimination and
without impact on unit cohesion or morale. The most comprehensive study
on this was conducted by Rand in 1993. Rand researchers reported on the
positive experiences of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the
Netherlands and Norway, all of which allowed known homosexuals to serve
in their Armed Forces. Senator McCain and I have asked the Department
to update this 1993 report.
We should end this discriminatory policy because ending it will
contribute to our military's effectiveness. To take just one example:
dozens of Arabic and Farsi linguists have been forced out of the
military under ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' at a time when our need to
understand those languages has never been greater. Thousands of
troops--13,500 by one estimate--have been forced to leave the military
under the current policy. Certainly that number includes many who could
help the military complete its difficult and dangerous missions.
Supporters of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' accuse those who would
change it of trying to impose a social agenda on the military. But at
this point in our history, when gays and lesbians openly work and
succeed in every aspect of our national life, it is the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell'' policy that reflects a social agenda out of step with the
everyday experience of most Americans.
I have long admired the merit-based system of advancement employed
by the U.S. military that allows service men and women of varied
backgrounds to advance to positions of high leadership. An Army is not
a democracy. It is a meritocracy where success depends not on who you
are, but on how well you do your job. Despite its necessarily
undemocratic nature, our military has helped lead the way in areas of
fairness and anti-discrimination, as it did in ending racial
segregation in America. It has served as a flagship for American values
and aspirations both inside the United States and around the world.
We will hold additional hearings to hear from various points of
view and approaches on this matter. This committee will hold a hearing
on February 11 when we will hear from an independent panel. The Service
Secretaries and Service Chiefs will all be testifying before this
committee during the month of February and they will be open to
questions on this subject during their testimony.
Change is always hard, especially when it involves social issues or
personal beliefs. We will proceed fairly, trying to hear varying
opinions. I hope those who favor change will not mistake open and fair
process for undue delay.
My goal will be to move quickly but deliberately to maximize the
opportunity for all Americans to serve their country while addressing
any concerns that may be raised. We should end ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell,'' and we can and should do it in a way that honors our Nation's
values while making it more secure.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen for what's
turning into a very long morning for them. We appreciate your
patience and your input on this very, very important issue.
We meet to consider the DADT policy, a policy that the
President has made clear, most recently last week in his State
of the Union Address, that he wants Congress to repeal. This
would be a substantial and controversial change to a policy
that has been successful for 2 decades. It would also present
yet another challenge to our military at a time of already
tremendous stress and strain.
Our men and women in uniform are fighting two wars,
guarding the front lines against a global terrorist enemy,
serving and sacrificing on battlefields far from home, and
working to rebuild and reform the force after more than 8 years
of conflict. At this moment of immense hardship for our armed
services, we should not be seeking to overturn the DADT policy.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear upfront. I'm
enormously proud of and thankful for every American who chooses
to put on the uniform of our Nation and serve at this time of
war. I want to encourage more of our fellow citizens to serve
and to open up opportunities to do so. Many gay and lesbian
Americans are serving admirably in our Armed Forces, even
giving their lives so that we and others can know the blessings
of peace. I honor their sacrifice and I honor them.
Our challenge is how to continue welcoming this service
amid the vast complexities of the largest, most expensive, most
well-regarded, and most critical institution in our Nation, our
Armed Forces. This is an extremely difficult issue and the
Senate vigorously debated it in 1993. We heard from the senior
uniformed and civilian leaders of our military on eight
occasions before this committee alone. When Congress ultimately
wrote the law, we included important findings that did justice
to the seriousness of the subject.
I would ask, without objection, Mr. Chairman, that a copy
of the statute, including those findings, be included in the
record.
Chairman Levin. It will be.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator McCain. I won't quote all those findings, but three
points must be made. First, Congress found in the law that the
military's mission to prepare for and conduct combat operations
requires service men and women to accept living and working
conditions that are often spartan and characterized by forced
intimacy with little or no privacy.
Second, the law finds that civilian life is fundamentally
different from military life, which is characterized by its own
laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including many
restrictions on personal conduct that would not be tolerated in
civil society.
Finally, the law finds that the essence of military
capability is good order and unit cohesion and that any
practice which puts those goals at unacceptable risk can be
restricted.
These findings were the foundation of DADT, and I'm eager
to hear from our distinguished witnesses what has changed since
these findings were written such that the law they supported
can now be repealed.
Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not, but it has been
effective. It has helped to balance the potentially disruptive
tension between the desires of a minority and the broader
interests of our All-Volunteer Force. It is well understood and
predominantly supported by our fighting men and women. It
reflects, as I understand them, the preferences of our
uniformed services. It has sustained unit cohesion and unit
morale while still allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve
their country in uniform. It has done all of this for nearly 2
decades.
Mr. Chairman, this is a letter signed by over 1,000 former
general and flag officers who have weighed in on this issue. I
think that we all in Congress should pay attention and benefit
from the experience and knowledge of over a thousand former
general officers and flag officers, where they say: ``We firmly
believe that this law which Congress passed to protect good
order, discipline and morale in the unique environment of the
Armed Forces deserves continued support.'' So I think we should
also pay attention to those who have served, who can speak more
frankly on many occasions than those who are presently serving.
I know that any decision Congress makes about the future of
this law will inevitably leave a lot of people angry and
unfulfilled. There are patriotic and well-meaning Americans on
each side of this debate, and I have heard their many
passionate concerns. Ultimately, though, numerous military
leaders tell me that DADT is working and that we should not
change it now. I agree.
I would welcome a report done by the JCS based solely on
military readiness, effectiveness, and needs, and not on
politics, that would study the DADT, that would consider the
impact of its repeal on our armed services, and that would
offer their best military advice on the right course of action.
We have an All-Volunteer Force. It is better trained, more
effective, and more professional than any military in our
history, and today that force is shouldering a greater global
burden than at any time in decades. We owe our lives to our
fighting men and women and we should be exceedingly cautious,
humble, and sympathetic when attempting to regulate their
affairs.
DADT has been an imperfect but effective policy, and at
this moment, when we're asking more of our military than at any
time in recent memory, we should not repeal this law.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Gillibrand follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the
committee, I appreciate your leadership in hosting this important
hearing today.
James Madison once said, ``Equal laws protecting equal rights . . .
the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country.''
Lesbian and gay service men and women have been serving in our
Armed Forces bravely while being denied the full equality they deserve.
Since 1993, more than 13,500 American troops have been discharged from
the military under ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' (DADT), at an estimated
cost of over $400 million. Those discharges include more than 800
specialists with skills deemed mission critical by the U.S. military,
including at least 323 linguists, approximately 10 percent of foreign
language speakers, 59 of which specialized in Arabic, and at least 9 of
which specialized in Farsi, the official language of Iran. Among these
specialists were pilots, engineers, doctors, nurses, and combat medics,
all of which the military has faced shortfalls of in recent years.
These brave Americans were not discharged because of poor
performance, but rather because of their sexual orientation.
According to a recent study by the Williams Institute, an estimated
66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are serving in the U.S.
military. According to data provided by the Department of Defense,
discharges under DADT in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps
declined to 428 in 2009 from 619 the previous year. This represents a
65 percent drop since 2001, the highest number on record.
In a time of war, discharges have decreased, even as anecdotal
evidence strongly suggests larger numbers of lesbian and gay
servicemembers are serving openly. Despite the current law, individual
commanders are deciding to retain otherwise qualified personnel.
Why is this the case? Because the Armed Forces is experiencing
shortfalls in several types of mission-critical personnel, especially
in the midst of fighting ongoing wars, and is losing additional trained
and highly qualified personnel under DADT. It has been estimated that
the U.S. military loses more than 4,000 gay and lesbian military
personnel each year, which it would have otherwise retained, had the
servicemembers been able to be open about their sexual orientation, and
that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is lifted.
Commanders on the ground believe what many of us strongly believe--it's
time to repeal DADT.
In a January 2007 op-ed article published in The New York Times,
General John M. Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
when the policy was enacted, stated that his opinion was that DADT
should be repealed. He argued that due to the U.S. military being
stretched thin by its current deployments in the Middle East, the Armed
Forces need to accept every American who is willing and able to serve.
Last week I was proud to share another statement from General
Shalikashvili, 1 of only 17 people in the country's history to serve as
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calling for an end to this
failed policy. In his statement he said:
``When I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my
support of the current policy was based on my belief that
implementing a change in the rules would have been too
burdensome for our troops and commanders at the time.
``The concern among many at that time, was that letting
people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm
recruitment and undermine unit cohesion. ``DADT'' was seen as a
useful measure that allowed time to pass while our culture
continued to evolve. The question before us now is whether
enough time has gone by to give this policy serious
reconsideration. I believe that it has.''
Twenty-five foreign militaries now let gays serve openly, including
our closest ally, Britain. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee and
I am acutely aware that most of our allies--Israel, Britain, France, 22
of 26 NATO nations in all--allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve
openly and I believe the American military should follow suit. At a
time when our Nation is fighting two wars, and with increased national
security threats, we can ill afford this loss of personnel and talent
in our national defense. Our military is the best in the world. Once
gay and lesbian servicemembers are allowed to serve openly, our
military will still be the best in the world.
As we look at the path that has brought us to this hearing today,
regarding how best to repeal the DADT policy, I am reminded of several
leaders in the fight to allow openly gay servicemembers into the Armed
Forces.
One is then West Point Cadet, Lt. Alexander Raggio. In his 2006
award winning thesis he stated:
``The military should abandon the false acceptance of DADT
and allow the open service of homosexuals immediately.'' He
added, ``Current policy cannot be rationally explained except
as a reflection of the personal prejudices of those who create
and enforce it and, rationalized by faulty logic and double
standards.''
These steps towards equality are our duty. I strongly believe that
equality is an inalienable American right--and should not be ascribed
based on gender or race, religion or sexual orientation or gender
identity. America must lead by example when it comes to equality and
justice. Freedom from discrimination is a basic right that all
Americans should enjoy. Lifting the ban on DADT is not only necessary
for realizing equality, but it's necessary for ensuring that our Armed
Forces remain the best in the world.
Pepe Johnson, a former Sergeant, U.S. Army sums up the moral
imperative on why we have to change this policy. Every day this policy
remains we ask these soldiers to lie about who they are, Pepe said
``Honesty and integrity are everything in the army. I felt if I was
lying, I didn't have it. I wasn't serving with integrity. I felt
trapped. Lying is not the way of the Army--I felt I was violating
regulation.
``During the 3 years I served I only wanted to be all I could be--
to borrow the old recruiting slogan--but DADT forced me to be something
other than what I was. That's not consistent with the Army's Values:
'Leaders are honest to others by not presenting themselves or their
actions as anything other than what they are, remaining committed to
the truth.' (FM 6-22, Army Leadership) As long as DADT exists, there is
a hole in the integrity of the entire military.''
We must recognize that human dignity and respect are part and
parcel of who we were as Americans--male or female, African American or
Caucasian, gay or straight, bisexual or transgender.
We must ensure that our Armed Forces are fully prepared with the
best resources we can muster. DADT is a threat to our men and women in
uniform and our national security. We cannot afford to handicap our
efforts because of ignorance or hatred.
This policy is wrong for our national security and inconsistent
with the moral foundation upon which our country was founded. It is
critically important for this Congress to take up President Obama's
call to permanently end the ban on LGBT Americans serving in our armed
services. We will strengthen America--both militarily and morally--by
repealing this discriminatory policy.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Secretary Gates.
Secretary Gates. Mr. Chairman, last week during the State
of the Union Address the President announced he will work with
Congress this year to repeal the DADT law. He subsequently
directed DOD to begin the preparations necessary for a repeal
of the current law and policy.
I fully support the President's decision. The question
before us is not whether the military prepares to make this
change, but how we best prepare for it. We received our orders
from the Commander in Chief and we are moving out accordingly.
However, we can also take this process only so far, as the
ultimate decision rests with you, Congress.
I am mindful of the fact, as are you, that unlike the last
time this issue was considered by Congress more than 15 years
ago, our military is engaged in two wars that have put troops
and their families under considerable stress and strain. I am
mindful as well that attitudes towards homosexuality may have
changed considerably, both in society generally and in the
military, over the intervening years.
To ensure that DOD is prepared should the law be changed,
and working in close consultation with Admiral Mullen, I have
appointed a high-level working group within DOD that will
immediately begin a review of the issues associated with
properly implementing a repeal of the DADT. The mandate of this
working group is to thoroughly, objectively, and methodically
examine all aspects of this question and produce its finding
and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by
the end of this calendar year.
A guiding principle of our efforts will be to minimize
disruption and polarization within the ranks, with special
attention paid to those serving on the front lines. I am
confident this can be achieved.
The working group will examine a change of lines of study,
all of which will proceed simultaneously. First, the working
group will reach out to the force, to authoritatively
understand their views and attitudes about the impact of
repeal. I expect that the same sharp divisions that
characterize the debate over these issues outside of the
military will quickly seek to find their way into this process,
particularly as it pertains to what are the true views and
attitudes of our troops and their families.
I am determined to carry out this process in a way that
establishes objective and reliable information on this
question, with minimal influence by the policy or political
debate. It is essential that we accomplish this in order to
have the best possible analysis and information to guide the
policy choices before the Department and Congress.
Second, the working group will undertake a thorough
examination of all the changes to the Department's regulations
and policies that may have to be made. These include potential
revisions to policies on benefits, base housing, fraternization
and misconduct, separations and discharges, and many others. We
will enter this examination with no preconceived views, but a
recognition that this will represent a fundamental change in
personnel policy, one that will require that we provide our
commanders with the guidance and tools necessary to accomplish
this transition successfully and with minimum disruption to the
Department's critical missions.
Third, the working group will examine the potential impacts
of a change in the law on military effectiveness, including how
a change might affect unit cohesion, recruiting and retention,
and other issues crucial to the performance of the force. The
working group will develop ways to mitigate and manage any
negative impacts.
These are, generally speaking, the broad areas we have
identified for study under this review. We will of course
continue to refine and expand these as we get into this process
or engage in discussion with Congress and other sources. In
this regard, we expect that the working group will reach out to
outside experts with a wide variety of perspectives and
experience. To that end, the Department will, as requested by
this committee, ask the Rand Corporation to update their study
from 1993 on the impact of allowing homosexuals to serve openly
in the military.
We also have received some helpful suggestions on how this
outside review might be expanded to cover a wide swath of
issues. This will be a process that will be open to views and
recommendations from a wide variety of sources, including of
course members of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I expect that our approach may cause some to
wonder why it will take the better part of a year to accomplish
the task. We have looked at a variety of options, but when you
take into account the overriding imperative to get this right
and minimize disruption to a force that is actively fighting
two wars and working through the stress of almost a decade of
combat, then it is clear to us we must proceed in a manner that
allows for the thorough examination of all issues.
An important part of this process is to engage our men and
women in uniform and their families over this period, since,
after all, they will ultimately determine whether or not we
make this transition successfully.
To ensure that this process is able to accomplish its
important mission, Chairman Mullen and I have determined that
we need to appoint the highest level officials to carry it out.
Accordingly, I am naming DOD General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, and
General Carter Ham, Commander of U.S. Army-Europe, to serve as
the co-chairs for this effort.
Simultaneous with launching this process, I have also
directed DOD to quickly review the regulations used to
implement the current DADT law and within 45 days present to me
recommended changes to those regulations that within existing
law will enforce this policy in a fairer manner. You may recall
that I asked DOD's General Counsel to conduct a preliminary
review of this matter last year. Based on that preliminary
review, we believe that we have a degree of latitude within the
existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that
is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform.
We will now conduct a final detailed assessment of this
proposal before proceeding.
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the committee: DOD
understands that this is a very difficult and in the minds of
some controversial policy question. I am determined that we in
DOD carry out this process professionally, thoroughly,
dispassionately, and in a manner that is responsive to the
direction of the President and to the needs of Congress as you
debate and consider this matter.
However, on behalf of the men and women in uniform and
their families, I also ask you to work with us to insofar as
possible keep them out of the political dimension of this
issue. I am not asking for you not to do your jobs fully and
with vigor, but rather that as this debate unfolds you keep the
impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind.
Thank you for this opportunity to lay out our thinking on
this important policy question. We look forward to working with
Congress and hearing your ideas on the best way ahead.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Gates follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Robert M. Gates
Last week, during the State of the Union address, the President
announced that he will work with Congress this year to repeal the law
known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' He subsequently directed the
Department of Defense to begin the preparations necessary for a repeal
of the current law and policy.
I fully support the President's decision. The question before us is
not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best
prepare for it. We have received our orders from the Commander in Chief
and we are moving out accordingly. However, we also can only take this
process so far as the ultimate decision rests with you, Congress.
I am mindful of the fact, as are you, that unlike the last time
this issue was considered by Congress more than 15 years ago, our
military is engaged in two wars that have put troops and their families
under considerable stress and strain. I am mindful, as well, that
attitudes towards homosexuality may have changed considerably--both in
society generally and in the military--over the intervening years.
To ensure that the department is prepared should the law be
changed, and working in close consultation with Admiral Mullen, I have
appointed a high-level working group within the department that will
immediately begin a review of the issues associated with properly
implementing a repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. The
mandate of this working group is to thoroughly, objectively and
methodically examine all aspects of this question and produce its
finding and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by
the end of this calendar year. A guiding principle of our efforts will
be to minimize disruption and polarization within the ranks, with
special attention paid to those serving on the front lines. I am
confident that this can be achieved.
The working group will examine a number of lines of study, all of
which will proceed simultaneously.
First, the working group will reach out to the force to
authoritatively understand their views and attitudes about the impacts
of repeal. I expect that the same sharp divisions that characterize the
debate over these issues outside of the military will quickly seek to
find their way into this process, particularly as it pertains to what
are the true views and attitudes of our troops and their families. I am
determined to carry out this process in a way that establishes
objective and reliable information on this question with minimal
influence by the policy or political debate. It is essential that we
accomplish this in order to have the best possible analysis and
information to guide the policy choices before the Department and
Congress.
Second, the working group will undertake a thorough examination of
all the changes to the department's regulations and policies that may
have to be made. These include potential revisions to policies on
benefits, base housing, fraternization and misconduct, separations and
discharges, and many others. We will enter this examination with no
preconceived views, but a recognition that this will represent a
fundamental change in personnel policy--one that will require we
provide our commanders with the guidance and tools necessary to
accomplish this transition successfully and with minimal disruption to
the Department's critical missions.
Third, the working group will examine the potential impacts of a
change in the law on military effectiveness, including how a change
might affect unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and other issues
crucial to the performance of the force. The working group will develop
ways to mitigate and manage any negative impacts.
These are, generally speaking, the broad areas we have identified
for study under this review. We will, of course, continue to refine and
expand these as we get into this process or engage in discussion with
Congress or other sources.
In this regard, we expect that the working group will reach out to
outside experts with a wide variety of perspectives and experience. To
that end, the Department will, as requested by this committee, ask the
RAND Corporation to update their study from 1993 on the impacts of
allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. We have also
received some helpful suggestions on how this outside review might be
expanded to cover a wide swath of issues. This will be a process that
will be open to views and recommendations from a wide variety of
sources, including, of course, Members of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I expect that our approach may cause some to wonder
why it will take the better part of the year to accomplish this task.
We looked at a variety of options, but when you take into account the
overriding imperative--to get this right and minimize disruption to a
force that is actively fighting two wars and working through the stress
of almost a decade of combat--then it is clear to us that we must
proceed in manner that allows for the thorough examination of all
issues. An important part of this process is to engage our men and
women in uniform and their families over this period since, after all,
they will ultimately determine whether we make this transition
successfully or not.
To ensure this process is able to accomplish its important mission,
Chairman Mullen and I have determined that we need to appoint the
highest level officials to carry it out. Accordingly, I am naming the
Department of Defense General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, and General Carter
Ham, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, to serve as the co-chairs to for
this effort.
Simultaneous with launching this process, I have also directed the
Department to quickly review the regulations used to implement the
current Don't Ask, Don't Tell law and, within 45 days, present to me
recommended changes to those regulations that, within existing law,
will enforce this policy in a more humane and fair manner. You may
recall that I asked the Department's General Counsel to conduct a
preliminary review of this matter last year. Based on that preliminary
review, we believe that we have a degree of latitude within the
existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more
appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform. We will now
conduct a final detailed assessment of this proposal before proceeding.
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and members of this committee, the
Department of Defense understands that this is a very difficult and, in
the minds of some, controversial policy question. I am determined that
we in the Department carry out this process professionally, thoroughly,
dispassionately, and in a manner that is responsive to the direction of
the President and to the needs of Congress as you debate and consider
this matter. However, on behalf of the men and women in uniform and
their families, I also ask that you work with us to, insofar as
possible, to keep them out of the political dimension of this issue. I
am not asking for you not to do your jobs fully and with vigor, but
rather that as this debate unfolds, you keep the impact it will have on
our forces firmly in mind.
Thank you for this opportunity to lay out our thinking on this
important policy question. We look forward to working with Congress and
hearing your ideas on the best way ahead.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Admiral Mullen.
Admiral Mullen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain,
and thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you
this very important matter.
The Chiefs and I are in complete support of the approach
that Secretary Gates has outlined. We believe that any
implementation plan for a policy permitting gays and lesbians
to serve openly in the Armed Forces must be carefully derived,
sufficiently thorough, and thoughtfully executed. Over these
last 2 months, we have reviewed the fundamental premises behind
DADT as well as its application in practice over the last 16
years. We understand perfectly the President's desire to see
the law repealed and we owe him our best military advice about
the impact of such a repeal and the manner in which we would
implement a change in policy.
The Chiefs and I have not yet developed that advice and
would like to have the time to do so in the same thoughtful,
deliberate fashion with which the President has made it clear
he wants to proceed. The review group Secretary Gates has
ordered will no doubt give us that time and an even deeper
level of understanding. We look forward to cooperating with and
participating in this review to the maximum extent possible,
and we applaud the selection of Mr. Johnson and General Ham to
lead it. Both are men of great integrity, great experience, and
have our complete trust and confidence.
Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my
personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly
would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this
issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have
in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about
who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me
personally, it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals
and ours as an institution.
I also believe that the great young men and women of our
military can and would accommodate such a change. I never
underestimate their ability to adapt.
But I do not know this for a fact. Nor do I know for a fact
how we would best make such a major policy change in a time of
two wars. That there will be some disruption in the force I
cannot deny. That there will be legal, social, and perhaps even
infrastructure changes to be made certainly seem plausible. We
would all like to have a better handle on these types of
concerns and this is what our review will offer.
We would also do well to remember that this is not an issue
for the military leadership to decide. The American people have
spoken on this subject through you, their elected officials,
and the result is the law and the policy that we currently
have. We will continue to obey that law and we will obey
whatever legislative and executive decisions come out of this
debate.
The American people may yet have a different view. You may
have a different view. I think that's important and it's
important to have that discussion. Frankly, there are those on
both sides of this debate who speak as if there is no debate,
as if there is nothing to be learned or reflected upon. I hope
we can be more thoughtful than that. I expect that we will be
more thoughtful than that.
The Chiefs and I also recognize the stress our troops and
families are under, and I have said many times before, should
the law change we need to move forward in a manner that does
not add to that stress. We have two wars going on, a new
strategy in Afghanistan, and remaining security challenges in
Iraq. We're about to move forward under a new QDR. We still
have budget concerns and a struggling economy, and we have a
host of other significant security commitments around the
globe. Our plate is very full, and while I believe this is an
important issue, I also believe we need to be mindful as we
move forward of other pressing needs in our military.
What our young men and women and their families want, what
they deserve, is that we listen to them and act in their best
interests. What the citizens we defend want to know, what they
deserve to know, is that their uniformed leadership will act in
a way that absolutely does not place in peril the readiness and
effectiveness of their military. I can tell you that I am 100
percent committed to that.
Balance, Mr. Chairman, balance and thoughtfulness, is what
we need most right now. It's what the President has promised us
and it's what we ask of you and this body.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Admiral.
So that everyone has a chance within a reasonable period of
time, we're just going to have a 3-minute first round.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, we need more than 3 minutes.
We need more than 3 minutes.
Chairman Levin. We can have a second round then. We have to
also have a schedule here. So we'll go to a second round if we
can fit that into Secretary Gates' schedule. If not, we'll pick
this up at a later time.
Well now, this schedule was shared with everybody here, I
know.
Senator McCain. Not with me.
Chairman Levin. It was indeed shared.
Senator McCain. You're the chairman.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Secretary, the Washington Post I think
this morning reported that the Military Services will not
pursue any longer disciplinary action against gays and lesbian
servicemembers whose orientation is revealed by third parties.
Is that one of the degrees of latitude within existing law that
you're looking at?
Secretary Gates. Mr. Chairman, a preliminary assessment,
which fits within the 45-day review that I mentioned in my
prepared statement, is that we can do the following within the
confines of the existing law. We can raise the level of the
officer who is authorized to initiate an inquiry. We can raise
the level of the officer who conducts the inquiry. We can raise
the bar on what constitutes credible information to initiate an
inquiry. We can raise the bar on what constitutes a reliable
person on whose word an inquiry can be initiated. Overall, we
can reduce the instances in which a servicemember who is trying
to serve the country honorably is outed by a third person with
a motive to harm the servicemember. We also have to devise new
rules and procedures in light of the appeals court decision in
Witt versus the Department of the Air Force for the areas of
the country covered by the appellate court.
So I would say all of these matters are those that will be
reviewed within this 45-day period. So it's a little more
complicated than the Washington Post conveyed.
Chairman Levin. But all of those are possibilities?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Now, would you--assuming that even if it
requires legislation, would you support a moratorium on
discharges under DADT during the course of this up to year-long
assessment that DOD is going to be making?
Secretary Gates. I would have to look into that, because
the problem that we have is that all of the issues that both
Admiral Mullen and I described in terms of what we have to look
into in terms of the effect on the force, in terms of
everything else, is what we need to examine before I could
answer that question.
Chairman Levin. While you're going to be examining the
other points that you're looking at, the other flexibilities,
would you add this to the questions you're going to look at and
let us know promptly----
Secretary Gates. Sure.
Chairman Levin.--as to whether you would support a
moratorium pending this period on discharges? That doesn't mean
you couldn't discharge at the end of the period, but there'd be
a moratorium.
Secretary Gates. We will look at it, Mr. Chairman. I would
tell you that the advice that I have been given is that the
current law would not permit that, but--
Chairman Levin. I'm saying would you support a change in
the current law if necessary in order to permit that. That's
what we need to hear from you on.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. I'm deeply disappointed in your statement,
Secretary Gates. I was around here in 1993 and was engaged in
the debates, and what we did in 1993 is we looked at the issue
and we looked at the effect on the military and then we reached
a conclusion and then we enacted it into law. Your statement is
the question before us is not whether the military prepares to
make this change, but how we best prepare for it.
It would be far more appropriate, I say with great respect,
to determine whether repeal of this law is appropriate and what
effects it would have on the readiness and effectiveness of the
military, before deciding on whether we should repeal the law
or not. Fortunately, it is an act of Congress and it requires
the agreement of Congress in order to repeal it. So your
statement obviously is one which is clearly biased, without the
view of Congress being taken into consideration.
Admiral Mullen, you're the principal military adviser to
the President and you have to consult with and seek the advice
of the other members of the JCS and the combatant commanders.
What in your view are the opinions of the other members of the
Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders about changing this
policy?
Admiral Mullen. Senator McCain, as the chairman indicated
earlier, they'll obviously be out in their posture hearings in
the near future, and I would certainly defer to them in terms
of exactly----
Senator McCain. Well, in the near future I'd like you to
ask them and we could have it on the record what their position
is, in the near future.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
Each of the Service Chiefs and combatant commanders has appeared
before the committee, where they had the opportunity to express their
views. I can tell you that all the Chiefs are concerned with current
combat operations and the associated stress on the force. Given what is
currently being asked of our force and their families, the Chiefs would
all like to better understand the exact nature of the impact of any
repeal of the law. This is why all of us support a comprehensive review
of the issue in order to better advise the Secretary of Defense and the
President.
Senator McCain. I would like it as soon as possible.
Admiral Mullen. Actually, I've worked very closely with
them over the last months in terms of understanding what their
concerns and what our overall concerns are, and I would
summarize them by saying it's really important for us to
understand that if this policy changes, if the law changes,
what's the impact and how we would implement it. Secretary
Gates' point about the study is to really understand
objectively the impact on our troops and on our forces, and
that is their biggest concern.
Secretary Gates. I would say, Senator McCain, I absolutely
agree that how Congress acts on this is dispositive.
Senator McCain. Well, I hope you will pay attention to the
views of over a thousand retired flag and general officers.
Mr. Secretary, what kinds of partnerships or unions would
the military be prepared to recognize by law in the event that
this DADT is repealed?
Secretary Gates. That's one of the many issues that I think
we have to look at, Senator.
Senator McCain. So again, you are embarking on saying it's
not whether the military prepares to make the change, but how
we best prepare for it, without ever hearing from members of
Congress, without hearing from the members of the Joint Chiefs,
and of course without taking into consideration all the
ramifications of this law. Well, I'm happy to say that we still
have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass
the law to repeal DADT despite your efforts to repeal it in
many respects by fiat.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this very important hearing.
I want to acknowledge, Secretary Gates, the work you've
done to put a plan in place. Admiral Mullen, I think the
centerpiece of your statement will be long remembered for the
courage and integrity with which you outlined your own personal
beliefs and how we can proceed.
I'm proud to hail from a region of the country, the Rocky
Mountain West, where we have a live and let live attitude. Some
people would call it small ``l'' libertarianism. People's
personal lives, the choices that people make, are not the
government's business. I can't help but think about a great
Arizonan--I grew up in Arizona. My father was an Arizonan, my
mother was a Coloradan, and I have the great honor to represent
Colorado now. Barry Goldwater once said: ``You don't have to be
straight to shoot straight.'' That's the opportunity that we
have here today as Congress and the Pentagon moves forward.
I have a few concerns I'd like to share in the couple of
minutes that I have, and I'll pepper my comments with questions
and hopefully there'll be time for you to respond. There have
been a lot of studies done, Mr. Secretary, Rand, and there's a
recent study in the Joint Force Quarterly. It's not clear to me
that the study group needs a full year to study the
implementation and transition. I want to just put that out
there.
I want to ensure that the focus of the group is on how to
implement repeal of the policy, not whether, and I want to ask
you to assure me that the end point of the study would be a
road map to implementing repeal, and that Congress would then
be in a position to take legislative action that the Pentagon
as a whole could support.
Before you answer, I'd like your reaction to a legislative
proposal that you may have seen. It would be to write into
repeal legislation the period of time you suggest you need, say
1 year, while legislating that at the end of that time we would
have finality, in other words a complete end to DADT. During
that year-long transition, the DOD would have full authority
and discretion with respect to DADT investigations and
discharges.
Language like this would certainly make me much more
comfortable since I want, and so many others, a clear path to
full repeal, and I'm not sure I see finality in the study.
Again, thank you, gentlemen, and hopefully there's a little
bit of time left for you to answer.
Secretary Gates. I think the purpose of the examination
that we're undertaking frankly is to inform the decisionmaking
of Congress and the nature of whatever legislation takes place.
It's also, frankly, to be prepared to begin to implement any
change in the law. We obviously recognize that this is up to
Congress and my view is, frankly, that it's critical that this
matter be settled by a vote of Congress.
The study is intended to prepare us along those lines so
that we understand all of the implications involved. Frankly,
there have been a lot of studies done, but there has not been a
study done by the military of this, and this is the kind of
thing that Admiral Mullen was talking about.
I would just say with respect to your second point that I
think we would regard--if legislation is passed repealing DADT,
we would feel it very important that we be given some period of
time for that implementation, at least a year.
Admiral Mullen. Senator, if I may, the only thing I would
comment about all the studies and all the polls, I would just
urge everybody that's going to be involved in this, look at
those studies and polls deliberately and what they actually
looked at specifically, and to just reemphasize what the
Secretary said: There really hasn't been any significant
statistically significant and objective survey of our people
and their families. That gets to the Chiefs' concern and mine
as well, which really is engaging them in a way that we really
understand their views on this. That just hasn't been done and,
as urgently as some would like this to happen, it's just going
to take some time to do that.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know this is
an important issue. We need to think it through, and every
American is entitled to fairness and justice as we deliberate
these issues. I do think we should do it at a high level.
I would note, however, a bit of a concern that arises from
something Senator McCain suggested. That is that the President
as the Commander in Chief has announced a decision, and the
Secretary of Defense apparently supports that decision. Admiral
Mullen now has declared that he personally believes in this
decision. So then presumably someone below you will do some
work on the policy, whether this is a good policy or not. So I
guess if it was a trial we would perhaps raise the undue
command influence defense.
I think we need an open and objective and fair evaluation
of this. A lot of things that have been said I would note that
are not accurate, at least in my view, at least misrepresent
certain things. One of them is 10,000 people have been
dismissed from the military or voluntarily left the military
under this provision. But that's over 10 years. It would be 1
percent maybe, if it was 1 year less than that, maybe if it was
1 year less than that, maybe .75 of 1 percent. But over a
decade, it would be one-tenth of 1 percent or less.
Also, there will be costs. I noticed--and I give the
military credit. A lot of people don't know this, Admiral
Mullen, how open the debate and discussion you are. There's an
article in the Joint Forces Quarterly that basically supports
this change. It was an award-winning article, and they raised a
lot of different issues both for and against, and the military
welcomed that. I salute that. I think that's healthy.
But one of the points it made is that Charles Moskos, one
of the original authors of the DADT points out that the number
of discharges for voluntary statements by servicemembers--
presumably, they come forward and say that they are
homosexual--accounts for 80 percent of the total, and the
number of discharges for homosexual acts have declined over the
years. Do you think that's approximately correct?
Admiral Mullen. Senator Sessions, I think it is
approximately correct. But it does go to again sort of a
fundamental principle with me, which is everybody counts. Part
of the struggle, back to the institutional integrity aspect of
this----
Senator Sessions. Well, I know. I appreciate your view.
Admiral Mullen.--and putting individuals in a position that
every single day they wonder whether today's going to be the
day and devaluing them in that regard just is inconsistent with
us as an institution. I have served with homosexuals since
1968. Senator McCain spoke to that in his statement. Everybody
in the military has, and we understand that. So it is a number
of things which cumulatively for me personally get me to this
position.
But I also want to reemphasize what I said, is I am not
all-knowing in terms of the impact of what the change would
have, and that's what I want to understand, and any impact and
understanding readiness and effectiveness is absolutely
critical.
Senator Sessions. Well, it's pretty clear what your view is
and it would be clear on all your subordinates, every single
servicemember in uniform. I don't think that they are required
to lie about who they are. I think that's an overstatement,
although I think the rule of DADT has seemed to work pretty
well.
I would note from the Christian Science Monitor here that
the Chiefs of the Services met with the Chairman, Mike Mullen--
I'm quoting from the article--``and the consensus seemed to be
that, the military fighting two wars and now responding to a
new mission in Haiti, now is not the time to make such a big
change to military policy.'' That's my understanding of the
status of things.
I just hope that as we discuss it you'll recognize first
that Congress has made the decision, it's not yours to make,
and we'll have to change it if we do change it; and second, you
shouldn't use your power to in any way influence the discussion
or evaluation of the issue.
Secretary Gates. Senator, I would just say that we can't
possibly evaluate the impact on unit cohesion, on morale, on
retention, on recruitment and so on, unless we encourage people
to tell us exactly what they think and exactly what their views
are honestly and as forthrightly as possible. Otherwise there's
no use in doing this at all.
Again, I just can't emphasize enough, we understand from
the beginning of this that this must be an act of Congress.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Admiral Mullen. Senator Sessions, for me this is about--
this is not about command influence. This is about leadership,
and I take that very seriously.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Gates, I want to say that I applaud your efforts
in commissioning a thorough evaluation of DADT and how to
implement a repeal of the policy in order to minimize
disruption in military readiness. I was just wondering, within
this study how will you study--how will the study take into
account the views of the combatant commanders in theater in
order to minimize any disruption in the military readiness?
Secretary Gates. The combatant commanders and the Service
Chiefs will all have a part in this. The one thing that I have
asked is that as we go through this process we try to--try not
to disrupt or impact the deployed forces, and particularly
those in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have enough on their minds
and it seems to me we can get the answers that we need to the
questions that need to be asked by not adding to their burden.
So the one limitation I've put on this, which obviously does
not apply to the combatant commanders, is that we try and have
as little impact on the deployed force as possible.
Senator Hagan. Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen, as we move
to end discriminatory practices within our Armed Forces, is
there any reason to believe that the dedication and
professionalism of our leaders in uniform is based in any way
upon your sexual orientation, and that the moral fitness of our
men and women should be based upon their sexual orientation? If
not, then on what grounds do you believe that there remains a
need to discriminate based on a servicemember's sexual
orientation?
Admiral Mullen. Senator Hagan, I personally don't think
sexual orientation, again, has a place for these kinds of
decisions. I actually, I think there's a gap between that which
we value as a military, specifically the value of integrity,
and what our policy is. But again, that's personally where I
am. I think it's really in the review that would take place
over the course of the next--by the end of this year, that I
would look to certainly understand it much more fully,
understand the impact if and when the policy changes, the
impact on our people.
That's really--rather than at the end of this, we're to
some degree at the beginning of really trying to understand
that. That's in light of many other opinions on this, including
the opinions of those who've retired, all those things. But it
really is--what I need to understand is to get it from our
people and their families, and incorporating that in addition
to all the other requirements that are here will be the goal of
the review over the next better part of this year.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, am disappointed with this decision by the
administration. But I'll say this for our two witnesses. They
understand the chain of command. I think we understand that
elections have consequences, and these two gentlemen see their
charge as moving forward with the directives of their
commander. I think Secretary Gates said it explicitly in his
statement: ``We have received our orders from the Commander in
Chief and we are moving out accordingly.''
So we'll have a debate about this and we will appreciate
the information that the Department gathers for us.
Senator McCain referenced in his statement more than 1,000
retired flag and general officers. Actually, I think it's
upwards of 1,160 retired flag and general officers from all the
armed services who have come out against a change in this
policy. For my colleagues, their statement urging continued
support for the 1993 law is contained at
www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com.
I would commend to the members of this committee an op-ed
written by Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a retired four-star general and
former Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, who points out--who
mentions the strong support for the current policy by this
overwhelming number of retired flag and general officers, and
points out that certain findings were made by Congress in
support of the 1993 law to ensure clarity concerning the
rationale behind the current statute. Key findings included
that the primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare and
to prevail in combat, not to promote civil rights or social
justice or compassion or individual fairness, but to prepare
for and prevail in combat.
Further findings include that success in combat requires
military units that are characterized by high morale, good
order and discipline, and unit cohesion; and further, that one
of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit
cohesion, that is the bonds of trust among individuals
servicemembers.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that this op-ed dated January
12, 2010, by General Mundy be included in the record at this
point.
Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wicker. So I appreciate the situation that our two
witnesses find themselves in and I look forward to the debate
and hope that the policy remains.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, let me see if we can review the facts here. This
is obviously quite an emotional issue, but it's also a
legislative issue. My understanding from hearing both of your
statements is this year period that you're going to take in
order to examine the issues will be followed then by clearer
observations about the implications of changing the law. Would
that be a correct way to state it? So you're not coming in here
saying, we're going to change the law and this is the year that
we're going to put into figuring out how to implement the
change?
Secretary Gates. Our hope would be that the information we
would develop during the course of this review would help
inform the legislative process.
Senator Webb. Right. I salute both of you for very careful
statements. Admiral Mullen, I salute you for the courage, for
what you said, but I want to also emphasize that you balanced
that in your statement saying you don't know what's going to
come out of this. We don't know.
What we're looking for here is an examination of the
present law, what is the most damaging aspect of the present
policy? I think, Admiral Mullen, you made a very powerful
statement in terms of the integrity of the individual as your
deciding factor on your personal view.
What is, on the other hand, what's the great value of this
law if we were to do away with it and move into something else?
Again, what are the perils of undoing the law? Where are we
going? Would we know we are going in the proper direction? We
don't. We can't really say that today.
I think that when you say that this is something that will
ultimately be decided by Congress, I'd also like to emphasize
my own agreement with what you have been saying about how
important it is to hear from people who are serving, because
whether the ultimate decision might be here with Congress, that
decision can't be made in a proper way without a full and open
input from all of those who are serving, not just combatant
commanders--family members, people who are in the operating
units.
The way that I am hearing this, which I would agree with,
is that we have a duty here in a very proper way to understand
the impact of this on operating units, to raise the level of
understanding of the complexity of this issue among the
American people and up here, as well as attempting to deal
fairly with this issue.
So again, I salute you both for a very responsible and
careful approach to how we examine this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Webb.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just as was stated by my friend Senator Udall, I think that
a live and let live policy is not a bad policy to adhere to,
and that's what we have in place in the military with DADT
right now.
To you, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, you're in a
tough spot and we understand that. This is an extremely
sensitive issue. Everybody on this committee, I'm satisfied, is
very sensitive to the issue, both inside and outside the
military. In the military, it presents entirely different
problems than it does in civilian life, because there is no
constitutional right to serve in our Armed Forces. Today we
know we have gay and lesbians soldiers serving. They've served
in the past. They're going to serve in the future and they're
going to serve in a very valiant way.
But the primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare
for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Military
life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that
military society is characterized by its own laws, rules,
customs, and traditions, including restrictions on personal
behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
Examples include alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and
body art. If we change this rule of DADT what are we going to
do with these other issues?
The Armed Forces must maintain personnel policies that
exclude persons whose presence in the Armed Forces would create
an unacceptable risk to the Armed Forces' high standards of
morale, good order, and discipline, and unit cohesion. In my
opinion, the presence in the Armed Forces of persons who
demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts
would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high
standards of morale, good order and discipline, and effective
unit cohesion and effectiveness.
I'm opposed to this change and I look forward to a very
spirited debate on this issue, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
I believe Senator Burris is next. Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to extend my deep admiration for our two
distinguished leaders and their position. Not only are you
following the direction of the Commander in Chief, but, Admiral
Mullen, you expressed your personal view, which is to be
commended.
What we need is a policy that allows any individual who has
the integrity and the commitment to serve this country, to
serve this country. We can go back to President Truman, who
took the audacity to integrate the Services. At one time my
uncles and members of my race couldn't even serve in the
military. We moved to this point where they're some of the best
and brightest that we've had, generals and even now the
Commander in Chief is of African American heritage.
So what we are doing here now is not looking at the
integrity and the commitment that individuals can make, not
based on their sexual orientation, but in defense of this
country. I say the policy needs to be changed, the policy must
be changed, and we must have everyone who is capable, willing,
and able to volunteer to defend this country, defend this great
American tradition of ours, to have the opportunity to serve
regardless of their sexual orientation. So based on that, we
must continue to have the American spirit and have individuals
who are willing to serve.
I don't have a question, Mr. Chairman. I just have this
statement. I hope that we will look at legislation. By the way,
the House has drawn up a bill. There are 185 members on this
House bill. It's House Bill 1283 and I'm hoping and praying
that we will get it and move on this issue and not be wasting
the taxpayers' time and all of the energy on something that is
so basic in human rights and opportunities for individuals in
this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Burris.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
unlike my colleagues, I do have some questions rather than just
a statement to ask.
Admiral Mullen, we know that many of our NATO allies allow
gays and lesbians to serve openly and many of these countries
have deployed troops who are serving with us in Afghanistan.
Are you aware of any impact on combat effectiveness by the
decision of our NATO allies to allow gays and lesbians to serve
openly?
Admiral Mullen. Senator Collins, I've talked to several of
my counterparts in countries whose militaries allow gays and
lesbians to serve openly and there has been, as they have told
me, no impact on military effectiveness.
Senator Collins. We've heard today the concern that if DADT
is repealed that it would affect unit cohesiveness or morale.
Are you aware of any studies, any evidence, that suggests that
repealing DADT would undermine unit cohesion?
Admiral Mullen. I'm not. In fact, the 1993 RAND study
focused heavily on unit cohesion and that became the principal
point put forward by the military leadership at the time, and I
understand that. I understand what it is, I understand what
goes into it, and that there are--there's been no thorough or
comprehensive work done with respect to that aspect since 1993.
That's part of what needs to be addressed as we move forward
over this year.
Secretary Gates. I would just underscore that. Part of what
we need to do is address a number of assertions that have been
made for which we have no basis in fact.
Senator Collins. Exactly.
Secretary Gates. We need--the purpose of the review that we
are undertaking is to find out what the force, what the men and
women in our Armed Forces, and, as Senator Webb said, and their
families really think about this. The fact is at this point we
don't really know.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Lieberman is next and then, assuming nobody else
comes in, then Senator McCaskill would be next, and then
Senator Reed. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I opposed the DADT policy when it was created by this
committee in 1993 and I remain opposed to it today. Therefore I
support repealing it as soon as possible. My feeling, stated
simply, then was that what mattered most was not how a member
of the military lived his or her private sexual life, but that
they were prepared to risk their lives in defense of our
country; and that my judgment was that in a combat situation a
member of the military in a tank or an MRAP today is going to
care a lot more about the capability and courage of the soldier
next to them than they are about the sexual orientation of that
soldier, just as over the years, as Senator Burris referred to,
they came to care a lot less about the race of the soldier next
to them than about his or her courage or capability.
Therefore, I'm grateful that the President has said he
supports the repeal of DADT. I thank you, Secretary and
Chairman, for saying that the question now is not whether, but
how, and I think for us really when, we will repeal DADT. Am I
right that what you're telling us today is that what you're
going to do as soon as possible, at least after 45 days, is to
determine how you can reduce the impact of the DADT within the
current state of the law? Is that correct?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. The numbers actually have gone
down fairly substantially. They were about 600 and some in
2008, 428 in 2009. We don't know--I mean, we can't quantify
what the possible changes that I have talked about here, what
impact they would have on that. But at least it would--if we
are able to do something like that, would make these folks less
vulnerable to somebody seeking revenge or whatever their
motives in terms of trying to wreck somebody's career.
Senator Lieberman. Am I correct, just to ask the question
and get it on the record, that your judgment as advised by
counsel is that it requires an act of Congress repealing DADT
for the actual policy itself to be ended in the military? You
can't do it by executive action.
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Lieberman. I wanted to ask you if--I'm sure one of
the reactions to what you announced today will be that this is
a delay. I want to ask you to consider not only the 45-day
limit, but whether you would think about providing regular
reports to Congress, and therefore the public, on the progress
of the study that you're doing during this next year?
Secretary Gates. I don't see any reason why we can't do
that.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that.
Then the final obviously is that it's up to us in Congress
and in the Senate. We have to get 60 votes to repeal DADT or
else it will remain in effect.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Unless there's a provision inside the
defense authorization bill that goes to the floor, which would
then require an amendment to strike it from the bill, in which
case the 60-vote rule would be turning the other way.
Senator Lieberman. It's good. It is with great appreciation
that I accept the higher wisdom of the chairman of the
committee. I think that's a great way to go.
Chairman Levin. That's on the record, everybody.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Joe.
Senator McCaskill is next.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make sure that we're crystal clear about a
couple of things here. First, are gay and lesbian Americans
currently serving in our military?
Admiral Mullen. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. In fact isn't the foundation of the
current policy that we welcome their service?
Admiral Mullen. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. Are you aware of any morale issues or
disciplinary problems surrounding the current service of gay
and lesbian Americans as members of our military?
Admiral Mullen. Certainly not broadly.
Senator McCaskill. Now, I think what you're embarking upon
is important. I think it is welcome. But here's my problem. We
now have established that we have gay and lesbian Americans
serving in the military, that they are not broadly causing any
kind of disciplinary or morale problems, that we welcome their
service.
So the issue isn't whether or not gay and lesbian Americans
are serving in the military. It's whether or not we talk about
it. So how are you going to get their input in this survey?
Admiral Mullen. Actually, my take on that is--well, hang on
a second. [Pause.]
I think that we would have to look very carefully at how we
would do that.
Senator McCaskill. That's the point I would like to leave
you with today, is that unfortunately because of this policy we
welcomed their service. They're serving bravely and well. We
don't have any kind of issues with morale and cohesiveness
surrounding their service. But yet when it comes time to
evaluate their service, they're not allowed to talk about it.
So you have a real challenge in getting perhaps maybe some of
the most important input you may need as you consider this
policy. I'll be anxiously awaiting how you figure that one out.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary Gates. One approach, Senator, is to talk to those
who have been separated.
Senator McCaskill. I think that's terrific. I think the
ones who have been separated would be a great place that you
can get good information. But I don't know that you're going to
be able to get at those that are currently serving, because
obviously they're not going to e able to step forward and talk
bout it. But I agree, Secretary Gates, that's a great place
because so many of them voluntarily separated because of issues
of integrity.
Thank you
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up the point that Senator
Collins made. It was my understanding that both Canada and the
United Kingdom have allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly,
in the case of Canada since the early 90s and Great Britain
since at least early 2000. They are fighting side by side with
us today in Afghanistan, and in fact I would think that we
would like to see more of their regiments and brigades there.
Does that I think suggest, as Admiral mentioned to me
before, that their combat effectiveness has not been impaired
and we've had the opportunity to work with them in joint
operations. Does that add credibility, evidence, or weight to
the discussions that you're undertaking?
Secretary Gates. I think that it is clearly something we
need to address. We need to talk to those countries' militaries
in a more informal and in-depth way about their experience. I
think that their experience is a factor, but I also would say
that each country has its own culture and its own society and
it has to be evaluated in those terms as well.
Senator Reed. I think one of the aspects you referred to in
your prepared remarks is the at least presumptive difference in
terms of the attitudes at different ranks within the military.
Is that something you can comment upon now? Have you done any
research or, Admiral Mullen, can comment about the attitudes
based on age or based on other factors?
Secretary Gates. I think that really goes to the point of
what we need to do in the months ahead. I think Admiral Mullen
would agree that we don't know. We don't have information based
on rank or anything like that.
Admiral Mullen. Anecdotally, it would be my only comment:
There really hasn't been any objective review of this. So I
think it would be too soon to comment, because actually
anecdotally, there are young poeople, noncommissioned officers,
senior officers, on both sides this issue. It gets to this
strongly held views driving this, as opposed to really
understanding objectively what this policy change would mean.
Senator Lieberman. Let me ask a final question, which I
think is implicit in your overall testimony. That is--and this
is rather simplistic, but there will be a decision and then
there will be the implementation of that decision. I would
assume that, at least in part, those have to be coordinated or
referenced, so that part of this discussion and analysis going
forward is not only a decision, but it's also about how this
policy would be implemented in a very detailed fashion. That
would be something that would be available to Congress before
they made the decision, or can you comment at all about that
aspect?
Secretary Gates. Let me just start by saying, sure, because
one of the things that we will look at is, if there is a
problem with unit cohesion, how would you mitigate it? How
through training or regulations or other measures do you--if
Congress were to repeal the law, then how would we implement
it, just as you say. Part of our review process is, as we look
at the different aspects of it, what are the problem areas that
we're going to see and how do we address those?
As I said in my statement, it's everything from base
housing to various policies and regulations and so on. All of
those have to be addressed.
Admiral Mullen. For me, Senator, it's understanding the
impact. It is then in that understanding that speaks in great
part to potential implementation, and that then really goes to
the core of where I am on this, which is leadership. So I mean,
understanding that and they are integral to each other, impact
and implementation, then says to me, Mullen, here's how you
lead this, this is what you need to do to move through it if
the law changes.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Just briefly following up Senator Reed and Senator Collins'
point about other militaries, and Senator Reed's point that our
military is fighting side-by-side and with militaries who do
not have a discriminatory policy against open service by guys,
have you noticed any impact on our troops who serve with
Canadians or with Brits because of a British or Canadian policy
that allows gays to openly serve? Admiral?
Admiral Mullen. Since these wars started in 2003, it has
not been brought to my attention that there's been any
significant impact of the policies in those countries on either
their military effectiveness or our ability to work with them.
Chairman Levin. I have to make one comment on a suggestion
that somehow or other, Admiral, you were simply following
orders here of your Commander in Chief, who's made a decision,
in your testimony this morning. I think your testimony was not
only eloquent, but it was personal. You made it very clear that
you were reflecting your personal view, which you are obligated
under the oath you take to give to us. We thank you for that,
and I thank you not just because it happens that I agree with
what you said, but more importantly because you are required to
give us a personal view, and it was clear to me and I think
clear to most of us that this was a view that you hold in your
conscience and not giving to us because you were directed to by
anybody, including the Commander in Chief.
This statement of yours in my judgment was a profile in
leadership this morning. It's going to take a great deal of
leadership to have this change made. I hope it is--the sooner
the better, as far as I'm concerned. But with the kind of
leadership you've shown this morning, I think it's very doable,
hopefully in a short period of time.
One other comment and that has to do with what can be done
in the interim--you're going to be looking at that--without
legislative change. Secretary, it's my understanding that when
servicemembers are discharged under DADT with an honorable
discharge, that DOD policy now is that they only receive half
of their separation pay which is authorized by statute. You're
authorized to either get half or full pay. Would you take a
look at that as something we can do in the interim here to
indicate a greater sense of fairness about this issue.
You're sitting there quietly, Senator Udall. I should have
asked, do you have a final question?
Senator Udall. No, thank you.
Chairman Levin. I thank you both. It's been a long hearing
this morning and we very much appreciate you, the men and women
that serve with you and your families. We will stand adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
tactical signals intelligence/electronic warfare
1. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, it has been brought to my
attention that during operations in Afghanistan, U.S. forces enter
areas believed to be infiltrated by the Taliban and, because of the
widespread availability of cell phone and satellite phone technology,
their efforts to capture the enemy are thwarted when lookouts provide
early warning of their approach. What efforts can be undertaken to
provide readily available, comprehensive, and continuous support to
defeat this enemy capability? Please provide a detailed response (in
classified form, if necessary).
Secretary Gates. [Deleted.]
2. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, it has also been brought to my
attention that during operations in Afghanistan, U.S. forces have had
to rely on physical searches of caves and other dangerous areas to
locate Taliban propaganda radio stations. What capabilities exist to
locate and defeat these facilities, and are they sufficiently deployed
to prevent these facilities from operating? Please provide a detailed
response (in classified form, if necessary).
Secretary Gates. [Deleted.]
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance programs
3. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, the current ability of the Air
National Guard (ANG) to perform its Incident Awareness and Assessment
(IAA)/Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) mission to
support law enforcement, counter-narcotics, weapons of mass destruction
response, search and rescue, border and maritime security, and National
Security Special Events requirements within the United States has been
degraded due to the transfer of 6 of the 11 ANG RC-26 aircraft to
support Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) as an enduring U.S.
Central Command (CENTCOM) requirement. These transfers, combined with
maintenance and upgrade requirements, have reduced the number of
available aircraft in the Continental United States to as few as one
operational aircraft at times. What efforts are underway to
reconstitute this domestic capability?
Secretary Gates. No timeline has been established for the return of
the six RC-26 aircraft supporting OCO in the CENTCOM area of
responsibility. Although I do not expect the RC-26 to be permanently
deployed, I anticipate the aircraft will maintain a prolonged presence
in theater to help offset the current airborne full motion video
shortfall.
The ANG is nearing completion of a capabilities based analysis that
will identify domestic requirements for a fixed-wing aircraft with
capabilities similar to those on the RC-26 (results expected in May
2010). This analysis will provide a basis for which the U.S. Air Force
and ANG can better identify and fill domestic incident awareness and
assessment requirements.
4. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, are sufficient ISR assets
currently dedicated to U.S. Africa Command? Please explain (in
classified form, if necessary).
Secretary Gates. [Deleted.]
medical evacuation
5. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, the progress being made in
Afghanistan by the United States in connection with minimizing the time
between battlefield injury and arrival at a facility with surgical
capabilities is admirable, and the performance of our medical
evacuation and combat search and rescue crews can only be described as
heroic. Are you committed to maintaining the current standard in
Afghanistan as additional forces are deployed and operations spread
over a larger geographic area?
Secretary Gates. [Deleted.]
6. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, several of our North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies also provide medivac support in areas
occupied by U.S. forces. What efforts are underway to shorten the NATO
90-minute standard for medical evacuation from the battlefield?
Secretary Gates. Less than a year ago (June 18, 2009),
International Security Assistance Force Command (COMISAF) issued
Fragmentary Order 318-2009 (Reassessment of Medical Evacuation
(MEDEVAC) timelines) reducing the NATO standard for MEDEVAC timelines
from 120 minutes to 90 minutes. COMISAF also directed that the regional
commands conduct assessments to determine whether service personnel are
receiving appropriate and expedient medical care. General McChrystal's
goal is for medical treatment to be made available to all assigned
forces of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)/U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan (USFOR-A) within 60 minutes of receipt of the medical
request. The current COMISAF MEDEVAC plan is based on the 60-minute
standard, and includes aircraft necessary to meet this timeline.
Additionally, the Departments of Defense and State continue to
encourage our Allies and partners to invest in additional helicopters
and the associated technology required for MEDEVAC in adverse
conditions, as well as to drop those caveats that preclude currently
deployed airframes and aircrew from responding in a timely manner.
7. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, I have been informed that certain
NATO allies have caveats on their medical evacuation aircraft that
limit their support during certain times of the day and under certain
battlefield conditions. When U.S. combat forces operate in these areas,
they are often required to provide their own medical evacuation
capabilities because of the NATO 90-minute standard and the caveats on
their operations. What is being done to remedy this issue?
Secretary Gates. Seven nations currently have caveats on MEDEVAC
missions that include minimum night vision goggle illumination
requirements, dust limitations, constraints on flying in mountainous
terrain, requirements for landing zones to be secured, or have higher
headquarters approval processes. Although the Departments of Defense
and State consistently appeal to ISAF nations to remove operationally
restrictive caveats, we are realistic that limitations in training,
budgets, and political desire will preclude all caveats being dropped.
Therefore, as part of the President's increase in forces to
Afghanistan, a Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) is being deployed in RC-
North to provide, among other missions, timely MEDEVAC coverage.
Additionally, General McChrystal has directed regional commanders to
ensure that all Allied service personnel receive appropriate and
expedient medical care, ideally within 60 minutes of receipt of a
MEDEVAC request.
To support achievement of the goal of 60 minutes for our service
men and women, in June 2009 I issued a memorandum to Commander, U.S.
CENTCOM directing him to achieve medical evacuation parity between
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, with the
standard for both theaters at 60-minute mission completion time. I
further instructed General Petraeus to improve MEDEVAC response times
in Afghanistan by:
(1) establishing procedures to expedite MEDEVAC mission launches
without having to wait for approval;
(2) creating a process to identify, analyze, and report all
MEDEVAC missions that take longer than 60 minutes;
(3) reviewing existing MEDEVAC approval and launch procedures
across Afghanistan;
(4) directing USFOR-A to review ISAF/NATO procedures and Standard
Operating Procedures, and making recommendations to ISAF for
streamlining current requirements; and
(5) requiring all U.S. forces in the USCENTCOM to review and
understand existing MEDEVAC procedures.
8. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, the fiscal year 2011 budget
request supports creation of two CABs. What is the timetable for
standing up these units?
Secretary Gates. The 12th Active Component CAB, currently
designated the 16th CAB, is planned to be fully operational by 2012.
The majority of the personnel requirement for this CAB already exists,
as this formation was consolidated utilizing existing aviation force
structure. Some personnel growth is required to grow the headquarters
for an assault battalion, an aviation support battalion, and the
brigade headquarters; the spaces required for these formations were
resourced in Total Army Analysis 12-17 (TAA 12-17).
The Army Staff will present a recommendation for stationing
location and timelines for the 13th Active component CAB to the
Secretary of the Army (SecArmy) and Chief of Staff, Army (CSA) in late
May 2010. There are multiple courses of action affecting the
recommendation for the final stationing timeline which are dependent on
available military construction, equipping and production line
capabilities. Once the SecArmy and CSA have made their final stationing
timeline decision we will be able to provide Congress with an expected
timeline and final stationing locations for these units.
9. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, will priority be given to the
standup of the associated medivac companies to support combat medical
evacuation in Afghanistan?
Secretary Gates. [Deleted.]
10. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, what procurement is planned for
fiscal year 2011 to ensure that these units are able to be fielded as
rapidly as possible?
Secretary Gates. One of the two CABs is being reorganized from
existing aviation force structure and will not require additional
procurements. The second CAB is being built incrementally as manning
and equipment become available. Fiscal year 2011 procurement includes 4
CH-47F helicopters, 16 UH-60M, and 2 HH-60M MEDEVAC helicopters.
11. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, of the UH-60M aircraft proposed
for procurement in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011, how many will
be allocated to replace the aging fleet of UH-60A aircraft currently
being used for medical evacuation?
Secretary Gates. Due to a growth in medical evacuation requirements
across the Army, the Army projects that it will not start replacing UH-
60A aircraft with HH-60M aircraft until fiscal year 2015. Prior to
fiscal year 2015, the HH-60Ms that the Army procures will fill the new
requirement for additional MEDEVAC aircraft.
12. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, the Afghanistan mission of the
aging fleet of combat search and rescue aircraft has been expanded to
include medical evacuation. This means that the direct combat support
role of these HH-60 aircraft and the associated wear and tear on these
aircraft has been dramatically increased. How many additional HH-60
aircraft will be procured in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 to
replace existing combat search and rescue aircraft?
Secretary Gates. The Air Force is purchasing four HH-60 aircraft in
fiscal year 2010 and the fiscal year 2011 budget requests the purchase
of three additional HH-60 aircraft during fiscal year 2011. There are
an additional three aircraft identified in the fiscal year 2011 OCO
request.
13. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
have placed a dramatic strain on the UH-60 aircraft. What is the
principal factor limiting the acquisition of new aircraft to support
the UH-60 mission: production capacity, cost, lack of available or
appropriate alternative aircraft, or some other reason?
Secretary Gates. The Army is committed to procure UH-60M aircraft
as part of the Army's overall plan to modernize the UH-60 Blackhawk
Fleet. The UH-60 fleet is the largest helicopter fleet in the U.S.
Army. The Army manages its UH-60 fleet modernization using Army force
generation requirements to meet operational demands. There are no
constraints to acquire the full number of aircraft required within
budgeted resources. The maximum UH-60 production capacity has not been
exceeded and the Army is procuring over 70 UH-60M aircraft each year
through fiscal year 2015 for a total of 451 aircraft.
improvised explosive device defeat
14. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, in Afghanistan, the largest
percentage of U.S casualties is being suffered directly from the
employment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by enemy forces. What
is the status of your review regarding IED defeat in Afghanistan and
when can forces on the ground expect to see additional support?
Secretary Gates. We have a number of very forward-leaning efforts
underway to try and deal with the challenge of IEDs. Last November, I
asked the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and
Logistics (AT&L) and the Joint Staff, Director of Operations (J-3), to
co-chair an effort focused on integrating Counter-IED programs across
the Department of Defense (DOD). They made a number of recommendations,
most recently to significantly enhance long-term full motion video
platforms like aerostat blimps. In addition to this larger integration
effort the theater commanders increased their requirement for Mine-
Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles, particularly the MRAP all-
terrain vehicles. There is an additional requirement that is funded, or
reflected in the OCO request, for approximately 10,000 more MRAPs--
6,600 of those will be the all-terrain version that is designed
specifically for Afghanistan. Another important step has been to work
collaboratively with the Government of Afghanistan to ban ammonium
nitrate, the ingredient in the most prevalent IEDs in Afghanistan.
Afghan National Security Forces and the coalition are aggressively
pursuing smuggling networks that bring ammonium nitrate into the
country to be used for making IEDs.
rapid prototyping and acquisition capability
15. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, as you know, when a requirement
is received from the battlefield, it is almost always a current
requirement. However, the defense acquisition process is not set up in
such a way to facilitate immediate or near-term fulfillment of these
requirements. In many cases, these requirements can be met immediately.
In other cases, minor modifications to existing technologies can be
made. In past wars, when the United States was less dependent on
contractor support, these modifications could be made on the fly, often
in the theater of operations. Similar requirements are being developed
today. However, because of the current force structure and requirements
process, these modifications or off-the-shelf requirements languish
while our forces remain at risk. What efforts are currently underway to
develop rapid prototyping and rapid acquisition capabilities and
centers to address these requirements as quickly as possible?
Secretary Gates. Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom
clearly demonstrated the importance of developing a Departmental
structure capable of rapidly responding to urgent warfighting needs. To
respond to these urgent requirements, the Department has created
several organizations that work with the Services to provide rapid
prototyping and rapid acquisition. The Joint IED Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO) and the Rapid Fielding Directorate (RFD) within the Director
of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) are indicative of flexible
organizations focused on expeditiously addressing the Joint urgent
operational needs of our warfighters. When necessary, I have also
formed task forces to quickly respond to emerging threats, such as the
MRAP and the ISR Task Forces. Additionally, each of the Services and
the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) have developed rapid
acquisition processes to respond to Service-specific urgent needs.
Rapid prototyping and rapid acquisition have enabled the Department
to develop and field the all-terrain version of the highly successful,
MRAP vehicle. The MRAP program made excellent use of rapid prototyping
and rapid acquisition to accelerate schedules and deliveries of this
lifesaving, highly effective vehicle. Additionally, within the last 6
months, the Department has used the Joint Capability Technology
Demonstration (JCTD) Program to rapidly develop and demonstrate
persistent ground surveillance technologies that will directly benefit
U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. The success of this recently accelerated
JCTD (Persistent Ground Surveillance System (PGSS)) will deliver
increased force protection and persistent surveillance sensors and
command and control. The rapidly developed and procured Distributed
Tactical Communication System now permits remote forces to stay in
contact with friendly forces. The Transnational Information Sharing
Cooperation (TISC) JCTD's ``All Partners Access Network'' is enabling
U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to coordinate with non-governmental
organizations, coalition and interagency partners in support of Haitian
disaster relief. Each of these systems was rapidly developed to respond
to Warfighter and humanitarian assistance needs in less time than
conventional defense systems.
As I have previously stated, stability and counter-insurgency
missions require 75 percent solutions over a period of months. The
Department is infusing innovative thinking and flexibility into its
sometimes rigid procurement processes and adapting our policies and
organizations to rapidly meet today's threats to servicemembers and
missions.
special operations
16. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, it has come to my attention from
a variety of sources that U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) in
Afghanistan do not have sufficient medivac, manned ISR platforms, and
dedicated air assets. As a result, forces are at increased risk. What
is being done to remedy this situation?
Secretary Gates. Deployed SOF in Afghanistan currently have
sufficient medevac resources to support current operational
requirements.
Personnel training is the biggest factor limiting how fast DOD can
deliver more manned ISR platforms to Afghanistan. Training pipelines
for ISR operators and intelligence analysts are operating at maximum
throughput to operate and employ newly acquired hardware, and DOD
continues to ensure proper numbers and placement of analysts to
effectively collect, analyze, and exploit intelligence data.
To address the current need for battlefield mobility, one
additional MH-47 will be delivered to Afghanistan in May, and two
additional Chinooks will arrive in December 10 and June 11,
respectively. Additionally, five CV-22s deployed in April to support
SOF mobility requirements in Afghanistan, to include vertical lift. DOD
is also accelerating delivery of CV-22s to better support the forces
requiring them, and the Department anticipates adding five more CV-22s
to the fleet in the coming year. Additionally, Program Objectives
Memorandum (POM) initiatives will grow SOCOM's helicopter fleet by
eight MH-47 Chinooks by fiscal year 2015, and SOCOM's CV-22 Osprey
fleet will grow from the current 12, to 50 by 2016.
17. Senator Byrd. Secretary Gates, when can these units expect to
receive additional support? Please provide a detailed response (in
classified form, if necessary).
Secretary Gates. Deployed SOF in Afghanistan currently have
sufficient medevac resources to support current operational
requirements.
Personnel training is the biggest factor limiting how fast DOD can
deliver more manned ISR platforms to Afghanistan. Training pipelines
for ISR operators and intelligence analysts are operating at maximum
throughput to operate and employ newly acquired hardware, and DOD
continues to ensure proper numbers and placement of analysts to
effectively collect, analyze, and exploit intelligence data.
To address the current need for battlefield mobility, one
additional MH-47 will be delivered to Afghanistan in May, and two
additional Chinooks will arrive in December 10 and June 11,
respectively. Additionally, five CV-22s deployed in April to support
SOF mobility requirements in Afghanistan, to include vertical lift. DOD
is also accelerating delivery of CV-22s to better support the forces
requiring them, and the Department anticipates adding five more CV-22s
to the fleet in the coming year. Additionally, POM initiatives will
grow SOCOM's helicopter fleet by 8 MH-47 Chinooks by fiscal year 2015,
and SOCOM's CV-22 Osprey fleet will grow from the current 12, to 50 by
2016.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
foreign language development strategic plan
18. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) recently reported that while DOD is developing a foreign
language development strategic plan, DOD doesn't know when it will be
finished. In the absence of an approved plan, it will be difficult for
DOD to guide the Services as it develops its approach to foreign
language and regional proficiency transformation. Furthermore, it will
be difficult for DOD and Congress to assess progress toward a
successful transformation. Do you have an estimate as to when DOD will
issue a strategic plan?
Secretary Gates. The Department is nearing completion of its
strategic plan for language skills, regional expertise, and cultural
capabilities. We anticipate its release by late summer of 2010.
19. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, how will this plan address the
development of foreign language skills for all servicemembers to better
perform warfighting and non-warfighting activities?
Secretary Gates. The strategic plan, built on the foundation laid
in numerous strategic documents, will address the development of
foreign language skills by focusing on identifying needed capabilities
and requirements of the combatant commands and Defense Agencies. The
plan will also outline specific steps how to build these capabilities
into the Department.
The strategic plan is designed to provide a comprehensive,
systematic, and actionable way ahead. The plan's vision statement,
goals, objectives, and tasks will focus on building and enhancing
language skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities as vital
enablers for the Department to shape and respond to national security
issues. The desired result will be the institutionalization of language
skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities across the
Department and the generation of a globalized force, with the right
combination of skills and in the right numbers, equipped with the
capabilities needed to meet the diverse operational needs of the 21st
century.
asia-pacific region readiness
20. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, it is impossible to overstate
the importance of our military engagement in the Asia-Pacific region.
It's obvious that there are many challenges in this area, given the
administration's emphasis on this vital region. If one looks at
continuing developments in the Pacific, our conventional adversaries
are getting better and it is critical we maintain our superiority in
the region. Given the many demands on the defense budget and the unique
mission and environment we have in the region, how does DOD's fiscal
year 2011 budget impact our military readiness in the Pacific region?
Secretary Gates. The fiscal year 2011 budget request supports the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) which identifies the unique mission
and environment of the Pacific Region. The United States has been a
Pacific power for more than a century. The vast distances of the
Pacific and the low density of U.S. basing and infrastructure there
place a premium on forward stationed and forward-deployed U.S. forces.
We seek to sustain and strengthen our Asia-Pacific alliances and
partnerships to advance mutual security interests and ensure
sustainable peace and security in the region, while also promoting
contributions by our allies and partners to global security. Toward
this end, the fiscal year 2011 budget request supports augmenting and
adapting our forward presence, which reassures allies of the U.S.
commitment to their security. At the same time, we will encourage our
allies and partners to enhance their roles in security and in regular
multilateral security cooperation within the region to build trust,
increase transparency, and reduce the risks of crisis or conflict.
u.s.-pakistan military engagement
21. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, you were recently quoted in a
speech at the Pakistan National Defense University that rebuilding
relationships with this generation of Pakistani officers--who have had
little or no interactions with the American military--cannot be done in
just a few months. Rather, it will take years--requiring openness,
transparency, and, above all, continuous engagement on both sides. What
is U.S. and Pakistan progress in this area and how we can improve?
Secretary Gates. Critical relationships are built through many
aspects of DOD's engagement program. For example, under the
International Military Education and Training (IMET) program and the
Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP), DOD brings Pakistani
officers into U.S. Professional Military Education (PME) programs,
where they and their families can gain an appreciation for the United
States and its citizens that pays dividends long after the officers
return to Pakistan. Within Pakistan, the best examples are the training
and equipping activities that U.S. forces carry out every day in
various locations throughout the country-coaching, teaching, mentoring,
and enabling soldiers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and officers.
These opportunities, and the progress achieved through them, are
difficult to quantify because they are based on the complexity of
personal contacts and commitment; nonetheless, the progress is quite
real. As an example, from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010,
Pakistan IMET funding rose from $2.3 to $5.0 million, which supported
132 Pakistani students in fiscal year 2009 and is forecasted to support
197 students in fiscal year 2010. We continue to seek to expand
opportunities for such interchanges through IMET and other avenues.
Where DOD has built such relationships, the PAKMIL leaders with whom
DOD interacts have allowed us to expand our training and assistance,
teach PAKMIL forces far more sophisticated tactics, and the
fundamentals of Military Intelligence. Conversely, in those places and
with those PAKMIL units where we are still struggling to build such
relationships, there has been far less progress.
The primary organization that engages the Pakistani Military
(PAKMIL) on a continuous basis is the Office of Defense Representative
Pakistan (ODRP) in Islamabad, Pakistan. This joint military
organization, led by the three-star flag officer who also commanded our
Humanitarian Relief efforts after the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan,
provides the direct, military-to-military engagement for U.S. CENTCOM
and DOD.
ODRP's ongoing efforts to strengthen and enable the PAKMIL's
ongoing combat operations against violent extremist organizations are
fundamentally based on the establishment and nurturing of personal
relationships with a broad range of PAKMIL officers and servicemembers.
The ``trust gap'' that divides our countries and our militaries is
quite real, and will take years to overcome. By focusing on personal
relationships, DOD has learned that it can still create opportunities
for real progress in achieving DOD's goals to improve the PAKMIL's
skills in conducting counterinsurgency operations and strengthening its
defense capabilities.
We also utilize the DOD's Near East South Asia (NESA) Center's
initiatives, which host Pakistani military officers and familiarize
them with U.S. political values, governmental structures, policymaking
processes, and policies related to South Asia and other regions of
special interest to Pakistan. These initiatives are another essential
piece in building the U.S.-Pakistan military relationship.
electronic health record systems
22. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 required DOD and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to accelerate their exchange of
health information and to develop capabilities that allow for
interoperability (generally, the ability of systems to exchange data)
by September 30, 2009. It also required compliance with Federal
standards and the establishment of a joint interagency program office
to function as a single point of accountability for the effort. In a
January 2010 report, the GAO noted that the DOD-VA interagency program
office is not yet positioned to function as a single point of
accountability for the implementation of interoperable electronic
health record systems or capabilities. In addition, GAO also stated
that if the program office does not fulfill key management
responsibilities as GAO previously recommended, it may not be
positioned to function as a single point of accountability for the
delivery of future interoperable capabilities, including the
development of the virtual lifetime electronic record. What is the
status of the virtual lifetime electronic record?
Secretary Gates. Following the President's announcement of April 9,
2009, DOD and VA accelerated efforts already underway to develop an
approach to achieve the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER). On
August 21, 2009, the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs
endorsed a development approach for VLER's health component, leveraging
the Federal Health Architecture's Nationwide Health Information Network
(NHIN) concept and standards. The VLER approach is multi-phased. The
initial two phases will aid in defining additional pilots and the VLER
implementation timeline, which is anticipated to occur in six month
increments.
A VLER Pilot in San Diego was implemented on January 30, 2010. The
San Diego Pilot participants were DOD's Naval Medical Center San Diego,
VA's San Diego Medical Center, and Kaiser-Permanente. They demonstrated
the use of the NHIN to exchange a selected set of data elements of a
``Continuity of Care'' document. Kaiser Permanente is a contract
provider for VA, but not for DOD in the San Diego area, so DOD had no
shared patients with Kaiser Permanente. Lessons learned from the San
Diego Pilot are being incorporated into the next Pilot in Tidewater,
Virginia.
Subsequent phases of VLER will include additional VA and DOD sites,
live patient information, expanded data domains, different document
types, and the ability for additional civilian sector partners to
participate. VLER will build on the San Diego Pilot data set and expand
it initially to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, the VA Medical Center
Hampton, and private sector partners in the Tidewater/Hampton Roads
area in Virginia. The target date for activation of Phase 1b is July
31, 2010. The hospitals at Fort Eustis and Langley Air Force Base will
be incorporated into the pilot after the initial activation. The
Departments anticipate selecting additional sites for implementation by
January 31, 2011.
23. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, what is your assessment of the
progress being made and what are your thoughts on how the DOD and VA
should proceed?
Secretary Gates. The Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans
Affairs (VA) are making substantial progress with electronic health
record (EHR) systems. Historically, their respective systems existed in
mutually exclusive lifecycles, with DOD serving beneficiaries from
accession until retirement or separation and VA providing services from
that point forward. Each Department's EHR capability evolved to meet
functional requirements, mission-specific and shared. Each Department
also developed a system to obtain clinical information from private
providers of purchased care.
The historical EHR model is evolving as the Departments collaborate
on and deliver health information technology solutions that improve the
secure sharing of electronic benefits, personnel, and health
information. Today, DOD and VA share more health information for
clinical use than any other two health organizations in the Nation.
Each Department has real-time access to the other's health data on more
than 3.5 million shared patients, including over 173,300 patients who
are in theater. Further, since 2001, DOD has securely shared 1.6
terabytes of data on over 5.0 million patients using the Federal Health
Information Exchange initiative. Shared data includes patient
demographic data, medication and allergy data, laboratory results,
radiology reports, discharge summaries, consult reports, and health
assessments.
Today, each Department is modernizing its EHR capability and
migrating from outdated legacy technologies to enable more rapid,
flexible, and scalable responses to evolving national health care and
computer industry standards. Common requirements will be treated as
opportunities to consider common capabilities. A disciplined process
for reviewing and identifying potential opportunities for shared
acquisition or development is in place to ensure that shared efforts
support the effective execution of each Department's medical mission.
The end-to-end lifecycle of health care will become a seamless process.
The Departments' efforts coincide with the movement to national
standards led by the Department of Health and Human Services. As the
Nation develops an increased capability for health information exchange
using the Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN) portfolio of
services, DOD and VA are developing a Virtual Lifetime Electronic
Record (VLER) that will employ NHIN services. Over time, VLER will
become the primary method for DOD and VA to exchange clinical
information with each other and with purchased care providers in the
private sector. Until then, legacy system interoperability will be
maintained.
futenma airbase
24. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, there has been growing concern
over a possible delay of the implementation of the move of the Futenma
Airbase on Okinawa's remote east coast. Japan has said that it needs
more time to consider the base's future following recent elections.
What is your assessment of the situation and how does DOD plan to
proceed?
Secretary Gates. I recognize that implementing the Futenma
realignment agreement has been a challenge. The process has spanned
three U.S. administrations and multiple Japanese cabinets.
Prime Minister Hatoyama has stated that he intends to resolve the
issue by May. I look forward to resuming work with the Government of
Japan to fulfill our longstanding mutual objective of realigning our
force posture in Japan to ensure that the Alliance's operational
capabilities remain sustainable politically and operationally.
don't ask, don't tell
25. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, in the President's State of the
Union speech, he said he will work with Congress and the military to
repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). DOD has a lot on its plate, from
fighting two wars, supporting contingency operations in Haiti, to
trying to build and maintain the best military force in the world in a
fiscally constrained environment. What are the men and women in uniform
telling you regarding this issue?
Secretary Gates. As I announced in my statement previously before
this committee, I have appointed a high-level Working Group within the
Department to review the issues associated with properly implementing a
repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Over the course of the next
8 months members of the Working Group will meet with a wide array of
individuals of all Services, ranks, ages and assignments, officers and
enlisted, to seek their advice, opinions, and concerns regarding a
repeal and how it should be implemented.
26. Senator Akaka. Admiral Mullen, a repeal of DADT will have an
effect on many levels of the military. As a former commander, you have
had to deal with how changes in policy have affected those under your
command. It has been argued that a repeal could present some very
complicated issues in the daily lives of our military. It has also been
said that these resulting changes could affect morale and discipline in
the ranks. Have you had the opportunity to talk to military leaders of
our allies who allow individuals to serve in their militaries
regardless of sexual orientation? Please provide comments on anything
that you have learned from them.
Admiral Mullen. I am familiar with the militaries of a number of
countries, typically western-style democracies, that have lifted the
ban on homosexual conduct. I have spoken with the chiefs of many of
these militaries. Their experiences are informative, but as the
Congressional Research Service notes, we must be careful in making
comparisons to other militaries. Our military is uniquely American,
shaped by our unique national experience. I want to understand the
range of issues repeal presents within our forces, and how those issues
might be managed.
That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive review of the issue
to better understand the dynamics of any repeal.
suicide prevention conference report
27. Senator Akaka. Admiral Mullen, suicide prevention is difficult
and challenging. There have been a lot of people in the Services and
the VA who have worked diligently on this issue. The Services have
experienced a rise in the number of suicides since the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq started. There is a need to understand suicide,
look at the causes, and get to a point where we can prevent it. I would
like to request a report on the results of the recent DOD/VA 2010
Suicide Prevention Conference. In particular, what follow-up actions
are to be required from the two departments, as well as what is the
timeframe which specifies the goals and actions that are to be
achieved?
Admiral Mullen. The 2010 DOD/VA Suicide Prevention Conference,
Building Strong and Resilient Communities, was attended by
approximately 980 people from DOD, VA, the Services, and other Federal
and civilian agencies. The conference was hosted by the Suicide
Prevention and Risk Reduction Committee (SPARRC), which is chaired by
the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and
Traumatic Brain Injury and VA and also includes representatives from
DOD, the Services, and other Federal agencies. The conference
demonstrated the progress DOD and VA have made in suicide prevention
efforts, but also identified six key areas that need additional
attention, including families; dissemination of resources; postvention
activities; reducing stigma; building resilience; and additional
research. Postvention refers to all activities after a suicide event.
The SPARRC members and its partners will continue to collaborate this
year to address some of the most pressing suicide prevention issues as
highlighted during the conference.
The conference identified the need for additional outreach,
training, and education for families. Families should be viewed as the
first line of defense in recognizing the signs and symptoms associated
with suicide risk. SPARRC has formed a family subcommittee, which
includes representatives from the Services, National Guard, and
Reserves to focus on the needs of families, such as outreach,
education, and training. During the course of calendar year 2010, the
subcommittee will identify the most pressing needs of family members
and provide recommendations on how SPARRC can best address those gaps.
The subcommittee held its first meeting in March 2010 and will provide
recommendations to the SPARRC in December 2010.
The dissemination of resources and tools to servicemembers,
veterans, and families is another area that requires additional focus.
Many innovative resources and tools currently exist, but
servicemembers, veterans, families, and clinicians need to be aware of
and have access to them. Populations in rural areas, particularly as it
pertains to the National Guard, Reserves, and veterans are especially
difficult to reach. One of the top priorities this year is to launch
the SPARRC website. This website will serve as a ``clearinghouse'' for
suicide prevention resources and practical tools for servicemembers,
veterans, families, and clinicians. It will also create a collaborative
space and allow for further improvement of dissemination and sharing of
resources. An easily accessible web-based location for resources will
ensure servicemembers, veterans, families, and clinicians know where to
go for help and have access to critical resources no matter where they
are located.
The conference emphasized the need for consistent postvention
activities within DOD. To address this issue, SPARRC has formed a
working group to draft a DOD policy memo on postvention activities.
Members of the working group will include representatives from the
Services, National Guard, Reserves, VA, other Federal partners, as well
as civilian organizations. The group will leverage existing postvention
initiatives and best practices to develop a policy applicable to DOD.
The working group expects to have a draft completed by September 2010.
First hand testimonies from the conference emphasized the
importance of seeking help, support and treatment. Stigma remains a
toxic threat to access to care and needs to be eliminated. SPARRC and
its partners will continue working to proactively transform culture
through public education campaigns such as Real Warriors
(www.realwarriors.net), the Marine Corps ``Cover Me'' video, and
numerous other efforts to reduce stigma and encourage help-seeking
behaviors to prevent suicide. Reducing stigma is an ongoing effort that
DOD and VA will engage in throughout year.
The conference also demonstrated the importance of engaging leaders
at all levels to proactively mitigate risk through building resilience.
The second highest priority highlighted by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff's strategic guidance for 2009-2010 states, ``we will
focus on Health-of-the-Force by considering holistically how to better
prepare our force and care for our people.'' Development of a Chairman
of Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) is currently underway to
address Total Force Fitness based on the CJCS's guidance. The estimated
completion date for the CJCSI is fiscal year 2011.
Finally, the conference highlighted the need for additional
research and evidence-based models. The RAND Corporation conducted a
study to identify state of the art suicide prevention practices. This
effort was discussed at the conference and the results will be
disseminated by May 2010. The Department will continue to engage in
other research efforts to inform suicide prevention efforts throughout
the DOD.
SPARRC and its partners will work aggressively this year to
accomplish these initiatives, but also recognize that suicide
prevention is an ongoing effort. Continued collaboration between SPARRC
members will ensure completion in a timely manner. Further, the SPARRC
will facilitate communication and dissemination of emerging knowledge
and tools through sustained outreach to military line leaders, health
care professionals, family members, and communities.
28. Senator Akaka. Admiral Mullen, DOD has made significant
progress caring for our military heroes with mental health issues. But,
before we can care for them, we must first identify them. One of the
biggest issues we must address is reducing the stigma related to
seeking counseling. You recently stated at the DOD/VA Suicide
Prevention Conference last month that the stigma still exists among
servicemembers. It is imperative to get the message to our warriors
that it would be courageous to reach out for help. How would you assess
DOD's continuing efforts to tear down the stigma that still deters many
from seeking treatment for problems such as Traumatic Brain Injury and
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and what do we need to do as we move
forward?
Admiral Mullen. Current DOD-wide resilience and anti-stigma
initiatives are focused on research and evaluation of the range and
effectiveness of military resilience programs, to include, the Real
Warriors Campaign to combat stigma, to increase servicemembers
awareness of and encourage use of resources, utilization of the Warrior
Resilience Conference to enhance and integrate core principles, DOD/
Federal programs development and utilization, promoting leadership in
health and well-being, and providing practical tools for units and
colleagues.
Information on DOD Wide Real Warriors Campaign program is provided
in attachment one. Although the Services do not have individual anti-
stigma campaigns, anti-stigma efforts are reflected at all levels of
their programs (see attachment two) including imbedded psychological
health providers in personnel communities and primary care clinics (to
avoid concern about seeking behavioral health services from the medical
community), removal of personal information in psychological heath
utilization reports to leadership, confidential counseling services,
lower stigma options for seeking care for issues such as sleep
difficulties rather than mental health, and many other new initiatives
delivered within the units, aleviating stigma concerns.
Finally, and most importantly, a robust series of evaluation
initiatives are underway to provide objective measurement of the range
and effectiveness of resilience programs in the military. These
evaluation efforts are outlined in detail in the third attachment.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
readiness funding concerns
29. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the fiscal
year 2011 budget materials request an 8.5 percent increase in Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) funding from last fiscal year's budget. The
budget materials claim to rebalance the force. Yet without a decrease
in operational tempo, force readiness continues to be consumed as
quickly as it is created. How does this request rebalance the force if
the lack of readiness in our nondeployed forces continue to cause
significant risk to our National Military Strategy?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. In the absence of force cuts,
DOD needs real growth to sustain its operations because some major
programs grow faster than inflation--for example military health and
readiness requirements.
Sustains air, ship, and land forces operations
Increased fuel costs
Interoperable communications
Intelligence and security activities
Information, surveillance, and reconnaissance
activities
The DOD also made significant progress to shift the financing of
enduring programs from the OCO budget to the base budget. Adds were
made to the base program for flying hours, servicemember and family
support, intelligence, and special operations previously funded through
OCO.
Also DOD faces higher operating costs for more sophisticated
weapons--e.g., stealth materials and technologies require more
expensive maintenance.
Depot maintenance for land forces equipment, ships,
and aircraft
Related contract logistics support
Training costs associated with more sophisticated weapons are
higher.
Advanced skills training such as flight training
30. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, is the reset
funding request for fiscal year 2011 sufficient and when will we begin
to see a return on its investment in reset in terms of improved
readiness?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The Department's reset funding
request of $21.3 billion is sufficient, based on an examination of
individual military Service requests, reconciled with the
administration's ground rules for items acceptable for inclusion in
reset funding. This amount will cover requirements for replenishing
ammunition and missile stocks expended in operations and training,
replacement of equipment lost in battle or worn beyond economic repair,
and maintenance activities based on scheduled need. If funding is
provided as requested, the Department will maintain the highest level
of readiness that is achievable, but readiness levels are dependent on
other Overseas Contingencies Operations funding as well, such as
Military Personnel, O&M to maintain operating tempo levels, and Force
Protection funding, to mention a few.
31. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, would
additional reset funding restore readiness levels sooner and what are
the anticipated reset costs for the out-years?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The Department's reset funding
request of $21.3 billion is sufficient for fiscal year 2011, based on
an examination of individual military Service requests, reconciled with
the administration's ground rules for items acceptable for inclusion in
reset funding. It is anticipated that reset funding will be needed for
at least 2 years after the contingencies end. The Department will
assess the need for future reset funding based on force levels in the
theater of operations, as well as specific equipment battle losses and
damage as those are incurred. Outyear funding requirements are not
precisely known at this time, as they are dependent on those
circumstances, as well as the timing of eventual force drawdown.
32. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to what
extent has DOD evaluated the impact of sending additional forces to
Afghanistan on overall force readiness?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Through our quarterly Global
Force Management Board (GFMB) process, the Department routinely
evaluates the impact and risk associated with force sourcing before the
decision to allocate additional forces is approved. Furthermore, as a
major component of the Chairman's Readiness System (CRS), the Joint
Combat Capabilities Assessment (JCCA) process evaluates our ability to
execute plans based on our current force posture and readiness. In
turn, the Joint Staff examines and evaluates the results of the JCCA
process and reviews force readiness on a quarterly basis through the
Joint Force Readiness Review (JFRR).
33. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, how confident
are you that the supplemental request will or will not be sufficient to
cover all costs, considering the disaster assistance currently being
provided to Haiti by our military forces?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Based on the current force
assumption, the fiscal year 2010 OCO supplemental request will be
sufficient assuming congressional support for a Haiti supplemental. The
Department is requesting a supplemental of $655 million to support
operations in Haiti. The Haiti supplemental includes $400 million to
reimburse the Component's for Haiti operations and $255 million for the
Overseas Humanitarian Disaster Assistance and Civilian Assistance
(OHDACA).
34. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what is the
plan to recoup those costs which are currently being taken out of O&M?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The Department is requesting a
supplemental of $655 million to support operations in Haiti. The Haiti
supplemental includes $400 million to reimburse the Services for funds
that were transferred from the O&M appropriation to the OHDACA
appropriation for the Haiti operations. It also includes $255 million
for the OHDACA to cover the costs for DOD's humanitarian support to
Haiti and other contingencies that are affected by natural disasters.
reset/reconstitution and readiness in afghanistan
35. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, as DOD begins
to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, the Army and Marine Corps have
been adjusting their plans to redeploy equipment from Iraq. Some of
this redeploying equipment, which was scheduled to return to the United
States, is now being redirected to units headed to Afghanistan. In
addition, we understand that some forces will move directly from Iraq
to Afghanistan. How is DOD handling the reset of this equipment to
original capability before it goes into Afghanistan?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The equipment directly
transferred from Iraq to Afghanistan is combat-ready and is being
transferred without going through a reset event. The transferred
equipment is primarily Theater Provided Equipment (TPE) that units
deploying to Afghanistan will fall in on. Use of TPE reduces
transportation requirements, a particularly important consideration for
supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. In rare cases based on
operational need, some units were transferred from Iraq to Afghanistan
with serviceable, combat-ready organizational equipment and TPE. Some
equipment items, such as MRAPs, are being reconfigured to meet
operational requirements and repaired as required en route to
Afghanistan at an in-theater facility; however, this is not a reset
event. As most TPE has been in theater for more than 6 years, the
Services anticipate higher than normal wash-out rates as well as
increased repair costs in future years. The organizational equipment
assigned to units redeploying from Iraq to home station will be reset
as appropriate after return.
36. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what are the
cost implications for reset/reconstitution given increases in troop
levels and new platforms such as MRAP vehicles and Multipurpose All-
Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs)?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The Department will assess the
need for future reset funding based on force levels in the theater of
operations each year, as well as specific equipment battle losses and
damage as those are incurred. Equipment Reset costs will be more
dependent on equipment already in theater that will be scheduled for
maintenance cycles and possible replacement, than the presence of new
platforms such as MRAPs and M-ATVs. Outyear funding requirements are
not precisely known at this time, as they are dependent on those
circumstances, as well as the timing of eventual force drawdown and
equipment return to the continental United States (CONUS).
37. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what
additional training is being provided to those forces that will move
directly into Afghanistan from Iraq?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The combatant commander and
joint service provider of forces transitioning from Iraq to Afghanistan
is responsible for ensuring those forces receive any required
Afghanistan specific training prior to assignment to that area. Core
competency training associated with the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility
(AOR) and the Request For Forces (RFF) requested capability(ies) has
previously been completed by those forces already deployed to Iraq.
Afghanistan specific training will be provided based on RFF
requirements and can include but not be limited to Rules of Engagement
(ROE), cultural training, enemy threat briefs, detention procedures,
medical and casualty evacuation (MEDEVAC/CASEVAC) procedures, and other
force protection measures. Additional training and briefings on various
Afghanistan command directives such as the July 2009 ISAF headquarters
(HQ ISAF) tactical directive will also be incorporated into individual
and unit training requirements as required.
38. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, is there
sufficient basing in Afghanistan to handle the additional troops, and
given the logistical challenges in Afghanistan, has DOD synchronized
the arrival of troops with their equipment, and if not, what is the
operational impact?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. A. The basing in Afghanistan
will have to expand in order to handle the additional troops the
President ordered, but U.S. CENTCOM and U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-
A) have structured a plan to send Engineers in early to build
additional Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) and expand existing FOBs to
accommodate the additional forces prior to their arrival. As for
synchronization, CENTCOM and U.S. Transportation Command conducted
planning conferences in December and again in late January. These
planning conferences refined requirements for personnel and associated
equipment and developed a phased transportation plan to ensure
synchronized force build up. The Global Force Management process is now
closely managing the deployment of those forces to arrive in country at
virtually the same time as their equipment, so the troops are not
waiting without their equipment.
B. I agree with what Secretary Gates said. I think it is important
to realize, the basing standard we are building to is the Initial
Standard, which is expeditionary, with our troops living in austere
conditions utilizing unit organic tentage, with force protection and
basic life support services provided but not much more. Our intent is
to improve the facility infrastructure over time to a Temporary
Standard. In order to improve the sustainable living environment of our
forces, we have asked for some Military Construction (MILCON) funds to
facilitate these improvements and appreciate your continued support in
these efforts. To the question of phasing, the forces are arriving in
three phases and the engineers are timed to arrive in time to prepare
FOBs for the troops arriving for the next phase. The FOB construction
and expansion plans are on track and the additional 30,000 troops the
President ordered will be closed by the end of August this year as
planned. Finally, I would just note that the Department continues to
improve synchronized force flow through prudent planning and expanded
air, road and rail routes across Europe and Central Asia, routes also
known as the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). The NDN augments
other well-established routes running through Pakistan and is an
important part of our capacity and synchronization solutions.
earmarks
39. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, every year our committee
receives letters from Senators requesting earmarks. While we have taken
significant steps to increase earmark transparency to the general
public, the process for evaluating and which to support has essentially
remained the same over the years. As a result, in order to support a
few earmarks we must make funding cuts in other areas to meet budget
resolution top line requirements and the President's budget request.
Unfortunately, cuts sometimes take additional risk in DOD's O&M
accounts. How can you help us better determine what earmark requests
are in line with real military value or requirements and what are
simply wasteful spending?
Secretary Gates. What you are asking essentially is for assistance
in cutting the President's defense budget request in order to fund
earmarks that we did not request. Your question acknowledges that
earmarks cause additional risk in DOD's O&M accounts, and that is what
I would underscore. If certain earmarks have some military value, that
does not alter the fact that those earmarks would displace genuine,
higher priority requirements in our request. When our DOD leaders
formulate each year's budget request, we always have to omit certain
requirements because they cannot be accommodated in a constrained
topline. Each year's budget request includes our most pressing military
needs, and cuts to the request increase the risks for our current and
future warfighters.
40. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, in your opinion, what would
constitute a valid member request?
Secretary Gates. In my opinion, the program needs to have military
value to the Department and be a priority of the administration. The
budget request that the President submitted for fiscal year 2011
reflects the most pressing needs of our military warfighters that could
be accommodated within the constrained Defense topline. Any action by
Congress to reduce the budget request for Defense to fund programs not
requested by the adminsitration increases the risk for current and
future warfighters.
41. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, from your experience, how would
you characterize the additional risks are we accepting to military
readiness by making cuts in O&M accounts?
Secretary Gates. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request
balances our needs, including O&M accounts, to secure and advance U.S.
security interests around the world. Reduction to any appropriation
account increases the risks of not being able to meet our mission
requirements. The fiscal year 2011 budget supports our force structure
requirements and will sustain our readiness levels. Should significant
cuts be made to operating budgets, readiness goals will be put at risk.
full disclosure budget
42. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, in last week's issue of Defense
Daily, retired Pentagon senior budget analyst, John King, proposed a
``full-disclosure budget, where all parties can see the real military
requirement backed by quantifiable rationale, the budget plan, and any
gap created by affordability or other development or acquisition delays
. . . To re-channel all the misspent pork war energy, DOD can set up a
show-and-tell office, where companies, research institutes, and
universities can bring their ideas and proposals. DOD conducts a hard-
nosed evaluation of how the proposal adds military value and fits into
the budget plan.'' This process would be open to the public as well.
What is your take on this idea and how feasible is it?
Secretary Gates. A full disclosure budget is feasible, and that is
exactly what DOD uses. So this proposed process is essentially already
used and is not a new idea. Every DOD budget request is backed by
quantifiable rationale to justify the military requirements being
funded. Our budget plans or presentations discuss development or
acquisition delays, or affordability issues. And companies, research
institutes, and universities have full access to bring their ideas and
proposals in response to DOD requests for proposals (RFPs).
______
Questions Submtited by Senator Mark Begich
energy security
43. Senator Begich. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, over the
course of the past several years, DOD has engaged in a number of
initiatives to increase its energy security. Energy security is
critical to national security. How important do you believe it is for
DOD to achieve energy security and what specific steps is DOD taking to
get there?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. It is critical that the
Department achieve energy security. The U.S. military's reliance on oil
and other fossil fuels poses four broad security challenges. The first
is the growing risk to operating forces. Attacks on our supply lines in
Afghanistan and Iraq are increasingly sophisticated and effective,
resulting in a growing number of casualties. The ability of potential
adversaries to attack our fixed energy supplies and delivery forces
will continue to improve. In short, our fuel inefficiency endangers our
troops and threatens our missions.
A second challenge is the insecurity of the global commons. Most
petroleum products are transported by sea, and much of this trade
passes through vulnerable chokepoints such as the Straits of Hormuz and
the Straits of Malacca. The free flow of energy through these vital
channels may be threatened by piracy, political instability, or
military action. Thus, fuel inefficiency is a strategic as well as a
tactical threat.
A third challenge has to do with oil supply, demand, and price
volatility. Tightening global oil supplies and political instability
within some oil-producing nations created significant price volatility
in recent years, raising our costs and making budget and acquisition
decisions more difficult. The challenge will increase as the growing
demand for energy--particularly in Asia--outstrips projected oil
production and refining capacity.
A final challenge is grid vulnerability. The Department's reliance
on a fragile commercial grid to deliver electricity to its 500-plus
installations places the continuity of critical missions at risk. Most
installations lack the ability to manage their demand for and supply of
electrical power and are thus vulnerable to intermittent and/or
prolonged power disruption due to natural disasters, cyber attacks, and
sheer overload of the grid. Because of U.S. combat forces' increasing
reliance on ``reachback'' support from installations in the United
States, power failures at those installations could adversely affect
our power projection and homeland defense mission capability. For
example, the Department operates Predator drones in Afghanistan from a
facility in Nevada and analyzes battlefield intelligence at data
centers here at home. This means that an energy threat to bases at home
can be a threat to operations abroad.
The Department has made meaningful progress in addressing energy
security, though we have much more to do. In keeping with the
requirements of the 2009 NDAA, I have created the Office of Director
for Operational Energy Plans and Programs. The President has nominated
Sharon Burke to head this new Directorate, and I hope the Senate will
confirm her very soon. The Military Departments are standing up their
energy offices as well and they are developing detailed strategic
plans. The Service Secretaries have also made energy a high priority.
For example, in October, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced a set of
ambitious new goals to boost the energy efficiency of the Navy and the
Marine Corps. His plans include fielding a completely sustainable
carrier strike group (nuclear vessels and ships powered by biofuel),
dubbed ``the Great Green Fleet,'' by 2016, and producing half of the
Navy's installation energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020.
Secretary Mabus also stated recently that energy-related costs will
become a greater consideration in Navy acquisition decisions. We have
seen how the vulnerability of logistics forces, coupled with a huge
demand for fuel, creates an operational risk that must be reduced. As
Congress has directed, I will develop and implement the Energy Key
Performance Parameter in the requirement development process and the
Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel in the acquisition process to help drive
down this risk to forces and the cost of assuring operational energy
security.
With respect to fixed installations, under my direction the
Department has pursued a two-part investment strategy that is designed
to: (1) reduce the demand for traditional energy while (2) increasing
the supply of renewable energy sources. In addition to the Department's
military construction budget, financing for these investments has come
from our Energy Conservation Investment Program, Energy Savings
Performance Contracts and mechanisms such as Enhanced Use Leases, and
Power Purchase Agreements.
Efforts to curb demand--through conservation measures and improved
energy efficiency--are by far the most cost-effective way to improve an
installation's energy profile. A large fraction of energy efficiency
investments go to retrofit existing buildings; typical retrofit
projects install high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and cooling
(HVAC) systems, energy management control systems, new roofs, and
improved lighting. The Department is also taking advantage of new
construction to incorporate more energy efficient designs, material and
equipment, using LEED Silver standards as a guide. From 2005 to 2008,
DOD reduced the energy intensity of facilities by 11 percent through
conservation and investment in energy efficiency.
On the supply side, military installations--which are large and
disproportionately located in the southwest and on our coasts--are
well-situated to support solar, wind, geothermal and other forms of
renewable energy. For example, Nellis Air Force Base in southern Nevada
built a 14-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar array using a public-
private partnership. The military's interest in renewable energy is
nothing new. Naval Air Weapons Center China Lake in California has been
operating a 270-MW geothermal plant since 1987. The Department
renewable energy goal is to produce or procure 25 percent of energy
from renewable sources by fiscal year 2025.
The assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, and the Office of the Director for
Operational Energy Plans and Programs are also leading an effort on
grid-related energy security relative to DOD operations. The purpose is
to ensure DOD's critical missions continue unimpeded during
interruptions in grid power and to inform the interagency and industry
on DOD's needs related to grid-supplied power.
44. Senator Begich. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, how does
the budget and the QDR budget reflect a move towards energy security?
Please describe in detail.
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The recently released QDR makes
clear that crafting a strategic approach to energy and climate change
is a high priority for DOD.
To achieve operational energy reductions, the Department tripled
investment in energy security technology over the last 4 years, from
$400 million to $1.2 billion. DOD is investing to improve the
efficiency of aircraft engines, which account for a large fraction of
all operational energy consumption. One promising project is the Highly
Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine, based on a high-pressure ratio,
high-temperature core turbine technology that should reduce fuel
consumption by 25 percent and also be applicable to commercial
aircraft. The Army is developing technology to reduce the fuel
consumption of tactical ground vehicles such as the High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) by 30 to 40 percent in the future.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is spending
$100 million on an 18-month project to develop affordable algae-based
synthetic fuels. DOD is testing a more advanced approach within the
Net-Zero Joint Concept Technology Demonstration program that would
allow a FOB to create all the power it needs within its own perimeter
fence--largely through renewable energy. The demonstration is hosted at
the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA. Generators used to
provide HVAC at FOBs are another major consumer of operational energy.
In 2008, DOD began spraying insulating foam on tents, trailers and
other temporary structures in Iraq, and later Afghanistan, with
significant results. Estimates of the fuel saved for heating and
cooling in these structures are approximately 50 percent. In one
demonstration, DOD insulated 9 million square feet of temporary
structures and reduced daily fuel demand by an estimated 77,000
gallons, which can translate to 13 fewer trucks convoying fuel each
day. Once confirmed, the Director for Operational Energy Plans and
Programs will lead the creation of a DOD-wide Operational Energy
Strategy setting priorities and informing how the Department addresses
energy in its core planning, requirements, acquisition, and budgeting
processes.
With respect to fixed installations, the Department is pursuing a
two-part investment strategy that is designed to: (1) reduce the demand
for traditional energy; and (2) increase the supply of renewable energy
sources. In addition to the Department's military construction budget,
financing for these investments has come from its Energy Conservation
Investment Program, Energy Savings Performance Contracts, and
mechanisms such as Enhanced Use Leases and Power Purchase Agreements.
ballistic missile defense
45. Senator Begich. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, last year,
the administration made significant changes to the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD). The
decision was made to decrease deployment of interceptors in the United
States from 44 to 30. Additionally, deployment of a European GMD
capability was cancelled in favor of a phased-adaptive approach to
address a range of threats in the area. The new approach is intended to
augment the existing GMD long-range capabilities in the United States.
As a result of the decision to cancel deployment of GMD Europe, Alaska
and California are the Nation's only line of defense against a long-
range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). How does the fiscal
year 2011 budget and the BMD review reflect a robust strategy and
investment in the GMD program to provide defense of the Nation with 30
operational interceptors?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The fiscal year 2011
President's budget request lays out a funded plan to expand the
integration of the GMD capabilities into the larger Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS). This will include deploying 30 operational
ground-based interceptors (GBIs), as well as delivery of 4 additional
interceptors as operational spares (based on reliability estimations)
and 18 additional interceptors to support the flight test program. The
GMD element will maintain operational effectiveness and reliability
through a number of initiatives designed to: thoroughly test the
performance of the system; achieve a high state of readiness; monitor
the health of the deployed interceptors; and modernize the system with
technology improvements to the interceptor and supporting ground
systems.
The Department plans to complete the construction of Missile Field
2 in Fort Greely, AK, by emplacing the full 14 GBI silos and making
those silos operationally ready. This will both replace older,
inadequate silos from Missile Field 1 and provide a reserve capability
to deploy up to 8 additional GBIs rapidly from the pool of interceptors
currently designated for testing. Although the Department does not
currently foresee a need for more than 30 deployed GBIs, these extra
operational silos will provide an additional hedge against future
threat uncertainty. The Department does not require the procurement of
additional GBIs for this purpose. The Department will also complete a
second GMD Fire Control node at Fort Greely, AK, by the end of calendar
year 2011.
interceptor infrastructure
46. Senator Begich. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what
decisions have been made with respect to infrastructure required to
deploy interceptors, specifically at Fort Greely, Alaska?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. There are currently two
completed missile fields at Fort Greely, AK--Missile Field 1 and
Missile Field 3 with 6 and 20 silos, respectively. The fiscal year 2011
President's budget request reflected the funding needed to continue the
operations, sustainment, and maintenance of Missile Field 1 and to
complete Missile Field 2 in a 14-silo configuration.
This effort also requires continued use of fiscal year 2009 funds
previously appropriated for work on Missile Field 2 and fiscal year
2010 funds previously appropriated to suspend work on Missile Field 2.
MDA submitted a reprogramming request to the Department's Comptroller
for the realignment of $72.8 million of fiscal year 2009 RDT&E funds
and $16 million of fiscal year 2010 RDT&E funds within the BMDS
Midcourse Defense program element for the continuation of Missile Field
2. This configuration's additional silos will enable future flexibility
to increase GBI inventory in response to emerging threats.
Upon completion of Missile Field 2, Missile Field 1 will be
decommissioned. Missile Field 1 was originally designed as a test bed,
so it lacks required hardening and redundant power, and has significant
infrastructure reliability issues. The Missile Field 2 design includes
shielding and addresses the reliability concerns of Missile Field 1.
Missile Field 1 will not be decommissioned until Missile Field 2 is
fully available for emplacing GBIs. In the meantime, Missile Field 1
will be closely monitored and maintained in a high state of readiness
through intensive maintenance procedures.
47. Senator Begich. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, has DOD
taken any measures to preserve deployment capacity as a hedge against
the increasing threat in the event more than 30 operational
interceptors are required?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Yes, The Department plans to
buy 52 GBIs, 30 of which will be operationally deployed, 4 of which
will be held as operational spares, and the rest of which will be test
articles. DOD expects this level to provide sufficient protection of
the homeland, while allowing the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to pursue
a robust test program and enabling operational flexibility should a new
threat emerge. DOD will maintain readiness and continue to develop
existing operational capabilities at Fort Greely, AK, and Vandenberg
Air Force Base, CA.
DOD will hedge against an increased threat in numerous ways,
including:
Complete the second field of 14 silos at Fort Greely
to hedge against the possibility that additional deployments
become necessary.
Continue development and assessment of a two-stage
GBI.
Deploy new sensors in Europe to improve cueing for
missiles launched at the United States by Iran or other
potential adversaries in the Middle East.
Invest in further development of the Standard Missile-
3 (SM-3) for future land-based deployment as the ICBM threat
matures.
Pursue a number of new GMD system enhancements, and
develop next generation missile defense capabilities.
48. Senator Begich. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, how is the
deployment capacity in Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely funded, and is
this all in fiscal year 2011 or a reprogramming?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The fiscal year 2011
President's budget request contains funding needed to complete Missile
Field 2 in a 14-silo configuration. The request reflects funds required
in addition to fiscal year 2009 funds previously appropriated for work
on Missile Field 2 and fiscal year 2010 funds previously appropriated
to suspend work on Missile Field 2.
The MDA submitted a reprogramming request to the Department's
Comptroller for the realignment of $72.8 million of fiscal year 2009
RDT&E funds and $16 million of fiscal year 2010 RDT&E funds within the
BMDS Midcourse Defense program element for the continuation of Missile
Field 2.
49. Senator Begich. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what
deficiencies and readiness are achieved by continuing completion of
Missile Field 2 in a 14-silo starting capacity?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Completing Missile Field 2 in a
14-silo configuration allows for the decommissioning of Missile Field 1
and provides future flexibility to increase the number of interceptors,
if the threat evolves. When Missile Field 2 is completed and fully
available for emplacing GBIs, the MDA plans to transfer six GBIs
currently deployed in Missile Field 1 to Missile Field 2.
Once Missile Field 2 is fully operational, Missile Field 1 will be
decommissioned since it was designed as a test bed only and is not
hardened or sufficiently reliable for a long-term operational
deployment. Specifically, Missile Field 1 lacks backup power and has
significant infrastructure reliability issues. These reliability issues
include extensive mold contamination in the Missile Field 1 utilidor,
requiring personnel to suit up for a hazardous environment; inadequate
valve connections in the chilled water system, resulting in leaks of
glycol; and dust intrusion at Mechanical Electrical Building-1. The
Missile Field 2 design includes shielding and addresses the reliability
concerns of Missile Field 1.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roland W. Burris
modernization and recapitalization
50. Senator Burris. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what
particular programs address the Services' modernization and
recapitalization?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen.
Guardian Armored Security Vehicle (ASV):
Modernization:
Product Director (PD), ASV, is addressing
limited modernization (Engineering Change Proposals
(ECPs)) through existing modification and services line
or by modernization through spares.
Reset (Operations and Maintenance, Army-funded):
Planning is underway to reset approximately
1,500 ASVs during fiscal year 2011-2017.
While the average age of ASVs is 3 years, some
ASVs in theater accumulated 20,000-plus miles per year
(peacetime OPTEMPO is estimated at 2,729 miles per year
for a useful life of 20 years).
Reset will bring ASVs to fully mission capable
condition, to include replacing basic issue items such
as shovels and tire jacks.
Recapitalization (RECAP--Other Procurement, Army
(OPA), funding is required):
The Army has not programmed RECAP funding in
POM fiscal year 2012-2017.
OPA funding currently ends in fiscal
year 2011, with production ending in fiscal
year 2012.
However, in accordance with a recent
Acquisition Decision Memorandum, the ASV Product Office
will continue to collaborate with the Combat Developer
on desired upgrades. Potential outcome of this
collaboration could result in an ASV RECAP requirement.
Stryker:
Modernization:
Evolutionary acquisition approach to achieve
the full Stryker Capability Development Document
Planned as separate and distinct program from
base Stryker
Provides suspension, structure and power
growth capability to support planned upgrades
Includes modified lower hull for under belly
IED protection as well as upgraded suspension to
support up to a 60,000-pound GVW
Key Upgrades include Lethality, Survivability,
360 degrees Situational Awareness, Sniper Detection
Assumes JTRS & Battle Command Upgrades
30-ton Capacity Configuration
Reset:
Army selected Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, as
centralized Reset facility for the Stryker Family of
Vehicles.
Stryker vehicle resets for OCONUS based
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (2nd Brigade, 25th
Infantry Division--Schofield Barracks, HI, and 2nd
Cavalry Regiment--Vilseck, Germany), as well as the 1st
Brigade, 25th Infantry Division SBCT (Fort Wainright,
AK) may still be conducted at home station.
Stryker Reset provides annual scheduled
service level plus maintenance action, does not return
vehicles to zero hours/zero miles standard.
Recapitalization:
Stryker does not perform RECAP efforts.
defense support to civilian authorities
51. Senator Burris. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, please
explain how the mission to provide defense support to civil authorities
is addressed.
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. During the 2010 QDR, I directed
a significant emphasis to domestic military operations, including
Defense Support of Civil Authorities. After considerable analysis in
the QDR, the Department will make a number of changes in its approach
to support civil authorities responding to Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives (CBRNE) incidents in
the United States.
First, the Department will re-structure CBRNE Consequence
Management Response Force 1 (CCMRF-1) to be larger and faster than it
is today, with more life saving capabilities. CCMRFs 2 and 3 will be
significantly downsized to become command and control (C2) elements,
each able to handle up to 45,000 Title 10 general purpose and
specialized forces in the event of multiple, simultaneous incidents.
Most significantly, rather than building three large Federal-level
response forces to be employed by U.S. Northern Command, the Department
will start placing a National Guard-based Homeland Response Force (HRF)
in each of the ten Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions
beginning at the end of fiscal year 2011. Each HRF, routinely operating
in State status (State Active Duty or in duty under Title 32, U.S.
Code) at the direction of a governor, will consist of approximately 560
personnel. The HRFs will include CBRNE capabilities similar to the
existing National Guard CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages
(CERFPs), as well as additional robust C2 and security capabilities. I
anticipate that the HRFs will serve as a catalyst for promoting greater
regional integration within the FEMA regions and promoting closer
working relationships with the FEMA Regional Administrator offices,
Defense Coordination Officers, and individual States.
overseas contingency operations
52. Senator Burris. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what role
will the ongoing contingency operations play in future force-sizing?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. All of our servicemembers
(Active and Reserve) continue to perform extraordinarily in light of
the demands we have placed upon them. We cannot fail to have the right
numbers and kinds of uniformed personnel to win our wars and deter
potential adversaries. Additionally, our force, Active and Reserve,
must be large enough to not only satisfy deployed demands, but also
have a base that recognizes the personal needs of our volunteers and
their families. We believe we are currently at an appropriate force
level. As our future challenges evolve and requirements change, we will
work closely with Congress to determine if adjustments are necessary.
guantanamo detainee operations
53. Senator Burris. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, how does
the budget support the President's decision on Guantanamo (GTMO)
detainee operations?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The President's fiscal year
2011 OCO budget request includes $350 million to finance all detainee
operations at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility or another site.
don't ask, don't tell
54. Senator Burris. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, taking a
look at discharge statistics provided by DOD, it appears that the
number of individuals discharged during years of conflict drop off
drastically. Can you explain these numbers--noting that reports of
homosexual conduct are not covered under the military's stop-loss
policies?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. I cannot speculate as to why
separations under the homosexual conduct policy have declined in recent
years. However, the Department has not changed how it applies 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 654 in ``years of conflict.''
55. Senator Burris. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, once this
change is enacted, how will you address the cases involving pending and
previously discharged servicemembers?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. If the law is repealed, any
pending homosexual conduct discharge cases would be ceased. Those
servicemembers previously separated would remain separated. As part of
their assessment, the working group will examine re-accession policies
for such servicemembers if the law is repealed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
program management of the f-35 lightning acquisition
56. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, I am gratified by the
management decisions you announced yesterday to instill accountability
in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program by replacing the program
executive officer and withholding more than $600 million. Does the
withhold reflect the outcome of pending discussions between your office
and the prime contractor, following the instructions you issued in
December 2009 to restructure the program, to have the contractor fund
part of the proposed extension in development?
Secretary Gates. A more accurate way to portray the handling of the
$614 million withhold is that the Department is changing the paradigm
under which the contractor can earn that fee. I decided that the
current award fee structure would not properly incentivize the
contractor. Therefore, the Department took the future fee that the
contractor could have earned and redistributed it in a fashion that
better reflects the behavior I expect. The criteria are objective, date
certain, and designed to accomplish major events in the program with
the appropriate level of detail to ensure the event is successful
instead of just complete. In addition, the fee is back-loaded, with a
major portion applied to the ability of the contractor to meet the
estimate at completion. Failure to do so results in the complete loss
of that fee.
57. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, under what circumstances, if
any, could the prime contractor recoup that withholding?
Secretary Gates. The remaining fee for the contractor's development
effort is $614 million. We are restructuring that $614 million and
revising the SDD contract structure to reward measurable progress
against significant schedule events and ensure event-based fees, to
include completion at or under the estimate at completion. The
contractor can recoup the withheld fees only if these events are
successfully completed according to the schedule and the estimate at
completion is achieved.
f-35 testing and engineering issues
58. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, as you of course know, I am
concerned about the F-35 Lightning acquisition program, even with the
restructuring you announced in December 2009. A few weeks ago, the
Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) found that
``[c]ontinued production concurrent with the slow increase in flight
testing over the next 2 years will commit the Department and Services
to test, training, and deployment plans with substantial risk.'' Will
extending development of the JSF, as is being proposed under the budget
request, be supported with additional flight test aircraft, the
delivery of software, and an adequate pace of testing, so that
operational testing of fully integrated and capable aircraft will occur
on time in 2016?
Secretary Gates. The program office is currently working with all
the test stakeholders, including the Operational Test (OT) community,
to finalize the test schedule outlining both the timing and the
appropriate allocation of resources for a successful completion of
System Development and Demonstration as well as successful transition
to OT. The restructured program will mitigate cost and schedule
challenges. The restructured program funds the F-35 program to an
Independent Cost Estimate, adds additional schedule to development
test, moves the full rate production decision to April 2016, adds
additional test assets to flight test to build on the successful
ongoing ground test, and expands the software integration capacity.
These actions are in-line with multiple independent assessments
performed in 2009 covering cost, schedule and capacity.
59. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, please explain how your budget
request will ensure that program management emphasizes maintaining
robust engineering and test forces; early completion of detailed test
plans; fully resourcing those plans; and rigorous accreditation of
models and labs.
Secretary Gates. The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the JSF
program is the result of rigorous analysis by a Joint Estimating Team
(JET), led by the Office of the Director, Cost Analysis and Program
Evaluation. The JET's analysis informed a senior leadership JSF Task
Force that led to a restructure of the JSF development and test
program. The program office is currently working with all the test
stakeholders, including the OT community, to finalize the test schedule
outlining both the timing and the appropriate allocation of resources
for a successful completion of System Development and Demonstration and
transition to OT. The Department will conduct an even more in-depth
review of the JSF program as part of the Nunn-McCurdy certification
process. All aspects of the program, to include engineering manning,
test plan scheduling, resourcing, and lab and modeling accreditation
will be reviewed.
60. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, to what extent will your
budget proposal ensure that the delivery of assets for OT&E and initial
training will be managed consistent with plans approved for OT&E?
Secretary Gates. The Department has fully funded F-35 System
Development and Demonstration (SDD) to the Joint Estimating Team (JET)
II estimate, which includes adequate funds for both developmental and
operational testing. The funds are adequate to purchase and deliver
aircraft and all the necessary support equipment to the OT community.
In addition, the Department has fully resourced, across the Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP), for adequate organic and contractor
support of developmental and operational testing. The program office is
currently working with all the test stakeholders, including the OT
community, to finalize the test schedule outlining both the timing and
the appropriate allocation of resources for a successful completion of
SDD.
61. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, do you expect that the
delivery of those test and training assets will deviate from those
plans? If so, please explain.
Secretary Gates. I expect delivery of test and training assets to
happen on a timeline commensurate with the restructured program. The
program office is currently working with all the test stakeholders,
including the OT community, to finalize the test schedule outlining
both the timing and the appropriate allocation of resources (including
training) for a successful completion of System Development and
Demonstration as well as successful transition to OT.
62. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, during the hearing, you
explained that, at this moment, the program is holding schedule in
terms of the expected initial operating capability (IOC) dates for all
the variant aircraft except that fewer quantities may be delivered.
Please explain.
Secretary Gates. At the date of the hearing, the Services were
still evaluating how the restructured program would impact IOC dates.
The Services have completed their review, and the Marine Corps IOC is
still projected for December 2012 with Block 2 capability, while the
Air Force and Navy IOCs are now projected for 2016 with Block 3
capability.
63. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the concurrency structured
into the JSF program's test, production, and training plans has
obscured the mission capability of low-rate initial production (LRIP)
aircraft and support systems. How will DOD, under its proposed budget,
improve the process by which the mission capability of LRIP systems
will be accurately and credibly predicted well before delivery?
Secretary Gates. Concurrency was a choice made at the outset of the
program, which was a sound strategy for the Department. It is designed
to replace legacy aircraft and provide the Warfighter a 5th generation
strike fighter as quickly as possible, allowing the Department to reach
a more economic order quantity while still thoroughly testing the
aircraft. To that end, DOD intends to produce aircraft at a rate
consistent with the Independent Manufacturing Review Team
recommendations to the maximum extent possible. To mitigate concurrency
risks, a great deal of upfront investment was made in design tools
giving us a greater level of confidence in the design of the aircraft
than we would have for legacy systems such as the F-16 or F-15. Early
ground and flight test data closely match model predictions for flying
qualities, performance, and structures, justifying our upfront
investment. The maturity of the physical aircraft and the restructured
program give us confidence that our predictions will remain sound
concerning the capabilities of the F-35.
64. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, I understand that the JSF
program office is executing a comprehensive, robust, and fully funded
live fire test plan. However, the program recently removed shutoff
fuses for engine fuel hydraulics lines. Coupled with the prior removal
of dry bay fire extinguishers, this may increase the likelihood of
aircraft combat losses from ballistic threat induced fires. At present,
only the Integrated Power Plant (IPP) bay has a fire suppression
system. Though the JSF Executive Steering Board (JESB) has approved the
Joint Program Office's (JPO) request to remove these safety systems as
an acceptable system trade to balance weight, cost, and risk, DOT&E
remains concerned regarding the aircraft's vulnerability to threat-
induced fires. Why is DOT&E's concern here not valid?
Secretary Gates. The Department is committed to delivering the most
affordable, supportable, lethal and survivable F-35 aircraft that meets
the needs of the warfighter. The overall survivability posture of the
F-35 is without equal due to advanced avionics and sensor suite, 5th
generation stealth performance, advanced countermeasures and robust,
balanced vulnerability reduction design. The warfighting effectiveness
of each design feature is carefully balanced against the overall system
impact to cost, weight and supportability. According to the JPO, the
removal of PAO (polyalphaolefin) coolant shut-off valves and fuses for
engine fuel-draulic lines resulted in a minimal (.05 Pk) impact on the
vulnerability assessment, no impact on the safety assessment, avoids
11 lbs. per aircraft in weight, avoids $40,000 (CTOL and CV)--$50,000
(STOVL) per aircraft in procurement cost, and avoids $1.4 million in
development cost. The JESB decision included a requirement to update
the vulnerability assessment after conclusion of the live-fire testing
in calendar year 2011. All F-35 aircraft vulnerability data will then
be re-assessed.
65. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, looking ahead to 2010, exactly
what milestones does the Director, Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation (DCAPE) believe the JPO and prime contractor must complete
on time and on budget to achieve stated IOC dates?
Secretary Gates. DCAPE has identified five performance metric areas
for tracking in fiscal year 2010 that CAPE will monitor closely to
assess whether the JPO and prime contractor are making reasonable
progress against what the Joint Estimating Team (JET) schedule forecast
and cost estimate prepared in fall 2009 (also known as the ``JET II
estimate''). These areas are: 1) Progress in software for Block 0.5 and
1.0 releases; 2) the status of Mission System Hardware qualification
activities; 3) the level of engineering change traffic resulting from
ongoing flight test and early production activities; 4) the
availability of flight test aircraft at test sites; and 5) the status
of sortie generation rates, flight test hours completion, and test
point verification completion.
66. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, to what extent will the
verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A) of labs and models
as test venues be event-driven, subject to disciplined oversight by the
government and independent review?
Secretary Gates. The JSF Program Office employs a specific process
for verification, validation and accreditation of each model, lab, and
simulation intended as a test venue. A joint government/contractor team
reviews the validation evidence and accreditation support packages. The
team makes a recommendation to accredit the venue to the government
accreditation authority in the program office, which is either the
chief engineer or the program executive officer. Independent review of
the validation and accreditation process or content is not currently
included in the process but would be useful in helping to ensure
adequate F-35 test data are used in the validation phase and that
models are not used before accreditation is complete.
67. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, to what extent will these labs
and models not be used to close verification success criteria unless
formally approved for that use?
Secretary Gates. I expect the JSF program office leadership to
follow the process and assure any verification success criteria
dependent on model accreditation are not considered closed unless the
model successfully completed an adequate validation and accreditation
process.
impact of iraqi elections on drawdown plans
68. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the budget request is based on
assumptions that include the ability to withdraw all combat forces from
Iraq by the end of fiscal year 2011, leaving a non-combat U.S. military
training and assistance force of about 50,000. The ability to make
substantial reductions in combat forces hinges on the timing of the
next round of Iraqi parliamentary elections that were first scheduled
for January and which have now slipped to March. Domestic political and
security considerations in Iraq may lead to further delays. The bombing
in Baghdad on February 1, 2010, was the fifth suicide attack in Baghdad
in a week. While it's not totally unexpected given the national
elections in March, a sudden deterioration in security could have
considerable implications for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops later
this year. Do you anticipate General Odierno will recommend that the
estimated 65,000 U.S. combat troops return this August?
Secretary Gates. DOD is on schedule to draw down to 50,000 U.S.
forces in Iraq and to end the combat mission by August 31, 2010. The
remaining U.S. forces will be engaged in training, equipping, and
advising the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF); targeted counterterrorism
operations; and protection of U.S. military and civilian efforts. U.S.
forces will continue to draw down responsibly in compliance with the
Security Agreement.
DOD's ability to continue the drawdown of U.S. forces is a
testament to the increasing capability of the ISF, as evidenced by
their performance during the elections. Since U.S. forces repositioned
from the cities in June 2009, the ISF have had the lead for operations
in Iraq, with U.S. forces playing a supporting role through partnering
with and enabling the ISF.
69. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what will be the budget impact
if forces in Iraq cannot be withdrawn according to the current plan?
Secretary Gates. The budget impact would be proportional to the
size of the force that is not withdrawn. The budget impact could be
substantial because it is very expensive to sustain deploy forces, even
if the operating tempo is moderate compared to active combat. Still, I
remain confident that U.S. forces can be withdrawn according to our
current plan.
70. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, how will that impact the
ability to source the increase of troops in Afghanistan?
Secretary Gates. The responsible drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq
continues forward as planned and will be executed concurrently with the
increase of forces in Afghanistan. The Iraqi national elections and the
plan to drawdown U.S. military forces in Iraq do not adversely affect
the ability to source the force increase in Afghanistan. The Iraqi
national elections were successfully conducted on March 2010. The
security environment established by the ISF prevented any large scale
effective attacks by insurgents or extremist elements seeking to derail
the conduct or outcome of the elections and demonstrated the increasing
capability of the Iraqis to provide security for themselves. As our
requirements in Iraq continue to decrease, units that redeploy from or
are no longer required to deploy to Iraq will return to the pool of
forces available to deploy in support of the mission in Afghanistan or
other global requirements.
71. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, I remain concerned that Iraq
will not have the training and equipment that it will need to maintain
a credible defense after most of our forces leave later this year. What
are we doing to ensure that Iraq receives the equipment and training
necessary to ensure we can responsibly withdrawal as scheduled?
Admiral Mullen. In spite of Iraq's recent budgetary challenges that
impact both manning and equipping the ISF, we remain confident that
with continued and focused U.S. support, specifically the $3 billion in
requested Iraqi Security Forces Funds, the ISF will be capable of
providing internal security and foundational external defense by the
time U.S. forces withdraw at the end of December 2011.
As of February 2010, the Iraqi Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program
had executed 144 cases valued at $5 billion. Between now and the end of
2011, USF-I will continue to support the training and equipping of the
ISF. We are currently working with Iraq on 96 additional FMS cases
valued at over $4 billion. In addition, thanks to critical authorities
provided by Congress in the 2010 NDAA, the United States will transfer
equipment to the ISF to further assist Iraq in meeting critical
equipping requirements.
military pay raise
72. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, for the last 3 years, Congress
has increased the administration's proposed increase in pay by half a
percentage point. What is the impact on the DOD budget by such a
directed increase in fiscal year 2011 and beyond?
Admiral Mullen. The cost of an additional half percent pay raise
increase to the fiscal year 2011 budget is $339 million in fiscal year
2011 and $2.2 billion across the FYDP. Increases in pay beyond DOD
requests contribute to a reduction of funding for our readiness
accounts which will jeopardize our ability to meet defense objectives
to prevail in today's wars, prevent and deter conflict, prepare to
defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies, and
preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer Force.
u.s. forces in korea
73. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, what will be the total costs in
terms of infrastructure, family support programs, and other operating
costs to achieve DOD's long-term goal to phase out all unaccompanied
tours in Korea?
Admiral Mullen. The fiscal year 2011 FYDP includes $536 million to
increase the total number of families in Korea to 4,900. Additional
increases in the number of families in Korea, as part of the
Department's long-term goal to phase out unaccompanied tours, will be
addressed in future budget requests.
74. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, are these costs reflected in
the budget request for fiscal year 2011 and the FYDP?
Secretary Gates. The fiscal year 2011 FYDP includes $536 million to
increase the total number of families in Korea to 4,900. Any further
increases in the number of families in Korea, as part of the
Department's long-term goal to phase out all unaccompanied tours, would
be addressed in future budget requests.
force structure in afghanistan
75. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, GAO recently reviewed military
readiness issues and raised concerns that the flow of forces into
Afghanistan, including critical enabling forces, is being impeded by a
force cap placed on the total number of troops equal to 68,000 plus the
President's announced increase of 30,000, with a 10 percent buffer of
3,000 additional troops. This 10 percent buffer, which could
temporarily raise troop levels above the maximum of 98,000, can only be
authorized on a case-by-case basis by you. Is there a hard cap on the
number of troops in Afghanistan?
Secretary Gates. In December 2009, President Obama committed an
additional 30,000 forces to Afghanistan for an extended surge of 18
months. Since taking office, the President has committed 52,000
additional troops to Afghanistan for a total U.S. force of 92,000.
The deployment of an additional 30,000 forces for the extended
surge will be largely completed by the end of August. There is no hard
cap on the number of forces in Afghanistan. DOD's commitment of
significant military resources to support this effort is consistent
with the President's strategy set forth in March 2009, and is directly
linked to the progress of General McChrystal's civil-military plan to
reverse the Taliban's momentum and create time and space to develop
Afghan security and governance. DOD will maintain this increased force
level through July 2011. During this time, we will regularly measure
our progress and, beginning in July 2011, transfer lead security
responsibility to the Afghans and start to transition our combat forces
for redeployment.
76. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, is this cap driven by
operational factors, budget concerns, or other policy considerations?
Secretary Gates. In December 2009, President Obama committed an
additional 30,000 forces to Afghanistan for an extended surge of 18
months. Since taking office, the President has committed 52,000
additional troops to Afghanistan for a total U.S. force of 92,000.
The deployment of an additional 30,000 forces for the extended
surge will be largely completed by the end of August. There is no hard
cap on the number of forces in Afghanistan. DOD's commitment of
significant military resources to support this effort is consistent
with the President's strategy set forth in March 2009, and is directly
linked to the progress of General McChrystal's civil-military plan to
reverse the Taliban's momentum and create time and space to develop
Afghan security and governance. DOD will maintain this increased force
level through July 2011. During this time, we will regularly measure
our progress and, beginning in July 2011, transfer lead security
responsibility to the Afghans and start to transition our combat forces
for redeployment.
77. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, should there be any arbitrary
cap on the total number of forces that may be temporarily in
Afghanistan if such forces are necessary to establish the capability to
succeed in the mission?
Secretary Gates. In December 2009, President Obama committed an
additional 30,000 forces to Afghanistan for an extended surge of 18
months. Since taking office, the President has committed 52,000
additional troops to Afghanistan for a total U.S. force of 92,000.
The deployment of an additional 30,000 forces for the extended
surge will be largely completed by the end of August. There is no hard
cap on the number of forces in Afghanistan. DOD commitment of
significant military resources to support this effort is consistent
with the President's strategy set forth in March 2009, and is directly
linked to the progress of General McChrystal's civil-military plan to
reverse the Taliban's momentum and create time and space to develop
Afghan security and governance. DOD will maintain this increased force
level through July 2011. During this time, we will regularly measure
our progress and, beginning in July 2011, transfer lead security
responsibility to the Afghans and start to transition our combat forces
for redeployment.
78. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, are there indications from
CENTCOM that the build-up of forces in Afghanistan is being impeded by
the cap on forces?
Secretary Gates. No, the U.S. CENTCOM has indicated the build-up/
increase of U.S. forces approved by POTUS in December 2009 is not being
impacted by the total authorized force. U.S. CENTCOM has worked a very
detailed transportation plan to ensure a majority of these forces
arrive in-country by late summer and this plan still remains feasible.
79. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, if the President's priority is
to rapidly increase U.S. force levels in Afghanistan to turn the tide
in the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda so the U.S. can begin to
withdraw forces by July 2011, is managing the flow of forces to stay
below an arbitrary cap consistent with that priority?
Secretary Gates. In December 2009, President Obama committed an
additional 30,000 forces to Afghanistan for an extended surge of 18
months. Since taking office, the President has committed 52,000
additional troops to Afghanistan for a total U.S. force of 92,000.
The deployment of an additional 30,000 forces for the extended
surge will be largely completed by the end of August. There is no hard
cap on the number of forces in Afghanistan. DOD's commitment of
significant military resources to support this effort is consistent
with the President's strategy set forth in March 2009, and is directly
linked to the progress of General McChrystal's civil-military plan to
reverse the Taliban's momentum and create time and space to develop
Afghan security and governance. DOD will maintain this increased force
level through July 2011. During this time, we will regularly measure
our progress and, beginning in July 2011, transfer lead security
responsibility to the Afghans and start to transition our combat forces
for redeployment.
80. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, will a delay in the supply of
trainers for Afghan security forces, or a decision by NATO allies not
to provide trainers, affect the need for U.S. forces above the 30,000
approved by the President?
Secretary Gates. Ensuring that the NATO Training Mission-
Afghanistan (NTM-A) has sufficient institutional and operational
trainers remains a top priority. DOD is currently working with NATO to
resource NTM-A. A series of SHAPE-led force generation efforts have
resulted in a significant number of international commitments to help
meet the institutional and operational trainer shortfall. The U.S.
Government continues to be engaged in very active diplomatic efforts to
urge our coalition partners to provide additional trainers and
mentoring teams for the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF). We are
also examining DOD's own contributions to ensure we are doing
everything we can to fill the requirement.
overseas contingency operations budget request
81. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, among the items in the fiscal
year 2011 OCO supplemental budget request is a request for one F-35 JSF
aircraft. I understand that this aircraft is intended to replace an F-
15E fighter plane from the 336th Fighter Squadron, Seymour Johnson Air
Force Base, North Carolina that crashed while conducting combat
operations in eastern Afghanistan, near the Ghazni province on July 18,
2009. I also understand that the existing ground rules for determining
what projects can be funded with the supplemental budget allow for the
replacement of combat equipment as a result of loss during combat
operations.
I have been told that because the Air Force can no longer procure
F-15E aircraft from the prime contractor, you elected to procure a
fighter aircraft currently in production. I am troubled by this
request. The JSF aircraft you are proposing to buy here will cost $205
million, as opposed to the F-15E unit cost of around $65 million. More
importantly, the very earliest that the Air Force can accept delivery
of its first operationally capable aircraft will be 2013, and
development of the JSF will not be completed until a few years later.
Would you please provide a major cost breakout and explain why you are
asking $205 million for this one JSF aircraft?
Secretary Gates. In early summer 2009 the Air Force provided an
estimate for a fiscal year 2011 OCO F-35 aircraft. At that time, the
estimate was $204.9 million. This cost control was subsequently used to
develop the detailed cost breakout that appeared in DOD's fiscal year
2011 President's budget (PB) Justification. If Congress approves the
additional OCO aircraft, the unit cost for 23 aircraft (fiscal year
2011 22 aircraft plus 1 OCO aircraft) would be approximately $182.5
million. OCO funds appropriated above this amount will be used for
initial spares associated with the OCO F-35. The table below reflects
the numbers which were submitted in the fiscal year 2011 PB
documentation for the base and OCO request, and what the OCO numbers
should have been in the documentation for the same weapon system unit
cost ($182.5 million).
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
82. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, as a cost effective
alternative to buying a JSF aircraft here and to ensure timely fielding
of needed strike fighter capability in theater, to what extent have you
explored the possibility of refixing a legacy F-15E intended for
retirement, or one that has actually been retired, pursuant to the Air
Force's Combat Air Forces (CAF) Restructure Plan?
Secretary Gates. The F-15E Strike Eagle is a two-seat all-weather
ground attack aircraft designed for high-speed interdiction and is a
derivative of the F-15C Eagle that is used for air superiority. The F-
15Es are some of the newest fighters in the Air Force (AF) active
inventory, and as of today, none of them have been retired or are
planned to be retired.
bmd-capable ships and sm-3
83. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, with the growing threat from
China, North Korea, and the Middle East, does DOD have enough BMD/SM-3
resources/assets to defend the United States, its allies, and forward
deployed forces in the region? In answering this question, please break
out your responses by BMD-capable ships and SM-3 missiles.
Secretary Gates. The Department will have 20 Aegis BMD ships and 81
SM-3 interceptors available for worldwide deployment by the end of
fiscal year 2010. The Aegis BMD ships and SM-3 interceptors deployed to
the East Asia, Middle East, and Europe are sufficient to carry out
assigned missions in those regions.
The Department also plans to have 23 Aegis BMD ships operationally
available in fiscal year 2011, along with a total of 110 SM-3
interceptors. By Phase 2 of the EPAA in the 2015 timeframe, the
Department plans to have 37 Aegis BMD-capable ships along with 112 SM-3
Block IA and 180 Block IB interceptors available.
The Department understands that demand for regional BMD
capabilities will outstrip supply for quite some time. Given this
reality, DOD is pursuing a collaborative approach with Allies and
partners to strengthen regional deterrence architectures. It is
important to note that as we manage U.S. resources, our objective is to
provide a steady-state capability that can be augmented for added
defensive capability for a limited duration in times of increased
threat. This is the essence of the phased adaptive approach to regional
architectures.
84. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, does the Navy have enough
Aegis Class Destroyers to support both MDA and Navy requirements?
Secretary Gates. The Navy currently has sufficient large surface
combatants to meet the demand for Aegis destroyers. The Navy does not
have the capacity to meet the entire BMD requirement. In the near term,
DOD will employ a comprehensive Global Force Management (GFM) process
to most effectively allocate available surface combatants with Aegis
BMD capability. A modernization program is in place to increase BMD
capacity to meet the additional Combatant Commander's forward presence
requirements for BMD capable ships. The restart of the Aegis
shipbuilding program is aligned with providing the required Aegis BMD
capacity.
By spring 2010, Navy will have 21 BMD capable ships, and by 2015,
new construction and modernization will bring the total of BMD capable
ships to 27. The Navy will continue to work with the MDA to support
global BMD demands. It is important to recognize that Navy force
structure is not sized to utilize multi-mission Aegis ships for an
exclusive use mission on an enduring basis. Such single mission use
invariably results in shortages in other mission areas and a loss of
operational flexibility for the Joint Force Commander. Navy's long-term
plan is to make all Aegis destroyers and up to 15 Aegis cruisers BMD
capable to provide BMD forward presence ``in stride'' while also
performing its other missions.
contract oversight personnel
85. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, last May, the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) found that
Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A), the lead
element for training Afghan security forces, did not have ``the
mechanisms necessary to ensure that U.S. funds are managed effectively
and spent wisely.'' In particular, the SIGAR noted a lack of qualified
contracting personnel in the command. Have you increased the number of
personnel overseeing these training contracts, and if so, by how much?
Secretary Gates. NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and Combined
Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (NTM-A/CSTC-A) takes
contracting oversight seriously. Every resource that is misallocated
due to inefficiency, miscommunications, and undue delay cannot
contribute to improving the operational capabilities of the Afghan
National Security Forces. Concerning contracting oversight, we have
taken the following specific actions in the areas of oversight, quality
assurance, contract management, and senior leadership review:
Oversight: For our large Continental United States
(CONUS) based contracts that require a substantial degree of
effort to implement adequate contract oversight, we have
coordinated to have the contracting command provide a full-time
'in-country' Contract Officer Representative (COR) located with
CSTC-A.
For contracts that are awarded in Afghanistan and for small
CONUS based contracts CORs have been appointed from either
CSTC-A or other USFOR-A personnel. Additionally, for certain
contracts that require technical competence (such as vehicle
and weapons maintenance) we are arranging for U.S. Government
civilians from Army Depots (e.g. Red River Army Depot) to
deploy and provide us with oversight assistance.
Quality Assurance: We are enforcing the requirement
for Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASP) for CSTC-A
contracts and have in place a tracking system to ensure
designated CORs are verifying compliance with the QASP. During
the contract planning phase, requirement generators develop a
detailed written QASP and the associated COR coverage
requirements identifying the quantity, locations, and required
qualifications & skills for required CORs to provide adequate
oversight coverage to reasonably ensure compliance with the
QASP.
Contract Management: We established a six-person CSTC-
A Contract Management team that has developed improved
processes and they also monitor CSTC-A contracts to validate
contract oversight and share best practices across the command.
We are in the process of implementing a systemic approach to
review the contract oversight and standards for every contract.
Additionally, each month we identify COR requirements for every
location where contracted services are provided and update the
description of the oversight responsibilities that need to
performed.
86. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, in this audit, the SIGAR
described a particular $404 million training contract where the
government contracting personnel were located in Maryland and
Pennsylvania--nine time zones away from where the work was actually
being performed. Is DOD planning to deploy more DOD contract oversight
personnel out to the field in Afghanistan?
Secretary Gates. Yes. Overall the DOD has increased the numbers of
Contracting Officer Representative (CORs) and Contracting Officer
Technical Representatives (COTRs), and placed military commanders at
each training site associated with this contract. In addition, DOD has
taken the following steps to increase oversight:
Established a contract management cell within Combined
Security Transition Command-Afghanistan.
Added greater flexibility in assignment of contract
advisors with the ability to more geographically and among the
levels of Advisor/Trainer (Ministerial Systems, Institutional
Training, Field level).
Issued orders in theater on how to select, train and
place CORs for the upcoming Research and Development and
Engineering Command Contract.
Developed a contract statement of work to reduce the
number of contract advisors and identify other efficiencies and
increased contractor oversight in so doing.
The Department takes its contingency contracting oversight
functions extremely seriously and will continue to keep Congress
informed of how the Department performs this important function.
naval readiness
87. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, as you recall, the only
priority that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) identified as
unfunded in your last budget submission was ship depot maintenance.
Over the last few months, a number of press accounts have come out
describing problems directly related to how ineffectively the shipyards
are maintaining the readiness of the Navy's oldest surface combatants.
I understand that this year's proposed budget increases total funding
for ship depot maintenance by almost $800 million over last year. To
what extent does that proposed amount fully fund the Navy's current
requirement for ship depot maintenance and capture depot maintenance
volume that has accumulated from chronic underfunding over time?
Admiral Mullen. The fiscal year 2011 budget request in the O&M
baseline and Other Contingency Operations accounts is $6.1 billion and
funds 99 percent of the total projected ship maintenance requirement.
This request, and the percent of requirement funded, clearly reflects
the Navy's commitment to ensure that ships are properly maintained to
support current operations, and reach their expected service lives.
The request also funds the Surface Ship Life Cycle Management
(SSLCM) activity. Established in May 2009, SSLCM mission is to provide
centralized SSLCM. In conjunction with Naval Sea Systems Command and
Commander, Naval Surface Forces (CNSF), the SSLCM activity conducted a
detailed review of fiscal year 2011 surface ship maintenance
requirements. The fiscal year 2011 budget request incorporates the
results of this review. The SSLCM activity is assessing maintenance
requirements for each ship class based on engineered technical
requirements necessary to reach expected service life, and any
additional requirements that are identified will be included in future
budget requests.
c-17 acquisition programs
88. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, over the last 4 years, the
Senate Appropriations Committee added 44 C-17s that we neither needed
nor could afford, at a total cost of over $14 billion above DOD's
requests--in the form of earmarks. As DOD had done in the preceding few
years, you proposed last year to cancel the C-17 Globemaster program
and argued against a congressional earmark that intended to buy 10 more
of those aircraft for $2.5 billion. You stated that the cost of buying
and operating those additional aircraft would ``invariably result in a
reduction in critical warfighting capability somewhere else in the
defense program.'' Is this view shared by the Service Chiefs and
unified and combatant commanders?
Secretary Gates. The current C-17 fleet is in excess of our
strategic airlift needs, resulting in increased operating costs at the
expense of other priorities. This position, supported by the Services
and Combatant Commanders, is based on the findings of several recent
mobility studies to include the Mobility Capabilities Requirements
Study 2016 (MCRS-16). The objectives of MCRS-16 were to determine the
mobility capabilities and requirements needed in support of the
National Military Strategy in the 2016 timeframe, to determine
capability gaps/overlaps associated with the programmed mobility force
structure, and to support the QDR and decisions regarding mobility
programs. The study found that the planned capacity of the programmed
strategic airlift fleet, consisting of 223 C-17s and 111 C-5s, exceeds
the most demanding projected requirements. In addition, the report
noted that C-17s could be used to support intra-theater missions
without adding to the peak demand for C-17s. Both of these insights are
consistent with findings from previous mobility studies.
Based upon this information no additional C-17s should be procured,
and I request your support in granting me the authority to allow for
the proper management of the strategic fleet by providing the
Department greater flexibility in retiring C-5 aircraft and eliminating
the current statutory requirement to maintain a minimum fleet of 316
strategic airlift aircraft.
89. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what affect would the purchase
of yet more C-17s, as some Members might insist on again this year,
have on our ability to field critical warfighting capabilities?
Secretary Gates. Unnecessary acquisition programs deplete funding
for our readiness accounts which jeopardize our ability to meet defense
objectives to prevail in today's wars, prevent and deter conflict,
prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of
contingencies, and preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer Force.
I am fully aware of the political pressure to continue building the
C-17, but I will strongly recommend that the President veto any
legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of this program.
90. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, while I appreciate your
commitment in your opening statement to recommend a veto for further C-
17 funding in the current budget request, will you request that that
the President directly signal his intent to veto this bill if it
authorizes any expenditure for more C-17s, as was done with F-22
funding last year?
Secretary Gates. I will continue to strongly recommend to the
President that he veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary
continuation of the C-17 program for the reasons stated in my
testimony.
missile defense
91. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the supply of missile defense
assets, whether it be Aegis cruisers, SM-3 missiles, THAAD units, etc.,
pales in comparison to the worldwide demand of our combatant
commanders. How does DOD and this budget seek to satisfy the stressing
needs of the new European phased adaptive approach while also
continuing to meet those needs of our ongoing efforts in the Pacific,
the Middle East, and the Homeland?
Secretary Gates. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request
affirms and continues the decisions made in the fiscal year 2010 PBR to
realign BMD programs and plans to focus on regional missile defenses.
Toward this end, investments in regional missile defenses amount to
about $3.8 billion in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget request,
or almost half of the MDA budget request. Significant investments will
continue over the FYDP, enabling the Department to make progress in
closing the gap between demand and supply. By 2015 DOD plans to have 6
THAAD batteries with 281 interceptors, along with 292 SM-3 interceptors
and 37 Aegis BMD-capable ships.
As the Department makes progress on fielding additional regional
missile defenses, I will also work to build on a strong foundation of
cooperative relationships and utilize appropriate contributions from
Allies. It is important to note that as we manage U.S. resources, my
objective is to provide a steady-state capability that can be augmented
for added defensive capability for a limited duration in times of
increased threat. This is the essence of the phased adaptive approach
to regional architectures.
92. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, does modernization and
sustainment of our GBIs and the development and testing of a two-stage
GBI remain a priority for DOD?
Secretary Gates. Yes. I believe that defending the homeland against
the threat of limited missile attack is a high priority for the
Department. Therefore, the DOD is committed to continue modernizing and
sustaining the GMD system.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request lays out a funded
plan that includes fielding 30 operational GBIs, as well as delivery of
4 additional interceptors as operational spares (based on reliability
estimations), and 18 additional interceptors to support the flight test
program. The GMD sustainment program will maintain and support an
effective defensive system, meeting Warfighter requirements over the
expected 20-year life cycle.
As part of a hedging strategy for homeland defense against long-
range ballistic missile attacks, the Department is continuing the
development and assessment of the two-stage GBI. The planned two-stage
flight testing also supports three-stage data collection requirements
and adds to our confidence in and sustainment of the GBIs.
93. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, are you committed to the
modernization and sustainment of our GBIs and the procurement of
additional GBIs if it were determined that technological advancements
with the SM-3 do not come to fruition in the planned timeframe?
Secretary Gates. I am committed to modernizing and sustaining the
GMD system as the Department defends the United States against
ballistic missiles.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request lays out a funded
plan that includes completing the fielding of 30 operational GBIs;
delivering 22 additional GBIs for testing, stockpile reliability, and
operational spare requirements; and refurbishing 16 of the original 52
GBIs for both operational and flight test rotation during the FYDP. The
budget request also provides for continued Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle
(EKV) software upgrades for the GBIs with focus on improved probability
of kill while leveraging improved sensor data. Additionally, we will be
completing the establishment of a second command and control node at
Fort Greely, AK.
The GMD sustainment program maintains and supports an effective
defensive system, meeting Warfighter requirements over the expected 20-
year life cycle. This program is planned within established Army and
Navy standards for missile field and depot-level support, including the
surveillance and testing of GBIs over their lifetime. A service-life
extension decision is anticipated in the 2027 timeframe.
Development and testing of the two-stage GBI will continue as a
hedge alternative should the SM-3 Block II A/B not emerge as
anticipated. The first two-stage GBI test will occur this summer.
nuclear weapons complex
94. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, in the past you have been
quite vocal on the need for modernization of the nuclear weapons
complex. The fiscal year 2010 budget lacked adequate funding to address
the dire infrastructure needs. More than a year has passed since you
stated that ``there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible
deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without
either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization
program.'' Do you believe the President's fiscal year 2011 budget
addresses the critical needs for modernizing our nuclear weapons
complex?
Secretary Gates. Yes, I believe that the fiscal year 2011 budget
provides a credible modernization program to meet the national security
needs of the United States. The fiscal year 2011 budget for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) reverses a decade's
long decline in the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise in terms of both
stockpile management and the recapitalization of aging and
unsustainable nuclear facilities that do not meet modern safety
standards.
Specifically, the fiscal year 2011 NNSA budget requests funds to:
Revitalize warhead surveillance efforts, and the
science and technology that supports stockpile assessment and
certification in the absence of nuclear testing.
Protect human capital--including the expertise to
design, develop, and field warheads-through a stockpile
management program that fully exercises these capabilities.
Design and build a modern facility at Los Alamos--the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear
Facility--for plutonium R&D and pit production support.
Design and build a modern facility at Y-12--the
Uranium Processing Facility--to support Highly Enriched Uranium
(HEU) and related operations.
funds for the closure of gtmo
95. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the OCO portion of the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes $350 million
in a transfer fund for the detention facilities at GTMO, provides
funding to make improvements at the Illinois State Prison at Thomson,
IL, in the amount of $150 million, and includes another $158 million
for information technology improvements at the Rock Island Arsenal, IL,
to support DOD detainee operations at Thomson. These funds are in
addition to another $150 million in the Department of Justice (DOJ)
budget request to purchase the Thomson facility from the State of
Illinois. Current law prohibits bringing detainees from GTMO for any
reason except for detention during trial or for other legal
proceedings.
Why are the amounts requested for purchase and improvement of
Thomson and information technology support, a total of nearly $458
million, so high considering that the existing prison and courtroom
facilities at GTMO were built for about $240 million?
Secretary Gates. The $350 million request is for detainee
operations in general and not just for Thomson. Of the $350 million,
approximately $100 million is for improvements at Thomson Correctional
Center, approximately $50 million is for improvements at Rock Island
Arsenal, approximately $35 million is for procuring capital equipment
for the facility, and approximately $60 million is for capital
equipment and supplies for detention operations. The remaining $105
million is for operations at GTMO and Thomson.
The $458 million request includes DOJ purchase, DOJ operations, DOD
renovations, and DOD operations. When operations costs are excluded,
the relevant comparison for ``GTMO'' facility investment at Thomson is
approximately $200 million (DOJ's purchase price of DOD's portion of
the prison plus DOD's renovation costs).
96. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, are these amounts in addition
to the more than $200 million per year that it is estimated to cost to
try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four September 11 cohorts in New
York?
Secretary Gates. The $200 million per year was estimated by New
York City officials as their cost to conduct the trials. The amounts
requested in the President's budget are separate from this estimate.
97. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what is the estimated amount
of funding necessary to carry out all September 11 terrorist trials in
GTMO?
Secretary Gates. I cannot estimate a number at this time. The cost
per trial varies depending on the number of pre-trial motions,
witnesses, and other variables which are difficult to predict.
98. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what is the estimated amount
to try all the detainee cases the DOJ believes can be tried, which I
understand is about 35 total cases, in GTMO?
Secretary Gates. I cannot estimate a number at this time. The cost
per trial varies depending on the number of pre-trial motions,
witnesses, and other variables which are difficult to predict.
99. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, why is $158 million needed for
information technology improvements at Rock Island to support detention
facilities at Thomson?
Secretary Gates. Of the $350 million request, only approximately
$35 million is for procuring capital equipment, which includes
information technology hardware at both Thomson and Rock Island.
100. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, does this request include
funding for military housing and other base support facilities at
Thomson and Rock Island for the military personnel that will be
stationed to support the new facility?
Secretary Gates. No, it does not. There are no plans to build
military housing because the Department's initial preliminary
environmental assessment shows that the local economy can support the
estimated number of personnel that will work at Thomson and Rock
Island.
101. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, how many military personnel
will be assigned to Thomson and where will they be housed?
Secretary Gates. I estimate that approximately 800 military
personnel will be assigned to Thomson in a temporary duty status at
initial operational capability. The exact number of military personnel
assigned to Thomson will be determined by the Commander, U.S. Northern
Command (NORTHCOM). These personnel will leverage the local economy for
housing, and initial environmental planning documents affirm that the
local economy can support them.
102. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, how many additional military
personnel will be assigned to Rock Island to support detention
operations at Thomson and where will they be housed?
Secretary Gates. Pending completion of NORTHCOM's planning efforts,
I estimate that up to 500 personnel supporting the detainee operations
will be assigned to Rock Island at initial operational capability. The
exact number of personnel assigned to Rock Island will be determined by
the Commander, NORTHCOM. These personnel will leverage the local
economy for housing, and initial environmental planning documents
affirm that the local economy can support them.
103. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, if Congress approves a change
in the law to allow long-term detention without trial in the United
States, and also approves the funding requested to purchase and improve
detention facilities at Thomson, what is the timeline to begin
detention operations at Thomson?
Secretary Gates. From the date the restriction on long-term
detention without trial in the United States ceases to have effect, and
the funding requested to purchase and improve detention facilities at
Thomson becomes available. I would not give any estimate because there
are too many variables to work through.
104. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, when do you estimate the
Bureau of Prisons would purchase the Thomson facility from the State of
Illinois?
Secretary Gates. The Bureau of Prisons cannot begin negotiating a
purchase price until enactment of the portion of the President's fiscal
year 2011 budget that contains the DOJ appropriations and provides
funding for planning and assessment to continue at Thomson.
105. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, when would the extensive
improvements at Thomson and Rock Island begin?
Secretary Gates. Improvements could not begin until the
environmental assessment is completed, the Bureau of Prisons purchases
the facility, and DOD receives authorization and funding from Congress.
106. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, when would the IOC for
detention operations at Thomson be achieved?
Secretary Gates. I estimate that initial operational capability
would be achieved 10-13 months after DOD receives authorization and
funding from Congress.
107. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, when is the earliest date
that military commission trials be held at Thomson under this plan?
Secretary Gates. Military commission trials could be held when
initial operating capability is achieved.
108. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, when would the Final
Operational Capability (FOC) for detention operations at Thomson be
achieved?
Secretary Gates. Full operational capability would be achieved in
13-18 months after DOD receives authorization and funding from
Congress.
109. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what is the difference in
terms of the number of detainees that could be held or the nature of
detention operations between IOC and FOC?
Secretary Gates. There is no difference in either the number of
detainees that could be held at IOC and FOC or the nature of detention
operations at IOC and FOC.
110. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, on what date would detention
operations at GTMO actually end?
Secretary Gates. Detention operations at GTMO could end shortly
after Thomson is operational.
disposition of gtmo detainees
111. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the President established a
Joint Task Force (JTF) shortly after taking office last January to
review all the available information on the detainees at GTMO and to
make recommendations on whether they should be tried, released, or held
long-term without trial. These recommendations were to extend to
whether trials should be by military commission or by Federal courts,
and the location of such trials. After extending the deadline for their
work by 6 months, the media now reports that the report has been
completed and recommendations on all the detainees have been made. When
will the JTF report be made available to Congress, since the details it
contains will influence our consideration of funding for alternatives
to GTMO?
Secretary Gates. The report was completed on January 22, 2010, and
subsequently sent to the White House. It is not my decision to release
the report.
112. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, will the administration come
forward with a legislative proposal to repeal the current restrictions
on bringing detainees from GTMO to the United States in time for
comprehensive review before Congress receives the JTF report or takes
action on the funding request for the closure of GTMO?
Secretary Gates. The administration is reviewing a number of
possibilities relating to this issue, and it will not move any
detainees to the United States unless it is in full compliance with
U.S. law.
113. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, if an administration's
legislative proposal is forthcoming, will it address other aspects of
detention policy such as:
a prohibition on release of detainees into the United
States;
denial of any immigration status to detainees,
including refugee and asylum status, if detainees are ordered
released by a Federal court as a result of habeas corpus
challenges to their detention;
authorization for long-term detention without trial
within the United States; and
uniform rules for Federal courts to apply in
conducting habeas corpus proceedings reviewing the detention of
terrorists captured during our ongoing armed conflict with al
Qaeda and the Taliban, and associated forces, which are
responsible for the attacks of September 11?
Secretary Gates. The President said that we will not release any
detainee into the United States who will endanger American lives, and
that we will use all lawful and appropriate means to protect the
American people. The authority to detain individuals under the
immigration laws pending their removal from the United States,
particularly where they pose a threat to national security, is but one
mechanism that may be relied upon, if necessary, to ensure that
detainees will not endanger our citizens.
Furthermore, denial of any immigration status to detainees has
already been constituted. Section 552(f) of the fiscal year 2010
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which was signed
into law by the President on October 28, 2009, specifically bars
immigration benefits for detainees including ``classification as a
refugee or applicant for asylum.''
law of the sea treaty
114. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the U.S. has not ratified the
Law of the Sea Treaty while China has continued efforts to assert
sovereignty over contested areas in the South China Sea and in other
areas where such claims support China's national security interests.
Beijing has now suspended military-to-military exchanges as a result of
the recent U.S. announcement to continue defensive arms sales to
Taiwan. How are we managing our relationship with China in disputed
areas such as its maritime claims?
Secretary Gates. Despite China's recently announced suspension of
military-to-military relations, I remain highly committed to
strengthening the mechanisms that the Department has in place to engage
China on this and other security issues, including the U.S.-China
Defense Consultative Talks, the U.S.-China Defense Policy Coordination
Talks, and the U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement
process. These mechanisms provide for open and sustained channels of
communication to build greater confidence and mutual understanding,
discuss candidly our differences, and improve understanding and
application of safety standards and rules of the road for operations
that improve the safety of sailors and airmen of all countries in the
region.
I regard any suspension of discussions on operational safety as
potentially dangerous, and I regard the suspension of these discussions
on political grounds as particularly unfortunate. PLA General Xu Caihou
and I both reaffirmed our commitment to maintaining open dialogue on
security and safety issues during his visit in October. The United
States remains committed to all of our dialogue mechanisms with the
PLA.
Regarding China's maritime claims and the competing claims by other
states around the South China Sea, U.S. policy continues to be that we
do not take sides on the competing legal claims over territorial
sovereignty, including those in the South China Sea and East China Sea.
Furthermore, the United States does not propose to arbitrate or mediate
the underlying conflicts between the competing claims. However, it is
my view that our strong and continued presence in the region does
provide a sense of stability and a modicum of breathing room for the
claimants to pursue political means to resolve these issues. In short,
the U.S. presence is a stabilizing influence for all claimants in the
region.
115. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, how do you think the
relationship with China will develop as we continue to share the global
commons--sea, air, space and cyberspace--as our interests clash or
diverge?
Secretary Gates. As U.S.-PRC interactions at sea, in the air, in
space, and in cyberspace become more frequent, it will become
increasingly important that the United States and China have effective
mechanisms for communication to avoid miscalculation or
misunderstanding. I believe that the United States and China should
seek to recognize and expand shared interests in upholding the
stability of, and access to, the global commons, and work together
cooperatively in support of those interests. Where our interests
diverge, we must ensure that each has a clear understanding of the
other's intentions, and that open channels of communication exist to
avoid escalatory reactions or perceptions that could breed mistrust or
inadvertently destabilize the overall bilateral relationship. Whether
addressing shared or divergent interests with China, I have been
diligent to ensure DOD's positions are advanced in accordance with
customary international law.
DOD has several existing mechanisms to facilitate discussion with
China on the topics you mentioned, and the Department is examining ways
to expand their scope and effectiveness. In 1998, then-Secretary Cohen
signed the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) with China's
Minister of Defense, and under its auspices the U.S. and China have
held discussions on maritime operational safety, at sea and in the air.
In 2005, DOD established what became the Defense Policy Coordination
Talks as a forum for discussing, among other things, issues of maritime
security. In 2008, DOD also began a Dialogue on Nuclear Policy and
Strategy, and, in October 2009, General Xu Caihou, Vice Chairman of
China's Central Military Commission, visited U.S. Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) and engaged in discussions with General Chilton and his
staff on the issues under STRATCOM's purview.
The American and Chinese Governments have not yet reached the point
where these interactions are sufficiently consistent or substantive to
constitute the solid foundation needed for a stable and productive
relationship--one that can withstand the stresses that inevitably
emerge between two countries with interests as diverse as those of the
United States and China. Going forward, I believe that a whole-of-
government approach on both sides of the table provides the best
formula for building the necessary foundation.
okinawa to guam realignment
116. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, on February 17, 2009, the
U.S. Government reaffirmed its support of an agreement with the
Government of Japan (GOJ) concerning the implementation of the
relocation of 8,000 marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam by
2014 in a manner that maintains unit integrity. Since then, Japan
elected a new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who has asked the U.S.
Government to consider new options for the Futenma Replacement Facility
(FRF), which is part of the larger agreement for Guam. I note that the
agreement stipulates that the Japanese Government must demonstrate
tangible progress regarding the FRF, which has been defined to include
a signature by the Governor of Okinawa on a landfill permit required to
commence construction. This action was currently planned to take place
in mid to late 2010. In a press conference yesterday, you suggested
that we should demonstrate patience in the negotiations with the
Japanese Government on the future of the agreement. With that said, the
fiscal year 2011 budget request contains $387 million in military
construction funds for infrastructure on Guam to support the relocation
of marines from Okinawa. This is in addition to $160 million authorized
for construction in the 2010 defense bill. If the Japanese position
does not change regarding Futenma, will DOD still proceed with the
award of construction contracts on Guam to support the relocation of
the marines?
Secretary Gates. The fiscal year 2011 budget request is $452
million in military construction funds for infrastructure on Guam to
support the relocation of marines from Okinawa. The NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2010 approved $514 million to support the relocation effort.
The framework for U.S.-Japan force posture realignment is the U.S.-
Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation, issued following the May
1, 2006, meeting of the cabinet-level U.S.-Japan Security Consultative
Committee. This framework confirms that the Okinawa-related realignment
initiatives are interconnected and, specifically, that the III Marine
Expeditionary Force (III MEF) relocation from Okinawa to Guam is
dependent on, among other things, tangible progress toward completion
of the FRF.
The relocation to Guam is a capabilities issue, not a basing issue.
I have a responsibility to provide operationally ready forces in
support of the combatant commander and to meet our commitments to
Allies and partners in the region, including under the U.S.-Japan
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.
The Department is currently waiting for the GOJ to complete its
review of the FRF. Prime Minister Hatoyama stated that he intends to
resolve the issue by May, and I look forward to resuming work with the
GOJ to fulfill our longstanding mutual objective of realigning our
force posture in Japan to ensure that the Alliance's operational
capabilities remain politically and operationally sustainable.
117. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what other options are
acceptable to DOD for the relocation of Marine Corps aviation units
from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma?
Secretary Gates. The FRF, included in the May 2006 U.S.-Japan
Realignment Roadmap, resulted from several years of bilateral
coordination that took into account the political, operational, safety,
noise, environmental, and infrastructure requirements associated with
the Marine Corps forces in Okinawa. These forces, which consist of air,
ground, logistics, and command elements, remain dependent upon the
interaction of those elements in regular training, exercises, and
operations.
I am not aware of any other options that meet these criteria. DOD
is prepared to review what the GOJ comes up with to determine its
feasibility, including operational, safety, noise, environmental, and
infrastructure aspects, as well as to discuss its political
sustainability given local conditions. DOD remains committed to the
FRF--as reflected in the May 2006 Realignment Roadmap--as the best way
to move forward with the strategic transformation of U.S. presence in
Okinawa.
118. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, when do you expect to see a
resolution on the status the FRF?
Secretary Gates. Prime Minister Hatoyama stated that he intends to
resolve the issue by May. The GOJ is conducting a review of options and
has asked the U.S. Government to be patient as they prepare to present
an official alternative. I look forward to resuming work with the GOJ
to fulfill our longstanding mutual objective of realigning our force
posture in Okinawa to be more politically and operationally
sustainable.
119. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, would you recommend to the
President the continuation of the movement of marines to Guam absent an
acceptable solution for the FRF?
Secretary Gates. The current framework for U.S.-Japan force posture
realignment is the U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation,
issued following the May 1, 2006, meeting of the cabinet-level U.S.-
Japan Security Consultative Committee. This framework confirms that the
Okinawa-related realignment initiatives are interconnected and,
specifically, that the III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF)
relocation from Okinawa to Guam is dependent on, among other things,
tangible progress toward completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility
(FRF).
A suitable FRF is considered the ``lynchpin'' for III MEF
relocation to Guam. The relocation to Guam is a capabilities issue, not
a basing issue. I have a responsibility to provide operationally ready
forces in support of the combatant commander and to meet our
commitments to allies and partners in the region, including under the
U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.
The Department is currently waiting for the GOJ to complete its
review of the FRF. Prime Minister Hatoyama stated that he intends to
resolve the issue by May, and I look forward to resuming work with the
GOJ to fulfill our longstanding mutual objective of realigning our
force posture in Japan to ensure that the Alliance's operational
capabilities remain politically and operationally sustainable.
120. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, if the GOJ fails to approve
the current roadmap regarding Futenma, is the United States prepared to
nullify the current framework and remain in Futenma?
Secretary Gates. The current framework for U.S.-Japan force posture
realignment is the U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation,
issued following the May 1, 2006, meeting of the cabinet-level U.S.-
Japan Security Consultative Committee. While a suitable FRF is
considered essential for an enduring presence on Okinawa, the
Department is prepared to stay at Futenma if no replacement facility is
approved by the GOJ.
The GOJ is reviewing the FRF; Prime Minister Hatoyama has stated
that he intends to resolve the issue by May. We look forward to
resuming work with the GOJ to fulfill our longstanding mutual objective
of realigning our force posture in Japan to ensure that the Alliance's
operational capabilities remain sustainable, politically and
operationally. We have a responsibility to provide operationally ready
forces in support of the combatant commander and to meet our
commitments to allies and partners in the region, including under the
U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.
international pilot training
121. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, many of our allies choose to
conduct fighter pilot training here in the United States for various
reasons ranging from the availability of adequate ranges to cost and
the quality of training. This obviously affords the U.S. Air Force an
outstanding opportunity to partner and train with NATO and other allied
pilots. From what I have been told, the Secretary of the Air Force's
International Affairs office manages the program. Does DOD normally
guide or influence a partner nation's selection of the best location
among candidate bases already conducting similar missions in the United
States to conduct training to maximize efficiency for cost, quality of
training, and access to ranges?
Secretary Gates. There is no initiative in the U.S. Air Force
concerning a decision to influence or guide international partner pilot
training to a particular location. The Air Force provides tuition-based
pilot training at 14 locations. Each location, with the exception of
undergraduate pilot training, is the sole provider of tuition-based
training for a particular model of aircraft. For example, all F-16
tuition-based training is done at Tucson Air National Guard Base
(ANGB), AZ, through the 162d Fighter Wing and their assigned F-16
aircraft and instructor pilots.
When a partner nation desires to bed down its own aircraft at a
continental United States (CONUS) air force base, the Secretary of the
Air Force for International Affairs (SAF/IA) provides options based on
the country's requested training needs and budgetary requirements. When
presented with available locations, training capabilities, and pricing
information, the partner nation selects the training venue that best
meets their needs. The U.S. Air Force is committed to providing the
most effective training venue available for our international partners
consistent with their training needs and budget by dispassionately
providing the facts and costs for the available training.
122. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, would the office of the
Secretary of Defense have any reason to provide guidance to Secretary
of the Air Force's International Affairs office to encourage an allied
nation to remain at a certain location, regardless of the cost or
quality of training? If so, what would be those reasons and why?
Secretary Gates. There are occasions when discussions take place
between the appropriate DOD offices and a partner nation concerning
their choice of a bed down training location, usually when information
is requested by the partner nation. Cost and quality of training are
always considered in these discussions and are provided on all
available training locations. Once the data are provided, we expect the
partner nation to make the decision that best meets their training
needs and budgetary requirements.
When a partner nation requests tuition-based training for a
specific aircraft, there are no alternatives and the requesting nation
is limited to the stated location and standard student cost.
contractor performance for the missile defense agency
123. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, in the fiscal year 2011
budget press conference for the MDA, David Altwegg, Executive Director,
was asked about the quality of work being conducted by contractors on
MDA acquisition programs. Altwegg responded stating:
``I'm not going to name names today, but I'm going to tell
you we continue to be disappointed in the quality that we are
receiving from our prime contractors and their subs--very, very
disappointed; quality-design issues, but more in quality of
products delivered, which then results in rework and which
reserved--because most of these contracts are cost contracts,
it costs the taxpayer more.''
Given the cost-plus nature of many of these contracts and the
allegation that reckless failures by contractors are resulting in
unnecessary cost increases, how do you intend to address these
concerns, both within MDA and across DOD?
Secretary Gates. MDA has consistently expressed concern over the
magnitude and frequency of quality problems encountered in the
development and manufacture of the various elements that make up the
Missile Defense System.
MDA made significant changes in its acquisition processes over the
past several years that both Lieutenant General O'Reilly, the MDA
Director, and I believe will improve the quality in the manufacture of
our weapons systems. Specifically:
MDA established a robust quality organization within
the Agency, which focuses on tackling problems identified
during development and testing. One of the first steps of this
organization was the development of a MDA Assurance Plan, and a
MDA Parts, Materials and Process Plan. These plans require
major contractors to adopt disciplined processes and procedures
that lead to enhanced quality, a reduction in rework, lower
costs, and preventing ``parts'' quality issues from progressing
to the finished components. Second, MDA Quality Safety and
Mission Assurance now conducts periodic mission assurance
audits at contractors' facilities to monitor compliance and
ensure the contractors are following their approved policies
and procedures for the manufacture of systems. Following the
audit, any deficiencies identified are tracked and reported to
the MDA Director until they are successfully closed out.
MDA made significant changes to the award fee process
and quality control has received increased emphasis over the
past year. Prior to the beginning of each award fee period, the
contractor is provided with an expectations letter clearly
articulating the areas that the fee determining official
considers to require emphasis during the period. The award fee
expectations letters outline to contractors that poor quality
will not be tolerated and will reduce award fee earned when
appropriate.
MDA also moved away from cost plus award fee contracts
to cost plus incentive fee contracts, an approach that measures
contractor performance more precisely. Cost overruns result in
lower fees, while the contractor has also the opportunity to
earn more based on demonstrated positive performance against
objective criteria.
MDA performs an annual assessment of its contractor's
performance that is recorded in a database called Past
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) where these
assessments are retrieved and used as part of past performance
evaluations supporting future source selections throughout DOD.
Negative reports, such as poor quality control, can lead to a
contractor not being selected for a competitive contract award.
MDA embarked on efforts to re-compete many of its
major contracts. The Agency's expectation is that the
competitive process will result in lower cost, better
performance, and higher quality.
MDA clearly articulated to companies that it will not
authorize future contract scope when a clear trend of poor
quality assurance is not addressed by senior personnel and they
do not initiate changes to cause enduring improvement in the
quality and reliability of products.
124. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what steps can be taken to
ensure that contractors are held responsible to provide quality
products without unnecessary increases in cost?
Secretary Gates. I believe that the greater use of incentive-type
contracts with cost incentives and objective criteria, rather than
award fee contracts with more subjective criteria, should improve
contractor performance. In addition, greater emphasis on past
performance as a discriminator during contract competitions will
incentivize sources to achieve quality performance.
125. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, please explain to what extent
the fee structure of those contracts covered by Executive Director
Altwegg's comment can be better designed to incentivize optimal
performance. What specific remedial efforts do you intend to employ to
achieve that result?
Secretary Gates. The contract fee structure is just one element in
how we motivate or incentivize better contract performance. We will
monitor contractor performance under the revised incentive structure
over time and propose new steps when appropriate. The steps taken by
MDA will accomplish our mutual goal of achieving optimal contract
performance. Specifically:
MDA established a robust quality organization within
the Agency, which focuses on tackling problems identified
during development and testing. One of the first steps of this
organization was the development of a MDA Assurance Plan, and a
MDA Parts, Materials and Process Plan. These plans require
major contractors to adopt disciplined processes and procedures
that lead to enhanced quality, a reduction in rework, lower
costs, and preventing ``parts'' quality issues from progressing
to the finished components. Second, MDA Quality Safety and
Mission Assurance now conducts periodic mission assurance
audits at contractors' facilities to monitor compliance and
ensure the contractors are following their approved policies
and procedures for the manufacture of systems. Following the
audit, any deficiencies identified are tracked and reported to
the MDA Director until they are successfully closed out.
MDA made significant changes to the award fee process
and quality control has received increased emphasis over the
past year. Prior to the beginning of each award fee period, the
contractor is provided with an expectations letter clearly
articulating the areas that the fee determining official
considers to require emphasis during the period. The award fee
expectations letters outline to contractors that poor quality
will not be tolerated and will reduce award fee earned when
appropriate.
MDA also moved away from cost plus award fee contracts
to cost plus incentive fee contracts, an approach that measures
contractor performance more precisely. Cost overruns result in
lower fees, while the contractor has also the opportunity to
earn more based on demonstrated positive performance against
objective criteria.
MDA performs an annual assessment of its contractor's
performance that is recorded in a database called PPIRS where
these assessments are retrieved and used as part of past
performance evaluations supporting future source selections
throughout DOD. Negative reports, such as poor quality control,
can lead to a contractor not being selected for a competitive
contract award.
MDA embarked on efforts to recompete many of its major
contracts. The Agency's expectation is that the competitive
process will result in lower cost, better performance, and
higher quality.
MDA clearly articulated to companies that it will not
authorize future contract scope when a clear trend of poor
quality assurance is not addressed by senior personnel and they
do not initiate changes to cause enduring improvement in the
quality and reliability of products.
tricare fees
126. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, in your recent press comments
on the fiscal year 2011 budget request, you stated that reasonable
tradeoffs had to be made to control cost growth in the TRICARE program.
What is the administration's rationale for charging military families
or retirees higher out of pocket fees for health care they earned in
return for their military service?
Secretary Gates. There are no proposals in the fiscal year 2011
budget request that will raise discretionary fees for military families
or retirees. However, fees for the TRICARE program have remained static
since its inception in 1995, while health care costs have soared. For
example, the Prime enrollment fee has remained $460 a year for a
retiree family since 1995. As a result, many beneficiaries are
returning to the Military Health System (MHS), opting to use their more
generous TRICARE benefits versus other health plans.
MHS costs have more than doubled between fiscal year 2001 ($19
billion) and fiscal year 2010 ($49 billion). At this growth rate, MHS
costs are projected to approach $64 billion by fiscal year 2015, more
than 10 percent of the Department's top line budget. While the
Department continually looks for opportunities for savings and
efficiencies within the MHS, these efforts are unlikely to solve the
long-term sustainability issues of the TRICARE benefit without changes
to the beneficiary cost-sharing structure
extending benefits to new categories
127. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the Senate Committee on
Veterans Affairs has recently adopted legislation that would extend
TRICARE benefits to certain current and former members of the Armed
Forces and their family members for health problems occurring as a
result of exposure to environmental hazards at Camp LeJeune and the
Atsugi Naval Air Facility if so determined by an advisory board on
military exposures. What is your position on expansion of eligibility
for TRICARE to cover such individuals, including those who may be
otherwise ineligible for DOD health care benefits?
Secretary Gates. Before we would extend health benefits, we would
need evidence of causality between consumption of contaminated water
and any adverse health conditions. The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has
not yet established linkage between the consumption of contaminated
water at Camp Lejeune and health conditions in the population who
consumed the contaminated water.
Health benefits coverage should be limited only to those conditions
where there is sound scientific evidence of a causal relationship
between exposure, including the amount of exposure dose, and specific
disease outcomes. Absent information on exposure dose and in accordance
with proposed Senate legislation, this determination would be made by
an Advisory Committee and a Scientific Review Committee. In addition to
consideration of causally-related associations with the particular
contaminants identified, consideration must be given to the severity of
exposures (dosages) that individuals may have encountered while
residing at Camp Lejeune or the Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan. The
doses of contaminates are critical in determining risk, as many low
dose exposures do not create significant health risks. The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is embarking on a series of
studies to better identify the exposed personnel and then to study
disease outcome in those individuals in order to identify any positive
associations.
It should also be noted, in accordance with the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the Marine Corps contracted
with the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council (NRC))
to review the evidence regarding potential associations between
exposure to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune and adverse
health effects in prenatal children, children, and adults. The NRC
review report concluded that while former Camp Lejeune residents and
workers were exposed to unregulated solvents, there are no conclusive
associations between adverse health effects and exposure to the
contaminated water at the base. The report noted that for the chemicals
of greatest concern, tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene, the highest
levels measured in the mixed-water samples at Camp Lejeune were much
lower than the lowest dose that caused adverse effects in the most
sensitive strains of species of laboratory animals. The review
concluded, however, that even though adverse effects were unlikely,
they could not be ruled out completely and that the Department of the
Navy (and other policy makers) should move forward with responses they
deem appropriate based on available information.
In regard to the personnel who were assigned at Naval Air Facility
Atsugi, Japan while the Japanese Shinkampo incinerator was operational,
a number of comprehensive health studies were accomplished by the U.S.
Navy Environmental Health Center. As a result of these assessments, it
would be difficult to attribute any particular cancer occurring in this
population that is related to the incinerator emissions.
128. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, if enacted, how would the
TRICARE program implement health benefits coverage limited to
conditions related to exposure to environmental hazards?
Secretary Gates. The Department provides or arranges for medically
necessary health care for those entitled to the MHS benefit. In the
broad sense, we do not deny care to those entitled to care based on the
cause of their medical condition. If the statute is changed and the
Department is directed to provide care for a new category of
beneficiary, we would use existing regulatory procedures to define
eligibility and health care coverage.
payments to civilian hospitals
129. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what amount of savings is
assumed in this request as a result of payment reform for civilian
hospitals, such as application of Medicare outpatient prospective
payments, and payments to sole community providers?
Secretary Gates. TRICARE implemented its Outpatient Prospective
Payment System (OPPS) on May 1, 2009 to bring its reimbursement rates
for hospital outpatient services into alignment with Medicare rates.
All public comments were taken into account before the final rule was
published on December 10, 2008. The rule provided a phase in period of
four years for network hospitals and three years for non-network
hospitals to buffer the effect of the decline in payments. Prior to
this rule, TRICARE paid billed charges for emergency room visits and a
CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge for outpatient radiology, pathology,
and ambulatory surgery. In total, the payments reflected approximately
45 percent of overall billed charges.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget for the Defense Health
Program assumes $366 million in savings associated with this change.
The calculation included the phase in schedule as well as the
assumption that some hospitals would qualify for Military Contingency
Payment Adjustments which offset the effect on facilities serving a
significant number of active duty servicemembers and their families.
These adjustments may be applied if certain volume or TRICARE revenue
thresholds are met by the hospital. This provision was designed to
ensure continued access to care in military communities. Sole community
hospitals are among those affected by the OPPS regulation.
Based on the first 3 months of fiscal year 2010, we are on track to
realize these projected savings. TRICARE Regional Offices are assisting
hospitals with documentation of their claims history to qualify for the
Military Contingency Payment Adjustment.
130. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, do civilian hospitals lose
money every time they care for a TRICARE patient? If so, why? If not,
please explain, based on data available to DOD.
Secretary Gates. We have no evidence that civilian hospitals lose
money. Statute (10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2)) requires TRICARE to pay
institutional providers according to the rules which apply to Medicare
reimbursement to the extent practicable. In comparing OPPS
reimbursement to the prior formula, our analysis of a nationwide sample
of 73 hospitals indicated reimbursement would drop from approximately
45 percent of overall billed charges to 30-40 percent. This amount
exceeds publicly available cost to charge ratios in all but four States
(Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, and Alaska), thus covering hospitals' costs
for the care.
While TRICARE's OPPS represents a significant change for hospitals,
it aligns our program with Medicare, covers hospital costs, and
includes considerations for hospitals seeing a large volume of TRICARE
patients.
medical facilities in the national capital region
131. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, nearly all of our Nation's
seriously wounded and ill warriors return to medical facilities in the
National Capital Region (NCR) even if they do not become inpatients
here. It is imperative that the quality of care at Walter Reed and Fort
Belvoir retain the high degree of excellence provided today as well as
achieve additional attributes of world-class care in the new joint
facility.
In its independent review of DOD's plans for the new Walter Reed
National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), an advisory committee of the
Defense Health Board (DHB) found that there is an ``urgent need to
clarify the vision, goals, and expectations'' for the new facility and
to ``consolidate organizational and budgetary authority in a single
entity.'' The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 requires DOD to delineate
budget and operational authority to provide and operate world class
military medical facilities in the NCR as part of a plan that must be
submitted to Congress by March 31, 2010. Are funds included in DOD's
FYDP to invest in the existing facilities at Bethesda to raise them to
world-class standards?
Secretary Gates. The Department has developed a Comprehensive
Master Plan for the NCR, which provides a roadmap to continue improving
the finest healthcare facilities possible for our military families.
Military medicine in the NCR incorporates many of the world-class
attributes and capabilities as defined in the DHB panel's recently
established standard. Since our 2009 review of the DHB report, the
Department has institutionalized even greater requirements than the
report outlined and has undertaken a Master Facilities Planning process
to define and execute the requirements as part of our Comprehensive
Master Plan. This plan will inform the DOD's FYDP starting fiscal year
2012.
132. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what are the plans for DOD
and the JTF, NCR Medical, to address the issues of command and control,
resources and staffing, both military and civilian, of the integrated
care system for the NCR?
Secretary Gates.
Command, Control, and Resources:
The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendation that
realigned operations from Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) to a
new WRNMMC, Bethesda and Fort Belvoir Community Hospital (FBCH), was
the Department's first step in a larger effort to transform, realign,
and significantly enhance the way it delivers healthcare in the NCR.
Taking into account the recommendations of the DOD's 2007 Independent
Review Group and the President's Commission on Care for America's
Returning Wounded Warriors (Dole-Shalala), the DOD Senior Oversight
Council recommended, and the Department established, the Joint Task
Force National Capital Region Medical (JTF CAPMED) as a standing JTF to
oversee these efforts.
The NCR BRAC Health Systems Advisory Subcommittee of the DHB's
independent review of DOD's plans for the new WRNMMC, Bethesda, and
FBCH identified authority issues in the NCR as ``foundational'' and
recommended empowering a single official with complete organizational
and budgetary authority in the NCR.
The Department is developing and implementing a comprehensive
master plan for the NCR Medical as required under section 2714 of the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 that will address this.
Manpower Document:
The Department has determined an Active-Duty Force mix distribution
for the new WRNMMC, Bethesda and FBCH and the Services have identified
the resources to meet the defined manning requirements. At WRNMMC,
Bethesda the Active-Duty Force mix will be approximately 41 percent
Army, 54 percent Navy, and 5 percent Air Force. At FBCH, it will be
approximately 62 percent Army, 36 percent Navy, and 2 percent Air
Force. The distribution of forces is necessary to understand where the
future requirements for the civilian workforce will be located.
An Intermediate Manpower Document (IMD) is being developed and will
be used to facilitate the development of the ultimate Joint Table of
Distribution (JTD). The IMD is an authoritative database that supports
the underlying manning documents for each Service. It will allow the
compilation of all personnel requirements for the eventual JTD while
maintaining more flexibility for changes during the transition and as
experience is gained operating the new hospitals. The IMD will look
exactly like a JTD in all aspects, which will facilitate its eventual
migration to the JTD. The final iteration of the Department's draft JTD
version 3.0 was renamed the IMD. Following the completion of the IMD,
JTF CAPMED and the Services will develop a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) to commit resources in support of the IMD. Until the Department
makes its final determination on the ultimate governance alignment of
JTF CAPMED, the IMD can remain a local database, with necessary MOAs,
allowing flexibility for position changes and realignments.
Civilian Personnel:
Retaining the skilled workforce in the NCR is imperative to
operating the new WRNMMC, Bethesda and FBCH. A Joint manning solution
coupled with a comprehensive human capital strategy will allow the
Department to incorporate the rich legacies of both WRAMC and NNMC as
national icons in establishing the new WRNMMC, Bethesda and FBCH. While
attrition levels of government civilians at WRAMC remain normal,
individuals at WRAMC and NNMC remain concerned about their jobs and
location in the end state. The Department is engaged in comprehensive
communication efforts with the current workforce to ensure transparency
and maintain trust.
The Department has established a Civilian Human Resources (CHR)
Council to oversee the transition of civilian employees in the NCR. In
February 2010, the CHR began matching current permanent WRAMC civilians
to work locations at either WRNMMC, Bethesda or FBCH. Utilizing a
workforce mapping model to execute a Guaranteed Placement Program
(GPP), the Department will be able to identify placement options for
the vast majority of WRAMC government civilians at their desired work
location performing their preferred work assignment. Placement options
will also include reassignment opportunities and career progression
opportunities that do not exist today. By July 1, 2010 notifications
will be made to civilian employees of their future work assignments and
locations at WRNMMC, Bethesda, FBCH or other opportunities within the
GPP. Government civilians will not incur any loss in pay as a result of
the transition.
The Department is taking significant actions to accommodate work
location preferences for as many civilians as possible. Approximately
1,500 of the WRAMC civilian personnel will be placed at WRNMMC,
Bethesda. Surveys indicate that approximately 405 current civilian
employees prefer to work at FBCH, which includes 355 civilian employees
assigned to WRAMC and 50 civilian personnel assigned to NNMC. DOD may
be able to expand WRAMC placement opportunities for civilian personnel
at WRNMMC Bethesda through workforce mix analysis, insourcing and/or
other initiatives. All new permanent civilian hires at WRAMC and NNMC
are being advised that their work and position may move to FBCH in
2011. This change was effective as of February 2010. In addition, DOD
will leverage attrition over the next year and a half to create
additional positions at WRNMMC, Bethesda in order to place current
permanent WRAMC civilians. DOD is committed to maintaining a highly-
skilled workforce in the NCR able to meet the unique healthcare needs
of the Nation's servicemembers, retirees, and their families.
133. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what steps has DOD taken and
what additional steps are necessary to apprise civilian health care
employees at Walter Reed and Bethesda of their future status within the
new facility in order to retain the highest quality staff now serving?
Secretary Gates. Retaining the skilled workforce in the NCR is
imperative to operating the new WRNMMC, Bethesda and FBCH. A Joint
manning solution coupled with a comprehensive human capital strategy
will allow the Department to incorporate the rich legacies of both
WRAMC and NNMC as national icons in establishing the new WRNMMC,
Bethesda and FBCH. While attrition levels of government civilians at
WRAMC remain normal, individuals at WRAMC and NNMC remain concerned
about their jobs and location in the end state. The Department is
engaged in comprehensive communication efforts with the current
workforce to ensure transparency and maintain trust.
The Department has established a CHR Council to oversee the
transition of civilians in the NCR. In February 2010 it began matching
current permanent WRAMC civilians to their work locations at either
WRNMMC, Bethesda or FBCH in the end state. Utilizing a workforce
mapping model to execute the Guaranteed Placement Program (GPP), the
Department will be able to place the vast majority of WRAMC government
civilians at their desired work locations doing the work they want to
do and will provide reassignment opportunities and career progression
opportunities that do not exist today. Notifications will be made to
Federal Government civilians, who will be transitioned to a single DOD
civilian manning model, of their future work locations at WRNMMC,
Bethesda, FBCH, or other opportunities within the GPP by July 1, 2010.
Government civilians will not incur any loss in pay as a result of the
transition.
The Department has taken significant actions to meet work location
preferences for as many civilians as possible. The Active-Duty Force
mix across these hospitals will facilitate the placement of
approximately 1,500 of the WRAMC civilian personnel to be placed at the
WRNMMC, Bethesda. Surveys indicate that more than 355 Federal
Government civilians at WRAMC and 50 at NNMC desire to go to FBCH.
There are approximately 230 contract billets planned for FBCH and 475
for WRNMMC, Bethesda and depending on the skills needed, DOD may be
able to use some of those contractor billets to expand WRAMC personnel
placements at Bethesda. In addition, effective February 2010, all new
permanent hires at WRAMC and NNMC are being advised that their work may
move to FBCH in 2011. DOD will also be leveraging attrition over the
next year and a half to create additional ``spaces'' at Bethesda to
place current permanent WRAMC civilians. DOD is committed to
maintaining a highly-skilled workforce in the NCR able to meet the
unique healthcare needs of the Nation's servicemembers, retirees, and
their families.
support for military families with special needs
134. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010
required DOD to establish an Office of Community Support for Families
with Special Needs, and to significantly improve programs both in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and throughout the military
departments to assist military families with special educational and
medical needs. What are DOD's plans to implement this program in fiscal
year 2010?
Secretary Gates. We have established the Office of Community
Support for Military Families with Special Needs within the office of
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family
Policy. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 requires the office to develop
and implement a comprehensive policy on support for military families
with special needs.
An Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)/Services working group
has been meeting since April 2009, on how to better support military
families with special needs, for both Active Duty and the Reserve
component. The working group has begun developing the policy and will
develop standards and metrics by which to measure the effectiveness of
the support provided.
We met with military families with special needs to better
understand their needs and will continue to involve them. We will also
consult with military and civilian specialists supporting families with
special needs to help us develop the family support program.
In November 2009, the Department sponsored joint service training
for over 300 military personnel who serve military families with
special needs.
The Department has established a repository of information for
military families with special needs at Military OneSource
(www.militaryonesource.com/specialneeds). The launch page provides a
central location for families to learn about services and support
available from the military as well as from the communities outside the
gate.
135. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, why does the request for
fiscal year 2011 omit any request for funding this mandate?
Secretary Gates. Although the Department did not request funds in
the fiscal year 2011 budget, we understand the importance of this
program. We are reviewing our funding options for fiscal year 2011 and
will work with Congress to resolve any concerns.
136. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what is DOD's estimate of the
funds required to meet this mandate in fiscal year 2011 and how will it
be achieved?
Secretary Gates. The Military Community and Family Programs office
under the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
continues to refine the implementation plan, including the requirements
of the program management office. Once the implementation plan is
complete, funds will be realigned within available resources, or
reprogrammed during the Omnibus reprogramming action to meet the
initial fiscal year 2010 funding requirements of the Office of
Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs. The
implementation plan will also lay out the fiscal year 2011 funding
requirements and strategies. As necessary, the Department will submit a
reprogramming action to meet fiscal year 2011 requirements.
rotary wing support in afghanistan
137. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, on September 28, 2009,
Newsweek released an article titled ``Not So Special Forces''
describing a shortage of aviation assets, particularly rotary lift, to
support SOF in Afghanistan, including a claim that nearly 80 percent of
aviation requests made by SOF in Afghanistan were rejected. Aware of
the vital role SOF play in our efforts against terrorism, the 2010 QDR
calls for a substantial increase in SOF personnel and a correlating
increase in key enabling assets for SOF, including rotary lift. While
this increase is necessary to support the growing end strength of SOF,
it will not provide near-term relief to already strained resources in-
country. What is your current assessment of the availability of
enabling forces, including rotary lift, for SOF in Afghanistan?
Admiral Mullen. We continue to have shortfalls in ISR and rotary
wing support to SOF in Afghanistan. Personnel training is the biggest
factor limiting how fast we can deliver more ISR to Afghanistan.
Training pipelines for ISR operators and intelligence analysts are
operating at maximum throughput to operate and employ newly acquired
hardware, and we continue to ensure proper numbers and placement of
analysts to effectively collect, analyze, and exploit intelligence
data.
To address the current need for battlefield mobility, one
additional MH-47 will be delivered to Afghanistan in May, and two
additional Chinooks will arrive in December 2010 and June 2011,
respectively. Additionally, five CV-22s deployed in April to support
SOF mobility requirements in Afghanistan, to include vertical lift. We
are also accelerating delivery of CV-22s to better support the forces
requiring them, and we anticipate adding five more CV-22s to the fleet
in the coming year. Currently at initial operational capability, CV-22
units cannot currently sustain a permanent presence in Afghanistan and
they are limited to 4-6 month deployments to accommodate training new
crews. However, their presence will become more enduring as the fleet
grows and the CV-22 reaches full operational capability in fiscal year
2011.
138. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, what steps, if any, have been
taken to alleviate the shortage of key enabling forces, including
rotary lift, in Afghanistan for SOF?
Admiral Mullen. We continue to have shortfalls in ISR and rotary
wing support to SOF in Afghanistan. Personnel training is the biggest
factor limiting how fast we can deliver more ISR to Afghanistan.
Training pipelines for ISR operators and intelligence analysts are
operating at maximum throughput to operate and employ newly acquired
hardware, and we continue to ensure proper numbers and placement of
analysts to effectively collect, analyze, and exploit intelligence
data.
To address the current need for battlefield mobility, one
additional MH-47 will be delivered to Afghanistan in May, and two
additional Chinooks will arrive in December 2010 and June 2011,
respectively. Additionally, five CV-22s deployed in April to support
SOF mobility requirements in Afghanistan, to include vertical lift. We
are also accelerating delivery of CV-22s to better support the forces
requiring them, and we anticipate adding five more CV-22s to the fleet
in the coming year. Currently at initial operational capability, CV-22
units cannot currently sustain a permanent presence in Afghanistan and
they are limited to 4-6 month deployments to accommodate training new
crews. However, their presence will become more enduring as the fleet
grows and the CV-22 reaches full operational capability in fiscal year
2011.
139. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, do you believe that U.S.
forces will have adequate rotary medical evacuation lift in Afghanistan
once the surge of 30,000 forces is in place?
Admiral Mullen. The Joint Staff stood-up an operational planning
team to examine the current and future requirements for rotary medical
evacuation, or MEDIVAC, platforms in Afghanistan given the increase in
number of deployed forces. I expect to be briefed on the team's
assessment by 10 May and I will subsequently provide the results to the
committee. That said, we will do all we need to do to ensure there is
adequate rotary medical evacuation lift in Afghanistan once the surge
of 30,000 forces are in place.
The Joint Staff is working closely with U.S. CENTCOM and U.S. Joint
Forces Command (JFCOM) to accurately define the CENTCOM Commander's
requirements and sourcing solutions. Additionally, in order to be
adequately prepared to source solutions once the Commander's
requirements are finalized, U.S. Joint Forces Command is working
closely with the Services, Reserves, and National Guard Bureau to
determine readiness and availability of forces.
impact to readiness from off-shore drilling
140. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the President stated his
support for new off-shore drilling initiatives during his State of the
Union Address. As you may know, the issue of drilling in the Eastern
Gulf of Mexico has raised concerned within DOD over potential impacts
to the test and training air ranges in that area. Some of this concern
has been addressed with recent negotiations with the Department of the
Interior about acceptable methods of drilling. What is the current
position of DOD concerning the issuance of additional leases in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico to support off-shore drilling operations and the
current concerns about the impact to military readiness?
Secretary Gates. On April 2, 2010, the DOD transmitted a report to
the Department of Interior (DOI) on the compatibility of DOD activities
with oil and gas resource development on the outer continental shelf.
Transmittal of the report occurred after months of discussions with the
DOI and was in response to the Mineral Management Service's ``Draft
2010-2015 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale Plan.''
The report applied greater analytic rigor than past reports, going
beyond the former binary analysis where areas were either compatible or
incompatible with development, to include areas of conditional
compatibility (drilling with stipulations such as periodic evacuation
or no permanent surface structures). While only a small portion of the
Eastern Gulf was found to be compatible without restrictions, larger
areas were found to be conditionally compatible. The report only
examined military mission and did not address environmental issues.
don't ask, don't tell policy
141. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, in your testimony on February
2, you were clear that the Joint Chiefs have not yet developed their
best military advice about the impact of a repeal of the DADT policy
and the manner in which you would implement a change in policy. You
stated that you would like to have the time to do so. However, many in
Congress intend to move quickly through legislation to repeal 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 654 as quickly as possible.
In view of the time needed to perform the high level review, do you
support legislative change to the current homosexual conduct policy
before the Chiefs have formulated their advice?
Admiral Mullen. I agree with the approach that the Secretary of
Defense has proposed, which calls for a careful review of this policy.
Given all we are currently asking of our force and their families, I
think we owe it to them to understand the exact nature of the impact of
any repeal of the law. I also believe this review will be useful to
Congress in your deliberations. This is why we are undertaking a
comprehensive review of the issue, and I support taking the time to do
so. I do not support legislative change to current homosexual conduct
policy before the Chiefs have formulated their advice, tied to the
results of the ongoing comprehensive review.
142. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, you testified that a high-
level working group within DOD will review the issues associated with
properly implementing a repeal of the DADT policy. Part of this review,
you testified, will be to reach out to authoritatively understand the
views and attitudes of the force. Please explain in detail what steps
DOD will take to implement the President's direction to begin the
preparations necessary for repeal of the current law and policy.
Secretary Gates. As I have directed, the Working Group will solicit
the views of a wide array of individuals including military families.
Over the course of the next 8 months members of the Working Group will
meet with a wide array of individuals of all Services, ranks, ages and
assignments, officers and enlisted, to seek their advice, opinions, and
concerns regarding a repeal and how it should be implemented. The
Working Group will thoroughly, objectively, and methodically examine
all aspects of this question, and produce its finding and
recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of
this calendar year.
143. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, are the actions you are
directing intended to strengthen the argument for repeal of existing
law?
Secretary Gates. The Comprehensive Review Working Group is
conducting a comprehensive review of the issues associated with a
repeal of the law. I have directed this effort be carried out
professionally, thoroughly, dispassionately, and in a manner responsive
to the direction of the President and to the needs of Congress this
matter is debated and considered.
144. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what difference will it make,
if any, in DOD planning if a significant proportion--say 50 percent--of
servicemembers and their families register objection to a change in the
policy?
Secretary Gates. I am not in a position to speculate as to what the
Working Group may find and conclude in the course of its review. I do
know that the Working Group will undertake its review in an objective
and thorough manner, and I expect that the Working Group co-chairs will
provide me with their best assessment of the impact of repeal,
regardless of what that may be, to permit me to determine, as I said in
my testimony, how best to prepare for implementation of a congressional
repeal.
145. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, please explain in detail how
you intend to authoritatively understand the views and attitudes of
Active and Reserve servicemembers.
Secretary Gates. Over the course of the next 8 months members of
the Working Group will meet with a wide array of individuals of all
Services, ranks, ages, and assignments, officers and enlisted, to seek
their advice, opinions, and concerns regarding a repeal and how it
should be implemented. The Working Group is in the process of
developing appropriate means by which to accomplish this.
146. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, as part of your review, do
you intend to seek the views of veterans or retired members of the
Armed Forces? If no, why not?
Secretary Gates. The Working Group will seek to hear from the many
responsible voices of those individuals and groups with diverse views
on this important matter, including veterans and retired members of the
Armed Forces.
147. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, please explain in detail how
the working group will attempt to gauge the impacts of a change in the
law on military effectiveness, including how a change might affect unit
cohesion, recruiting, and retention.
Secretary Gates. As stated in my testimony, the Working Group will
examine the potential impacts of a change in the law on military
effectiveness, including how a change might affect unit cohesion,
recruiting and retention, and other issues crucial to the performance
of the force. To accomplish this task, I have directed the Working
Group to systematically engage the force and in an appropriately
balanced manner engage Members of Congress, key influences of potential
servicemembers, and other stakeholder groups who have expressed a view
on the current and prospective policy.
148. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, you have outlined plans for a
study about changing, or more likely, repealing the current law
regarding military service by homosexuals. Please describe the
regulatory or legislative changes you will seek or direct this year
with respect to DOD's DADT policy and title 10, U.S.C., Sec. 654.
Secretary Gates. The Working Group will produce its findings and
recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of
this calendar year. I anticipate recommended regulatory and legislative
changes will be included in this report. Additionally, as announced in
my testimony, I have directed the Department to quickly review the
regulations used to implement the current Don't Ask, Don't Tell law,
and within 45 days present recommended changes to regulations that will
enforce this policy in a fairer manner within existing law.
149. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, you are the principal military
adviser to the President and the Secretary of Defense, but under law,
you must consult with and seek the advice of the other members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders. What are the views
of the other Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders about
changing the existing homosexual conduct policy?
Admiral Mullen. Each of the Service Chiefs and combatant commanders
has appeared before the committee, where they had the opportunity to
express their views. I can tell you that all the Chiefs are concerned
with current combat operations and the associated stress on the force.
Given what is currently being asked of our force and their families,
the Chiefs would all like to better understand the exact nature of the
impact of any repeal of the law. This is why all of us support a
comprehensive review of the issue in order to better advise the
Secretary of Defense and the President.
150. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen,
subparagraph (a) of section 654 of title 10, U.S.C., sets forth 15
findings of fact concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Do you
disagree with any of the findings? If so, how?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. I fully support the President's
decision. The President announced a plan to work with Congress this
year to repeal 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654. He subsequently directed DOD to
begin the preparations necessary for repeal of the current law and
policy. I have directed this effort be carried out professionally,
thoroughly, dispassionately, and in a manner responsive to the
direction of the President and to the needs of Congress this matter is
debated and considered. The Comprehensive Review Working Group will
solicit the views of a wide array of individuals from the different
Services on this subject. This working group is conducting a
comprehensive review of the issues associated with a repeal of the law.
With the preparation and conclusions of the working group completed,
the next stage will be Congressional deliberation and decision, as only
Congress can repeal 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654.
151. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, would you
please explain your views about what conditions are now present in the
Armed Forces that justify repealing the current homosexual conduct
policy now.
Secretary Gates I support the President's decision to work with
Congress this year to repeal 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 and to direct DOD to
begin the preparations necessary for a repeal of the current law and
policy. The Comprehensive Review Working Group I have established will,
among other things, solicit the views of a wide array of individuals
from the different Services on this subject, and I look forward to the
continued progress of the working group as they undertake their
important task in the months ahead.
Admiral Mullen. Given all we are currently asking of our force and
their families, I think we owe it to them to understand the exact
nature of the impact of any repeal of the law. I support the approach
that the Secretary of Defense has proposed, which calls for a careful
review of issues and impact related to this policy and its potential
repeal. This review will help us better understand the conditions in
today's Armed Forces related to this law and policy.
My personal view, as I have expressed, is that current law and
policy conflict with our core value of integrity--as individuals and as
an institution. But I need to understand the full impacts of any change
to the law, and how to best ensure the wellbeing of the force should
the law change.
It is premature for me to speculate now regarding what the review
will find. I look forward to working with leaders within DOD to conduct
this review in a manner that preserves the high state of readiness of
the U.S. military.
152. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, you have extensive operational
and command experience, including command of three ships. Even on
today's most modern ships and submarines, living conditions are
spartan. The same is certainly true for deployed ground forces in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and around the globe. What is your message to military
personnel of any rank who object to being required to live and work
under such conditions with an openly gay individual?
Admiral Mullen. We ask much of our servicemembers, and we put them
into situations where they are living and working, day in and day out,
under tough conditions. At all times, we must be attentive to good
order and discipline and morale, and maintaining military
effectiveness. We will always take the steps necessary to preserve
effectiveness and readiness, consistent with our core values and
military ethos, and our mission.
153. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, we should anticipate that many
military leaders, officer and enlisted, will object to changes in the
current DOD homosexual conduct policy. Yet you have testified about
your personal view that good leadership requires military leaders to
support changes to the policy. Please expand on your views about
military leadership and the burden of implementing the homosexual
conduct policy.
Admiral Mullen. For the record, I testified that understanding the
impact of any change to the law gets to the core of where I am at on
this issue, which is leadership. We must be prepared to lead if the law
changes.
I do not expect to try to change someone's views about
homosexuality. I do believe that we can have clear standards of conduct
and behavior, and hold people accountable to those standards. To ensure
we can lead effectively, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of
the issue to better understand the dynamics of any repeal. Leadership
requires preparation, and it is my responsibility to ensure our leaders
are ready for any decision Congress should make.
154. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, what is your message to
officer and enlisted leaders who oppose change but whom you consider
key to making changes to the policy work successfully.
Admiral Mullen. I do not expect to try to change someone's views
about homosexuality. I do believe that we can have clear standards of
conduct and behavior, and hold people accountable to those standards.
To ensure we do this effectively, we are undertaking a comprehensive
review of the issue to better understand the dynamics of any repeal.
I have great confidence in the quality of our officer and enlisted
leadership and know that with sound preparation they can lead the force
successfully, should the law and policy change.
155. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, in your view, to what degree
and how would repeal of the current law and DOD homosexual conduct
policy improve military readiness?
Admiral Mullen. I cannot say what all the impacts of repeal of the
law would be. That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive review of
the issue to better understand the impacts of any potential change. A
balanced, reasoned assessment will best serve us as we consider this
matter.
156. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, what effect would repeal of
the current law and policy have on recruiting and retention?
Admiral Mullen. I cannot say for certain how repeal might affect
these areas. That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive review of
the issue to better understand the impacts of any potential change. It
is important for us to understand these dymanics in order to lead the
force, should the law change
157. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, to what extent, if any, has
the current law and DOD DADT policy hindered the military's ability in
a measurable way to recruit and retain qualified personnel to meet
service manpower requirements?
Admiral Mullen. I know that some schools have expressed concern
over the presence of recruiters due to the existence of this law. Our
recruiters currently are able to accomplish their mission, and we will
continue to work through issues directly with those schools that
express concerns.
However, I cannot say for certain how the current law affects
recruiting and retention overall, or its how its potential repeal might
affect recruiting and retention. That is why we are undertaking a
comprehensive review of the issue to better understand the impacts of
any potential change of current law and policy.
158. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, to what extent, if any, has
the current law hindered the ability of the Army and Marine Corps to
expand in recent years?
Admiral Mullen. The Marine Corps has already completed its growth
to new active duty end strength levels of 202,100. The Army is on track
to grow to 547,400, and I am confident that the Army will be successful
in getting to that level. I cannot say how current law has helped or
hindered this process. Recruiting and retention are impacted by many
factors, and it is important that we understand these as best we can.
159. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, to what extent, if any, has
the requirement to separate homosexual personnel under section 654
created a measurable impact on readiness of the force?
Admiral Mullen. The number of annual separations is small (less
than four-tenths of 1 percent of all separations). No one likes to see
talent leave the Service, but it is our job to follow the law. I
support Congress' examination of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and should the
law change we will work within any new guidance. Related to your
deliberation, I support the approach the Secretary of Defense has
proposed, which calls for a careful review of this policy.
160. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, to what extent, if any, do you
think the repeal of the current law and DOD homosexual conduct policy
would affect military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and
discipline?
Admiral Mullen. We have fair and responsive disciplinary and
administrative processes by which we promptly investigate and
adjudicate instances of inappropriate conduct. Our standards and
processes apply to conduct, regardless of orientation, rank, or gender.
However, I cannot say exactly what all the impacts of repeal of the law
would be. That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive review to
better understand the issues associated with any potential change. A
balanced and thorough review will support effective leadership within
the force, should the law change.
161. Senator McCain. Admiral Mullen, what effect would a repeal of
current law have on the propensity of prospective recruits to enlist
and on the propensity of influencers (parents, coaches, teachers, and
religious leaders, for example) to recommend military service?
Admiral Mullen. I cannot say for certain how repeal might affect
recruiting and retention. I would expect a range of views among
influencers, who guide our young Americans towards public service as
policemen, firemen and first responders, as well as towards the armed
forces. Through our comprehensive review of the issue we aim to better
understand the impacts of any potential change from current law and
policy.
162. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, according to data provided by
the Services and DOD, the number of discharges for homosexual conduct
consistently has been significantly less than 1 percent, compared to
discharges for other reasons. The Congressional Research Service
concluded that most discharges occur among younger, less experienced
personnel. Do you consider the numbers of discharges under the existing
DOD policy to adversely affect the readiness of the Armed Forces?
Secretary Gates. The Comprehensive Review Working Group will
examine impacts--both positive and negative--of repeal of the law. This
will include the impact of no longer discharging servicemembers for
homosexual conduct, as is currently required by law.
163. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what percentage of
separations on the basis of the policy can be attributed to statements
only, i.e., individuals who identify themselves as homosexual or
bisexual?
Secretary Gates. In fiscal year 2009, there were 428 homosexual
conduct separations. Of these, 341, or approximately 80 percent, were
based on the member making a statement that he or she was homosexual,
bisexual, or words to that effect.
164. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, what percentage of total
discharges has been based on extrinsic evidence, i.e., third-party
reports?
Secretary Gates. The Department does not currently track homosexual
conduct discharges this way. All discharges are due to a military
member engaging in one of the forms of conduct set forth 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 654: (a) engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting
another to engage in a homosexual act, (b) stating that he or she is a
homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, or (c) marrying or
attempting to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex. Of
the 428 separations in fiscal year 2009, 341 were statements cases, 80
were acts cases, and 7 were marriage cases.
165. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, the 2008 Military Times poll
of active duty subscriber/respondents found that 10 percent said they
would decline reenlistment if the law is repealed, and another 14
percent would consider ending their careers. Even a smaller proportion
of losses among mid-career people would cause many difficulties in
short-handed units. What weight do you give to this 2008 Military Times
poll regarding the views of currently serving individuals?
Secretary Gates. These sentiments, as well as many others held by
servicemembers, will be one of many data points the Working Group will
consider in its review.
166. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, do you think that
servicemembers with more than 10 years of military service should be
given a temporary retirement option or some other separation payment if
they express objection to serving on Active Duty with openly gay
servicemembers?
Secretary Gates. No, I do not believe a temporary retirement option
nor other separation pay should be given in these circumstances.
167. Senator McCain. Secretary Gates, if the effective date of the
law were postponed, how could current law be enforced pending that
date?
Secretary Gates. I do not have a position on the implications of
such an arrangement. However, I do not support a moratorium on
homosexual conduct discharges while the Working Group is undertaking
its review.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
air force tanker competition
168. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, I understand that many
factors in the previous RFP that favored a larger, more capable
aircraft have been removed from the RFP and many factors that favor a
smaller, less capable aircraft are now mandatory. If the pending tanker
RFP fails to result in a real competition, meaning at least two teams
decide to bid, then we really do not have a competition. What steps are
you taking to ensure that both sides stay at the table and bid on the
pending draft RFP?
Secretary Gates. I pledged to Members of Congress a fair, open, and
transparent process. DOD and the Air Force favor a competition but will
let the RFP process run its course. The RFP is structured to be fair to
all sides and, above all, to the taxpayer and warfighter. The process
of procuring a new Air Force tanker needs to recommence without delay.
Numerous meetings with potential offerors were held as part of the
draft RFP process. Careful consideration is being given to all requests
and comments, and all questions are being answered to ensure that the
Department is crystal clear on how the winning offeror will be
selected. The approach will be crafted to favor no one except the
Warfighter and taxpayer. The Department has steered straight down the
middle.
169. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, what steps do you plan to
take if one of the sides does not bid and we do not have a real
competition?
Secretary Gates. As I stated at the House Armed Services Committee
hearing on February 3, 2010, ``We would like to have a competition . .
. and we hope that both companies will agree to participate. But we
will move forward. We have to have new tankers. We hope very much that
there will be a real competition. We hope very much that both
competitors stay in the competition. But should that not prove to be
the case, we will--we have to move forward. It's been delayed too long.
We need to get this thing started.''
national missile defense
170. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, last year the President's
budget request, as it pertained to NMD, called for cutting back the
deployment of GBIs from 44 to 30 while curtailing further
modernization. Thanks to your efforts, this year's budget request seems
to indicate a commitment to continue to improve the GMD system, while
also purchasing additional missiles for testing and stockpile
reliability. Can we continue to count on your support for a robust GMD
modernization program that will ensure the system keeps pace with the
threat?
Secretary Gates. Given the uncertainties of future ICBM threats, I
will preserve a position of advantage by maintaining and enhancing the
current midcourse defense capability. The fiscal year 2011 President's
budget request provides a substantial investment in the GMD element to
ensure it remains effective and viable over the long-term. This is
accomplished by funding element and system improvements, including:
Refurbishment or delivery of 22 GBIs for testing and
operational spare requirements;
New software upgrades to expand GMD integration with
the BMDS and improve interceptor discrimination capability;
Interceptor obsolescence mitigation and avionics
upgrades;
The completion of Missile Field 2 with 14 silos at
Fort Greely, AK, by fiscal year 2012, increasing the number of
silos available for operational use if needed to address the
threat;
The completion of the Future Power Plant at Fort
Greely, Alaska to address survivability and reliability
concerns; and
Implementation of a GMD reliability, availability, and
maintainability program;
Fiscal year 2011 funding will complete the establishment of a
second GMD Command and Control node at Fort Greely, AK. The fiscal year
2011 budget also requests funds to continue executing operationally
realistic ground and flight testing of the GMD element of the BMDS, and
to validate BMDS system performance through robust models and
simulation anchored by flight test data.
171. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, can you assure us there
will not be a break in production for the GBI until DOD determines how
many GBIs are needed for testing and stockpile reliability over the
life of the system, as per section 233 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2002?
Secretary Gates. The MDA's most recent purchase of GBIs occurred in
December 2006. As a result, lower-tier GBI suppliers began completing
delivery, i.e., began a ``production break,'' in 2007 for sub-
assemblies to support the manufacture and delivery of the remaining
GBIs on contract. All remaining third- and fourth-tier GBI suppliers
are expected to complete their deliveries in fiscal year 2010 with the
exception of Aerojet and Rockwell Collins.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request (fiscal year 2011
PBR) lays out a funded plan that includes completing the fielding of 30
operational GBIs; delivering 22 additional GBIs for testing, stockpile
reliability and operational spare requirements; and refurbishing 16 of
the original 52 GBIs for both operational and flight test rotation
during the FYDP.
The three requirements set forth in section 233 of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2010 have either been met or will be met shortly. First, I
delivered the BMDR to Congress on February 1, 2010. Second, in the
fiscal year 2011 PBR, MDA states plans to acquire five additional GBIs,
beginning in fiscal year 2011, to satisfy Integrated Master Test Plan
(IMTP) and stockpile reliability testing requirements to support the
service life of the GMD element of the BMDS.
With respect to the third requirement, within the next several
weeks, a report on the GBI production line will be submitted to the
congressional defense committees. The report will detail the
Department's plans to utilize the additional $50 million fiscal year
2010 appropriation to keep the manufacturing lines for critical
suppliers warm through fiscal year 2010, with most of the component
suppliers completing deliveries in fiscal year 2011. This investment
along with the planned five additional GBIs, plus additional hardware
components to support GBI scheduled maintenance and refurbishment
activities, will sustain third and fourth tier GBI suppliers until
fiscal year 2013.
GBI purchases after fiscal year 2013 will likely include
manufacturing line restart costs for third- and fourth-tier GBI
suppliers. Also, any additional GBI purchases beyond the planned 2011
purchases will likely include redesign/development costs due to parts
obsolescence. With ongoing refurbishments for operational and flight
test GBIs, the first- and second-tier GBI manufacturing lines will
remain warm beyond 2016.
european missile defense
172. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, the Phased Adaptive
Approach to missile defense in Europe calls for fielding land-based SM-
3 Block IB missiles in Europe starting in 2015. Is the IB missile on
schedule, and have you identified the two countries that will host its
deployment in 2015?
Secretary Gates. Yes. The SM-3 Block IB missile is on schedule for
flight testing in fiscal year 2011, deployment on Aegis ships in 2013
and fielding on land in 2015.
In February 2010, Romania agreed to host the land-based SM-3
Southern Europe site planned for deployment in Phase 2 (2015
timeframe). In the coming months, the U.S. and Romanian Governments
will work together and begin discussions on the system, including the
steps necessary to establish a missile defense facility in Romania.
In October 2009, Poland agreed to host a similar Northern Europe
site in Phase 3 (2018 timeframe). I expect that by the planned time of
this deployment, the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA will be available.
The Department has concluded a supplemental Status of Forces Agreement
(SOFA) with Poland and the Polish Government recently agreed to an
updated BMD basing agreement that will enable us to move forward with
the land-based SM-3 site in Poland. The supplemental SOFA has been
ratified by the Polish Parliament and entered into force. The BMD
Agreement was signed but has not yet been ratified by the Polish
Parliament.
173. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, last year you testified
that the two-stage GBI will continue development as a hedge against
technical difficulties with the SM-3 Block IIA and IIB missiles. Is
this still the plan?
Secretary Gates. Yes. As part of a hedging strategy for defense of
the homeland against long-range ballistic missile attacks, the
Department is continuing the development and assessment of the two-
stage GBI. My overall testing strategy for the two-stage GBI, which
includes flight testing, supports three-stage data collection
requirements as well.
174. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, how and when would we know
that it is necessary to substitute the two-stage GBI for the SM-3 Block
II missile?
Secretary Gates. There are two planned versions of the SM-3 Block
II, the SM-3 Block IIA and the SM-3 Block IIB. The SM-3 Block IIA is
planned for use aboard ships first, and then for use ashore until the
Block IIB is developed and available. The Aegis BMD ship-based SM-3
Block IIA will remain an operational need independent of decisions
related to developing and producing two-stage GBIs or Block IIBs.
MDA will know if it is necessary to substitute the two-stage GBI
for the Block IIB after the Block IIB flight testing, which is
currently planned for fiscal year 2016. The MDA is engineering the
systems and maturing the technologies for the SM-3 Block IIB. The
technical maturity will be determined through a series of knowledge
points that tie achievement of critical information to reducing
developmental risk and increasing confidence in capabilities. These
knowledge points will measure confidence in the SM-3 Block IIB through
the end of fiscal year 2016, providing data that will be used to
determine whether development should continue or whether alternative
designs should be considered.
175. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, what has been Russia's
reaction to the new missile defense plans for Europe?
Secretary Gates. Russia's initial reaction to the new system was
positive. Although the Department is transparent with Russia about the
Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA), Russia recently expressed concern that
the adaptive nature of the system makes is appear to be open-ended, and
in later phases could undermine Russia's strategic deterrent. The new
system poses no threat to Russia, and I believe Russia has an interest
in working with the United States and Europe to defend against the
growing missile and nuclear threat from Iran and other states. I will
continue to be transparent with Russia about our plans for the PAA to
try to allay its concerns, and I will seek avenues for cooperation in
this area.
176. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, I've seen press reports
that Russia may now be concerned that the SM-3 Block II missile may be
a threat to their strategic forces and that Russia will seek to limit
its deployment in the ongoing Strategice Arms Reduction Treaty (START)
follow-on negotiations. What can you tell me about this?
Secretary Gates. Russia expressed concerns that the SM-3 Block IIB
interceptors that we would deploy in Phase 4 of the Phased, Adaptive
Approach (PAA), in the event that the threat environment evolves to
require the deployment, could be capable of engaging their ICBMs. The
Department is in discussions with Russia on the nature of the threat
presented by various ballistic missile programs and the potential for
missile defense cooperation. During our consultations with Russia, DOD
stressed that the PAA is not directed at Russia. I believe that Russia
may be unnecessarily concerned simply because the SM-3 Block IIB is
still in development and thus Russia could be suspicious about the
final capabilities of the interceptor. I will continue to be
transparent with Russia on DOD's BMD capabilities, including the SM-3
Block IIB interceptor, to allay their concerns and build trust.
Regarding New START Treaty, I have been clear with Russia that U.S.
missile defense systems are not directed against Russia and that the
new treaty is about strategic offensive arms.
177. Senator Sessions. Secretary Gates, the administration's new
approach to missile defense in Europe hopes to solicit allied
participation. We are hearing, however, that NATO is facing a funding
crisis due to the operational demands related to Afghanistan. How
likely is it that we can expect European contributions to the defense
of their territory against medium- and long-range ballistic missiles?
Secretary Gates. I believe that, as an alliance, NATO can best
contribute to European territorial missile defense in two areas--
political commitment and command and control (C2) infrastructure.
In terms of political commitment, I am seeking a decision by NATO
to take on territorial missile defense as a mission for the alliance.
If NATO adopts such a mission, there will be a NATO-wide BMD effort to
which the United States can contribute through the European Phased,
Adaptive Approach (PAA). Furthermore, Allies will be able to contribute
their current and future missile defense capabilities to this effort,
augmenting the overall defense and the PAA.
Regarding C2 infrastructure, NATO is developing a C2 network that
will allow Allies to link their missile defense assets together, called
the Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program.
By linking Allied assets, including those of the U.S. PAA, NATO and the
United States can create a more efficient and cost-effective
architecture.
Currently, NATO is funding the component of ALTBMD that will
provide C2 for defense of deployed forces only, rather than territorial
missile defense. I strongly support continued funding for ALTBMD, as
well as the ongoing study to determine the implications of expanding
ALTBMD to include C2 for territorial missile defense. To date, NATO
spent =159 million of the total =451 million cost for the current
ALTBMD program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
funding for contsrtuction/restoration
178. Senator Graham. Secretary Gates, some military agencies do not
appear to be spending funds appropriated by Congress for construction,
cleanup and restoration activities. The Air Force Center for
Engineering and the Environment and Naval Facilities Engineering
Command has yet to obligate hundreds of millions of dollars
appropriated. The United States Army Corps of Engineers continues to
fall further behind in awards for the New Orleans Hurricane Risk
Reduction Program and for the Everglades restoration. The funds for
these projects represent a large number of jobs which could be filled
by capable DOD contractors. What is the root cause of the delay and
what is being done to remedy this situation?
Secretary Gates. I fully support the President's budget and will
continue to fully execute the construction, cleanup and restoration
projects for which funds are authorized and appropriated. The root of
the ``problem'' is the global economic downturn. As a result of that
downturn, during fiscal year 2009, the Department was able to award
many projects below initial government estimates, producing bid
savings. DOD is making every effort to quickly apply those bid savings
to offset a variety of requirements such as increases in costs on other
projects and reductions to programs levied by Congress in fiscal year
2010. In those rare circumstances when the Department cancels a
project, we notify Congress as required by statute.
Regarding the New Orleans Hurricane Risk Reduction Program, the
Army Corps of Engineers is awarding construction contracts at a rapid
pace, and construction work is progressing throughout the New Orleans
area. As of mid-April 2010, the Army Corps awarded 251 of 361 planned
construction contracts and obligated $8 billion of the $14.5 billion
appropriated for the program.
The Everglades restoration projects experienced contract award
delays stemming from complications in establishing required cost share
agreements with non-Federal sponsors. The Corps has made significant
progress in completing agreement negotiations with the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD), the primary non-Federal sponsor for
Everglades restoration projects, by executing a Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Master Agreement in August 2009.
This agreement provides the foundation for all future Project
Partnership Agreements by establishing basic terms of cooperation for
CERP projects including cost sharing, construction, operations and
maintenance, replacement, rehabilitation, and oversight by agency
technical staff. The Corps is awarding contracts more rapidly since
putting this agreement into effect. Additionally, to accelerate
contract awards, the Corps is improving coordination with SFWMD during
respective agency review and approval of draft agreements and allowing
construction contract advertisements to be made prior to execution of
partnership agreements, thus permitting earlier contract award
following execution of those agreements.
air force tanker competition
179. Senator Graham. Secretary Gates, regarding the competition for
the new Air Force tanker competition, some have advocated a dual buy of
tankers, wherein DOD would buy aircraft from the two major competitors
who have previously proposed aircraft as the new aerial tanker. What is
your position on this proposal?
Secretary Gates. I am not planning for a dual award at this time.
The Air Force considered all options per congressional direction, but
ruled out split buy and dual award approaches based on budget
affordability and fleet concerns including increased training,
operations, maintenance, and support costs. I am committed to a single-
award, competitive strategy for a commercial derivative tanker as it
provides the best value for the Warfighter and taxpayer.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
start treaty
180. Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, a January 25, 2010, article in
RIA-Novosti, a Russian press outlet, stated that the United States and
Russia have coordinated a number of disputed issues in relation to the
START follow-on treaty. Specifically, the article said an agreement has
been reached to reduce the number of nuclear delivery vehicles, meaning
bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles, of 700 to 750 systems.
Today, the United States deploys about 883 delivery vehicles, when
ghost or phantom systems are taken off the books. Testimony before the
House in July indicated that the Russians at best can deploy 500
delivery vehicles through the course of the START follow-on treaty. At
the delivery vehicle levels of 700 to 750 reported in the Russian
press, where will these significant cuts come out of our triad?
Secretary Gates. I believe that the New START Treaty allows the
United States to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent. Under the
draft New START Treaty, both the United States and Russia have seven
years after entry into force of the treaty to meet the treaty limits.
The Department will have sufficient time to align our forces and to
effect the necessary eliminations to fulfill our obligations under the
New START Treaty with regard to our strategic delivery vehicles and
their associated warheads. The specific mix of systems to be maintained
was closely examined during the Nuclear Posture Review, with a final
decision deferred pending signing of the Treaty.
181. Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, at the delivery vehicle levels
of 700 to 750 reported in the Russian press, is Russia actually giving
up any delivery vehicles?
Secretary Gates. As of October 1, 2009, Russia declared 809
deployed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and their
associated launchers, deployed Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles
(SLBMs) and their associated launchers, and deployed heavy bombers
under START counting rules. Some of these systems may not be
accountable under the New START Treaty, but others may still represent
delivery vehicles that will be eliminated during the treaty's seven-
year elimination period following entry into force.
next generation bomber
182. Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, the 2006 QDR made the decision
to develop a follow-on bomber, and you have made clear that you support
the development of a new bomber. However, last April you opted not to
pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until you
had a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the
technology. As part of this effort to better understand the
requirements for a new bomber, I understand that you stood up a Tiger
Team to do an in-depth study of long-range strike in the new QDR.
However, on reading the new QDR, on page 33, it looks like you have
still not made a decision to move forward with a new bomber program,
but instead have commissioned yet another study. What conclusions were
drawn by the Tiger Team regarding the development of a new bomber?
Secretary Gates. The Tiger Team to which you refer was formed to
study the need, value, and technology for a follow-on Air Force long-
range strike aircraft; that team completed its work last November. The
team was supportive of pursuing a new long-range strike aircraft, but
recognized that additional analysis was needed to explore options for
reducing overall program costs and determining fielding timelines. The
Department decided that a more in-depth analysis was required in order
to determine how a new long-range strike aircraft might compare with
other options. An assessment of the various support functions for long-
range strike assets was also needed. Consequently, the Department
chartered another study to look at a broader array of options to
include the appropriate mix of long-range strike capabilities; upgrades
to legacy bombers; manned and unmanned options; stand-off and
penetrating requirements; new and improved cruise missiles; electronic
warfare improvements; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
demands; and conventional prompt global strike options.
The goal of this new study is to ensure that we fully understand
how all potential long-range strike options could contribute to U.S.
security goals before spending billions of dollars. We anticipate that
the new study will be completed in time to inform decisions shaping the
Department's fiscal year 2012 budget.
The final conclusion of the Tiger Team's study was that the
Department should sustain the industrial base for early-stage design
work and technologies for a new long-range strike aircraft while the
Department continues to study all options. The Department provided
industrial base funding for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 to
prepare for the potential start of a new long-range strike program.
bomber force structure
183. Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, with regard to the FYDP force
structure set out in the new QDR for the Air Force, the QDR proposes
five long-range strike wings with up to 96 primary mission aircraft.
According to the latest Air Force Almanac, the Air Force has 153 bomber
aircraft. I understand some of these aircraft are dedicated to testing,
but over 50 aircraft for testing seems like a lot. Do you plan on
retiring any bomber aircraft in the near future?
Secretary Gates. The total number of bombers in the Air Force
inventory is 162 (66 B-1, 20 B-2, and 76 B-52 aircraft). 96 represents
the total number of combat coded aircraft with the difference being
made up from training, backup, attrition Reserve, and test airframes.
The table below shows the breakdown by aircraft type and coding. The
attached slides show the geographic location, coding, and correct
number for each bomber in the Air Force inventory. At this time, the
Air Force has no plans to retire any of the 162 bombers currently in
the inventory. I believe that the 2011 President's budget provides for
aggressive modernization for all three types of bombers, to keep them
relevant far into the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Coded Training Attrition
Airframe Total (CC) (TF) Backup (BAI) Reserve (AR) Test (CB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-1......................... 66 36 16 9 1 4
B-2......................... 20 16 0 4 0 0
B-52........................ 76 44 16 11 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atch: Bomber inventory slides
184. Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, what are the assumptions
underlying what appears to be a substantial reduction in the number of
bombers?
Secretary Gates. At this time, there are no plans to retire any of
the bombers currently in the inventory. The fiscal year 2011 budget
provides for aggressive modernization for all three types of bombers,
to keep them relevant far into the future.
qdr red team
185. Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, I understand you appointed a
so-called ``Red Team'' of retired senior officers and outside defense
experts to give you an outside assessment of the QDR. I understand that
the Red Team reviewed the QDR's assessments and conclusions through the
summer of 2009, and submitted a memo to you in the fall of 2009. As you
know, you are required by the QDR statute in Title 10 to appoint an
independent panel to assess the QDR. However, that panel will not be
able to provide a report to us until July of this year, meaning that we
may very well have completed work on the National Defense Authorization
Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 before we see an independent assessment of
the QDR. Since we won't be able to read an independent assessment of
the QDR in a timely way, please provide us with a copy of the Red
Team's memo to you, with the names of the Red Team members redacted to
protect any confidentiality agreements.
Secretary Gates. When I appointed the QDR Red Team, I assured the
members that their insights would help inform my decisionmaking and
would not be subject to outside review. I did this to foster frank and
forthright advice for use by the Department in its internal
deliberations. However, the Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command,
General James Mattis, and Director of Net Assessment, Mr. Andrew
Marshall, served as co-chairs of the QDR Red Team. They would be happy
to provide Members their perspectives on the QDR.
The QDR Independent Panel has begun its work and has indicated it
will publicly deliver interim findings before the release of its final
report in July 2010.
186. Senator Thune. Secretary Gates, are any members of the Red
Team that assessed the QDR also now members of the independent panel
assessing the QDR?
Secretary Gates. Mr. Andrew Marshall, Director of the Office of Net
Assessment, and General James Mattis, Commander U.S. Joint Forces
Command, served as the co-chairs of the 2010 Red Team. The identities
of other members of the QDR Red Team remain confidential. I believe
that it is critical that I maintain the ability to have candid
discussions with senior defense thinkers outside of government on a
non-attribution basis.
I selected members for the QDR Independent Panel based on their
ability to offer an objective, independent, and non-partisan
perspective.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F. Wicker
army aircraft modernization
187. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, I am glad to know that the
QDR places success in today's wars as its first priority. It is our
foremost responsibility to provide for our national defense. Just as
the tactics and strategies have adjusted to that of our enemy, so must
our approach to investing the necessary resources to rapidly equip the
warfighter for success.
I also appreciate your stating that this budget is shaped by
embracing a dose of realism. One dose of realism that we can't avoid is
the long-term impacts that the current deficit forecast is going to
have on all sectors of the government, to include DOD. Given that
realism, it is increasingly important that we do our best to get the
best long-term benefit out of the investments we make to fulfill our
immediate needs.
One major focus area of this budget is to increase the availability
of helicopters by procuring more aircraft and improving aircraft
capabilities. Due to the cancelation of the armed Scout helicopter
program, DOD is planning to invest well over a billion dollars in the
aging Kiowa Warrior. That investment has transformed from performing
safety enhancements to a long-term modernization program. I now hear
discussions ranging from engine upgrades to reconstituting a production
line.
While many of these improvements are necessary to maintain
operational capability, none will result in the performance
capabilities that are desired. Yet, I don't know of any investments
being planned on other fleet assets that would reduce your risk of
providing more capable Scout capabilities and could realistically
achieve the 80 percent of optimal solution that you have mentioned in
the past.
Are there any newer aircraft in the Army's fleet that could be
enhanced, which would significantly exceed the capability of the legacy
Scout helicopter, and could also provide returns on that investment
much further into the future?
Secretary Gates. The Army is exploring all options to leverage
existing and potential developmental solutions to replace the legacy
scout helicopter. Investment in the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior (KW) as a
bridging strategy is critical in fulfilling the Army's immediate
reconnaissance needs in support of Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN)
requirements. This investment will address immediate obsolescence,
safety, and weight reduction issues and will enable the aircraft to
perform better in the current combat environment until a viable
replacement is procured. The Army is conducting an Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA) to address Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) capabilities and
determine a replacement for the KW. The study will be completed in
April 2011 at which time the existing KW path ahead will be re-
evaluated along with the future AAS recommendations for a leadership
decision.
188. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, would you be supportive of
the Army exploring all options to leverage existing assets to provide
the highest level of Scout capability until the Army acquires and
fields its future Armed Aerial Scout aircraft?
Secretary Gates. The Army is exploring all options to leverage
existing and potential developmental solutions. In July 2009, the
Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) directed the Army to conduct an AoA
to meet Armed Aerial Scout capabilities and determine a replacement for
the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. This AoA will determine the appropriate
materiel solution(s) to address any capability gaps and meet Army
requirements. The AoA will be conducted in two non-sequential phases
with the preliminary results completed in December 2010 and final
results published in April 2011.
On April 14, 2009, the Secretary of the Army approved a strategy to
reinvests in the Kiowa Warrior helicopter to address obsolescence and
sustainment until a viable replacement is procured. The strategy
includes a funded ACAT II program called the Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade
Program (CASUP). The CASUP addresses obsolescence, safety, and weight
reduction to perform better in the current combat environment. The Army
expects to sustain the Kiowa Warrior until 2025.
mine resistant ambush protected vehicles
189. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, you mentioned the funding
requested in the budget for an additional 10,000 MRAPs, of which 6,600
are the new M-ATV. What type of MRAP vehicle makes up the remaining
3,400?
Secretary Gates. The most recent purchase of MRAP family of
vehicles includes 1,460 more Oshkosh M-ATVs, 1,050 Navistar MaxxPro
Dashs, 250 GDLS RG-31s and 58 BAE RG-33s. The remaining 582 vehicles to
fulfill the estimated requirement for Afghanistan have not yet been
defined.
190. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, will these platforms be sent
to Afghanistan?
Secretary Gates. All of the vehicles most recently purchased are
being sent to Afghanistan.
191. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, how will they compliment the
M-ATVs?
Secretary Gates. MRAP vehicles are designed to meet mission
requirements. The M-ATV was uniquely designed for missions requiring
off-road mobility. The earlier variants in the MRAP family of vehicles
were designed for other missions ranging from urban area patrolling,
route clearance and Special Forces missions. The Department continues
to make available all vehicles under the MRAP family of vehicles to
Warfighters upon Combatant Command requirements. Our most recent
purchase of MaxxPro Dashs, RG-31s and RG-33s will include improved
suspension systems that are more suitable to the rough terrain in
Afghanistan. I believe that these vehicles will complement the M-ATVs
by supporting other, but closely related missions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George S. LeMieux
information operations
192. Senator LeMieux. Secretary Gates, in October, I traveled to
Afghanistan with Senators Burr and Whitehouse. While there we learned
of the good work being done by our SOFs in the area of strategic
communications--particularly in countering the enemy's false messages.
However, I am concerned that too often we are not getting our message
out to counter the enemy's. Some of the soldiers in Afghanistan are
using what is called radio-in-a-box technologies to try and counter
enemy propaganda. I think this approach should be more prevalent in the
military. What is in this budget to help our soldiers get the best
message out to local Afghans?
Secretary Gates. During fiscal year 2011, I will ensure that DOD
will allocate funds specifically for the dissemination of messages to
the Afghan people down to the local level. DOD collaborates with the
ISAF and the Department of State (DOS) to commit significant resources
to ensuring the U.S. Government is getting our message out, and when
necessary countering the enemy's propaganda. DOD and ISAF fund programs
in Afghanistan that capitalize on radio and television programming, as
well as a variety of printed products to disseminate messages that
support U.S. and coalition objectives. The messages are directed at key
audiences at multiple levels from national to local and are focused on
objectives such as increasing support for Afghan National Security
Forces, reducing support for insurgents, and increasing reporting of
illicit activities. The majority of DOD and ISAF efforts are
concentrated on content development and dissemination, and DOS has made
a significant commitment to building the communications infrastructure
in Afghanistan. The radio-in-a-box provides tactical military
commanders a very capable temporary solution to short-range radio
broadcasts in areas not covered by permanent stations. The funds
provided to U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan allow commanders
the flexibility to purchase more of these systems should they determine
it is necessary to bridge the gap until DOS or another organization's
efforts provide a permanent solution.
193. Senator LeMieux. Secretary Gates, do you believe our forces
are well-trained and doing enough to project good news in the warzone?
Secretary Gates. I believe that U.S. forces are the best trained
military in the world to fight and win America's wars. DOD committed
significant resources to increase cultural awareness among U.S. forces
and improve the understanding of the environment in which U.S. forces
operate. DOD made significant progress in information operations,
working closely with the ISAF, DOS, other U.S. Government agencies, and
nongovernmental organizations to ensure the Afghanistan people and the
international community understand the coalition's commitment to the
future of Afghanistan. U.S. and ISAF forces conduct face-to-face
engagement with leaders at all levels, develop and disseminate messages
through radio, television, and printed products, and participate with
our Afghan partners in civil-military activities. As technology
advances, and the infrastructure develops in Afghanistan, DOD will
continue to develop new methods of getting the message to the audience.
194. Senator LeMieux. Secretary Gates, what is the training
pipeline for soldiers who conduct information operations?
Secretary Gates. Both the service components and the Joint
community have specific training requirements for personnel who conduct
Information Operations (IO). Specific service requirements are varied
and driven by their unique operational and doctrinal requirements. I
expect all servicemembers assigned to a combatant command to have had
appropriate exposure to joint operational concepts and procedures;
particularly within the area of IO and so will focus my comments on the
Joint IO community.
Within the Joint IO community, training requirements and the
training pipeline are clearly described in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Manual (CJCSM) 1630.01, Joint Information Operations Force.
Based on the policy established in CJCSM 1630.01, members of the Joint
IO Force are drawn from commissioned officers in grades O-4 through O-9
and non-commissioned officers in grades E-6 through E-9. The manual
further stipulates that these individuals must have completed either a
U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) certified Joint IO Planning Course or
a JFCOM-certified Joint IO Core Capabilities Specialist Course and
occupy a billet requiring Joint IO education and/or training. At
present there are 159 joint billets requiring JFCOM-certified IO
planners and 153 Joint billets requiring JFCOM-certified IO Core
Capability Specialists.
Commissioned and non-commissioned officers, in the grades I
previously mentioned, enter the Joint IO training pipeline upon
assignment to a JFCOM-certified IO Planning or IO Core Capability
Specialist Course. The Joint Forces Staff College's Joint IO Planners
Course constitutes the only JFCOM-certified Joint IO Planning Course at
present. JFCOM-certified Joint IO Core Capability Specialist Courses
include the Joint Military Deception Training Course, the Joint Theater
Electronic Warfare Operations Course and the Joint Network Attack
Course. Besides these courses, Joint Operations Security and
Psychological Operations courses are currently under development.
Upon designation by the appropriate service component, an officer
or noncommissioned officer, who has already completed service component
IO training, will attend one of the JFCOM-certified IO training
courses. After graduation, these personnel should be assigned to an
OSD-level, Joint Staff, combatant command staff or JTF. In the case of
an OSD-level, Joint Staff or combatant command assignment, this tour of
duty will normally be 36 months. For a JTF, the tour duration could
range from 60 days to more than a year.
195. Senator LeMieux. Secretary Gates, how is the private sector
being utilized to help the military adopt best practices for
information operations?
Secretary Gates. DOD seeks partnership with the private sector to
understand the information environment and improve DOD information-
related capabilities. DOD has developed and continues to identify
relationships with communication companies, media companies, software
developers and producers, academia, and defense contractors to remain
abreast of technological advances, media resources, and access to
information not readily available to the military. These relationships
are very important to DOD capability providers and help DOD adopt best
practices. For example, one of the five core capabilities of
information operations, psychological operations (PSYOP), utilizes the
private sector to produce high-quality products targeted at specific
foreign population segments. Public Affairs use the private sector to
assist in monitoring the enormous number of global media sources and
outlets, to gain cultural understanding, and for translation support.
Information operations planners integrate applicable information
capabilities consistent with U.S. Government guidance and policies to
support the Commander's information goals and objectives. The
Department recently forwarded an extensive report to Congress outlining
our efforts to align information operations with other U.S. Government
activities via the strategic communication process.
196. Senator LeMieux. Admiral Mullen, do you believe we need to put
more resources toward information operations?
Admiral Mullen. The information environment plays an increasing
role in all the Department's activities and we're looking at
Information Operations (IO) across the board to determine future
requirements. Although IO is a relatively small part of the defense
budget, several combatant commands have highlighted its importance in
their Integrated Priority Listings; specifically in support of the
VOICE programs and for cyber activities.
Currently, there are numerous IO-related studies in various stages
of completion looking specifically at what we will need in the future.
The Joint Force Information Operations Study is evaluating joint IO
organizations, roles and missions, training and education, and measures
of effectiveness. The Electronic Warfare Initial Capabilities Document
and the PSYOP Capabilities Based Assessment are reviewing those
capabilities at the Service level. The PSYOP Capabilities Based
Assessment will validate whether or not there is a need for growth in
the active and Reserve components to support both special and
conventional forces. These are detailed studies and their
recommendations are expected later this year. The results of these
studies will influence SOCOM's and JFCOM's requests for additional
future resources. It is my opinion that we wait to allow those studies
to inform future IO funding recommendations.
197. Senator LeMieux. Admiral Mullen, how are we empowering the
Afghans to spread news more rapidly to local populations?
Admiral Mullen. HQ ISAF, alongside the U.S. Embassy and the U.K.
Embassy, are working with the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan (GIRoA) to bolster their Government Media Information
Center (GMIC). The central GMIC in Kabul provides GIRoA the ability to
rapidly disseminate news to all critical outlets. Additionally, the
Kandahar GMIC, located on the Governor's Compound, is expected to be
operational in April and will provide similar capacity and capability
for the southern region. ISAF has embedded planners and liaison
personnel in both of these facilties. To assist the security
ministries, ISAF has partnered with the MoD and MoI to establish the
Security News Coordination Center (SNCC). The SNCC is already
operational and ensures shared situation awareness among MoI, MoD, and
ISAF strategic communication teams. MoI, MoD, and ISAF personnel man
the SNCC together, and will ultimately provide 24/7 media response
capability. Regular meetings between President Karzai's spokesman, Mr.
Wahid Omar, and the ISAF's Communications Directorate Staff ensure key
issues are clarified and resolved, delivering one common voice to the
Afghan people.
Most of the direct production and distribution of information is
supported by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
initiatives in Afghanistan; programs like journalist training and media
programming/content management training are successful examples. That
said, the IJC-in heavy consultation with Afghans-produces a wide array
of media for public consumption. Radio programming provides the
greatest outreach across Afghanistan. Recently, the IJC produced a
``radio drama'' portraying key security issues (reintegration, for
example) in a culturally appropriate way. Television, newspapers and
pamphlets also cover areas where literacy and access to electricity are
greatest.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator David Vitter
optempo and dwell times
198. Senator Vitter. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, a
previously identified and ongoing problem our military faces is an
incredible operational tempo with inadequate dwell times between
deployments. Today you stated that ``we will not see significant dwell
time improvements across all Services until 2012.'' Unforeseen events
such as the Haiti relief effort will only serve to further exacerbate
this problem. Have you accounted for contingency troop deployments,
such as Haiti, in your calculations?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Barring a major contingency
operation that requires a substantial ground campaign, Army and Marine
Corps forces will begin to approach a 1:2 BOG to Dwell ratio in fiscal
year 2012. U.S. forces can absorb some small scale operations such as
Haiti relief, but multiple occurrences may impact forces in Dwell.
Overall, we anticipate 24-36 months following redeployment from Iraq
and Afghanistan to reset and train the force for full spectrum
readiness.
199. Senator Vitter. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, when do
you expect to achieve the goal of 2 years at home for every 1 year
deployed?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The pace of operations in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom has
not yet allowed our ground forces to achieve the dwell goal of 2 years
at home for every 1 year deployed. Although we have seen some small
dwell improvements over the past year, the Department does not
anticipate achieving this goal until late in calendar year 2011.
200. Senator Vitter. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, should
more be done now to increase dwell times for an already stressed
military? If so, what are your recommendations?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The temporary increase in Army
end strength has been helpful, particularly in regard to ensuring that
units have sufficient personnel to address those individuals who cannot
deploy. This increase does not affect the unit's dwell time, but does
provided for needed personnel replacements and ensures a more ready and
deployable unit. Although we have seen some small dwell improvements
over the past year, with the surge in Afghanistan, we do not anticipate
achieving the goal of a 1:2 dwell ratio until late in calendar year
2011 for ground forces. We do not anticipate any unit will spend less
than a year at home before being deployed again. We, as a Department,
are managing dwell times closely, and based on projected demand for
ground forces, we anticipate some very real and significant
improvements in dwell in the next 2 years.
civil executive agencies
201. Senator Vitter. Admiral Mullen, you have asked Congress to
``promote legislation that increases the expeditionary capacity of non-
military executive agencies'' stating that ``our future security
concerns require a whole-of-government effort.'' According to National
Security Presidential Directive 44, DOS is now the lead for stability
operations. Should your request be interpreted to mean that DOS and
other non-military executive agencies are currently failing in the
execution of their overseas roles in parallel to DOD efforts?
Admiral Mullen. State continues to develop and strengthen its
capacity to execute its overseas roles. National Security Presidential
Directive 44, has been further enhanced by the Reconstruction and
Stabilization Civilian Management Act of 2008 (Title XVI, P.L. 110-
417), which codifies State's role as the lead for reconstruction and
stabilization by establishing the Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) under the Office of the
Secretary of State. S/CRS is leading the establishment of a whole-of-
government civilian response capability, the Civilian Response Corps,
which responds to failed and failing states either in conjunction with
the military or in the absence of military forces. The Civilian
Response Corps is comprised of active and standby members from eight
participating civilian agencies and, when fully implemented, will serve
as the main non-military expeditionary force of the U.S. Government.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $184
million for the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, which funds the
stand-up of the Civilian Response Corps, and supports S/CRS's efforts
to manage and deploy this civilian force. I urge Congress to fully fund
and support this request.
202. Senator Vitter. Admiral Mullen, in your opinion, is DOS
adequately prepared to assume agency primacy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
future conflict areas as hostilities transition to stabilization and
reconstruction activities?
Admiral Mullen. I simply don't have the visibility inside State to
tell you whether they are prepared for that role today. I do know that
the State Department is working hard to build that capacity. The
Secretary of State, through the Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS), has been developing a whole-
of-government civilian response capability that can deploy to both
conflict and post-conflict situations. The Civilian Response Corp, or
CRC, is gaining strength to meet this mission. Furthermore, the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $184 million for
the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, which funds the stand-up of the
CRC, and supports S/CRS's efforts to manage and deploy this civilian
force.
As is now happening in Haiti, I envision a gradual transfer of
responsibility based on the situation on the ground. In that sense, DOD
and DoS, through the leadership of General Odierno and Ambassador Hill,
will gradually shift ``primacy'' from a military to a civilian led
force. I expect this same gradual transition in Afghanistan when
appropriate.
On a parallel note, Defense has supported S/CRS by transferring
over $350 million under the Section 1207 authority to State for
conflict prevention, stabilization and security projects and by urging
congressional support for S/CRS's budget request and for soft power
overall.
203. Senator Vitter. Admiral Mullen, what specific legislated
increases in expeditionary capacity of non-military executive agencies
do you recommend?
Admiral Mullen. I recommend that Congress fully fund the Civilian
Stabilization Initiative, which will allow the Office of the
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to continue to build
and deploy a whole-of-government civilian expeditionary response
capability to failed and failing states.
I also recommend that Congress fully fund the Complex Crisis Fund
in State, which is intended to replace the Section 1207 transfer
authority.
Finally, I recommend that Congress authorize flexible hiring
authorities, already granted by Congress to State for hiring civilian
to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, to S/CRS to more rapidly stand-up
the Civilian Response Corps, as well as any other personnel authorities
necessary for the CRC to reach its full potential as quickly as
possible.
I would also recommend a pooled fund, as proposed by Secretary
Gates, continue to be considered for security capacity building,
stabilization, and conflict prevention. State, USAID, and Defense would
contribute to these funds and no project could move forward without the
approval of all agencies. Although there are obstacles to this concept,
it is worth continued consideration as it could further support the
activities of the Civilian Response Corps under future reconstruction
and stabilization crises. We need agility, flexibility, effective
oversight mechanisms, and tools that foster cooperation across the
executive branch which could also enhance cooperation across
jurisdictional boundaries among congressional committees--thereby
actually strengthening congressional oversight in the national security
arena. We believe this pooled fund is the first step.
f136 engine
204. Senator Vitter. Secretary Gates, Congress has been very clear
in its support of the F136 competitive engine for the JSF for about 15
years. Why does it not make sense to make the investment needed to
complete program and capitalize on the benefits of competition in
production just like the Air Force did on the F-16 in the mid-1980s,
particularly since we're talking about a production of over 4,000
engines during the procurement of the JSF?
Secretary Gates. Maintaining two engine suppliers would result in
increased development, production, and support costs. Recent experience
with engine development for the F-22 and F/A-18E/F indicates that sole
source risks are modest and acceptable, and the Pratt & Whitney F135
engine continues to meet or exceed our stringent performance
requirements. The risks involved with a single engine supplier are
acceptable, and savings associated with competition, which may be
realized in the future, will not sufficiently offset the upfront
development costs when competing against existing Department
priorities.
205. Senator Vitter. Secretary Gates, history has shown that it's
very difficult to control costs on a sole source program. If you
terminate the F136 engine, you will have a $100 billion sole source
program on the engines for the JSF. What would be the incentive for the
sole source supplier to control costs when they would know that DOD
would have no alternative to their engine?
Secretary Gates. In my view, maintaining two engine suppliers would
result in increased development, production, and support costs. Recent
experience with engine development for the F-22 and F/A-18E/F indicates
that sole source risks are modest and acceptable, and the Pratt &
Whitney F135 engine continues to meet or exceed the Department's
stringent performance requirements. The risks involved with a single
engine supplier are acceptable, and savings associated with
competition, which may be realized in the future, will not sufficiently
offset the upfront development costs when competing against existing
Department priorities.
206. Senator Vitter. Secretary Gates, how does DOD intend to ensure
cost control under a sole source circumstance?
Secretary Gates. Pratt & Whitney leadership committed to assist the
Department in correcting the cost growth concerns on the F135 engine.
In addition, company leaders agreed, from corporate funds, to fund a
number of affordability initiatives that require investment in order to
further reduce the cost of the F135 engine. The Joint Assessment Team
proposed that, with commitment and funding, the cost growth trends can
be reversed and I have every expectation that the Department will
accomplish that. DOD will continue to work with Pratt & Whitney, with
affordability as a major concern, to take actions that will continue to
lower the price of the F135 for the future. The company's incentive is
to please one of its primary customers, as there will likely be an
opportunity for Pratt & Whitney to pursue future DOD and partner-nation
work, and a failure on its part to achieve affordability could likely
be a deciding factor in the future.
c-17 acquisition programs
207. Senator Vitter. Secretary Gates, over the last 4 years, the
Senate Appropriations Committee added 44 C-17s that we neither needed
nor could afford, at a total cost of over $14 billion above DOD's
requests--in the form of earmarks. As DOD had done in the preceding few
years, you proposed last year to cancel the C-17 Globemaster program
and argued against a congressional earmark that intended to buy 10 more
of those aircraft for $2.5 billion. You stated that the cost of buying
and operating those additional aircraft would ``invariably result in a
reduction in critical warfighting capability somewhere else in the
defense program.'' Is this view shared by the service chiefs and
unified and combatant commanders?
Secretary Gates. I believe that the current C-17 fleet is in excess
of our strategic airlift needs, resulting in increased operating costs
at the expense of other priorities. This position, supported by the
Services and combatant commanders, is based on the findings of several
recent mobility studies to include the MCRS-16. The objectives of MCRS-
16 were to determine the mobility capabilities and requirements needed
in support of the National Military Strategy in the 2016 timeframe, to
determine capability gaps/overlaps associated with the programmed
mobility force structure, and to support the QDR and decisions
regarding mobility programs. The study found that the planned capacity
of the programmed strategic airlift fleet, consisting of 223 C-17s and
89 C-5s, exceeds the most demanding projected requirements. In
addition, the report noted that C-17s could be used to support intra-
theater missions without adding to the peak demand for C-17s. Both of
these insights are consistent with findings from previous mobility
studies.
Based upon this information, it is my position that no additional
C-17s should be procured, and I request your support in granting me the
authority to allow for the proper management of the strategic fleet by
providing the Department greater flexibility in retiring C-5 aircraft
and eliminating the current statutory requirement to maintain a minimum
fleet of 316 strategic airlift aircraft.
[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
Akaka, E. Benjamin Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Burris,
McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, Burr,
Vitter, and Collins.
Committee staff member present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel;
Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff
member; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; Jason W. Maroney,
counsel; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; Michael J. Noblet,
professional staff member; Roy F. Phillips, professional staff
member; John H. Quirk V, professional staff member; and William
K. Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; Paul
C. Hutton IV, professional staff member; Michael V. Kostiw,
professional staff member; Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff
member; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Diana G.
Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh,
minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Paul J. Hubbard, Jennifer R.
Knowles, and Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: James Tuite,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Christopher Griffin, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Carolyn A. Chuhta, assistant to Senator
Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Caroline Tess,
assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Ann Premer, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; Patrick Hayes, assistant to Senator Bayh;
Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Roger Pena,
assistant to Senator Hagan; Roosevelt Barfield, assistant to
Senator Burris; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator
Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde
A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Jason Van Beek,
assistant to Senator Thune; Brian Walsh, assistant to Senator
LeMieux; Kyle Ruckert, assistant to Senator Vitter; and Chip
Kennett, assistant to Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody.
Today, Secretary McHugh and General Casey will testify
before our committee on the plans and programs of the U.S. Army
as part of our review of the fiscal year 2011 Annual Budget and
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Request.
Gentlemen, we are thankful to you for your dedicated
service to our country, and to your families for their support
of your service.
As the committee meets again this year to review the Army's
posture, we find ourselves, as always, inspired by, and proud
of, what our soldiers have accomplished and what they continue
to do.
General Casey, I understand that you will be introducing
some special guests later on this morning. We look forward to
meeting them, to hearing their stories from you, and thanking
them in person for their service and their sacrifice.
America's Army today is as great as any other in the Army's
nearly 235 years of service to the Nation. Great service,
however, always comes with great sacrifice. Our Army remains
globally committed and overstretched by nearly 8 years of
continuous combat. Thankfully, the drawdown of U.S. forces in
Iraq has begun, but over 96,000 American soldiers remain
engaged in operations there, contributing to the continued
strain on our forces. I'm hoping that, at a minimum, we will
achieve the planned withdrawal of additional units from Iraq,
set to reach 50,000 by the end of this August.
Much depends on the ability and willingness of the Iraqis
themselves to preserve hard-fought gains; and, in turn, that
will depend in large measure on whether the political steps
Iraqi leaders have consistently promised to take will be
completed.
At the same time we see the drawdown of forces in Iraq, the
administration has shifted its strategic emphasis and resources
to the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan and support to
help Pakistan confront the al Qaeda and Taliban threats.
An additional 30,000 troops--many Army--will be committed
to support operations in Afghanistan to implement a people-
centered counterinsurgency strategy to help defeat al Qaeda and
the Taliban and more quickly build up the capabilities of
Afghanistan security forces.
Last week, coalition forces, including large numbers of
Afghan Army units, started a major offensive operation in
Helmand Province to take control of key populations away from
the Taliban and build support for the Afghan Government by
leaving security and services in the wake of removal of the
Taliban to them. Hard fighting continues, and some of our best
and bravest have been lost and wounded.
I've long argued that the principal mission in Afghanistan
should be training the Afghan military and police so that they
can take responsibility for the security of their country. It
is essential to the success of our objectives in Afghanistan
that we strengthen the Afghan army, deepen the partnership of
coalition and Afghan units, operating together on a one-unit to
one-unit basis, and for Afghans to take the lead in achieving
security. In this respect, operations in Helmand could be a
turning point for the Afghan people and their government, their
security forces, and the people of this critically important
region. But, we are still short thousands of trainers in
Afghanistan for the initial 8 weeks of training. That is
totally unacceptable. Our North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) allies have provided only 10 percent of the trainers
that they committed.
Although the Army continues to meet the demands of
counterinsurgency and support operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq and around the world, the Army--soldiers and their
families--are stressed in many ways. In order to gain and
sustain necessary higher readiness levels in our deployed
forces, the readiness of our nondeployed forces has been at
historic lows. Most of our nondeployed Army units are not ready
to quickly respond to an unforeseen contingency. Consequently,
getting those units reconstituted and ready for their next
rotation to Iraq or Afghanistan is that much more difficult and
risky. This Nation faces substantially increased risk, should
we need the Army to respond to another contingency, despite the
amazing resilience of our troops and their families.
In light of this challenge, the Department of the Army,
over the last 3 years, has set a goal to reestablish a balance
within the force by 2011. By balance, we understand that
soldiers and units would have twice as much time at home as
they would deployed. Nondeployed units would achieve required
levels of personnel, equipment, and training readiness
necessary to meet other strategic contingencies; budget
pressures to support current operations would ease, allowing
greater investment in modernization; and Army families would
enjoy greater stability and less stress. The committee is
interested to learn more about how the Army's fiscal year 2011
budget request will achieve balance in 2011, even assuming that
declining operational demands on the force keep pace with
current strategic plans.
An issue of concern to the committee, and related to the
strain on the force, is the size of the Army. In order to deal
with getting units ready for the rotational requirements of
Afghanistan and Iraq, the Secretary of Defense has permitted
the Army to retain 22,000 soldiers, temporarily, above its
authorized end strength of 547,000. Additional troops, plus
limiting the growth of Active component Army combat brigades to
45, are intended to address the Army's soldier shortages in
units getting ready to deploy. However, questions of additional
permanent Army end strength, as well as unit structure, need to
be carefully considered, in light of the inevitable and heavy
near- and long-term budgetary pressures that such increases
will put on the Army's investment and modernization accounts.
We'd like the witnesses to address the Army's analysis of
its current and future end strength and unit structure
requirements, and their ideas on how to manage the growth of
personnel costs.
Nothing in our defense establishment is as important or as
expensive as our people. In fact, the 2009 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) makes preservation of the All-Volunteer Force an
overarching national defense strategy objective. The Army's
2011 budget request supports this objective and makes a strong
commitment to ensure that we are taking care of our
servicemembers and their family.
Much of the defense budget's growth can be attributed to
significant and necessary increases in pay and benefit
accounts. For example, the fiscal year 2011 budget request
continues the Army's major commitment to expand and improve
programs for wounded soldiers and their families, as well as
for the prevention, identification, and care of soldiers and
their families suffering from the stress of ongoing operations.
I commend the Army for your commitment. I look forward to
the witnesses' discussion of these programs today.
The long anticipated 2009 QDR, submitted with the fiscal
year 2011 budget, places the Department of Defense's (DOD)
focus and priorities squarely on policies, programs, and
initiatives that support the current fight in Afghanistan and
Iraq and against al Qaeda around the world.
The QDR recognizes the tremendous contributions that the
Army has been providing in this fight over the last several
years, and emphasizes that these types of contingencies are
more likely the wave of the future. Accordingly, the 2009 QDR's
recommendations support much of what the Army has already been
doing, but it includes new direction for building or realigning
capabilities and force structure that will make it more
structurally relevant to the requirements of irregular or
unconventional warfare.
We look forward to the witnesses' assessments on the 2009
QDR, what it means for the Army today and into the future, and
how their 2011 budget request supports the changes that are
directed.
As challenging as meeting the demands of current operations
is today, the Army must also ensure that it remains
technologically dominant across the range of potential
contingencies and assure our future security. Army
modernization, however, has proven difficult to manage and
achieve. Army technical modernization, as part of a broad
transformational effort, appears to have been consistently
falling short of plans and promises. Secretary Gates' decision
last year to restructure the Future Combat Systems (FCS)
program, including cancellation of the previously planned
manned combat vehicle systems, require the Army to
fundamentally change its approach to modernization.
The 2011 budget request carries the Army deeper into yet
another modernization strategy that attempts to rationalize the
demands for new, immediately ready technologies needed to
quickly support the current fight with the opportunities that
other less mature technologies may offer for the force in the
next 5, 10, or 15 years, such as the Army's commitment to a new
ground combat vehicle.
The Army must also manage its modernization investment
risks carefully and consistently with our recently enacted
Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. It also needs to guard
against allowing its enthusiasm for modernization and the near-
term availability of resources to lead to a high-risk schedule-
driven program, where the necessary technologies are not mature
and the operational requirements are not urgent.
We look forward to the witnesses' report on their efforts
to establish an Army modernization program that meets the many
challenging goals of simultaneously being comprehensive,
relevant, technologically achievable, manageable, affordable,
and enduring.
So, Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the Nation could
not be more proud of the Army, its soldiers, and their
families, and we are grateful for your leadership of our Army
and our Army family.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join you in welcoming Secretary McHugh and General Casey
here today.
Gentlemen, I thank you for your leadership in these
challenging times.
I've also had the opportunity of saying hello to our
wounded warriors and spouses and brave Americans, and I look
forward to your introduction of them to the committee. I thank
them for their service and sacrifice.
We all know the Army has been operating at a high
operational tempo for the past 8 years, while meeting wartime
requirements a half a world away, so we should consider the
implications of the President's 2011 budget request in the
context of our most pressing challenges, which are, of course,
success in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I applaud Secretary Gates' recent statement that,
``Achieving our objective in Afghanistan and Iraq has moved to
the top of our institutional military's budgeting policy and
program priorities.'' I look forward to your explanation of how
the budget priorities of the institutional Army directly
support ongoing operations in Afghanistan and continuing
efforts to succeed in Iraq.
General Casey, you have expressed concern, and very
legitimate concern, about the effect of continued deployments
on our All-Volunteer Army. While stretching our forces does
create risk, we have demonstrated that the best way to reduce
that risk is by succeeding in theater. The Iraq troop surge
offers an important lesson in that regard.
Now we have the right mission and the right leadership in
place in Afghanistan. The additional 30,000 troops ordered by
the President are beginning to arrive, and the burden on the
institutional Army is high. It's incumbent on you to field the
best-trained and -equipped force in the world, and it is
incumbent on us, in Congress, to approve resources sufficient
to do so. We are committed to the long-term success of
Afghanistan and Iraq as stable states that can govern and
secure themselves and will not become bases of attacks on the
United States, on our allies.
I would also point out, incredibly, that retention and
recruitment is at an all-time high in the history of the All-
Volunteer Force. Many are surprised by that; in fact, I am
pleasantly surprised. But, the fact is, it's a testimony to the
patriotism and willingness to serve of young Americans all over
this country.
The competition for resources frequently pits development
of future capabilities against the cost of sustaining current
operations, and this gets to the heart of the Army's
modernization efforts. Last year, we supported Secretary Gates'
decision to restructure the Army's FCS program with spinouts of
mature technologies to the current force.
The Army has done much over the past year to develop a new
acquisition strategy based on an incremental Brigade Combat
Team (BCT) modernization plan. This new acquisition plan, like
the previous FCS program, will be a multiyear, multibillion-
dollar program that is the centerpiece of the Army's
transformation efforts. I'm interested in hearing from our
witnesses how the Army plans to transition from the FCS program
to the BCT modernization program. Specifically, what is the
Army's BCT modernization strategy and spinout plan, and what is
the impact of an incremental modernization strategy on the
Army's budget for 2011 and beyond?
Since taking office, Secretary Gates has taken decisive
action to increase capabilities available to our deployed
forces, especially those forces in combat in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
As we all know, improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
continue to be the greatest killer of American troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and I applaud the Army and DOD for fielding
technologies to protect our men and women on the battlefield.
Congress authorized and appropriated billions for mine-
resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles, and their increased
use has reduced the Army's reliance on other lightly-armored
vehicles.
Enhancing capabilities of our fighting forces is critical
to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support the Army's
budget request to field more helicopters and aircrews, create
two combat aviation brigades, and fund new unmanned aircraft.
Recently, Mr. Secretary, I was down at the Yuma Proving
Ground. I was very impressed by the coordination and
communication between field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan
and the Yuma Proving Ground, as we face these ever-evolving new
technologies that the enemy is using in developing new and more
lethal IEDs. From the battlefield to testing and response, I
was extremely impressed.
Finally, I'm interested, of course, in the views of General
Casey and Secretary McHugh on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)
policy. We will continue to listen to our military leaders. As
I pointed out before, recruitment and retention is at an all-
time high in the history of the All-Volunteer Force, and
obviously changes in a policy that, I think, is working would
have to be carefully considered.
I want to make perfectly clear that I am enormously proud
of every American who puts on an Army uniform to serve in a
time of war, and we want to encourage more of our fellow
American citizens to serve and to open up opportunities to do
so.
So, with that, I would like to thank you, Mr. Secretary. I
think this is your first inquisition here, and we certainly
welcome you on the other side. We want to thank you, again, for
your outstanding service for many years as a member of the
House Armed Services Committee, and the work we did together.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming Secretary McHugh
and General Casey here today. Gentlemen, thank you for your leadership
in these challenging times. I would also like to welcome the soldiers
and spouses who are seated behind you and take this opportunity to
thank them for their service and sacrifice. The Army has been operating
at a high operational tempo for the past 8 years while meeting wartime
requirements half a world away. So we should consider the implications
of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request in the context of
our most pressing challenges, success in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I applaud Secretary Gates' recent statement that ``achieving our
objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq has moved to the top of the
institutional military's budgeting, policy, and program priorities.'' I
look forward to your explanation of how the budget priorities of the
institutional Army directly support ongoing operations in Afghanistan
and continued efforts to succeed in Iraq.
General Casey, you have expressed very legitimate concern about the
effect of continued deployments on our all-volunteer Army. While
stretching our forces does create risk, we have demonstrated that the
best way to reduce that risk is by succeeding in theater. The Iraq
troop surge offers an important lesson in that regard. Now we have the
right mission and the right leadership in place in Afghanistan. The
additional 30,000 troops ordered by the President are beginning to
arrive and the burden on the institutional Army is high. It is
incumbent on you to field the best-trained and -equipped force in the
world and it is incumbent on Congress to approve resources sufficient
to do so. We are committed to the long-term success of Afghanistan and
Iraq as stable states that can govern and secure themselves and that
will not become bases for attacks on the United States or our allies.
I would also point out that retention and recruitment is at an all
time high in the history of the All-Volunteer Force. Many are surprised
by that, but I believe it is testimony to the patriotism and
willingness to serve of young Americans.
The competition for resources frequently pits development of future
capabilities against the cost of sustaining current operations. This
gets to the heart of the Army's modernization efforts. Last year we
supported Secretary Gates' decision to restructure the Army's Future
Combat Systems (FCS) program with spin-outs of mature technologies to
the current force. The Army has done much over the past year to develop
a new acquisition strategy based on an incremental Brigade Combat Team
(BCT) Modernization plan. This new acquisition plan, like the previous
FCS program, will be a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program that is
the center piece of the Army's transformation efforts. I am interested
in hearing from our witnesses how the Army plans to transition from the
FCS program to the BCT Modernization Program. Specifically, what is the
Army's BCT modernization strategy and spin-out plan and what is the
impact of an incremental modernization strategy on the Army's budgets
for fiscal year 2011 and beyond?
Since taking office, Secretary Gates has taken decisive action to
increase capabilities available to our deployed forces--especially
those forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Improvised explosive
devices (IEDs) continue to be the greatest killer of American troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan and I applaud the Army and the Department of
Defense for fielding technologies to protect our men and women on the
battlefield. Congress authorized and appropriated billions for mine-
resistant vehicles and their increased use has reduced the Army's
reliance on other lightly armored vehicles. Enhancing capabilities for
our fighting forces is critical to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
and I support the Army's budget request to field more helicopters and
air crews, create two Combat Aviation Brigades, and fund new unmanned
aircraft.
I would note here that I was at Yuma Proving Ground last week and
was very impressed by the coordination and communication taking place
between field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Proving Ground
as we face ever evolving IED technologies used by the enemy. The short
response time between testing of new technologies and their application
on the battlefield was extremely impressive.
Finally, I'm interested in the views of General Casey and Secretary
McHugh on the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. We will continue to
listen to our military leaders, and as I have pointed out, recruitment
and retention is at an all-time high in the history of the All-
Volunteer Force. I think that the current policy is working and changes
to it would have to be carefully considered.
I want to make perfectly clear that I'm enormously proud of every
American who puts on an Army uniform to serve at a time of war. I want
to encourage more of our fellow citizens to serve and to open up
opportunities to do so.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony. Thank you Chairman
Levin.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
A special welcome to you, Secretary McHugh. You're battle-
tested over in the House, so you come with a great background.
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary McHugh. It does look a little different from down
here than it does from up there, I'll just say. [Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. McHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Secretary McHugh. I should say, I've never missed being in
Congress so much as I do right now. [Laughter.]
But, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I certainly want
to thank you, sir, and you as well, Ranking Member McCain, for
your very kind and very gracious comments, not just in support
of me, but in support of this absolutely incredible Army.
It is a privilege, although somewhat intimidating, to be
before you here today, but I do it with great pride, because we
are here, along with the Chief of Staff, in support of
America's Army.
As was noted, it was just a few short months ago that I sat
before you as President Obama's nominee for our Nation's 21st
Secretary of the Army, and at that time, I recall very clearly,
I promised you, and assured you, of my dedication and
commitment to support our men and women in uniform, Army
civilians, and the great families, who, I know all you
understand so very well, stand with them. I pledged to work
with you, as well, in support of that great institution.
It's some 5 months later, and I want to tell you, I come
before you again reaffirming that commitment; but, doing so
having been in the Pentagon, having worked with these great men
and women for that time, it brings an even greater appreciation
of those wonderful Americans who serve within the Army ranks,
and the vital role they play in defense of our great Nation.
One-point-1 million soldiers, some 279,000 civilians, and,
as I noted, their families, proudly serving in some 80
countries around the world, and they continue to be at the
forefront in ongoing counterinsurgency operations against our
enemies, assisting other nations to build their own security
capacity, supporting homeland defense, deterring and defeating
hybrid threats and hostile state actors, and, as we've
witnessed, I think, so proudly, in recent days in Haiti,
providing life-saving humanitarian assistance in response to
natural disasters.
At the risk of stating the obvious, every member of this
committee, and every member of the House and the Senate at
large, are critical to the success of these vital missions, in
your capacity as our congressional overseers. As was mentioned,
I know full well, from my nearly 17 years of service on the
House Armed Services Committee, that a strategic partnership
between Congress and the Army is critical to the Army's
success. I think I can speak from experience, as well; without
exception each and every one of you has partnered with us to
ensure that our soldiers, civilians, and family members receive
the very best in training, equipment, healthcare, and vital
family programs. I want to say, on behalf of a grateful Army,
thank you for your leadership and for your unwavering support.
This morning, if I may, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and
other distinguished members, I'd like to share, just briefly, a
few of my priorities and some of the perspectives I've gained
over the past several months on where the Army is now, and
where it's heading in fiscal year 2011.
Admittedly, over the last several months, I've been on kind
of a crash course. I learned I was not quite as smart as I
routinely said every 2 years in my campaign for reelection.
But, through the process of studying our programs, visiting
installations in the United States and overseas, examining
units in all stages of what we call R4 Gen, and most
importantly, talking with our soldiers, civilians, and their
family members throughout the force, how well and yet the
challenges that lie before us.
I have been, in this time, both impressed and challenged
personally by what I've observed and what I've discovered.
Frankly, I've found an Army that is clearly fatigued by nearly
9 years of combat, but through it all is today a resilient,
determined, and extraordinarily effective. Our soldiers today,
through nearly 9 years of war, have more expertise, more
education, more training, and more lethal capabilities than
ever before, and due to the advancement, equipment, training
and doctrine, are more likely than ever before to return safely
to their loved ones and to a grateful Nation.
But, in spite of those significant gains, the stress on our
personnel and their families remains all too real. For all our
efforts, as has been referenced, and as the Chief of Staff has
said repeatedly, we remain out of balance. As I know all of you
clearly understand, the All-Volunteer Force is a national
treasure, as Senator McCain mentioned. If we wish to sustain
it, supporting our critical family and quality-of-life programs
for our soldiers and their families must be a top priority. If
I say nothing else here today, I want to assure you, for those
of us in the Army family, it is the top priority. The 2011
proposed budget rightly focuses on those initiatives that
support our soldiers, families, and civilians. The submission
requests $1.7 billion in 2011 to standardize and fund those
vital family programs and all those that they serve.
We're attempting to aggressively address the cause of
stress on individuals resulting from the effects of multiple
deployments, including the essential effort to increase dwell
time. As all of you know, and has been referenced here already
this morning, with continuing deployments in multiple theaters,
this has been no easy task. But, I want to assure you in the
strongest terms, the Army is committed to our wounded warriors
and those critical programs that support them, and to building
dwell ratios, bringing back a sense of stability in terms of
their redeployments.
We fully believe it is our solemn obligation to provide
world-class care and transition services to our wounded, ill,
and injured through properly led and properly resourced Warrior
Transition Units. Your Army is committed to ensuring that the
quality of life for those who serve, or who have served, is
commensurate with the quality of their service.
On the subject of family programs, I've heard from many of
the good Senators on this panel about reductions in base
operation support (BOS) budgets in installations across the
country. Earlier this month, General Casey and I announced the
Army's plan to increase BOS funding by $500 million in fiscal
year 2010.
The Army Installation Management Command continues to work
with each installation to guarantee that essential BOS needs
are met.
We also will conduct a comprehensive mid-year review of all
BOS accounts to ensure that adequate funding is maintained to
meet Army priorities through the remainder of the fiscal year.
I want to make it clear that as our installations look for
ways to operate more efficiently, as they should, family
programs will be sacrosanct; they will not be touched. That
isn't to say we won't ask, ``Is this program working? Is the
money well spent? Are there better ways to provide necessary
care?'' Where change is required, we'll change things, but
where money is best directed, we'll so direct it. But, through
all of that, Army families will not be left behind.
Second, I found an Army with equipment systems and networks
in need of reset while simultaneously requiring significant
modernization to ensure our soldiers maintain a decisive edge
on the battlefield of today, as well as superiority over
threats of tomorrow. Nowhere is this challenge more evident
than in the need to repair, replace, and recapitalize equipment
affected by the harsh realities and environment of war. As the
responsible drawdown in Iraq continues and the flow of forces
and equipment to Afghanistan grows, we'll confront this reality
anew.
Additionally, we have to strive to modernize efficiently in
an era of growing fiscal challenges. As such, with this year's
budget, the Army is embracing what I believe is an affordable
yet effective modernization strategy designed to revamp our
vehicle, network, aviation, and logistical systems. We've
requested $31.7 billion for research, development, and
acquisition which includes $3.2 billion for the BCT
modernization, $1.29 billion to fund tactical vehicle
modernization, $2.74 billion to fund Army network systems, and
$6.41 billion to fund aviation modernization. Fully funding
these programs is vital to our soldiers' welfare this year and
beyond.
Third, I found an Army acquisitions system that, while
improving, still lacks the workforce and flexibility needed to
efficiently and affordably purchase the right weapons,
services, and equipment to our soldiers. Here, too, the
proposed budget will help us better meet our continued
commitment to growing the Army's acquisition workforce by
thousands of positions over the next few years, thereby
ensuring that we have the best available equipment for our
soldiers, while being responsible stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars.
But, I would tell you, workforce improvements are not
enough to fix the procurement system, and I know you on this
committee, particularly the chairman and the ranking member,
who worked so hard on the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
(WSARA) of last year, know that full well. The entire process
must be retooled, and in that way, more fully adopt an agile
system that rapidly develops, purchases, and fields innovative
solutions. This approach will require more streamlined
procedures and flexible rules, and for that, we need your help.
As I mentioned, in 2009 Congress significantly reformed how
DOD purchases major weapons systems. Thank you to this
committee and its leadership in that regard. But, as the
chairman and the ranking member so correctly noted, both at
that time and since, it's only a start. Now it's time to
address how we purchase services, and on that front, we look
forward to partnering with you to develop better ways and
better systems that achieve that critical objective.
In the end, I would tell you we have an Army that is strong
in spirit, strong in ability, and strong in results. We need to
recognize, too, this is an Army that, after 8 years of
uninterrupted war, is tired, stressed and too often burdened by
the inefficiencies of bureaucracy. This must change, and with
your help, we'll make those changes.
Let me close by highlighting, again, my deep appreciation
for the men and women in uniform, the civilians and the
families who support them, and by so doing, support this
Nation. Every day, I'm humbled by their dedication. I'm so
blessed to have the chance to walk into a building every
morning to go to work where the word hero really means
something. All of you on this great committee are part of that
magnificent formula for freedom. Thank you, again, for all you
do in support of our men and women in uniform, our Army
civilians, and their families.
I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear here before
you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary McHugh and
General Casey follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Hon. John M. McHugh and GEN George W.
Casey, Jr., USA
introduction
America's Army continues to answer the Nation's call, as it has
since it was established nearly 235 years ago. Today our Army is
fighting two wars, assisting other nations as they build their own
security capacity, supporting civil authorities at home, helping the
people of Haiti rebuild after a devastating earthquake, and preparing
to deter and defeat new threats. The Army's soldiers, civilians, and
families faithfully shoulder the load that our Nation asks of them.
With the support of Congress, we are on track with our 4-year plan to
put the Army back in balance.
Though their sacrifices can never be fully repaid, the Nation
continues to recognize and honor our soldiers and their families by
supporting them before, during, and following deployments. Our soldiers
rely upon the best training and equipment that our Nation can provide
to accomplish their mission. Yet even with this continued support, the
demands of 8 years of war weigh heavily on our Army. The strain of
multiple deployments is evident on soldiers and their families.
Equipment is used at a pace that seriously challenges our maintenance
and replacement capabilities and resources. The stress is present in
our institutions as we change 20th-century systems and processes to
meet the demands of the 21st century.
Our Nation faces the difficult challenge of balancing when, where,
and how to engage in a dynamic and uncertain world while meeting
important priorities at home. However, when the security of our
citizens or allies is threatened, the Nation can depend on America's
Army--the Strength of the Nation.
strategic context
The United States faces a complex strategic landscape with an array
of diverse security challenges. We are fighting wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan while preparing for future challenges to our national
security. For the foreseeable future, violent extremist movements such
as al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations comprise the most
immediate threats. Current global economic conditions, changes in
demographics, cultural pressures associated with globalization, and
competition for scarce resources exacerbate the uncertainty and
volatility of the strategic environment. Within this setting, the
American soldier stands as our Nation's most visible and enduring
symbol of commitment in an era of persistent conflict.
persistent conflict
For the near future, persistent conflict--protracted confrontation
among state, non-state, and individual actors that are increasingly
willing to use violence to achieve their political and ideological
ends--will characterize the global security environment. Security
crises will arise unpredictably, vary in intensity and scope, and last
for uncertain durations. These challenges will take place in all
domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. Natural disasters and
humanitarian emergencies will continue to be frequent and unpredictable
missions, requiring the commitment of soldiers and resources. In this
dynamic environment, the Army will conduct operations that span the
spectrum of conflict from humanitarian and civil support to
counterinsurgency to general war, often simultaneously.
global trends
Several global trends will continue to shape the international
security environment and the conflicts confronting our Nation.
Globalization may increase prosperity, but it can also spread
destabilizing influences. The unequal distribution of benefits creates
societies with divisions between ``haves'' and ``have nots''--divisions
that can be exploited by extremist ideologies and lead to conflict.
Fault lines reflecting protracted competition and friction can erupt
unpredictably as societies struggle to adjust to the move toward
modernity and greater interdependence. Meanwhile, increasingly
available and affordable technology provides our adversaries
sophisticated tools to enable a networked approach to recruiting the
disenfranchised and exporting terror.
Shifting demographics and rapid population growth that is
increasingly urbanized can continue to break down traditional,
localized norms of governance, behavior, and identity, and further
strain already stressed governments. This is especially true where a
lack of economic opportunity increases the potential for instability
and extremism. Those who are disaffected may rebel against perceived
western interference, challenges to traditional values, and ineffective
governments. Increased resource demand, in particular energy, water,
and food, is a consequence of growing prosperity and populations. The
growing global competition for resources will continue to produce
friction and increase opportunities for conflict. In this environment,
climate change and natural disasters will compound already difficult
conditions in developing countries by igniting humanitarian crises,
causing destabilizing population migrations, and raising the potential
for epidemic diseases.
The two trends of greatest concern are the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) and failed or failing states. A catastrophic
attack utilizing WMD has the potential to be globally destabilizing.
Failed or failing states, lacking the will or capacity to maintain
effective territorial control, contribute to regional instability and
provide ideal environments for terrorist groups to plan and export
operations. The merging of these two trends constitutes a significant
and compelling threat. Together, these trends make conflict in the
decades ahead more likely.
character of conflict in the 21st century
Global trends and recent conflicts--such as those in Lebanon and
Georgia--and our own recent combat experience indicate the evolving
character of conflict in the 21st century.
Conflicts will be waged among diverse actors--state and non-state--
with the latter employing capabilities that, during the last century,
remained largely the purview of nation-states. Motives, objectives, and
often the identities of these actors will be difficult to discern, and
are likely to shift as some act covertly and others use proxies. The
battle to gain influence over, and support from, populations will be
central to our success. Therefore, conflict will be unavoidably waged
among the people.
The initiation, location, duration, and intensity of conflicts are
increasingly unpredictable. In an interdependent world, conflicts are
more susceptible to the potential for spillover, creating regionally,
and potentially globally, destabilizing effects. All of this will occur
under the unblinking scrutiny of the 24-hour global media cycle and the
internet. Details of conflict as well as misinformation will flow
equally across social, communications, and cyber networks. Our
adversaries will exploit these media and communication sources locally
and globally.
We are more likely to face hybrid threats-diverse and dynamic
combinations of conventional, irregular, terrorist, and criminal
capabilities employed asymmetrically to counter our advantages. Hybrid
threats require hybrid solutions-adaptive military forces that can
function in a variety of situations with a diverse set of national,
allied, and indigenous partners. Given the strategic environment,
enduring global trends, and the character of 21st-century conflict, the
Army will operate as part of a Joint, interagency, inter-governmental,
and multi-national team to fulfill its global commitments.
roles of land forces
More than 1 million of our men and women have served in the ongoing
campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 3,900 American soldiers have
given their lives, and more than 25,000 others have been wounded during
this longest period of sustained conflict ever fought by an All-
Volunteer Force. Today, America's Army has over 255,000 soldiers and
more than 18,500 Army civilians serving in nearly 80 countries around
the world--with the remainder stationed within the United States
supporting domestic missions, resetting from recent deployments, or
preparing for an upcoming deployment.
Our soldiers are performing magnificently around the world every
day, and the roles for land forces in this environment are becoming
increasingly clear.
First, the Army must prevail in protracted counterinsurgency (COIN)
operations. Not only must we prevail in our current missions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the Philippines, we must be prepared to prevail in any
future COIN operation.
Second, the Army must engage to help other nations build capacity
and to assure our friends and allies. Through security force
assistance, we can increase the capacity of other nations' military and
police to uphold the rule of law, ensure domestic order, and deny
sanctuary to terrorists--thereby helping avoid future conflicts that
might otherwise develop. American soldiers are currently deployed to
Central America and the Balkans, building the capacity of indigenous
security forces. Additionally, the Army has established an Army Service
Component Command for U.S. Africa Command to assist partner nations and
humanitarian organizations in Africa.
A third role that the Army fulfills is to provide support to civil
authorities at home and abroad. In the past year alone, American
soldiers have fought fires in the west, conducted search and rescue
operations in the Rockies and Alaska, and assisted with tsunami relief
in American Samoa, in support of civil authorities. The Army has also
provided a sizeable force to support the relief efforts in Haiti
following the catastrophic earthquake that destroyed its capital. Army
units from both the active and Reserve components remain prepared to
react to a variety of crises as consequence management and response
forces. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a lead organization in
providing DOD support to civil authorities for disaster relief at home
and engineering support to the U.S. Agency for International
Development overseas. Abroad, the Army has also supported civil
authorities in many ways, such as sending Agribusiness Development
Teams from the Army National Guard to Afghanistan.
Finally, the Army must deter and defeat hybrid threats and hostile
state actors. As an Army, we recognize that we must remain prepared to
meet and defeat hostile state actors that threaten our national
security. But we recognize that the probability of facing a nation that
will challenge America's military head-on is lower than it was during
the Cold War and other periods in our history. Our readiness and
capability to confront near-peer competitors also deters war by raising
the stakes for nation-state and hybrid actors who would threaten our
security interests.
To meet these threats, Army units continue to participate in joint
and international training exercises around the world, ensuring that
military skills and cooperative partnerships remain strong. The Army
continues to position forces in Korea and at various missile defense
sites in order to discourage actors who seek to disrupt regional
stability and security.
two critical challenges
The Army has operated at a demanding pace for the last 8 years, and
while it has met each challenge, the strain has placed the Army out of
balance. Demand for Army forces continues to exceed the sustainable
supply. Against that backdrop, the Army continues to meet the wartime
requirements of our Nation while it addresses the two major challenges
facing our force--restoring balance and setting conditions for the
future. In 2007, we established a 4-year plan to restore balance to an
Army that had experienced the cumulative effects of years of conflict.
The fiscal year 2011 budget supports the final year in that plan. As we
continue to restore balance to the force, we are also setting the
conditions for the Army of the 21st century--an Army that fulfills our
strategic role as an integral part of our Joint Force.
restoring balance: the army's four imperatives
With the help of Congress, we have made significant progress over
the past 3 years in our plan to restore balance--a plan founded on four
imperatives. Yet today the Army remains out of balance. We've improved
our ability to sustain the Army's soldiers, families, and civilians;
prepare forces for success in the current conflict; reset returning
units to rebuild the readiness consumed in operations and to prepare
for future deployments and contingencies; and transform to meet the
demands of the 21st century. As a result of this progress we now are in
a better position to achieve balance than we were 2 years ago. Critical
to this was the growth in the size of the Army.
The security agreement with Iraq that transferred security in urban
areas to Iraqis was a momentous and welcomed accomplishment. The hard
work and sacrifice of our soldiers with the support of Congress helped
make this achievement possible and set the conditions for our
responsible drawdown of combat forces in Iraq this year. Coupled with
our growth, the drawdown in Iraq allowed for our increased commitment
of forces to Afghanistan to stem the rising violence, and disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda while reversing the momentum of the
Taliban insurgency. However, the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan
continue to create demands that have our Army operating beyond
sustainable capacity. In fact, in 2009 more soldiers were deployed in
Iraq and Afghanistan combined than during the height of the Iraq surge.
Presently, and for the short term, we lack sufficient strategic
flexibility, and we continue to accumulate risk. We continue to stress
our soldiers, families, civilians, equipment, and institutional
systems, so our efforts to restore balance must not waiver.
Sustain
Sustaining our All-Volunteer Force is our first imperative. Nowhere
is the stress on our force more profound than in the toll it takes on
our people, as is tragically evident in the rising number of suicides
and increasing need for counseling among our soldiers and families. We
are aggressively addressing the causes of stress on individuals
resulting from the cumulative effects of multiple deployments, and
seeking to build resilience in soldiers, families, and civilians. The
Army is committed to ensuring that the quality of life of those who
serve the Nation is commensurate with the quality of their service.
Goals
To sustain the force, the Army continues to pursue four major
goals. Our first goal is to recruit and retain quality soldiers and
civilians dedicated to service to the Nation. Next, we are committed to
furnishing the best care, support, and services for soldiers, families,
and civilians by improving quality of life through meaningful
initiatives such as the Army Family Action Plan, the Army Family
Covenant, Army Community Covenants, and the Comprehensive Soldier
Fitness Program. It is our solemn obligation to provide world-class
warrior care and transition to our wounded, ill, and injured warriors
through properly led and resourced Warrior Transition Units. Finally,
by supporting the families of our fallen comrades we honor their
service and sacrifice.
Progress and Accomplishments
The Army met 104 percent of its recruiting goals for
2009, and achieved both numeric goals and quality benchmarks
for new recruits.
All components exceeded 105 percent of their
reenlistment goals.
We reduced off-duty fatalities by 20 percent, to
include a 15 percent reduction in overall privately-owned-
vehicle fatalities and 37 percent reduction in motorcycle
fatalities.
In collaboration with the National Institute of Mental
Health, the Army began a seminal study into suicide prevention
that will inform the Army Suicide Prevention Program and
society's approach to suicide.
We began instituting Comprehensive Soldier Fitness--an
all-inclusive approach to emotional, social, spiritual, family,
and physical fitness--as the foundation to building resiliency
within the Army.
We initiated an unprecedented series of construction
projects at five major hospitals as part of our commitment to
modernize our healthcare system.
The Army established the Warrior Transition Command
and reorganized Warrior Transition Brigades to provide
centralized support, rehabilitation, and individualized
transition planning to our recovering warriors.
We expanded Survivor Outreach Services to over 26,000
family members, providing unified support and advocacy, and
enhancing survivor benefits for the families of our soldiers
who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
We implemented the post-September 11 GI Bill,
significantly increasing educational benefits for Active Duty
soldiers, veterans, and family members.
The Army Reserve established Army Strong Community
Centers to support geographically-dispersed soldiers and
families. Together with Army National Guard Family Assistance
Centers and Soldier and Family Assistance Centers on active
duty installations, these centers provide help to soldiers'
families near their hometowns.
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
Provides $1.7 billion to standardize and fund vital
family programs and services to include welfare and recreation;
youth services and child care; Survivor Outreach Services; and
expanded education and employment opportunities for family
members.
Provides a 1.4 percent military basic pay raise and
civilian pay raise, a 3.9 percent basic allowance for housing
increase, and a 3.4 percent basic allowance for subsistence
increase.
Warrior Transition Units for our wounded soldiers will
continue to receive strong support in fiscal year 2011 with $18
million in military construction funds allocated to resource
construction of barracks spaces.
Supports Residential Communities Initiatives program,
which provides quality, sustainable residential communities for
soldiers and their families living on-post, and continues to
offset out-of-pocket housing expenses for those residing off-
post.
Prepare
Our soldiers face determined enemies--so preparing the force for
our current conflict is complex and time-consuming, but essential for
success. Our units must have the people, training, and equipment they
need to prevail. Meanwhile, our institutions and systems must adapt to
provide those critical capabilities in a timely manner and in
sufficient quantities.
Goals
To prepare the force, we have four key goals. First, we accelerated
the pace at which we needed to Grow the Army to our end strength and to
grow our modular brigades to 73 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and nearly
230 Support Brigades. Second, the Army is committed to improving
individual and collective Training to better prepare soldiers and
leaders for a complex and challenging operational environment. Next, we
continuously work to provide our formations with effective equipment in
a timely manner that maintains our technological edge and protects our
most critical resource--the soldier. Finally, we must transform the
Army to a rotational model--Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN)--the core
process for generating trained, ready, and cohesive units on a
sustained and rotational basis--to meet current and future strategic
demands.
Progress and Accomplishments
We began the phase-out of stop-loss, starting with the
Reserve Component in August 2009 and the Army National Guard in
September 2009, and followed by the Active Army in January
2010. Today, no mobilizing or deploying units have stop-loss
soldiers in their ranks.
The force achieved its ``Grow the Army'' end strength
goal of 1.1 million in 2009. The Active component continues to
grow toward its additional authorized temporary end strength in
order to improve unit manning within the already existing Army
structure as we eliminate stop-loss.
Fifteen-month tours effectively ended in November
2009, when the last soldiers on those extended deployments
returned.
We completed fielding nearly 12,000 Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan and
delivered the first MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs) to
Afghanistan--just 15 months after identifying the need for that
capability. As of the beginning of February, we have provided
nearly 800 M-ATVs to Afghanistan.
This year, we successfully manned, trained, equipped,
and deployed 67 brigade equivalents.
The Army exceeded fleet readiness of 90 percent for
ground equipment, to include MRAPs, and 75 percent for
aviation.
We established Army Training Network (ATN)--a 21st
Century Approach to Army Training. This revolution in training
knowledge access is now providing a one-stop portal to share
training best practices, solutions, and products across the
Army.
The Army increased its employment of biometric
technologies enabling the Army to better identify the enemy
among the populace.
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
Funds permanent, Active component end strength at
547,400; Army Reserve at 205,000; and National Guard at 358,200
in the base budget and supports a 22,000 temporary increase in
the Active component through the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) request.
Procures and upgrades the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk, CH-
47 Chinook, and AH-64 Apache helicopters, which are vital to
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Provides over $1 billion for flight crew training in
all components to fund flying hours, maintenance, fuel,
airfield operations, and specialized skill training.
Reset
With the pace of continuous combat operations in two wars for the
past 8 years, we are consuming our readiness as fast as we can build
it. Reset restores returning units--their soldiers, families, and
equipment--to a level of readiness necessary for future missions.
Goals
Our Reset plans include four goals. Our efforts to revitalize
soldiers and families seek to reestablish and strengthen relationships
following deployments. The Army's comprehensive efforts to repair,
replace, and recapitalize equipment affected by the harsh environments
of the war are essential to resetting units. In particular, achieving
responsible drawdown in Iraq while increasing our commitment of forces
and equipment to Afghanistan will require an unprecedented reset
effort. The Army must retrain soldiers, leaders, and units to build
critical skills necessary to operate across the spectrum of conflict in
the current security environment. Lastly, we are identifying and
applying the lessons learned from the Reset Pilot Program that was
designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Reset
process. Army Reset is a necessary process that must continue not only
as long as we have forces deployed, but an additional 2 to 3 years
after major deployments end.
Progress and Accomplishments
The Army completed the reset of 29 brigades' worth of
equipment in fiscal year 2009 and continued the reset of 13
more. In total, we have reset more than 98,000 pieces of
equipment as depot production has doubled since September 11,
2001.
We began executing a responsible drawdown in Iraq
which will redistribute, transfer, or dispose of 3.4 million
pieces of equipment; redeploy 143,000 military and civilian
personnel, and 147,000 contractors; close 22 supply support
activities; and consume or dispose of over 21,000 short tons of
supplies.
In 2009, more than 160,000 soldiers and family members
participated in over 2,600 strong bonds events designed to
strengthen Army families.
The Army continues to revise its approach to training
by emphasizing doing fewer tasks better, making judicious use
of field time, and maximizing the use of mobile training teams
and distributed learning.
We completed our Reset Pilot Program and will begin
instituting the full Reset model across the Army in 2010.
The Army fostered partnerships by executing more than
$24 billion in new foreign military sales.
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
Provides $10.8 billion to reset Army equipment through
the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request.
Supports training and sustainment of Army forces to
include individual skills and leader training; combined arms
training toward full spectrum operations; and adaptable, phased
training based on the ARFORGEN process.
Transform
Since 2004, the Army has been transforming our force to provide the
combatant commanders tailored, strategically responsive forces that can
dominate across the spectrum of conflict. Transformation is a
continuous process that sets the conditions for success against both
near-term and future enemies.
Goals
Our goals for transformation include continued modular
reorganization to standardize our formations to create a more
deployable, adaptable, and versatile force. We will accelerate fielding
of advanced technologies to ensure our soldiers retain their
technological edge. The Army will operationalize the Reserve components
by systematically building and sustaining readiness while increasing
predictability for these soldiers, families, employers, and
communities.
Completing the requirements of the Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) statutes is central to restationing forces. soldier and leader
development will ensure that we produce the next generation of agile
and adaptive military and civilian leaders who are supremely competent
in their core proficiencies and sufficiently broad enough to operate
effectively in the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multi-
national environments.
Progress and Accomplishments
The Army is 88 percent complete on the modular
conversion of its brigades. The fiscal year 2011 budget will
support the near completion of this process.
The Army consolidated existing aviation force
structure to create a 12th Active component combat aviation
brigade (CAB) forming an additional deployable CAB without
adding force structure.
The Army activated the 162nd Infantry Brigade at Fort
Polk, LA, providing a dedicated and enduring capability to
prepare combat advisors to train and build capacity in foreign
security forces. Trainers from the brigade are now deployed to
Afghanistan to assist with the training and development of the
Afghan security forces.
The Army developed a new incremental capability
package approach to modernization which will allow
technologically mature, soldier-tested, proven technologies to
be prioritized, bundled in time, and fielded to the force more
quickly than ever before.
We provided combatant commanders with dedicated,
regionally based network operations support, and integrated
cyber security capability in the form of Theater Network
Operations and Security Centers, unique within the Department
of Defense.
This past year, the Army closed three active
installations and five U.S. Army Reserve Centers and is on
course to complete BRAC in fiscal year 2011. To date, we have
awarded 265 major military construction projects, of which 59
are complete.
The Army built a Leader Development Strategy that
balances experience, greater opportunities for professional
education, and training in full spectrum operations.
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Highlights
Invests nearly $3.2 billion in BCT modernization
programs that include procurement of the first incremental
changes packages for Infantry BCTs and additional research,
development, testing, and evaluation funding for subsequent
change packages as well as initial development of the Ground
Combat Vehicle (GCV).
Provides funds to begin equipping a 13th CAB.
Supports the increase in intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaisance (ISR) platforms to include the Extended
Range/Multi-Purpose, Raven, Shadow unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) and the Extended Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and
Surveillance System.
setting conditions for the future
21st Century Army
The second critical challenge facing the Army is setting the
conditions for the future through a continuous process of
transformation. We must ensure that our Nation has the capability and
range of military options to meet the evolving challenges we face in
the 21st century. We need an Army that is a versatile mix of tailorable
and networked organizations, operating on a rotational cycle, to
provide a sustained flow of trained and ready forces for full spectrum
operations and to hedge against unexpected contingencies--at a tempo
that is predictable and sustainable for our All-Volunteer Force.
Versatility is the central organizing principle of a balanced Army.
It enables our forces and institutions to effectively execute
operations across the spectrum of conflict. Our modular heavy, Stryker,
and light brigades provide a versatile mix of forces that can be
combined to provide multi-purpose capabilities, and sufficient capacity
to accomplish a broad range of tasks from peacetime engagement to major
combat operations.
Our modular units are designed to be tailorable. Brigades now have
capabilities previously found at division level and higher. These
brigades can be tailored for specific missions and combined with
support units and key enablers such as ISR, communications, civil
affairs, psychological operations, public affairs capabilities, and
expanded logistics support, to accomplish a wide variety of missions
and increase the land options available to combatant commanders.
The network is essential to a 21st-century Army. Networked
organizations improve the situational awareness and understanding
leaders need to act decisively at all points along the spectrum of
conflict, while providing connectivity down to the individual soldier.
The network allows dispersed Army organizations to plan and operate
together, and provides connectivity to joint, combined, and interagency
assets. To support this objective, the Army will use the Global Network
Enterprise Construct (GNEC) as our strategy to transform LandWarNet to
a centralized, more secure, operationalized, and sustainable network
capable of supporting an expeditionary Army.
To provide a sustained flow of trained and ready forces at a tempo
sustainable for our All-Volunteer Force, we will put the whole Army
under a rotational model-ARFORGEN.
The ARFORGEN process includes three force pools--Reset, Train-
Ready, and Available. Each of the three force pools contains a
versatile force package, available at varying time intervals based on
its readiness level. Each force pool consists of an operational
headquarters (a corps), 5 division headquarters (of which 1 or 2 are
National Guard), 20 BCTs (3 or 4 are National Guard), and 90,000
enablers (about half of those are Guard and Reserve). Each will be
capable of full spectrum operations once we reach a steady-state, ratio
of time deployed (known as ``boots on the ground'' or BOG) to time at
home (dwell) of 1:2 (BOG:dwell) for Active component forces and 1:4 for
Reserve component forces. This versatile mix of land forces could
sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At lower demand levels, a
sustainable BOG:dwell ratio of 1:3 for Active component forces and 1:5
for Reserve component forces provides ready, global reaction forces and
regionally-oriented forces for engagement in support of Theater
Security Cooperation Programs. This process also allows strategic
flexibility to surge in response to unexpected contingencies across the
spectrum of conflict, and provides operational depth with more forces
available for longer commitment times.
The increased demands of our combatant commanders, coupled with the
size of our Active component (AC) force, require that we continue to
integrate Reserve component (RC) forces as part of our operational
force. Continued and routine access to our RC forces is essential to
sustaining current operations, and is improving the overall operational
experience and quality of our RC forces. Additionally, sufficient Army
National Guard (ARNG) forces must be ready and immediately available to
their state and territorial authorities to respond to domestic crises.
We are building an integrated Army in which our RC forces are included
in the rotational cycle, but at a deployment rate of about half that of
their AC counterparts.
The ARFORGEN process increases predictability for soldiers,
Families, employers, and communities, and enables our RC to remain an
integral element of the operational force while providing the Nation
with the strategic depth (i.e. those nondeployed units which are 2 to 3
years from commitment) and operational flexibility to meet unexpected
contingencies.
The Army has undergone significant changes in recent years, and we
must continue to change in order to keep pace with an environment of
uncertainty and complexity in this era of persistent conflict. The same
requirements that drive the imperative to change also drive our
modernization efforts and need for institutional adaptation.
Realizing Change
To become the Army the Nation needs in the second decade of the
21st century, we are transforming the Army and prioritizing programs
and efforts that show the most promise for today and tomorrow.
Similarly, we are transforming business processes across the Army,
including how we identify requirements, acquire, and provide materiel
capabilities to our soldiers, and how we adapt our institutions to
align with the ARFORGEN process.
On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates announced his adjustments to the
defense program as part of the President's budget proposal for fiscal
year 2010. The Secretary's decisions had an immediate and major impact
on our FCS-centric Army modernization effort. He terminated the MGV
portion of FCS, directing that we ``reevaluate the requirements,
technology, and approach--and then re-launch the Army's vehicle
modernization program . . . .'' He further directed the Army to
``accelerate the initial increment of the program to spin out
technology enhancements to all combat brigades,'' and retain and
deliver software and network development program in increments, and
incorporate MRAP into our force structure. Secretary Gates' intent for
these bold adjustments was clear--to better reflect the lessons that we
were learning from ongoing operations and better posture Army forces
for a broader range of future challenges.
To fully implement the Secretary of Defense's direction, the Army
has developed a comprehensive plan. We refer to this new program as the
Army's ``BCT Modernization Plan,'' which is a subset of our overall
Army Modernization Strategy.
BCT Modernization Plan
We will leverage the lessons learned from the last 8 years to
provide effective and affordable equipment now, while reducing the time
it takes to develop and field new and updated materiel solutions. BCT
Modernization includes four elements: modernizing the network over time
to take advantage of technology upgrades, while simultaneously
expanding it to cover ever increasing portions of the force;
incorporating MRAPs into our force; rapidly developing and fielding a
new GCV that meets the requirements of the 21st-century Army; and
incrementally fielding capability packages that best meet the needs of
soldiers and units as they train and then deploy.
army network
Central to the Army's modernization efforts is an enhanced and
interoperable communication network that gives the Army a decisive
advantage across the spectrum of conflict. The network supports leaders
in making timely, informed decisions, and supports organizational
agility, lethality, and sustainability. It allows our soldiers to know
where the enemy is, where other friendly forces and civilian
populations are, and what weapon systems are available for them at any
given time. The network links soldiers on the battlefield with space-
based and aerial sensors, robots, and command posts--providing
unprecedented situational awareness and control and enabling the
application of precise lethal fires on the modern battlefield.
Maintaining our technological advantage is a constant challenge.
The Army's battle command network must be continuously upgraded to
ensure security and provide improved capability, capacity, connectivity
and operational effectiveness. The Warfighter Information Network
(Tactical) (WIN-T) is designed to extend the network ultimately to the
company level for BCTs and provide real-time information, such as high
definition imagery, from surveillance sources. The Joint Tactical Radio
System (JTRS) was born joint with the specific requirement to resolve
radio interoperability among the services. It will provide soldiers at
the tactical level with connectivity at extended ranges, including
voice, data, and video, enabling them to move information from platoon
to higher-level command posts in complex terrain (including urban and
mountainous areas).
mrap strategy
In response to deadly IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Nation made
a tremendous investment in fielding MRAPs that have saved lives by
providing significantly improved protection for our soldiers. The Army
is incorporating these vehicles throughout its unit formations.
Additionally, we used the basic design of the MRAP as the foundation
for the M-ATV, modifying it for the mountainous terrain in Afghanistan
and in other regions around the world. The MRAP family of vehicles
provides the versatility our forces need to rapidly move around the
battlefield, particularly in an IED environment, with the best
protection we can provide.
ground combat vehicle
Combining the lessons learned from the survivability of the MRAP,
the tactical mobility of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the
operational mobility of the Stryker, the Army is developing a GCV that
possesses all of these qualities. Providing soldiers protected mobility
is our top design criteria. The first combat vehicle designed from the
ground up to operate in an IED environment, the GCV will have enhanced
mobility that will allow it to operate effectively in both urban and
off-road environments. It will be designed to host the Army's network.
Perhaps most importantly, it will have the capacity available to accept
future upgrades incrementally as technologies mature and threats
change.
The GCV will be versatile enough to support our expeditionary
requirements and be capable of carrying an infantry squad. It will
combine sustainability features that match the availability rates of
the Stryker while consuming less fuel than current vehicles of similar
weight and power. The pace of change and the operational environment
demand an expedited acquisition timeline, so the Army is pursuing a GCV
program timeline that provides the first production vehicles in 7
years.
capability packages
Capability packages provide the Army a regular, timely process to
enable our deployable units with the latest materiel and non-materiel
solutions based on the evolving challenges of the operating
environment. The best available capabilities will go to the soldiers
who need them most, based on the threats they are likely to face. These
bundles of capabilities will include materiel, doctrine, organization,
and training to fill the highest priority requirements and mitigate
risk for soldiers. This incremental packaging approach will enable
leaders to make timely, resource-informed decisions, and will help
ensure that we provide the best available technologies to fulfill
urgent needs to soldiers in the fight--all driven by the cyclic
readiness produced by ARFORGEN. These capability packages will upgrade
our units as they prepare to deploy by providing them improved
capabilities such as precision fires and advanced Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).
The Army Modernization Strategy
The Army's BCT Modernization Plan is a key element of our overall
Army Modernization Strategy. The Army Modernization Strategy reflects
our overarching vision of how we will achieve our ends, which is to:
Develop and field an affordable and interoperable mix of the best
equipment available to allow soldiers and units to succeed in both
today's and tomorrow's full spectrum military operations.
The Army Modernization Strategy relies on three interrelated lines
of effort:
(1) Develop and field new capabilities to meet identified
capability ``gaps'' through traditional or rapid acquisition processes.
In support of this Line of Effort in fiscal year 2011 we have requested
$934 million to develop the Army's new GCV, which will overcome
critical capability gaps in both current and future operations. It is
envisioned to have the tactical mobility of a Bradley, the operational
mobility of a Stryker, and the protection of an MRAP. We are also
requesting $459 million to procure the Extended Range Multi-Purpose
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. This extraordinarily capable platform, which
is already making a difference in Operation Enduring Freedom, gives
commanders longer dwell ISR capabilities across a joint area of
operations.
(2) Continuously modernize equipment to meet current and future
capability needs through upgrade, replacement, recapitalization,
refurbishment, and technology insertions. Army efforts in this line of
effort include our request for $887 million for the procurement of 16
Block III AH-64 Apache Helicopters, as well as the upgrade of 13 AH-64
Helicopters to Block II. Block III Apache is part of a long-term effort
to improve situational awareness, performance, reliability, and
sustainment of the Apache. Block II upgrades continue our commitment to
modernize the Army National Guard Aviation Fleet. Additionally, in this
line of effort, we have requested $505 million to upgrade Shadow RQ-7
UAVs. This key upgrade will increase the payload capacity and enhance
the performance of this key ISR asset for our BCT Commanders.
(3) Meet continuously evolving force requirements in the current
operational environment by fielding and distributing capabilities in
accordance with the Army Resource Priorities List and ARFORGEN Model.
Meeting the constantly evolving needs of theater commanders and the
demands of persistent conflict will require unprecedented agility in
our equipping and modernization programs. One example of this agility
can be found in our Kiowa Warrior fleet. We are currently maneuvering
our fleet of OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Light Helicopters to meet Army and
combatant command requirements based on the ARFORGEN model. As Air
Cavalry Squadrons return from conflict, their OH-58D helicopters are
placed into Reset. Units in Reset have very few aircraft, if any.
Because the Kiowa Warrior fleet is short 35 aircraft overall, when the
squadrons transition into the Train/Ready Phase of ARFORGEN, they are
provided a number of helicopters sufficient to conduct training (25),
but less than what they are fully authorized (30). When the units move
into the available phase, they are provided their full complement of
aircraft. It is this agility that has allowed Army forces to meet the
needs of theater commanders for over 8 years of sustained combat.
What do we need? Congress has been very supportive of Army
Modernization needs in the past. Their tremendous support has ensured
that the Army soldier is the best equipped and most respected combatant
in the world. In order to execute Army Modernization and ensure the
continued success of soldiers and units, we depend on a variety of
resources, not the least of which is predictable funding. For fiscal
year 2011, we have requested $31.7 billion for procurement and
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) efforts.
Adapting the Institution and Transforming Business Practices
In addition to modernizing our operating force, we are transforming
our institutional Army. As required by section 904 of the 2008 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the appointment of the Under
Secretary of the Army as the Army's Chief Management Officer (CMO) has
allowed the Army to develop a series of initiatives to adapt the
institutional Army and transform our business practices. In accordance
with section 908 of the 2009 NDAA, these efforts will result in the
development and implementation of a comprehensive program that
establishes a series of measurable performance goals and objectives.
Specifically, the comprehensive program will address the following:
Developing and implementing a business transformation
plan focused on running the Army as effectively and efficiently
as possible.
Continuing the Army's business process reengineering
activities, led by OSD's Business Transformation Agency.
Developing an integrated business systems architecture
that emphasizes transparency and seamless access to data, and
provides timely and accurate information to decisionmakers.
Preparing Army leaders to take a greater role in
inculcating the Army with a cost-conscious culture.
While the Army transformed its operating force--building versatile,
agile units capable of adapting to changing environments--the
institutional Army continued to use processes and procedures that were
designed to support a pre-September 11 Army based on tiered levels of
readiness. To support this new operating force, the Army must have an
updated institutional Army--our generating force.
Once the mission is defined, our institutions must seamlessly and
continuously adapt--tailoring force packages and quickly adjusting
training, manning, and equipping--to ensure units have all of the
physical and mental tools necessary to succeed.
Institutional agility allows us to adapt to the realities that
present themselves. To that end, the CMO and Office of Business
Transformation will build upon progress that has already been made
toward the Army's institutional adaptation, specifically:
Improvement of the ARFORGEN process-aligning the
generating force and its processes to better support soldiers,
families, and units within the operating force.
Adoption of an Enterprise Approach-developing civilian
and military leaders who take a collaborative, holistic view of
Army objectives and resources to make better decisions for the
Army.
Reformation of the requirements and resource
processes--delivering timely and necessary capabilities at best
value.
This transformational approach will overlay everything that the
institutional Army does, with the unwavering goal of effectively and
efficiently providing trained and ready forces to meet combatant
commander requirements.
stewardship and innovation
The Army remains devoted to the best possible stewardship of the
resources it is provided by the American people through Congress. The
establishment of the CMO and initiatives related to the transformation
of Army business practices represent the Army's effort to act as a
responsible steward. Several other initiatives serve to conserve
resources and to reduce waste and inefficiencies wherever possible.
The Army achieved full operating capability of the new Army
Contracting Command, Expeditionary Contracting Command, and Mission and
Installation Contracting Command in 2009. These organizations are
dedicated to ensuring professional, ethical, efficient, and responsive
contracting.
Civilians are assuming increased responsibilities within the Army.
The Army is recouping intellectual capital by in-sourcing former
contracted positions that were associated with inherently governmental
functions. In fiscal year 2009, the Army saved significant resources by
in-sourcing more than 900 core governmental functions to Army
civilians. We plan to in-source 7,162 positions in fiscal year 2010,
and are programmed to in-source 11,084 positions during fiscal year
2011-2015, of which 3,988 are acquisition positions. These positions
were identified in the Army's ongoing contractor inventory review
process.
In the Employer Partnership program, the Army Reserve works with
public agencies and private employers to leverage their shared
interests in recruiting, training, and credentialing highly skilled
citizen-soldiers. The Army Reserve has signed more than 800 partnership
agreements with corporations, state agencies, and local police
departments.
Energy security is a key component of Army installations, weapons
systems, and operations. The Army has developed a comprehensive energy
security strategy, and is acting now to implement initiatives to make
us less dependent on foreign sources of fuel and better stewards of our
Nation's energy resources. In support of these goals, we fielded the
largest hybrid vehicle fleet within the Department of Defense. Energy
will continue to be a key consideration in all Army activities in order
to reduce demand, increase efficiency, seek alternative sources, and
create a culture of energy accountability, while sustaining or
enhancing operational capabilities.
The Army is committed to environmental stewardship. Through
cooperative partner agreements and the Army Compatible Use Buffer
Program, the Army protected more than 28,000 acres of land at 14
locations in fiscal year 2009. Through creative solutions, the Army
continues to conduct realistic training on its installations while
protecting threatened and endangered species on Army lands.
america's army--the strength of the nation
The professionalism, dedicated service, and sacrifice of our All-
Volunteer Force are hallmarks of the Army--the Strength of our Nation.
Our soldiers and their families quietly bear the burdens of a
Nation at war. Our civilians stand with them, dedicated to the Nation
and the Army that serves it. Despite the toll that 8 years of combat
has taken, these great Americans continue to step forward to answer our
Nation's call. In an environment in which we must make hard choices,
they deserve the very best we can offer, commensurate with their
dedication and sacrifice.
To continue to fulfill our vital role for the Nation, the Army must
sustain its efforts to restore balance and set conditions for the
future. We have made significant progress this year, but challenges
remain. The continued support of Congress will ensure that the Army
remains manned, trained, and equipped to protect our national security
interests at home and abroad, now and in the future. America's Army--
the Strength of the Nation.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General Casey.
STATEMENT OF GEN GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, CHIEF OF STAFF OF
THE ARMY
General Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain,
members of the committee.
As the chairman said, I would like just to begin by
introducing four representative members of this great Army that
we have.
First, I'd introduce Mrs. Donna Engeman. Donna's husband,
John, was killed in Iraq 4 years ago, and she currently runs
our Survivor Outreach Services Programs. It's a program we put
in place, about 2 years ago, to increase what we were doing for
surviving family members. Her son, Patrick, is on his second
tour in Iraq.
Next to her is Staff Sergeant Christian Hughes. He was
wounded in Afghanistan in October. He's recovering from his
wounds in Walter Reed, and he looks forward to rejoining his
unit as soon as he can.
Next is Sergeant First Class Shana Tinsley. Her husband,
Arthur, is a Master Sergeant. He leaves for Afghanistan
Thursday, I think, and she will be here with her children,
working here with us in the Pentagon.
Lastly, Sergeant First Class Jeff Lawson. He has recently
completed a program at the University of Pennsylvania that
qualifies him to be a master resilience trainer, and this is an
important part of our Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program
that I will talk about a bit later. He has three tours in Iraq,
himself.
So, thank you all, very much, for coming out. [Applause.]
Chairman Levin. General, thank you so much for bringing
these special guests to us. I just want to give them a special
thanks for their service, their families' service, their
dedication and commitment to this country. We stand in awe of
you. Thank you.
General Casey. Thank you.
Now, if I could, Mr. Chairman. As you noted, I've been
saying for the past 3 years that the Army is out of balance,
that we're so weighed down by our current commitments that we
can't do the things we know we need to do to sustain this All-
Volunteer Force and to prepare to do other things. I can tell
you that, with the help of the committee, we've made progress
over the last year to get back in balance, but we're not quite
out of the woods yet.
That said, fiscal year 2011 budget completes the
procurement funding to finish our conversion to modular
organizations that we began in 2004 and the growth that we
began in 2007. It also contains the military construction
funding to complete the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
moves of 2005. So, your continued support will allow us to meet
the goals we set 6 years ago to build an Army that was both
relevant to 21st century challenges and back in balance.
Now, this plan that we put in place to get ourselves back
in balance was centered on four imperatives. We had to sustain
our soldiers and families; they're the heart and soul of the
force. We had to continue to prepare our soldiers for success
in the current conflict. We had to reset them effectively when
they return. Then we had to continue to transform for an
uncertain future.
Let me just give you a short progress report on where we
are.
Our first objective was to finish our growth. You'll
recall, the administration, in January 2007, directed that we
increase the size of the Army by 74,000. Originally, we were
going to do that by 2012. With Secretary Gates' and your
support, we completed it last spring. When that did not prove
to be sufficient, we were granted a temporary increase of
22,000 soldiers, and we will evaluate, later this year, that
entire amount. This growth, coupled with the drawdown in Iraq,
has allowed us to meet the need for additional forces in
Afghanistan without returning to 15-month deployments and
without going back on stop-loss.
Our second key objective was to increase the time our
soldiers spend at home. I will tell you, after almost 3 years
in the job, I'm more convinced than ever that this is the most
important element of putting ourselves back in balance, and for
several reasons. One, our soldiers need time to recover from
repeated combat deployments. What we continue to see across the
force are the cumulative effects of these deployments. We
recently completed a study that demonstrates what we
intuitively knew, that it takes 2 to 3 years to recover from a
1-year combat deployment. That's why it's so important for us
to meet our near-term objective of 2 years at home between
deployments for our Active Force and 4 years at home between
deployments for our Reserve components. As demand decreases, we
plan to move to more sustainable goals of 3 and 5 years,
respectively, between deployments.
More time at home also gives us more stable preparation
time for the next mission and more time to prepare to do other
things. When you're only home for a year, you barely have time
to finish your leave before you have to begin preparing to go
back. I've recently visited units that had 18 months home. The
difference between 18 months at home and 12 months at home, and
the pace of the tempo that they're home, is significant.
Additionally, as time at home increases, we'll be able to
see more units training for the full spectrum of operations,
and we will gradually rekindle some of the skills that have
atrophied over the past several years.
Our third objective was to move away from our Cold War
formations to organizations that are more relevant for the
challenges we'll face in the 21st century. In 2004, we set out
to convert all 300-plus brigades in our Army to modular
organizations. Today, we're almost 90-percent complete, and
these formations are demonstrating their versatility and their
value in Iraq and Afghanistan every day.
We also set out to rebalance the skills resident in these
formations. This involved converting, retraining, and equipping
around 150,000 soldiers from all components to new jobs. By way
of example, in the last 6 years we have stood down around 200
tank companies, artillery batteries, and air-defense batteries,
and we've stood up a corresponding number of military police,
engineers, civil affairs, and Special Forces companies. This
has paid tremendous benefits in the current operations.
So, together, the rebalancing and the modular conversions
represent the largest organizational transformation of the Army
since World War II, and we will have done this while fighting
two wars.
Fourth, we are moving to put the whole Army on a rotational
readiness model, much like the Navy and Marine Corps have been
on for many years. This model will allow us to more efficiently
and effectively provide a sustained flow of land forces that
are trained for the full spectrum of operations to our
combatant commanders. It will also allow us to have forces
available to hedge against the unexpected contingencies that
you spoke of. It will also allow us to do this in a way that's
predictable and sustainable for this All-Volunteer Force.
Our fifth objective was to complete our restationing, and
we're just over half way through these efforts. We're on track
to complete the 2005 BRAC by the end of 2011. This will affect
over 380,000 soldiers, family members, and civilians. While
it's a lot of turbulence, the construction on these new
installations will significantly improve the quality of life
for our soldiers and families.
So, the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is we've made progress,
but we still face challenges as we work to restore balance and
set the conditions for the future.
I'd like to conclude my remarks with comments on three
areas that are very important to us and, I would hope, also
important for this committee.
First of all, sustaining our people. This budget contains
money for housing, barracks, childcare, youth centers, Warrior
Transition Units, and surviving spouse programs--all critically
important to sustaining our soldiers, civilians, and families
through a period in which our country is asking so much of
them. In general, we're strengthening our programs to build
resiliency into the force, to help them deal, not only with the
challenges of the past, but with the challenges of the future.
We've all seen the manifestations of the stresses of 8\1/2\
years at war--elevated suicide rates, increased demand for
behavioral health counseling and drug and alcohol counseling,
increased divorce rates, increased numbers of soldiers
temporarily nondeployable from nagging injuries from previous
deployments--and we've been moving aggressively to give our
soldiers and families the skills they need to deal with these
challenges.
In October, we began a program that we had been working on
for more than 18 months with some of the best experts in the
country. The program is called Comprehensive Soldier Fitness.
I've spoken about it here before. It's designed to give mental
fitness the same level of effort that we give to physical
fitness. We intended to provide our force the resiliency skills
that they need to succeed in an era of persistent conflict.
This program consists of four components: an online self-
assessment to identify resiliency strengths, this assessment
has already been taken by over 250,000 soldiers; next, online
self-help modules; third, master resilience trainers, like
Sergeant Lawson. These are designed to conduct resiliency
training down to the unit level. We've trained over 600
Sergeant Lawsons at the University of Pennsylvania already.
Finally, there will be resiliency training at every Army Leader
Development School. This program shows great promise, and I'd
be happy to discuss it further in the questions and answers.
Second, the reset of our equipment will be increasingly
important as we complete the drawdown in Iraq over the next 2
years, and for 2 to 3 years after the conclusion of combat
operations. It's important to note that our reset efforts have
been a key factor in maintaining the high operational readiness
rates for ground and air systems in Iraq and Afghanistan. This
budget provides almost $11 billion to reset our equipment, and
sustained funding for reset will be essential to the long-term
health of the force.
Finally, this budget, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
contains a significant adjustment to our modernization
strategy. I believe that we are in a period of continuous and
fundamental change, and that we must continually adapt to deal
with evolving threats. So, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Defense, we've transitioned away from the FCS program to what
we believe is an achievable, affordable modernization program
for our BCTs. This program leverages the lessons that we've
learned at war and the lessons that we learned from the FCS
program itself. It contains four elements. First of all,
incrementally modernizing our networks over time to take
advantage of rapid advances in technology. Second,
incrementally fielding capability packages to put the best
equipment into the hands of our soldiers as rapidly as it is
available. Third, incorporating MRAP vehicles into our force.
Lastly, rapidly developing and fielding a new ground combat
vehicle that meets the requirements of a 21st century Army.
We intend to make this program a model for the Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA), and we look forward to
working with the committee on it.
In closing, I'd like to reiterate how proud I am of what
the men and women of this great Army continue to accomplish at
home and around the world. We've made progress in restoring
balance, but we still face a tough road ahead, and we could not
have done it without the committee's support.
Thank you very much. The Secretary and I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, General. We appreciate
that testimony.
Let's try a 7-minute first round.
This goes, first, to you Mr. Secretary; the fiscal year
2011 budget request for DOD includes $549 billion for the base
budget and $159 billion for the ongoing wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Now, on top of the $708 billion request for 2011,
the administration has included a 2010 supplemental request of
$33 billion to fund the additional 30,000 troops to support the
President's policy announced last December, and much of that
additional funding is required to support the Army's operating
costs. What is your estimate, Mr. Secretary, of how far into
the current fiscal year the Army can cover its war costs before
you're going to need that appropriation of additional funds?
Secretary McHugh. I appreciate you asking this, Senator,
because obviously it is something we spend a lot of time
talking about on the Army side. I recognize full well that the
process of introducing, and ultimately passing and having
signed, a supplemental, under any conditions, is not always
subject to a calendar, but there are realities, as you just
mentioned.
Our budget people tell us, including DOD Comptroller Hale,
that the last possible moment in which we can comfortably fund
this would be at the end of June, beginning of July.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
The WSARA was designed to address the problems that we've
had with weapons systems that take too long and cost too much,
by getting the programs off on a sounder footing, with better
systems engineering, better cost estimates, more mature
technologies, and better developmental testing. Is the Army on
track to rebuild its systems engineering, cost estimating, and
developmental testing capabilities, as required by that Act?
Secretary McHugh. We believe we are. I've jokingly said,
over the last several months, as a prime cosponsor of that bill
in the House, that had I known I was going to be Secretary of
the Army, I probably would have read it more carefully. But,
having the chance now to work with it, we're working very hard,
particularly in programs like the ground combat vehicle, to
meet the kinds of standards and the kinds of milestone
judgments and prototype competitions that is envisioned in this
act.
I would tell you, we have a challenge on insourcing and
growing that workforce. If you look at the statistics over the
last 10 years, there's been a 15 percent cut in the acquisition
workforce in the Army. At the same time, we've been called upon
to execute approximately a 500 percent increase in contracted
dollars. I think the workforce, as strained as they have been,
have done a good job in that regard. Over 2008 and 2009, we had
about 1,000 protests to the contract lettings through our
systems, and yet, of those 1,000, approximately only 8 were
sustained.
Nevertheless, the long pole in the tent, it seems to me, is
bringing in more contract expertise. We had a good start. We've
insourced about 900 core functions. We've saved about $41
million. We have, though 2015, a plan to insource nearly 4,000
new positions. Targets sometimes are hard to achieve. But, I
think we've done, thus far, a pretty good job in respecting
both the intent and the letter of that law.
Chairman Levin. In general, you feel you're on track.
Secretary McHugh. I do, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Now, on the Wounded Warrior Transition Command, you've both
made references to our responsibility to our wounded warriors.
The Army has set up a Warrior Transition Command to oversee the
care and support of wounded or ill or injured soldiers. In your
judgement, is that new command now in operation, and is it
effective?
General Casey. It has been fully operational, Mr. Chairman,
and it has been increasingly effective. We've continued to
improve our facilities, the staffing, and actually how we
process soldiers through the Warrior Transition Unit system. We
are trying to shift our focus away from just disability, over
to rehabilitation. We focus them on goal-settings, to move them
more rapidly through the process.
The other bit is, we've added an automation component to
this, and we're automating the evaluation board process, and I
think that's going to help us streamline this, as well. Short
answer, it has improved the way we handle our warriors.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Relative to the DADT law and policy, Secretary Gates
testified that he's appointed a high-level working group to
review the issues that are associated with implementing a
repeal of the DADT law and policy. Admiral Mullen has testified
that he and the Service Chiefs are in support of that approach.
Let me ask both of you; would you object to a moratorium on
discharges for homosexuality until completion of that review?
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary McHugh. Mr. Chairman, I hate to parse words, but
it depends what you mean by support.
Chairman Levin. Well, I said, would you object to a
moratorium?
Secretary McHugh. We don't feel we have the legal authority
to impose that, from the Department side. But, quite honestly,
if it were the will of Congress and the President to institute
that moratorium, I can't see that we would object to that, per
se.
Chairman Levin. Okay.
General, if Congress adopted a moratorium, would you object
to that? Would you recommend against it? What would be your
position?
General Casey. Senator, I would recommend against it. Aside
from the legal issues that the Secretary mentioned, it would
complicate the whole process that Secretary Gates had laid out.
We would be put in a position of actually implementing it while
we were studying implementation, and I don't think that would
be prudent.
Chairman Levin. If the moratorium were simply a moratorium?
In other words, you're not implementing anything, you're just
withholding discharges until that study is completed.
General Casey. Mr. Chairman, this process is going to be
difficult and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it
more, I think I would be opposed to.
Chairman Levin. Well, if we do that, we'll try and make it
simple and straightforward.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
General Casey, you've put forward the goal of increasing
dwell time for soldiers, so they can spend 2 years at home for
every year deployed. I think it's a laudable goal. Obviously,
there's two ways of reaching it: reduce our commitment overseas
or increase end strength. What would be the effect of making
the temporary end-strength increase of 22,000 soldiers
permanent? Would that be helpful?
General Casey. Senator, it would have a slight impact on
dwell across the Army. I can tell you that, with the drawdown
in Iraq and the plus-up in Afghanistan, we actually get 70
percent of the Active Force to our goal of 1 year out, 2 years
back, in 2011, and 80 percent of the Guard and Reserve meet
their goal. So, we are well on the way to getting that, because
of our growth and because of the drawdown in Iraq.
Senator McCain. Do you still think we can get close to your
objectives by 2011?
General Casey. I do, Senator.
Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh, how much of the Army's
OCO request could be placed in the base budget?
Secretary McHugh. About $8 billion, sir.
Senator McCain. Out of $100 billion.
Secretary McHugh. A hundred-plus, yes.
Senator McCain. So, we will probably see supplemental
requests for a long period of time.
Secretary McHugh. Well, I can't speak to that. There is
certainly an expectation--a hope, if you will--amongst the Army
leadership and, I expect, most of the Services, as we are
engaged in named overseas operations, that we would have
supplemental support.
Senator McCain. In other words, you think we need
supplementals?
Secretary McHugh. If we're going to operate in these types
of theaters, yes, we absolutely do.
Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary and General Casey, as we
know, they are going to stop making the Humvee. The 2011
request ends production in the Humvee line of vehicles. Maybe
you could provide, for the record, the long-term plan for a
wheeled-vehicle fleet. I understand the President's budget
request. I hope that we have some plans on a replacement for
that.
[The information referred to follows:]
The long-term plan for the Light Tactical Vehicle (LTV) fleet is to
support the development and procurement of the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle (JLTV) and to modernize the existing High Mobility Multi-
purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet through recapitalization.
The Army is currently reviewing the LTV requirement, which
currently stands at approximately 150,000 vehicles. As JLTV is
projected to start procurement in fiscal year 2013, the HMMWV
requirement will decrease proportionately. The Army will divest based
on criteria in favor of the most modern, capable versions of armored
and unarmored HMMWVs.
The Army recognizes there will continue to be a requirement for
both armored and unarmored HMMWVs in the fleet. As JLTV is fielded and
its capabilities evaluated, the role of both armored and unarmored
HMMWVs will be reassessed, and the fleet will be adjusted accordingly.
Senator McCain. General Casey, do you feel that the
operational commanders also ought to have input into this issue
of how to address the DADT issue?
General Casey. Their input is certainly welcome, but we're
the ones responsible for organizing and preparing the forces
that they employ. So, I believe that we, the Service Chiefs,
have a greater stake in it. But, their reasoned opinions are
always welcomed.
Senator McCain. Of course, since they have to implement
your personnel policies, and are given that responsibility, it
seems to me they should be consulted, as well.
I think it's pretty obvious what the next step is in this
effort to repeal DADT. Senator Levin just said, now instead of
going through the study that the Secretary of Defense has
called for, the forces now will want a moratorium before any
decision is made. Not unexpected, but certainly it flies in the
face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to, and that
is, before a decision is made to change a policy that, in my
view at least, is working, we would then impose a moratorium.
What are the plans for this long-range study that the
Secretary of Defense is going to implement? Do you know,
Secretary McHugh?
Secretary McHugh. In general terms, Senator, it's still
being set up; and, in fact, some of the basic construct of the
seniors group was worked out this weekend.
If I may, before I go to that, just to return to the
chairman's question. My answer about a moratorium was
predicated upon the assumption that if Congress were to pass
it, we would respect and obey that.
Senator McCain. But, that was not the chairman's question.
Secretary McHugh. Well, that's how I took it. I want to be
clear. If you're asking for my personal opinion as to the
effects of a moratorium, we have any number of cases underway,
pursuant to the current law, that would be greatly complicated
were there a moratorium; but if it were passed, obviously, and
the intent of my answer was to say, we would follow through
with that.
Chairman Levin. What are those cases, if I could just
interrupt?
Secretary McHugh. Well, we have Lieutenant Choi, a member
of the New York Reserve, for example, who's in a process now,
whose Federal recognition has been withdrawn, who's not had
final action.
Chairman Levin. Who is being discharged?
Secretary McHugh. We've not yet seen the recommendations
and paperwork out of the State, but certainly with the process
of withdrawing his Federal recognition, that would certainly
lend to that decision and others. I'm not trying to prejudge
the appropriateness of that discharge or any other discharge,
I'm just saying it would bring a legal complication to the
circumstances.
But, if Congress were to pass it, and the President were to
sign that, we would step forward and respect it and implement
it.
Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, but that's not the question.
The question is, would you support a moratorium before the
review, as conducted by the Secretary of Defense, is completed?
Secretary McHugh. If the question is my personal opinion,
if asked, the preference would be, we would not enact a
moratorium.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
Unfortunately, last year we put hate crimes on the defense
authorization. For the first time in history, we put a
legislation that didn't have anything to do with defense
authorization on the authorization bill, and I'm greatly
concerned about what would be put on this authorization bill
since the precedent was shattered last year by the majority by
putting on legislation that had nothing to do with the Nation's
defense.
I thank you for your candid answers, and I thank all of you
for your service to the country.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Just while we're on DADT, am I correct in concluding, based
on your testimony, two things; one, if Congress adopted a
moratorium on enforcement of DADT or adopted repeal and the
President signed it, that you would carry out those those laws?
Is that correct?
Secretary McHugh. Absolutely.
General Casey. Absolutely.
Senator Lieberman. The second question is, on the question
of repeal of DADT, what I'm hearing both of you say--maybe you
want to fill it in--is that, this morning, you are neither
supporting nor opposing repeal. Is that correct?
Secretary McHugh. I have a somewhat different position on
this matter, under the constructs of my responsibilities as
Secretary. I work for the President of the United States and
the Secretary of Defense. I entered this job with a full
understanding, and the President has been consistently clear,
that he supports repeal of this policy. Recent developments, of
course, are the first steps by the administration to take steps
to work in a way in which he believes can bring about an end to
that. My job is to try to provide, as the Secretary of Defense
is doing at this moment, the best possible information and
views, from the Army's side, so that they can formulate
whatever decision forward and way forward they may choose, and
thereafter, to best explain and represent the policies that the
Commander in Chief has put forward.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
I know, when we talked about this a while back, General
Casey, I thought I understood you to say that you had some
questions about a repeal, but that you were not taking a hard
position either for or against, at this point.
General Casey. Senator, I think that's fair. As I mentioned
to you, I do have serious concerns about the impact of the
repeal of the law on a force that's fully engaged in two wars
and has been at war for 8\1/2\ years.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Casey. We just don't know the impacts on readiness
and military effectiveness.
Secretary McHugh. Exactly.
General Casey. That's why I fully support what Secretary
Gates has laid out. I'll fully participate in that. I feel I
can provide my informed military judgments to the Secretary of
Defense, the President, and Congress.
Senator Lieberman. Good enough.
Let me go on to the end strength question that Senator
McCain took up for a moment in his questioning. We worked very
hard to give you the increase in temporary end strength of
22,000 soldiers. Based on the dwell time, the time back at
base, that our troops have and the stress that they're under,
and also, of course, based on the unpredictability of the two
hot wars we're involved in, in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is
to say, what demands there'd be on manpower we never can
foresee--I notice there's a story in the paper this morning
suggesting that, because of uncertainties surrounding the
election in Iraq and the post-election negotiating to form a
new government, that it may be necessary to keep more of our
soldiers in Iraq longer than we had originally hoped. It's not
clear yet, but while we're surging in Afghanistan. So, I want
to get clear, just for the record, General Casey. Have you
filled that 22,000 increase in end strength now?
General Casey. We have not. We will fill up to 15,000 this
year.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Casey. Then we'll make a decision, later this year,
whether of not we want to complete the last 7,000. It's tied,
as you would suggest, to the demand on our forces--and the
drawdown in Iraq. I will tell you, because of what was already
spoken of here--the military personnel costs--we will work to
find the right balance between an Army that we can afford and
an Army that is able to meet the Nation's demands at
sustainable deployment rates for its soldiers.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate it. We had a hearing
yesterday with Secretary Flournoy and General Paxton about a
status report on where we are in the operations in Afghanistan
and Marja, and based on statements that General McChrystal and
General Petraeus have made, this is the beginning of a turn-
the-momentum-against-the-Taliban operation that will presumably
go from Marja in Helmand Province into Kandahar. These are all
very troop intensive operations, and we know that, in this kind
of conflict, numbers matter. So, I just want to express my
hope--first a concern, if I can--that in the budget that you're
receiving, this end strength increase temporarily goes to 2012.
My concern is that you're going to get squeezed budgetarily to
make a decision against the troop increase that we may need in
Afghanistan and Iraq, because the truth is that personnel
really do cost a lot of money. The net effect of that, I fear,
will be that we will increase the stress on our forces and not
do so well in combat. In a sense, the Secretary of Defense's
decision--which I support with the fiscal year 2011 budget--to
add two additional combat aviation brigades--which I supported,
because it provides much needed aviation assets for the Army--
also creates additional manpower and budgetary demands on our
overtaxed force.
So, you get my point. I'm concerned that the Army's going
to be pressured, for reasons of money, not effectiveness in the
field or your goal, which I totally support, of increasing
dwell time, to not have the personnel we need to achieve those
ends. How would you respond?
General Casey. Senator, I share your concerns, and I assure
you that we won't get pressed by that to do something that will
impact a force that's already stretched by 8\1/2\ years of war.
As I talked to you in your office, the Secretary and I will let
you know, here, as we get closer to this, about how we're
thinking on it and where we're going.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that. I'll keep asking the
question.
Mr. Secretary, do you want to add anything?
Secretary McHugh. Well, I would simply say, Senator, as
both the Chief and I have discussed, we deeply appreciate that
plus-up; and it was through yours and other great members of
this committee that that came about. We feel that if our plans
for drawdowns in Iraq and the continued plus-up goes according
to the outlines, that we can meet our dwell objectives without
that end strength. But, obviously, as General Odierno's
comments in the media this morning suggest, this is a situation
that could change, and we need to make that judgment at the
appropriate time.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that. Thank you.
You have a lot of allies here in that cause, so thank you
very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, again, thanks for your service.
Mr. Secretary, you and I have been good friends for a long
time, and I'm very proud of your service and your continuing
commitment to our military Services, particularly the U.S.
Army.
My State continues to be at the forefront of both the war
in Afghanistan and the conflict in Iraq. The 48th Brigade of
the Georgia National Guard is in the process of returning home
right now, after another very successful engagement, this time
in Afghanistan. Of course, the 3rd Infantry Division is on
their fourth tour in Iraq now and, again, just doing a terrific
job. We're very proud of those folks.
General Casey, you referenced in your statement that this
budget includes all the remaining funding to complete the round
of BRAC. While the Taliban can't stop the U.S. Army in
Afghanistan, it appears that the red cockaded woodpecker in
Georgia has at least slowed down the transfer of the Armor
School. Can you give us an update on that, and does your budget
reflect the fact that we're going to complete that in the short
term?
General Casey. The budget reflects the fact that we're
going to complete the construction. Frankly, I am not up to
speed on where we are with the red cockaded woodpecker.
Mr. Secretary, I don't know if you have the data either.
I'll find out, and let you know.
[The information referred to follows:]
The move of the Armor School and stand up of the Maneuver Center of
Excellence (MCOE) at Fort Benning is on track to meet the September 15,
2011, BRAC 2005 deadline. The Sierra Club and the Southern
Environmental Law Center have expressed concerns and discussed possible
litigation regarding the adverse impact the military construction and
subsequent training at the MCOE will have on the red cockaded-
woodpecker (RCW), a federally listed endangered species. Thus far,
several of the concerns expressed by the Sierra Club and the Southern
Environmental Law Center have been satisfactorily addressed. Remaining
issues of concern are expected to be resolved in late March 2010 when
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a supplement to the existing
Biological Opinion that will provide greater clarity and specificity on
the requisite procedures to ensure proper management of the RCW.
General Casey. I was down at Benning probably 2 months ago,
and they told me that they were on track. They mentioned some
problems, but they didn't think those were going to keep us
from meeting that September 2011 date to have Armor Center down
there.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. Well, if you could just give us a
followup on that in writing, or have your staff give me a call,
that would be fine.
Mr. Secretary, we previously discussed the issue of Fort
Stewart and the Army's decision not to grow the additional
three BCTs, as previously stated. With that in mind, the QDR
mentions two pending reviews of our four European-based BCTs.
As you well know, we eagerly await the outcome of those reviews
and hope that the Army will give a hard look at where those
BCTs should be based, and keep in mind both your commitments to
NATO allies, as well as the need to have troops based in the
continental United States.
Now, in that regard, the fiscal year 2010 defense
appropriation bill called for a review to be completed within
60 days of enactment of the Department's efforts to mitigate
the impact of the brigade basing decisions that I mentioned
above on local communities. Can you give us the status of that,
since we are at the 60-day mark?
Secretary McHugh. The one thing I've learned, Senator,
since my 5 months in the Pentagon, is that 60 days usually
means 75. I've not yet seen that report. I promise you we will
attempt to find out where it is for you and provide that
information for you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Per the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Legislative
Affairs congressional report tracking system, OSD (Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics) is writing this report and is expected to
have it completed in the near future.
Secretary McHugh. As to the rebasing, we expect the NATO
review and the attendant U.S. posture reviews, as to the four
brigade teams' end in the European theater, to be concluded,
and, hopefully, a decision can be made whether they'll be
retained in Europe or, perhaps, one or both be brought back
home by the fall of this year.
Senator Chambliss. Okay.
With respect to the reset and replacement of the equipment
that we are using, or have used, in Iraq over the last several
years, it's pretty obvious, when you're on the ground over
there, that a lot of this equipment is just simply worn out. If
we're truly going to leave the Iraqis in a position to be able
to maintain security, both internally and also threats from
external sources, we're probably going to have to leave some
equipment with them. What's the plan of the Army now with
respect to how much of this equipment is truly going to be
brought back to the United States to be reset, how much is
going to be left there for the Iraqis, and how much is simply
too worn out to do either of the above?
General Casey. Senator, that is a great question. In fact,
we have been working on the drawdown in Iraq for over 18
months, and putting in place the stewardship boards to ensure
that we have a good handle on this. As you suggest, just to
give you an idea of the scope of this, this is about 3 million
pieces of equipment in Iraq, and as you say, in various states
of repair. About 70 percent of that equipment belongs to Army
units. That will come back to the United States, get reset, and
get put back into units. The remaining 30 percent is
nonstandard equipment. About 95 percent of that will be
retained for our future use. It's things like X-ray machines
that we use at entry sites. About 5 percent will be made
available to State agencies for emergency use.
Right now, it looks like we will leave about half a billion
dollars worth of excess equipment to the Iraqis, and that
includes trucks, Humvees, rifles, generators, and those kinds
of things. Part of that has been provided by the authorities
that came from this committee. But, of all the billions of
dollars, only about half a billion dollars will be left there
for the Iraqis.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. I think Senator McCain touched on
the issue of the 22,000 personnel that we've plussed-up and
whether or not we ought to make those permanent. But, without
repeating the specific question that he asked--I hope I'm not--
General Casey, what are your thoughts on making the current
temporary increase of end strength at 22,000?
General Casey. Senator, because of the costs of personnel
and the impact of that on the rest of the programs within the
budget, I want to look at it very closely. As I mentioned to
Senator Lieberman, if we meet the drawdown in Iraq targets
about as they've been laid out, we may not need the entire
22,000, and we may not need to keep it. But, it's something
we'll look very, very closely at here, probably over the next 6
months.
Senator Chambliss. I would fully expect this committee is
going to support your decision, whatever it may be, but the one
issue that I keep hearing, back home as I visit the Army posts,
is the operational tempo issue, and it primarily comes from
spouses, the same as what you already know, I'm sure. Trying to
deal with that issue is not easy, but one way to do it is to
make these 22,000 troops permanent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your service.
General Casey, the Marines deployed, initially, MRAP
vehicles that had specialized suspension for Afghanistan. Where
is the Army in that process? Is that something you intend to
do?
General Casey. I was up at Aberdeen, and I looked at one of
those systems up there, and we have a plant in Kuwait that is
actively transitioning some of the MRAP vehicles that we have
in theater to the new suspension system. So, we're actively
working on that.
Senator Reed. Is it your goal to fully equip all our Army
forces in Afghanistan with those vehicles, or what is the plan?
General Casey. My recollection, Senator, is that we're
converting a certain type of MRAP vehicle. All MRAP vehicles
don't necessarily need that kit, and so we'll continue to
outfit those.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Both for the Secretary and for the Chief of Staff; as we go
forward, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, hopefully the need for
combat brigades will decrease, and the need for trainers will
increase. How are you trying to accommodate that shift in the
future?
General Casey. We have been creating, probably for the last
6 months or so, Senator, advise-and-assist brigades for Iraq
and modular brigades that are augmented with additional
trainers for Afghanistan. There's a two-phase training process:
one, that when they go to their mission rehearsal exercise at
one of our training centers, they get some training there; and
then, last year, we stood up a new brigade whose sole mission
is to conduct security force assistance trainings for general-
purpose units. So, the leadership of those units also receives
additional training in the skills required to work with
indigenous forces, much like our Special Forces do. We're
having great success with the combination of those.
The other thing, Senator, I was down visiting a brigade
from the 82nd at one of their exercises, and I said, ``What's
the story, guys, can we really do this? Can conventional units
do this training?'' There was silence, and then one of the
battalion commanders said, ``Sir, it's what we've been doing
for the last 4 years.'' Since 2005, our conventional forces
have been actively working with the indigenous forces in Iraq
and also in Afghanistan. So, we're getting much better at it.
Senator Reed. This proposal you're talking about is the
embedded trainers or units working with American brigades?
General Casey. We put additional field-grade officers into
existing brigades so that they can partner with divisions and
border brigades, things like that.
Senator Reed. But, at some point, the presence of
brigades--in Iraq first, and then Afghanistan--will be minimal,
and what about individual trainers or training structures that
don't depend upon the brigades?
General Casey. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have structures to
stand up the institutional side of their armies. It's called
MNSTC-I, in Iraq, and it's called CSTC-A, in Afghanistan.
Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell, USA, has been working in
Afghanistan to stand it up. Frankly, it was under-resourced. In
fact, we've just sent about 50 senior leaders from that
training brigade to Bill Caldwell to augment his staff and
continue to get things going there. That is where, currently in
Afghanistan, he is having problems with the trainers, the
institutional trainers that I think the Chairman mentioned in
his opening statement.
Senator Reed. Going forward, General and Mr. Secretary, are
you consciously planning to resource this effort with qualified
noncommissioned officers on an extended basis? Is that built
into your plan?
General Casey. Absolutely. In fact, we have begun selecting
lieutenant colonel and colonel commanders, off of a command
select list to command in those organizations.
Senator Reed. Another aspect to this training issue is
interagency training, prior to deployment. Is that going on,
and how effective is that?
General Casey. It is, but it's tough, Senator. What we wind
up doing is contracting retired interagency folks to come out
and give us that expertise as we're going through the training.
The other agencies just aren't big enough to provide the folks
that are actually going to be out there in time. So, that
continues to be difficult.
Senator Reed. So, there's no sort of training as you do
before deploying military units to bring all of the relevant
parts together, train for a period of time, and then deploy.
You have surrogates, and then when they get in the field, they
get together with the actual agency partners.
General Casey. Right. If we're getting the actual partners
there, it's by exception and not the rule.
Senator Reed. There's been a lot of discussion about the
DADT policy. Have you heard anything from commanders in the
field in Afghanistan or Iraq about the readiness of British
forces or Canadian forces, which do allow gay servicemembers to
serve openly? Is there any reluctance, by American units, to
cooperate? Any feedback from individual soldiers about their
policies?
General Casey. I have heard nothing from anyone about any
conflicts with British or Canadian soldiers, or any other
country's soldiers, that have already implemented that policy.
Senator Reed. Have you had anybody suggest that their
battle readiness was impaired by that policy?
General Casey. I have not, Senator.
Senator Reed. As you go forward, you're reorganizing the
military--as you point out, the most significant reorganization
in decades--is there any thought about changing the construct
of the Reserve Forces, of putting more or less combat service
support elements there? If there is, can you comment?
General Casey. We're always trying the get the mix of
Active component and Reserve component forces right. We made a
conscious decision in 2004 to get through this, to complete
this reorganization that we've done. Now we're reassessing and
we're taking a hard look at ourselves to see if we have the mix
right. That will take place over the next 6 months, and I'd be
happy to keep you abreast of it as we go forward.
Senator Reed. Thank you, General.
I just want to recognize and commend you Mr. Secretary for
your leadership. We were all very gratified when the President
nominated you, and your performance since then, Mr. Secretary,
has been very exceptional, and I thank you for that service.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me echo my appreciation to both witnesses for their
service. To reiterate what I said when Congressman McHugh was
nominated by the President, I think the President chose well,
and we're proud of the Secretary.
Just to follow up on Senator Reed's question, General. Have
you had conversations with British or Canadian generals of like
rank about the transition and their observation with regard to
DADT?
General Casey. I have not, Senator.
Senator Wicker. Okay. But, don't you think that might be a
good idea, something you might pursue?
General Casey. We will do that as part of this process.
Senator Wicker. Okay. Thank you.
There's been a lot of discussion about MRAP vehicles today.
In your prepared testimony, gentlemen, you say the Army is
incorporating these vehicles throughout its unit formations. I
understand that Secretary Gates mentioned sharing MRAP vehicles
with our allies. To either one of you, are we going to do that,
or is that just a notional concept? Would we be giving them to
other countries? Would we be selling them under a foreign
military sales-type program? Specifically, how many MRAP
vehicles do we have in Iraq today? I have information that it's
about 23,000. Would that be a fair number?
General Casey. No, Senator. We have probably about 9,300
MRAP vehicles or so in Iraq.
Senator Wicker. Ninety-three hundred?
General Casey. That's the total for the Army now.
Senator Wicker. The Army.
General Casey. We have almost 12,000 total deployed and
about 600 of these MRAP all-terrain vehicles (MATVs) out there.
Senator Wicker. Okay.
General Casey. That number of 23,000 sounds high, but it
may be all of the other Services thrown in there.
Senator Wicker. Okay. Is this part of the equipment that
Senator Chambliss was talking about? Will some of these be left
in control of the Iraqis? Are we going to bring them all back?
Secretary McHugh. We're not through that process, as yet,
Senator. I will tell you that, with respect to discussions to
provide MRAP vehicles or any other piece of hardware to our
allies, obviously we want them to be equipped as they help us
on this or any other battlefield, they have adequate
protection. But, the last I knew, the Secretary of Defense's
position was that we must meet U.S. solders' requirements first
and foremost.
As to the means of disposal of those, either through some
sort of in-kind donation or should they pay up front, it will
be on a case-by-case basis, should we get to that point.
Senator Wicker. Okay, now this refurbishing that Senator
Reed asked about is taking place in Kuwait. Is that to make
them ready for the different terrain in Afghanistan?
General Casey. It's to put a more agile suspension system
on them, yes.
Senator Wicker. Will all of them have to go through this
refurbishing before they're sent to Afghanistan?
General Casey. Senator, I don't believe so, but I don't
know exactly. So, I will provide that to you for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Yes. All mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles that are
being redistributed from Iraq to Afghanistan are routed thru the Army's
MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait. This ensures all required
maintenance actions are performed before these vehicles are shipped to
our forces in Afghanistan.
Senator Wicker. Okay.
General Casey. It will apply to some models for sure. I
don't know that it applies to all the models, but I'll get you
that for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Based on past experience, virtually all vehicles require some level
of maintenance work after being redeployed to Kuwait. Current
priorities at the mine-resistant ambush-protected Sustainment Facility
are the Maxx Pro (manufactured by International Military Group of
NAVISTAR), CAIMAN (manufactured by BAE, Inc.) and Force Protection
variants.
In the case of the Cougar, the Joint Program Office (JPO) is
planning to install an independent suspension system on 515 Cougar
vehicles on loan to the U.S. Army from the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S.
Navy. This system will better enable the Cougar to operate within the
challenging terrain of Afghanistan. The JPO has modified approximately
600 U.S. Marine Corp and U.S. Navy Cougars. These vehicles were
modified in Kuwait and are now operating in Afghanistan.
Senator Wicker. I understand we're transitioning from the
MRAP vehicle to the MATV. Are we going to be building any more
MRAP vehicles or are we going to start making MATVs
exclusively, at this point?
Secretary McHugh. My understanding is that the various
platforms of MRAP vehicles will continue. The theater demand is
for the MATV, but that doesn't suggest that some of the other
variants don't have suitability and applicability in other
uses, and that will be examined on a case-by-case basis. But,
clearly, from the battlefield, the MATV, particularly in
Afghanistan, is the high-demand platform.
We're getting the impression you're interested in MRAP
vehicles.
Senator Wicker. Indeed, and other members of the panel have
been interested in MRAP vehicles.
One other line of questioning, and that's with regard to
the Fire Scout vehicles. They've been made by Northrop Grumman,
in my State of Mississippi. I was disappointed when Secretary
Gates canceled the program.
We have eight Fire Scout vehicles manufactured, sitting in
storage in the manufacturing plant in Mississippi. The
President's budget indicates that the Army is working to
transfer existing assets to the Navy or Special Forces. But, my
question is, it would seem to me that the Army would need a
vertical takeoff-and-landing capability in Afghanistan, much as
the Fire Scout can provide. So, can either one of you tell me
why the Army decided to cancel the Fire Scout program? When
will the Army present Congress with its plan on moving forward
with existing assets that have been manufactured and are
sitting unused? Is the Army currently conducting any studies to
determine the need for a vertical takeoff-and-landing unmanned
air system capability in its future force?
General Casey. Senator, if I could, I'd answer those in
reverse. Right now, we don't have any studies ongoing for a
vertical takeoff and landing system. We will get you the plan
for how we intend to deal with the existing systems here within
the next 60 days.
[The information referred to follows:]
With the termination of the Class IV Unmanned Aerial System, the
U.S. Army considered several options for disposition of the eight U.S.
Army Fire Scouts that are currently at Moss Point, MS. While a final
decision has not yet been made, the Army anticipates transferring the
Fire Scouts to the U.S. Navy as soon as possible to facilitate their
continued development of the Fire Scout Unmanned Aerial System.
General Casey. Now to the question of why did we go down
this road to begin with? The bottom line is, Senator, that we
developed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) strategy that gave
us more capability at less cost. We studied this over the last
year, and we looked at the payload, the cost, and the force
structure that was attendant to operating the different
systems. When we compared it to an improved Shadow, which is a
system that's already in the force, the Shadow gave us more
value for the money, and more capability for the money, as
well. While a vertical takeoff-and-landing capability is
convenient, it just didn't put it over the top, in terms of the
capabilities that the improved Shadow gave us for the cost.
Senator Wicker. The Shadow doesn't have that vertical
capability. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to add my welcome to Secretary McHugh and General
Casey, and I want to thank you for your distinguished service
to our country.
I also want to thank the men and women of our Army, both
uniformed and civilian, who serve our country proudly. Also, I
want to thank Army families, who make many sacrifices while
their loved ones serve our country.
Mr. Secretary, the number of servicemembers returning from
deployment who have mental health issues is a great concern.
Many servicemembers are reluctant to volunteer information that
could reflect negatively on the state of their mental health.
Secretary McHugh, considering servicemembers' reservations to
volunteer such information, can you update us on the Army's
efforts to proactively identify and assist soldiers in dealing
with mental health issues? Also, for those transitioning from
the Active component, how is the Army helping them to find
mental healthcare, either from the VA or from the civilian
sector?
Secretary McHugh. You raise a very important point,
Senator. There has long been the attitude, amongst men and
women in uniform across the Services, that somehow mental
health is a shortcoming, a handicap, a weakness. From the Army
side--and, I think it's fair to say, from all of the Services--
we're working very hard to try do change the opinions of those
who we hope will find themselves in a position to reach out for
help. Earlier, the Chief mentioned Comprehensive Soldier
Fitness, and this change of attitude has to begin at the very
basic level, and that is to have Army doctrine treat physical
fitness and mental fitness along the same par. That is the
attempt of this initiative. I think it's fair to say that,
combined with the online mental health assessments that are
available through that program, and coupled with the resilience
trainers that are increasingly going out into the units and
helping soldiers become more resilient, that they're beginning
to understand it's okay to seek out help.
We have the same challenge, quite frankly, that we see in
the civilian community, and that is a difficulty in bringing on
necessary behavioral health specialists. In fact, we're at
about 86 percent of our stated requirements for those
behavioral health providers, and we're working, each and every
day, to try build on that. But, we've had success, I would
argue, particularly in moving our concern about behavioral
health, and our focus on it, away from just the predeployment.
We're reaching out into the battlefields. We have the mental
health advisory teams that come back and provide advice to us
as to what we can do to extend that service. Now in the
battlefields, both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have mental health
specialists dealing with the troops, dealing with them on
patient-to-provider ratios that, frankly, are better than our
stated requirement. We have a requirement in theater of about 1
of these behavioral health providers for every 700 soldiers, in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. We're just about or just above the
1-to-600.
So, the way you get people to understand it's okay is to
act as if it's okay and by providing that kind of care and
destigmatizing it. That's key to our success in the future, and
it's certainly key to our activity, thus far.
Senator Akaka. The other part of that question was on
whether there are any efforts being made to help them plan for
their healthcare from either the VA or the private sector.
Secretary McHugh. We don't just turn people loose, Senator.
When soldiers redeploy, thanks to the work of both Houses of
Congress, and certainly this and the House Armed Services
Committee, we're now providing not one but two post-deployment
reassessments. We're trying to create a continuum where we can,
more early on, identify folks who are either likely or who are
encountering problems; and when those people are identified, we
try to provide for them in house.
Where distance becomes a challenge, as it often does with
respect to the Reserve component, we're working through the
Reserves, through the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, and
others to make sure that we can do everything we can to connect
people who are in need, based on their service challenges, to
those who can provide them help.
I don't want to suggest that we have this perfect. We
don't. But, it is, nevertheless, something we focus on every
day, and we're improving every day. But, we still have a ways
to go.
Senator Akaka. I'm very interested, Secretary McHugh, in
collaboration between the Services and the VA. Of note, the
Army has worked with the VA on a Physical Disability Evaluation
System pilot program, and a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record
systems. Mr. Secretary, can you give me an update on the pilot
program and how you are addressing the challenges of creating a
Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record system?
Secretary McHugh. I can provide you an overview, and I
think the Chief could give you more detail, because he's been
focused on this. I spent a lot of time in Congress, on the
House Armed Services Committee, frankly, frustrated at the
disconnect between the various evaluation systems maintained in
the military versus those in the VA, and we're working very
hard, particularly post what we found out at the Walter Reed
Army Medical Center. One of the great frustrators of soldiers,
in our Warrior Transition Units who were doing the
transitioning from the military to the VA disability system,
was that disconnect and the frustration of repetitive dealings.
The last report I got is that the model study is going
fairly well and they hope to have it completed and results in
the relatively near future. But, I'd defer to the Chief for any
fill-in-the-blanks he might have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Chief?
General Casey. The pilot is currently working at 10 places,
and we're going to increase it by another 5 in March. That,
frankly, is not as fast as I'd like to see it go, because
intuitively, we all believe it's the way that we should go.
The general feedback we get from the soldiers is, they see
the one physical given in the pilot is more fair, because it
allows them to start getting their benefits sooner.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, both of you, for your service, and I look
forward to continuing to work with you to support the finest
Army this Nation, I think, has ever fielded. They've been under
great stress, and have exceeded all our expectations. I'm so
proud of the men and women that serve.
Just a few issues that I'd like to raise. General Casey, we
have a continual discussion about unmanned aerial systems, and
there was some confusion, for a period of time, about who was
going to be responsible for that. I think that matter has been
settled with clarity.
First, is that so? Second, we've seen how effective they
can be, is there any need to expand the number of military
units and reduce the size of the units that have access to this
kind of capability?
General Casey. To answer your first question, we have
worked very closely with the Air Force over the last 18 months
to resolve who's in charge, and at what level. I feel very
comfortable that we have resolved those differences.
Senator Sessions. Was that different from Secretary
England's decision? Have you made any changes from what I
understood his decision was?
General Casey. What I was speaking of, Senator, was the
employment aspect of it, not the procurement side of it.
The other thing I would say is I think you know that, in
this budget, we have been given some additional assets to
procure some additional UAVs. In fact, several companies of our
top-line UAV. I think we all feel that these systems give our
soldiers, not only a great capability to operate in irregular
warfare operations, but they are relevant across the spectrum
of conflict.
Senator Sessions. Well, like I said, we have MRAP vehicles
and we spend a lot of money on those protective vehicles. But,
there was an article in the paper, in the last few days, about
a young officer using an unmanned aerial system to identify a
group of people planting an IED in the road. So, it could save
lives in a lot of different ways. I just hope that you will not
hesitate to ask for what you need.
Second, with regard to the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (CERP) funds and the funds, General Casey, that
soldiers have to deal with local civilians. Let's say, in the
Afghan theater, there's a village, remote from the central
government, that has always sort of taken care of its own
matters. What I think we learned in Iraq--and you were there
when it really happened--was that if you work with some of the
local leaders, and can help them have the resources to hire and
train local people who are going to defend the local community,
sometimes you get a lot better result than if you take those
young people and send them off to some distant part of the
country, where they have no family and not the same loyalty.
As I understand it, the commanders have certain abilities
to utilize funds through CERP to work with local leaders, but
the substantial majority of the money may be going through the
State Department, and often they're not in these more remote
villages. My question is: are you satisfied that you have
enough funds, based on the amount that's out there, to actually
work with local leaders, shake hands with them, make some
commitments, and be able to deliver on those commitments in a
way that can transform a whole village, region, or valley in a
more positive way?
General Casey. Senator, there's $1.3 billion in the fiscal
year 2011 budget for CERP funds. The bulk of that, $1.1
billion, is going to Afghanistan. That seems to me to be an
appropriate amount for what their needs are there, at the low
level.
Senator Sessions. Can that be used at the local level,
let's say, to help a local leader hire a police force, and pay
those people?
General Casey. Yes. I'm a little rusty on the exact
restrictions they have. Hiring people sometimes is outside of
the realm of CERP.
Senator Sessions. Well, there we go.
General Casey. But, certainly it can be used----
Senator Sessions. See that's the problem. It was in the
Washington Post; they had an interesting article about it.
Ambassador Eikenberry and Ambassador Holbrooke were quoted
about it, and they have concerns. Kabul has concerns. They like
everybody to answer only to them, of course. But, didn't we
have success in Iraq, when you were there, in creating loyalty
with the local leaders by the military people being able to
deliver, and help them provide jobs and security forces for
their people?
General Casey. Yes, Senator. I was just there before
Christmas and I'm not getting any feedback that that's not
happening in Afghanistan.
Senator Sessions. There's still some uncertainty about it.
I just hope, Mr. Secretary, sometimes DOD has to defend its
legitimate interest in the internal bureaucracies that are out
there. I don't know precisely where the line ought to be drawn,
but I know, in certain areas of Afghanistan, there really is no
State Department presence. The only presence there is a
trained, skilled military officer, who meets with a tribal
leader, and he needs to be able to offer that leader something,
and make decisions that could neutralize hostilities and save
lives. Is that something you've thought about?
Secretary McHugh. I have, and it's something that I agree
with you about. The workings between State and DOD on this
program took some time. My understanding is that now it's
working relatively well, that commanders on the ground do have
access to those funds that provide, as you correctly noted,
Senator, a great opportunity and a great option to create local
jobs through various construction projects, be it a repair of a
road, or be it construction----
Senator Sessions. What about security forces?
Secretary McHugh. I have to demur, as I think I heard the
Chief do.
Senator Sessions. Well, it's a pretty big issue, would you
agree that that's a big issue? Will you look at it? That's all
I'm asking.
Secretary McHugh. I'm not disagreeing. What I'm saying is,
I'm not certain, under the current construct, if direct hiring
is allowable under CERP. I just don't know of it is or it
isn't. Generally, a CERP is a construction program that
provides jobs and, obviously, economic security in that way. If
there's an opportunity for hiring of direct forces, we're
generally inclined to do that through other means. But we can
certainly check and get back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Direct hiring of local security personnel is not allowed under the
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP). CERP may be used for
short-term security contracts that hire security personnel on a
temporary basis to guard critical infrastructure.
Senator Sessions. General Casey, just briefly, you did that
in Iraq. The forces were able to partner with local people, put
their local young men on the payroll as security forces, and
they ran al Qaeda out of their villages, time and time again,
didn't they?
General Casey. I think that happened afterwards. I don't
recall hiring security forces with CERP.
Senator Sessions. I don't know where they got their money
but I'm just telling you, that's a big deal. They don't have
time to send them off a year to Kabul to be trained and get
sent some other place in Afghanistan. I mean, the reality is
now; you've cleared a village or whatever, and you have some
support and I just think we need to cut through this and be
able to recognize, in some areas of the country, that the
military are the only real people there that make a good
decision, and they should have access to some of those funds,
if need be, to do that.
General Casey. I'll check on that and get back with you.
Secretary McHugh. I'll double check on that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Military commanders in Afghanistan do have access to the
Commanders' Emergency Response Program funds and may use those funds to
contract for temporary security guards to protect critical
infrastructure, including neighborhoods and other public areas in a
village. The contracts must be short-term, usually for the life of the
project involved, but not to exceed 365 days.
Senator Sessions. I have some other questions I'll submit
to you in writing.
I, again, thank you for your service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
I do believe that Senator Sessions is correct. I think the
CERP funding has been authorized at least for the reintegration
piece; it's not just for construction. I think it's been
specifically authorized for reintegration, which would include
payroll.
Secretary McHugh. We will certainly check and see how
that's being applied.
Chairman Levin. I think it is not only authorized, I think
it's been used for that purpose, at least to reintegrate some
of the lower-level Taliban with some pay for them.
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
gentlemen, for your service.
I thank the members of the Army for your service, as well
as the families who support our men and women in uniform.
I'd like to turn to military construction (MILCON), just
for a moment, Secretary McHugh and General Casey. General
Casey, you and I have talked about reset and recapitalization,
so what I'm really addressing is, the budget request includes
significant funding increases to replace aging facilities for
the National Guard and the Reserves. Obviously, the investment
is critical, considering the Guard and Reserve personnel
comprise some 51 percent of your end strength. But, your
request for Guard and Reserve MILCON, while $1.2 billion, is
less than 1 percent of your total base budget, and only a fifth
of your total MILCON request. Some of Nebraska's Guard units,
for example, are lacking, currently, adequate space to store
and reset new equipment. For example, Nebraska units lack 33
acres for improved and unimproved parking to store new trucks,
tractors, and trailers, as well as 8,000 square feet of heated
storage and 3,500 square feet of security vault storage.
We'll take this for the record, but what is the current
state of our Guard and Reserve infrastructure at the present
time? Perhaps you could make some general comments. We'd like
to have something more for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
The current state of Army Reserve infrastructure is adequate to
support its current missions but inadequate to support all its
missions. Competing requirements from mission areas such as Grow the
Army, Army Modular Force, Army Force Generation, provide facility lease
options to address Army requirements to support unit stationing plans
and others will always be a constraint to a modernized infrastructure.
The average age of Army Reserve facilities is over 42 years old, the
majority of facilities are under-sized for today's mission
requirements, encroached upon by local community activities and are
Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection non compliant. Base Realignment and
Closure Act of 2005 (BRAC 2005) funding helped tremendously in
providing over 120 new Air Force Reserve Commands that meet today's
operational and training needs; however, BRAC 2005 funding modernized
only 11 percent of the Army Reserve Center facility inventory. The Army
National Guard has stated that they could use $1.5 billion per year for
20 years to address revitalizing their facilities.
Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary McHugh?
Secretary McHugh. Senator, as we have begun to
operationalize the Guard and Reserve, there have been
significant challenges. The first wave of those challenges were
based largely on the equipment side. If you look at the state
of both the personnel, as well as the equipment readiness for
Guard and Reserve, although still a work in progress, we've
made some successful steps. The personnel readiness ratings
have improved about 4 percent this year over last. The
equipment, right now, is at about 79 percent readiness. If you
count substitute equipment, that raises to about 89 percent.
But what that tells us is, we have a long way to go.
As to the distribution of MILCON, certainly, if I were in a
Guard or Reserve unit, I'd feel as though I wasn't getting what
I needed, and we have to admit that.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, that's why, in taking them to an
operational Reserve, it has to be thorough with respect to not
only equipment, but to their facilities, so that the facilities
management is capable of taking care of the equipment and
keeping them an Operational Ready Reserve. So, that's my
concern, and obviously it's your concern, as well. But, I hope
that you can address that in more detail for us and for the
record.
Secretary McHugh. We will do that, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Army fully supports the fiscal year 2011 President's budget
request. The fiscal year 2011 request completes the U.S. Army Reserve's
Grow the Army effort to provide new facilities for those additional
soldiers. However, funding is currently not sufficient to address all
of the Army Reserve's requirements to include modernizing our legacy
facilities, provide new/upgraded maintenance facilities, provide
leasing funded options to address Army requirements to field units
faster and upgrade our facilities to meet current mission standards and
anti-terrorism/force protection set back requirements. Long-term
solutions for all of the remaining requirements (such as recapitalizing
existing facilities for existing missions) necessitates a long-term
funding strategy beyond the Future Years Defense Program. Obsolete
legacy facilities adversely affect readiness, organizations, missions
and installations across the Army. This issue affects all Army commands
and components and adversely impacts the mission and organizations.
Secretary McHugh. As I said, we're making progress, but
it's incremental, at best, I would agree with you.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, if we don't continue to make
progress, what we'll see happen is what would be fairly
obvious, that would be a sliding back of the capabilities of
the Guard and Reserve to be that Operational Reserve, and
readiness will suffer, I think, as we all understand.
On human capital, one of the biggest challenges will be
managing and expanding the new missions while maintaining the
fixed end strength. A significant number of questions have been
asked about that. What I'd like to do is focus on the
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance mission seeing a
great deal of growth all across the services, due in part
because of this expansion of the UAVs. How will the Army be
able to staff the growing needs of these missions, both as to
the increased number of units and increased number of these
UAVs? What are we doing to be able to keep pace with the
growing nature of the use of such?
General?
General Casey. That's a great question, Senator, we have
learned a lot over the course of the last 8\1/2\ years about
intelligence, particularly in how to apply intelligence in this
environment. We are in the process of going through another
significant reevaluation of our whole intelligence structure.
As we look at this, we do very good analysis of where our gaps
and shortfalls are. But, what we don't do well, and what we are
working on, is redundancies, and how to get at redundancies. To
get at high-payoff forces, like the intelligence forces, we
have to continue to be able to free up redundant forces from
other areas, to put them in these high-payoff areas. That
process is hard, but it's ongoing right now.
Senator Ben Nelson. Do you think that we're maintaining an
adequate pace? Is it something we need to step up in order to
have our readiness there be as sufficient as we would like it?
General Casey. I think you always like to go faster. We are
keenly aware of the fact that we're at war and we have soldiers
deployed, and I think we're moving on this about as fast as is
reasonably possible, Senator.
Senator Ben Nelson. I've also noticed that the fiscal year
2011 request includes $507 million to buy 29 MQ-1 drones, and a
plan to spend $2.9 billion on 158 of these aircraft by 2015.
The Air Force's request, $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2011, to
purchase 48 MQ-9 drones, and they'll spend $7.3 billion on 341
MQ-9s over the same period.
Is there intercooperation between the Air Force and the
Army sufficiently on this so that there's no overlap or
underlap, in that we don't have a stovepipe situation
developing where we have ours, they have theirs? Obviously,
coordination of these efforts would strengthen our overall
military.
General Casey. You're exactly right. I've been working
directly with the Air Force Chief for almost 2 years on UAV
issues. I can't look you in the eye and tell you we've
eliminated all the redundancies, Senator, but we will continue
to work closely with the Air Force to avoid that.
Senator Ben Nelson. These are not only essential military
requirements we need to meet to have the sufficient number of
UAVs for certain, but we don't want to underlap the situation
in any significant way, because, obviously, the information can
be exchanged readily if there's a willingness to do it. I
appreciate the fact that you're suggesting to us that you're
working with your counterpart in the Air Force. I hope that
will continue. Obviously, I'm going to ask the Air Force the
same question. So, if I can smooth the process for you, I'll be
happy to.
General Casey. Use my name, yes.
Senator Ben Nelson. I'll use your name. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, 6 years ago this week, at a hearing before
the Personnel Subcommittee, you and I had a discussion about
the problem of sexual assaults in the military. At that time,
you stated that the Army had a zero-tolerance policy, and you
pledged your commitment to trying to deal with this growing
problem.
Last fiscal year, however, there were 2900 reports of
sexual assaults among servicemembers; and obviously, since the
Army's the biggest, on a percentage basis, the majority of
those assaults occurred among our soldiers. This reflected an
increase of 8 percent over the previous fiscal year.
Now, I understand that the Army is contending that this is
a result of better reporting and that our female soldiers, in
particular, feel more comfortable now coming forward to report
assaults, but it is still extremely troubling that we're seeing
those kinds of numbers. Why haven't we made more progress in
the past 6 years in this troubling area?
General Casey. Senator, that's a fair question, and I can
tell you, I still remember that hearing. As the Vice Chief, I
went back and we worked very hard to put together a prevention
and response program because we, frankly, didn't have one that
was effective. We worked very hard on it.
When I came back to this job--it was probably about 18
months ago, now--I was sitting down and getting a report on
where we'd come, and I was shown the data for the last year, I
think it was the year before, and we were clearly the highest
of the Services. I was told the same thing that you were,
``Well, we just report better.'' I said, ``Baloney.'' As I
bored into it, it was clear to me that we had a program that
was almost entirely focused on response, on helping the victim
after it happened, and not on the prevention. Secretary Geren
and I sat down and used Secretary Geren's experience when he
was working with the Air Force on this, to put together a
program to change our culture so that we could prevent the
assaults before they happened. We kicked that off in the end of
2008, and we put $28 million in his budget to bring that
program to fruition. We recognized--and we started it in 2008--
that it was a culture change and that it was going to take some
time. But, we're absolutely committed to staying on this until
we fix it. I still feel that we're zero-tolerance, and we have
to be.
Senator Collins. Secretary McHugh, would you like to add
anything?
Secretary McHugh. I would, Senator. As you and I have
talked before, there's very few, if any, other single issues
that are more contrary to the Army values than sexually
assaulting or harassing another member in uniform, or anyone,
for that matter. I made the pledge to you and to others in the
House--Congresswoman Harman, for example--and any number of
others who have, thankfully, focused on this issue so
carefully.
The Chief, I think, has highlighted what the Army needs to
do, and that is to change the culture. I can't tell you how it
came to the level it did. I don't want to say it was ever
acceptable, because it wasn't, but clearly, there was some kind
of disconnect amongst our young soldiers that didn't help them
understand more clearly, this is not just wrong, it's
unacceptable. The I. A.M. Strong program, under the SHARP
program, as you're aware, is the major means by which we convey
that new attitude of values. It's something we're working very
hard. The Chief correctly mentioned the $28-million
appropriation in the President's proposed budget for this.
But I think we need to, as well, while changing the
culture, help those victims understand that, if they do come
forward, they're going to be helped. That critically means that
we're going to pursue, legally, those that have committed these
acts. I think there was an attitude amongst many, largely
female, victims that if they reported, they'd become a victim
again by a system that just didn't follow through and somehow
didn't care.
We have worked hard to start, in our Judge Advocate General
schools, to put courses in for prosecutors to pursue these.
We've hired highly qualified experts and forensic scientists
who are skilled in pursuing crime scenes, and brought in new
prosecutors, as well, so that those soldiers who are the victim
of this horrendous, unacceptable crime, when they are brave
enough to come forward, see that it means something and we
follow through.
So, the Chief correctly said, it's frustrating, in that it
doesn't happen overnight, but we are fully committed to that.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
I know, from our discussions, that you also share my
concern about the enormous increase in suicides in the Army.
You've had a previous discussion with members of this panel
about the need for more mental health services. Secretary
McHugh, I just want to commend you for your emphasis in talking
about not just physical fitness, but mental and emotional
fitness. I think that's absolutely critical.
It's troubling that the Army had its worst year on record
last year, as far as the number of suicides. But, it's even
more troubling that we don't know why, that there doesn't seem
to be a correlation--at least that's what I'm told--between the
number of deployments or whether the person is in the Reserve
or on Active Duty. Are we any closer to understanding why there
is this troubling spike in suicides?
Secretary McHugh. Sadly, the answer is not much closer. We
have instituted--and I appreciate your kind comments--the
Comprehensive Social Fitness program, that I think is so
critical, and we're transitioning that now to families, as
well, to help people become more mentally resilient. That was a
lot of great work by the Chief and by my predecessor. Those
kinds of things need to continue to help people better cope.
But, as to why people take this step, particularly as to
why men and women in uniform do, we're still, in many ways,
befuddled. The best hope I see, in terms of understanding it
truly, is the 5-year longitudinal study that the Vice Chief of
Staff of the Army has headed up for us, with the Institute of
Mental Health, that will take a cold, hard look, over a
necessary period of time, to try to better understand that.
Frankly, we don't have much better answers in the civilian
community either.
But, as you noted, 160 suicides last year in the Army, the
highest number ever, tells us that we have to focus in on this
even more strongly, and we're doing that.
The one thing I would say about this 5-year study--it seems
like a long time, and it is--is that there is a process for
quarterly reports, so that, as things hopefully come to light
as we begin to understand things we might do in the interim,
the data will be provided, and the guidance provided, for us to
step forward and to try to put into place some measures that
will hopefully provide some solutions.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Secretary McHugh and General Casey, thank you very much for
being here today, for your service and your testimony.
General Casey, thank you for bringing the individuals you
introduced.
I want to thank each and every one of you for your service
to our military.
I do want to say that we all know that we have the best
army in the world and that Fort Bragg's 82nd Airborne Division
is leading the effort in the Regional Command East in
Afghanistan, and there are also elements of the 82nd throughout
Afghanistan and Iraq, advising, assisting, and partnering with
the Afghan National Security Forces, as well as the Iraqi
Security Forces.
I also want to point out the exceptional contributions to
the Army Special Forces in theater, as well as the 30th BCT
from the North Carolina National Guard. I can't tell you how
proud we are of the incredibly important job that they are
doing.
Secretary McHugh and General Casey, in your opening
statements, both of you talked about the commitment that you
have for the families. Secretary McHugh, you said that the
number one concern to you is the care for families and the
programs for them. General Casey, when you were talking about
getting the Army back in balance, you stated that dwell time
was the most important issue in order to get back in balance.
Then you gave details about that.
Obviously, ensuring family readiness plays a big role in
Army retention. Improving the quality of life of our Army
families allows our soldiers to operate in theater more
effectively. I'd like to have you comment on some of the
enhanced family programs that you have mentioned and which are
included in this budget.
Secretary McHugh. I appreciate, first of all, the great
service of all those great North Carolinians you mentioned, not
just in Fort Bragg, but your Reserve component soldiers. I was
over there; I had a chance to visit with some of them, and they
should make you proud. They make all of us proud.
If you can't tell, I will state it for the record, I'm a
big admirer of Secretary Pete Geren, my predecessor, and one of
many great things he did is work with the Chief of Staff and
really make a commitment to our Army families that we're going
to do everything we can to return the sacrifice that, as you so
correctly noted, Senator, they make, each and every day on our
behalf. The main conveyance of that was the Army Family
Covenant. It was one of the first acts I did when I came to the
Pentagon was to resign that in a ceremony that reaffirmed our
commitment to those families and the various programs that
we've instituted to try to attend to their needs.
We have done a good job on funding. In fact, over the last
several years, the appropriations for Army family programs has
doubled. It was about $750,000 when we started, now just 2
short years later, it's up to $1.5 billion. The President's
budget would increase it to $1.7 billion, and by the end of
2015 it would be up to $1.9 billion according to the planned
way forward.
It does a whole host of things. It provides respite care
for the caregivers and families whose soldier is deployed; it
provides respite care to those soldiers and their families who
have children with special needs; there's the Spousal
Employment that works with Fortune 100 and 500 companies to
provide employment opportunities for spouses. In fact, we've
had the great success through those terrific companies of
filling jobs for more than 35,000 Army spouses, and just on and
on and on.
It's just something we have to do. You noted, we sign up
the soldier, we re-sign the family. It's something that we
believe in very, very devoutly. We have a plan for creation of
50-some new child development centers, 7 new youth centers,
just trying to take the whole range of family needs and show
them that the family cares.
General Casey. The only thing I really can add is, as you
point out, keeping the families understanding that we really
are committed to them over the long haul is an essential part
of holding this force together over the next couple of years.
Senator Hagan. Well, I appreciate your signing of the Army
Family Covenant. I do think that's extremely important. I think
these programs, and the enhancement of the programs, are
certainly playing a big role in the families and the retention.
So, I thank you for that.
I know we've had a lot of discussion today about the MRAP
vehicles. I wanted to say that I'm supportive of the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program; however, I want to learn
more about how that program fits within the Army's long-term
ground vehicle strategy. When the JLTV program first began in
2006, the MRAP vehicle requirement did not exist, and the
unforecasted procurement of significant numbers of the MRAP
vehicles has impacted the overall JLTV program. The Army has
stated that the MRAP vehicles fill a short-term urgent joint
service requirement in order, obviously, to protect our
soldiers, while the JLTVs are the long-term solution.
Can you describe how it is in the best interests of the
Army to maintain the JLTV and the MRAP vehicle, given their
overlapping missions and requirements, and how does the JLTV
service the long-term solution in order to better protect our
soldiers?
Secretary McHugh. Let me take the first swat at that,
Senator. It really all starts with Humvees. The Army did an
assessment this year as to the requirements for the current
light tactical vehicle in the Army fleet, the Humvee. What we
discovered is, we had totally met our stated requirements for
that platform. As such, there are no funds included in this
budget for any more procurement, beyond the stated contract,
for Humvees.
The question we have to ask ourselves is: how do we provide
for a light tactical vehicle until the JLTV, the joint program
with the Marine Corps, is up and running? The answer to that is
really two-fold. One, we've experienced far fewer battle
losses, and far fewer breakdowns on the Humvee platforms than
originally expected. So we feel that we can meet a large part
of that through recapitalization and reset of the platforms we
have available. As you said, about 3,000 or so of the Humvee
requirements can be met by our MRAP vehicle stocks. So until
the JLTV comes onto line, we feel very comfortable that we have
a light tactical vehicle that will serve and keep safe our men
and women in uniform.
One of the concerns of the Humvee, of course, is that
commanders are telling us that it does not provide, in its
manufactured state, the level of protection that is necessary.
We hope the JLTV will meet that need.
General Casey. The other thing I'd add to that is in
response to another question over here about; what's our
wheeled vehicle strategy?
Senator Hagan. Right.
General Casey. We are in the throes of completing that.
But, DOD has had a significant investment in the MRAP vehicle,
and we have to figure out how to incorporate that into our
force, and into our overall wheeled vehicle strategy.
Senator Hagan. I have another host of questions concerning
this, but I believe my time has run out, so I'd put those on
the record.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Hagan.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your service.
When it comes to mental health professionals, I know
they're in short supply nationwide, but approximately many more
mental health professionals do we need to address some of the
problems related to suicide and just general mental health
problems? What's the strategy to find these people?
Secretary McHugh. The requirement of behavioral health
providers in the Army is 4,304 as I mentioned earlier, we are
at 86 percent of that, which, if my math is correct, is 3,714.
So, we are roughly about 600 short. The strategy is to try
to use the flexibilities that this Congress has provided us in
creating incentive programs and outreach programs to try to
convince those folks, who obviously are in great demand in the
private sector, to come and to serve their Nation in the Army.
Senator Graham. Do you have the tools you need to be
competitive with the private sector?
Secretary McHugh. We're making progress. I guess that would
suggest that we have sufficient tools. Certainly, as we go
forward, if more flexibility and more initiatives are needed,
we won't hesitate to ask.
Senator Graham. That's my invitation. Let us know. Is it
harder to recruit a mental health professional than it is just
a traditional doctor?
Secretary McHugh. Generally, recruiting of specialties and
subspecialties is more challenging, simply because you don't
have the density of personnel available.
Senator Graham. Is there a cross-training effort within the
military to get people who enjoy the military and are willing
to go into a new career?
Secretary McHugh. Well, we do have education opportunities,
through the university hospital system and scholarships and
such, that can be provided to candidates who meet the
qualifications.
Senator Graham. Okay, great.
When it comes to the Guard and Reserve, I think TRICARE has
been very helpful, making that available to Guard and Reserve
families, because a lot of them didn't have healthcare, it just
gave them an opportunity to purchase TRICARE for their Guard
and Reserve time, which I think is a pretty good deal for the
force.
The other issue I hear from the Guard and Reserve
everywhere I go is about lowering the retirement age. I know
there's several ideas floating around about how you can earn an
early retirement by doing more Active Duty tours and getting
credit for that. I do understand the need for the military to
sort of self-select, but I'm looking from the 20- to the 30-
year point. It used to be that most Guard and Reserve members
stayed in 30 years. A lot of them are getting out, now, at 20,
for a variety of reasons; multiple deployments being one
reason. Is there a strategy to deal with allowing people to
retire early, but incentivizing them to stay from 20 to 30,
based on the needs of the military?
Secretary McHugh. That's part of the process that we have
to do in deciding what kind of structure has to be put into
place to operationalize the Guard and Reserve.
Senator Graham. Right.
Secretary McHugh. The challenge I think we ultimately have
to face is: how do we sufficiently incentivize those good folks
to come from our communities, to periodically leave their jobs
and their families, to act as an operationalized Guard and
Reserve, but, at the same time, recognizing we have to keep
certain distance, in benefits and such, with the Active.
Senator Graham. You don't want to cross-purpose here.
Secretary McHugh. True.
Senator Graham. You don't want to get people out of the
Active Duty.
Secretary McHugh. Exactly.
Senator Graham. But, I don't really think it's that much of
a problem right now, with the benefit packages, from the 20- to
30-year period, a lot of people are leaving earlier, some of
our best and brightest, if they could earn their way to early
retirement, they might stay past 20.
Secretary McHugh. I think it's correct to say we're willing
to consider any kind of initiative.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary McHugh. I know that there are many champions in
Congress of a variety of approaches.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary McHugh. My good friend, who is now retired, Jim
Saxton on the House side, was very active in this regard.
Any ideas would be happily accepted.
Senator Graham. I'll give you some input, and I appreciate
your willingness to receive it.
General, moving on to Guantanamo Bay. General Petraeus said
Sunday that he believed it was in our national security
interest to try to close Guantanamo Bay. Do you share that
view?
General Casey. Senator, that's a policy issue that is
outside the purview of my job here, as the Chief of Staff of
the Army.
Senator Graham. Fair enough. Just from your travels, do you
think Guantanamo Bay is used by our enemies, still, against us,
the images of the past?
General Casey. I have read intelligence where I have seen
how the enemy has used that against us.
Senator Graham. That's fair enough.
We're looking at the DADT policy. I think you all have
given good answers about how we'll study it. Any movement to
change the role of women in combat? Has that time come?
Secretary McHugh. From the Army perspective, Senator, we
conduct, periodically, an assessment of all the MOSs and who is
eligible to serve in them. That's ongoing right now. It is not
directed specifically at women in combat, but, obviously, the
billets that are either open or closed to women would be part
of that review.
Senator Graham. So, General, what's your view about
expanding the ability of women to serve in combat roles?
General Casey. Senator, I believe that it's time that we
take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and look at our policy. We've discussed this,
between ourselves here. We don't have an active effort going
on, but I think it's time.
Senator Graham. I agree with you, because, as I understand
it, women, on the aviation side, fly combat missions. Probably
the time has come to look at that, and if you could give us
some input, we'd appreciate it.
Thank you both for your service. I know these have been
stressful times for our men and women in uniform, and they've
delivered. I just want to make sure that we're here to deliver
for them, and that's why your testimony is so helpful.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Secretary McHugh, great to see you here.
Thank you for taking the time to come out to Colorado and visit
Fort Carson. I know you could spend every day of the rest of
your tenure visiting the facilities around the country, but
when you come back out, maybe we can join together and be
inspired by the men and women there at Fort Carson.
General Casey, thank you for your service. You and I have
had some conversations about the transition opportunity for
soldiers with Outward Bound. It's an organization I worked with
for 20 years, and it's a wonderful way to provide those
soldiers with the opportunity to get in touch with that
excitement, the adrenaline, the meaning that comes when you
serve in combat, but also how you make that transition with
those needs back to civilian life.
A couple of shout-outs. I wanted to acknowledge Master
Sergeant Rubio, who's here. She served as a fellow in my office
for a year. It's a wonderful program. General, you need to know
that, whether she's in uniform or in civvies, she brings a
complete game. I miss her. I know she's back with her first
love, but I wanted to acknowledge the great work she did for
me.
Then, Sergeant First Class Larson, thank you for what
you're doing as a master resilience trainer. I liked what
General Casey said about mental fitness. This thing up here is
the biggest, baddest piece of equipment we have but it needs to
be maintained and upgraded, it needs a little tender love and
care, sometimes the sights have to be recalibrated. But, thank
you for what you're doing in that regard. You're a brain
mechanic, it sounds like, and we have a lot more to learn. So,
thank you for pushing the envelope there.
I'd like to turn to two areas. One, I want to talk about
Combat Aviation Brigades, and then conclude with a couple of
comments on DADT.
We've seen, in these last few decades, just how important
aviation is. It's a combat multiplier. Everything from airborne
attacks to aeromedical evacuations. It appears in the fiscal
year 2011 budget that we're going to increase aviation assets,
it supports the development of a twelfth combat aviation
brigade, and then begins to acquire, it looks like, equipment
for a planned thirteenth aviation brigade.
When will you make stationing decisions for those brigades,
General and Mr. Secretary? Can you share some criteria that the
Army would use to make those decisions?
Secretary McHugh. Those are ongoing right now. Obviously,
there have been no final determinations made. As I think both
you and your colleague on your right from Alaska are aware, the
Army is looking very carefully at all the permutations of that
stationing, from environmental to training capacity, et cetera,
et cetera. So, I would expect, in the very reasonably near
future, those decisions will be finalized.
Senator Udall. I look forward to working with you in that
way. We have, certainly, mountainous terrain that rivals and
matches that in some of the theaters in which we're undertaking
operations today. We have, in Colorado, of course, a history of
training combat aviators up in the Eagle County region, at the
High-Altitude Army Aviation Training facility that the National
Guard runs so effectively. So, thank you for that outline.
Let me turn to DADT. What I heard both of you say is, when
the repeal occurs, you'll follow the leadership and the
dictates of the Commander in Chief and the Joint Chiefs
themselves. I appreciate that clarity.
If I might, I'd like to make a couple of comments on how I
see this. We did talk about the moratorium and how that might
work or be implemented. It was mentioned that a moratorium
would introduce legal complications; for example, in the case
of Lieutenant Dan Choi. It seems to me that that complication
would simply be that the Army would not, for the duration of
the moratorium, discharge an Arabic-speaking combat veteran
who's now participating in drills with his Guard unit, at the
request of his superior officers.
My belief is, the moratorium could be put in place as we
put this implementation plan together. I say that because the
testimony of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates was that the
review is not about whether, but it's about how we'll implement
the repeal. So, it seems that the eventuality of the repeal
isn't in question.
In that spirit, this Senator thinks that we ought to put a
moratorium in place during this implementation period. In other
words, the moratorium would be in effect until we begin to
implement this plan to repeal the DADT measure.
The Army and the military does human resources as well as
any corporation, as well as any organization I've ever seen. I
know that this is one of the challenges, and one of the reasons
we, maybe, need some time to study how you implement. How do
you deal with those servicemembers who are in the pipeline
right now, if you will, because of DADT, because they've been
identified as being gay servicemembers? I just think that we
should do everything possible, given that we're going to, based
on what the President, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen have
said, implement a repeal, that we should do everything possible
to ensure that as few servicemembers are discharged between now
and then.
Who's going to be the last gay servicemember to be
discharged under DADT? That would be a tragedy, in my mind,
because they're clearly patriots, they clearly want to serve
their country. Admiral Mullen made it very clear that they
shouldn't have to lead a lie to serve their country and defend
their country.
I'll end on this note, I mentioned Senator Goldwater in the
previous hearing. He was an Arizonan. I had the great privilege
to know him as a boy. He and my father, who served in
Congress--one a Democrat, one a Republican--loved Arizona, they
loved the libertarian spirit of the west, where it's live and
let live. Senator Goldwater famously said, ``You don't have to
be straight to shoot straight.'' I think that's what we've come
to be aware of, and that's why I so strongly support repealing
this policy, so that every single American can serve who would
like to.
You don't need to respond. I just wanted to, for my own
heartfelt reasons, make that statement to the committee.
Thank you again for your leadership. I'm just so proud to
know both of you and to be able to serve with you in my
capacity as you defend our Nation.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Udall.
I'm going to have a question on that issue, the DADT answer
of yours, on a second round, which will be brief, I think. But,
I will have another question or two on that same subject.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Thank you both for being here. I know you've been here for
several hours, so I'll try to give you a random selection,
because you've come through the snowstorm to my office, and I
appreciate that. We had a good time there, having a good
discussion about many issues. I have a couple of broad
questions, then I'm going to kind of bring it down a little
parochial.
First, if I can follow up on the dwell-time issue. Based on
the rebalancing that's occurring, for soldiers that are
listening, and for families that are listening, give me a sense
of the difference that it will be for a family, today or next
year versus 2, 3 years ago, in the amount of dwell time or time
home they might have. Can you put that in kind of a term that
people can see it and hear it?
General Casey. I can try, Senator, but for the last 5
years, a good portion of the force was deploying on 1 year out,
1 year back. We were, frankly, meeting ourselves coming and
going.
Senator Begich. Right.
General Casey. They'd come home, take their leave, come
back, and immediately start training to go back. So, the time
they were home, they weren't home.
Senator Begich. Right.
General Casey. I went down and visited a unit that was home
for 18 months. The difference in pace between 18 months at home
and 12 months at home was striking. The difference in pace
between 24 months at home and 12 months at home is going to be
even more striking. As I mentioned earlier, we expect to get 70
percent of the Active Force to 2 years at home by 2011, and 80
percent of the Guard and Reserve at 4 years at home by 2011.
Senator Begich. When you say 2011, do you mean calendar
year or fiscal year?
General Casey. By the end of the calendar year.
Senator Begich. End of calendar year 2011.
Very good. Thank you. I know you had mentioned it earlier,
and I just wanted to kind of reemphasize, because I agree with
you, and we've talked a little bit about this, in regards to
the amount of dwell time is critical for the long-term health
of the military. It doesn't matter if it's the Army or the Air
Force, but Army, specifically, because the amount of time that
you're out is going to be critical for the long-term health.
So, I want to say thank you for moving down that path.
Mr. Secretary, did you have something that you wanted to
add to that?
Secretary McHugh. I was just going to say there's another
component to it, as well, that, if families are listening, the
Chief and I certainly fully endorse the commitment that we're
not going to revert to 15-month deployments, and we'll be
sending folks out without the threat of stop loss.
Senator Begich. Excellent.
Secretary McHugh. That doesn't directly play into the dwell
time, although, in a very real way, it does, because it
requires more troops. But, families care very much about that,
and I think they would want to be assured of that, as well.
Senator Begich. That's great. That's a good point. It's a
combo package.
Let me ask a couple more general questions and then I'm
going to be on a couple of quick Alaska issues.
I want to follow up with Senator Graham on mental health
services and making sure you hire the right professionals. I
heard the pay differential between the private-sector mental
health providers and what we're able to pay, there's a gap
there. Is that one of the challenges you have? Because if
that's the case, I think this committee, or members, would be
very interested in trying to help solve that to make sure we're
competitive in the marketplace, especially as this economy is
now turning around. Healthcare providers in the private sector
will be one of the biggest fast-growth areas in the new
economy, and we're going to be competing with that. When I say
we, the military. I want to make sure we are not at an economic
disadvantage.
Is that something you could get to me and indicate, at some
point, if there is a gap? If so, what strategies do you have?
Because as this economy picks up, the fastest-growing industry
will be healthcare, and we will have a problem competing
against that. Is that a fair request?
General Casey. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich. Excellent.
When people do retire, do you do exit interviews with those
folks that are retiring, to determine why they're leaving
early? Is there an actual datapoint study that you guys
utilize?
General Casey. I don't know that we do retirees so much as
we do soldiers or officers who leave before retirement.
Senator Begich. Before retirement.
General Casey. I know we do very good sitdowns just to find
out what's on their mind and what's motivating them to leave. I
don't know that we do that with retirees.
Senator Begich. Actually, I misstated. The way you stated
it was correct.
General Casey. Yes.
Senator Begich. The early retirees, basically, people
getting out before their 20 or 30 years. Do you put that in any
kind of analysis that can be shared with this committee or with
members? I'd be curious, what are those two or three top things
that people say, ``This is why I'm leaving,'' based on data?
General Casey. Right. We do have that data available. In
fact, we recently completed a survey--it was finished up in the
end of the summer last year--and it's a general survey of the
force. As part of that survey, it was repeated deployments that
still remains the number one reason for soldiers leaving the
Army.
We also utilize our various intellectual centers, such as
we maintain at West Point. I'm thinking specifically of our
midgrade officers who were leaving the force in greater numbers
than we'd like, and in greater numbers, I think, than we would
expect. They've done some analysis to see what it was that they
felt they weren't getting as part of their Army service. In
large measure, it was educational and the rotations and to go
to the various schools and such that we're trying to respond
to. So, it's not something we look at holistically, but through
bits and pieces, particularly where we're finding challenges.
We try to get whatever answers we can.
Senator Begich. Very good. That helps.
Let me get to, very quickly, a couple of quick Alaskan
ones. This is one that you could respond to later, because it's
very, very specific. In Fairbanks, in the basic allowance for
housing, there was a study done. When they did the study, it
reduced the rates of what the soldiers would get for their
housing in Fairbanks. I can tell you, from my experience of
almost 25 years in the landlord business, that they did it at a
time when the utility rates were lower and vacancy rates were
higher, which is summer. It creates a problem, because then the
analysis sets the rate, which then they will have to pay for or
deal with as they go into the winter months, which was lower
vacancy rates and the higher utility costs. The end result is,
the soldiers--we've gotten calls on this--end up paying out of
their pocket to make sure they can compensate for the housing
allowance.
Would you take a look at that? We will send you something a
little more detailed. But, just in my 25-plus-years experience
in the real estate business, the timing of the survey was
probably not the most appropriate time, or they could have
extended it over the winter-fall to get a better picture.
Because you can go $2 or $3 a gallon heating-fuel differential
between those months, as an example, and the rates can
dramatically be different, based on winter and accessibility of
the fuel and other things, especially in Fairbanks, which is a
significant problem with heating issues. If you wouldn't mind,
just note that.
The last thing I'll say--only because Senator Udall isn't
here now, I can say it--that, of course, we have the best
training grounds. We don't have hills, we have mountains, and
all three of us have talked about that in the past. But, as you
progress on utilization of training facilities, the one, as I
mentioned to you, is the unmanned aircraft. I think we have
some superb locations that, as you consider all the deployments
and reassignments of equipment, obviously we want to be engaged
in that discussion. You know it better than I do by your ground
troops up there, but what we have up there is exceptional. I'll
tell Senator Udall later that I credited his and I didn't say
anything about mine.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Chairman Levin. You create a real problem for me, Senator
Begich, because I'm tempted to talk about our training areas in
Michigan, and I'm going to resist that temptation, only because
of time limitations.
I have a couple of questions. One has to do with equipment
that we have authorized to go from Iraq--or, more technically,
perhaps, Kuwait--to the Afghan Army. We are short on training
that army, not just in the shortage of trainers I pointed out,
but we also have not done what we need to do in terms of
equipment. So, we authorized, in the last authorization bill,
not just equipment that could go to the Iraqi army, even though
it was not excess equipment. The same thing is true with the
Afghan army.
We talked to one of our trainers over there, when we were
there a few months ago, and he indicated, as a matter of fact,
some of that equipment was beginning to arrive from Iraq-Kuwait
into Afghanistan for the Afghan army, not just for our guys.
In going through the numbers there, General, you indicated
that half a billion dollars of excess equipment, I believe, was
left for the Iraqis. Perhaps it was non-excess. I'm not sure.
But, in any event, we have authorized, not just excess
equipment, but non-excess equipment, understanding we're going
to have to replace that, but also understanding that it's
essential that we get equipment to the Afghan army if we're
serious about turning over responsibility for the security of
Afghanistan to that army.
Do you have any numbers at all on how much either excess or
non-excess equipment has gone from the Iraq theater to the
Afghan army or police?
General Casey. I know we've processed the Afghans'
uparmored Humvees, machine guns, and some ammunition and repair
parts, but I don't have any specific numbers.
Chairman Levin. If you could get us that for the record,
I'd appreciate it.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Department of the Army is using multiple means and authorities
to transfer or sell equipment located in the Iraq Theater and other
locations to the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF). Current
efforts to facilitate equipping the ANSF include: Foreign Military
Sales of 1,626 Non-Excess Up Armored HMMWVs (1,317 are for the Afghan
National Police and 309 for the Afghan National Army); excess defense
articles transfer of over 211,000 pieces of organizational clothing and
individual equipment; 1,260 machine guns; approximately 6.5 million
rounds of ammunition; and 2,500 life support items such as tents, light
sets and folding cots. Additionally, the Department is processing a
request for transferring over 5,000 pieces of excess, nonstandard
equipment located in Iraq (commercial nontactical vehicles,
communications, and maintenance-related equipment).
Chairman Levin. Now, on this question of DADT, what you've
indicated, appropriately, is that a moratorium could create
complications for pending legal cases. But, the decision of the
Commander in Chief to end the policy--the only issue being, in
his mind, how and when, and not whether--has also got to create
some complications for existing cases. If you were representing
somebody, in an existing case, who was being discharged or
threatened with discharge, I assume you'd ask for a stay until
there's a resolution of the matter.
So, what I will need from you is your lawyers' assessment
as to whether or not there are complications, currently, with
the decision of the Commander in Chief to end the policy, and
just to have a study as to how it's done, and to compare that
to any complications which might occur from having a suspension
of the discharges, pending a decision on whether to repeal.
Remember, a moratorium or a suspension is not a repeal.
That would mean that, if for some reason it were not repealed
down the road, then the current discharge policy would stay in
place.
So, my request of you is that you get an assessment from
your lawyers to this committee as to whether there are
complications from the decision that's been given by the
Commander in Chief, relative to repeal down the road, and
whether there are complications from a moratorium, which
obviously there could be, as well as from a down-the-road
repeal announcement, and to compare for us whether or not, one
way or the other, there are more or less complications.
That's not a question, other than to ask you whether or not
you will ask your lawyers if they could prepare that assessment
for us.
Secretary McHugh. Absolutely.
[The information referred to follows:]
The analysis you requested is currently under review and
consideration as part of the Secretary of Defense's study of the
potential repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) law. The Army is
working closely with Department of Defense officials to assess the
personnel, readiness, legal, and operational issues and impacts
associated with action to suspend, modify or repeal DADT. Upon
completion, it is expected the analysis will include the information
outlined in the chairman's request, which will be shared with the
committee when available. While the Secretary's comprehensive study is
ongoing, the Army is committed to providing the committee with
information on the Army's implementation of current DADT law.
Chairman Levin. We thank you both. We thank the men and
women you lead. We particularly, again, want to acknowledge the
presence of your special guests here today. We thank them for
their service, for your son's service, Mrs. Engeman. We are
grateful for it. It's a grateful Nation that is united behind
our troops and our veterans, no longer facing the kind of
divisions we had in previous engagements, such as Vietnam, but,
regardless of policy differences, totally behind our forces,
our men and women who put on the uniform of this country.
Thank you all.
We will stand adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
adaptability of higher-end combat units to lower-end missions
1. Senator Levin. General Casey, the notion of a full spectrum
force has been a central and enduring organizing, equipping, and
training concept for the Army. Today's range of potential security
threats, and the likelihood that the Army will be called upon to meet
simultaneous conventional and irregular challenges, calls for a much
more adaptable, if still full-spectrum force.
Over the years, the Army has argued that, as a rule, most
capabilities required for higher-end combat operations can be adapted
for application to lower-end missions. The Army's modular brigade
combat teams (BCTs)--whether infantry, heavy, or Stryker--can be task
organized, or if necessary augmented, for lower-end missions such as
stability operations and security force assistance missions, while
remaining capable of full-spectrum operations.
On the other hand, since the start of counterinsurgency operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq several senior Army leaders have acknowledged
that the notion of lesser and included tasks at the lower end of the
spectrum were not in fact easily adapted in units trained and ready for
high-end conflict.
The 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recognizes this challenge
and directs specific structural changes in the Army including the
conversion of at one heavy brigade to a medium Stryker brigade, the
potential conversion of heavy to lighter brigades in the future, and
increasing the number of combat aviation brigades to 13.
What are the Army's assumptions and observations today about the
adaptability of higher-end combat units, equipment, and training for
application in lower-end stability or counterinsurgency missions?
General Casey. We continue to rebalance the force to achieve the
right mix of capabilities to meet current demands while preparing for
future challenges. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that
the right mix of BCT-types, properly tailored for the mission, possess
full spectrum utility to protect our own forces as well as the local
population and successfully train and partner with indigenous security
forces. During the QDR we examined how to further institutionalize
lessons learned in current operations as well as next steps to posture
the Army to execute Full Spectrum Operations as part of the Joint Force
in the mid- to far-term. Full Spectrum Operations recognizes the
unpredictability of the environment and hybrid nature of kinetic and
non-kinetic threats. The key to meeting this guidance and maintaining
the balance outlined by the Secretary of Defense is the modularization
and rapid mission tailoring of the BCT through the Army Force General
(ARFORGEN) Cycle. This is the base general purpose force organizational
construct designed to balance the offense, defense, stability, and
civil support operations as part of the Joint Force.
The QDR outlines the importance of providing a highly adaptable,
versatile Security Force Assistance (SFA) capability for all combatant
commanders in the future. The BCT contains a range of experience in
combat arms, combat support and combat service support. This
composition serves as a firm base of trainers and advisors, together
with the integral supporting staff. It has the ability to task-organize
constituent elements to provide teams of the required size and skill
set for each mission, providing simultaneous sustained SFA across
multiple locations using organic command and staff capabilities.
The Army has developed numerous initiatives to improve and
complement the adaptability of BCTs for stability and counter-
insurgency missions. The Army's Institutional or Generating Force can
augment the operating force to conduct SFA. Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC) is one example of this capability with 32 schools and
centers at 16 Army installations--all of which can provide ``Train the
trainer'' experts. The Army has developed a new SFA doctrine,
established a permanent SFA training formation and associated planning
teams in Geographic Combatant Commands. It has enhanced SFA-related
education, training and gaming; increased foreign language and cultural
training; and increased study and publication of SFA lessons learned.
2. Senator Levin. General Casey, what risks might additional
emphasis on non-conventional missions, in doctrine and training, pose
for the Army's ability to conduct traditional high-end combat missions?
General Casey. The nature of conflict today requires a flexible
approach for anticipating force requirements. Accordingly, the Army's
greatest emphasis must be on creating a versatile force. We must
prepare soldiers, units and their equipment for future missions, both
conventional and non-conventional, by providing adequate time to train
for full-spectrum operations and to reduce uncertainty and stress for
soldiers and their families. We continue to assess and transform the
force to meet combatant commanders' requirements by revising our
modernization strategy, completing transformation from Cold War legacy
formations to modular formations and improving business processes in
order to apply resources efficiently.
Although we are focused on prevailing in current counterinsurgency
operations, improving the Army's deployment to dwell time ratios will
increase training opportunities across the full-spectrum of operations
necessary to meet future requirements. Rebalancing the force remains an
essential part of mitigating risk from unforeseen contingencies for our
Army. Restoring readiness will enable the Army to prepare for and
accomplish all assigned missions as a member of the Joint Force.
Mitigating these risks will sustain our Army, which is the most
experienced combat force in the world.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
m4 carbine
3. Senator Lieberman. General Casey, I understand that although the
M4 Carbine performed to Army specifications during the battle of Wanat,
you are now reviewing options to improve that weapon's performance
during sustained firefights, namely by requiring a thicker barrel. I am
glad that the Army is making these improvements, and the only concern
that I have is that the process for approving them may take too long.
What steps are you taking to expedite the speed with which these
improvements for the M4 reach our troops in the field?
General Casey. The Army had previously approved the heavier barrel,
as well as a full auto trigger mechanism. These improvements are
already in use by our Special Operations units, who use the M4A1. We
are also incorporating an ambidextrous fire control selector into the
M4 series. The heavy barrel and ambidextrous selector will begin to
reach our conventional forces in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2010. The full auto trigger will be available in the second quarter of
fiscal year 2011. The next series of improvements include an improved
rail system and weapon bolt and carrier. These will be available in the
second and fourth quarter fiscal year 2012, respectively.
The Army is continually testing and upgrading the carbine. For
example, since 1991 more than 8 million rounds have been fired in
product improvement testing. As a result of this testing, over 62
performance enhancing improvements have been incorporated into the
carbine design to include the trigger assembly, extractor spring,
recoil buffer, barrel, chamber and bolt. These improvements have made a
significant difference to the mean time between stoppages (MRBF) for
the weapon. The requirement for the M4 is 600 MRBF, but with these
improvements applied testing has demonstrated the reliability is over
3,600 MRBF.
army force structure
4. Senator Lieberman. Secretary McHugh, the report accompanying the
Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included a special interest item
requiring a report providing an analysis comparison, and projected
impacts of limiting the Army's Active component to 45 rather than 48
BCTs through 2012. I note that the deadline for that report is March 1,
2010--can you reconfirm that you will submit this report by that
deadline?
Secretary McHugh. The Army anticipates providing the committee with
an interim report no later than 4 March and a final response by 30
April 2010. We are reviewing the recent troop increase in Afghanistan
and the Iraq drawdown plan to better assess the effects of maintaining
the Army at 45 versus 48 Active BCTs.
land warrior program
5. Senator Lieberman. Secretary McHugh, the Land Warrior system has
received positive reviews from the soldiers who have used it in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and it is my understanding that there are currently
units with operational needs statements that have not received Land
Warrior equipment due to funding constraints and production lead times.
In light of these recent requests for Land Warrior systems, is it fair
to conclude that the Army prematurely terminated this program?
Secretary McHugh. No. The Army learned valuable lessons from the
Land Warrior system but it did not represent the complete capability we
desired. The Ground Soldier System is expected to cost less, weigh
less, and provide greater operational mission duration using more
advanced technologies than were resident in the original Land Warrior
system. Fielding of the Ground Soldier System is expected to begin in
fiscal year 2012.
6. Senator Lieberman. Secretary McHugh, now that Ground Soldier
System is going into production, what lessons have been learned by the
Army from the Land Warrior fielding that would assist them in providing
this capability to dismounted troops in a timely manner?
Secretary McHugh. The Army learned a great deal from the Land
Warrior program, and we are applying these lessons to our Ground
Soldier System in order to get the best capability to our dismounted
soldiers in the most efficient manner possible. For example, the Army
learned that soldier acceptance of the system and its capabilities is
critical to achieving operational success; and effective training at
the individual and collective unit levels plays a vital role in that
acceptance. Soldier and unit leader input has resulted in
recommendations to improve form, fit, and function.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
army test range unfunded requirements
7. Senator Bill Nelson. General Casey, on February 22, the Senate
Armed Services Committee received a copy of a letter you wrote on
February 19 to Representative Buck McKeon, the ranking member of the
House Armed Services Committee, in which you provided a list of what
are called unfunded requirements. On that list were two items that
relate to the Army's test infrastructure: $18 million for Test and
Evaluation Instrumentation, and $23 million for Army Test Range
Infrastructure.
As the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee, I am glad to see the Army indicating that additional
funding for these items would, as you say in your letter, ``provide
added value to commanders in the field.'' This committee has been
concerned for many years about the need to improve our military test
and evaluation infrastructure.
Can you tell me how these additional funds would improve the Army's
ability to conduct test and evaluation of our ever more complex weapon
systems?
General Casey. The additional funds would be used for the
replacement and restoration of critical infrastructure and
instrumentation, such as radars, optics, telemetry and digital systems.
This new equipment/infrastructure will better align our testing with
changing requirements and will allow us to monitor/analyze more complex
technologies during evaluations and experiments. The funds would also
provide for modeling and simulation to address survivability,
reliability, maintainability and the increased complexity of
ballistics, which affects every major Army acquisition program.
national guard and reserve component operational tempos
8. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have transformed our Guard and Reserve
Forces from Strategic Reserves to an operational force. The increased
demand placed on these servicemembers has naturally led to increased
requirements for more training, equipment, and facilities. What are the
biggest challenges you face with the high operational tempo for the
Guard and Reserve Forces?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Even as the men and women of
the Army National Guard (ARNG) continue to demonstrate their dedication
to the Nation, the reality is that there are significant challenges for
Guard and Reserve Forces. While we continue with the transformation of
the ARNG into an Operational Force, the Army is using the ARFORGEN
model to try to make deployments predictable and to provide stability
for soldiers, families, and their employers. The ARNG also has Homeland
Defense and Civil Support missions, which place additional demands and
requirements on the soldiers and their equipment.
The men and women of the ARNG can meet the demands of the
operational tempo, provided that they are properly prepared physically
and have the resources available to complete their Federal and State
missions. The citizen-soldier must have access to proper medical and
dental care, before, during, and after mobilization because when
soldiers are not available for medical reasons, it has a ripple effect
as soldiers are pulled from other units to plug holes. Providing care
also promotes stability for families by reducing the financial and
personal impacts of serving as a member of the ARNG.
Equipment has also been strained by the operational tempo over the
past 8 years. The dual-use equipment within the ARNG is vital to both
the Federal and State missions. As conditions have changed outside the
borders of the United States, so too have conditions within the
borders. These changing requirements must be constantly evaluated to
ensure that the ARNG is equipped to meet the challenges of today and
tomorrow with equipment that is available, well-maintained, and
relevant.
The ARNG also faces a difficult challenge with regard to individual
soldier training. Soldiers awaiting training occupy a position within a
unit in the ARNG, even though they are nondeployable. This impacts
overall readiness and forces the ARNG to cross-level soldiers from
other units. As with the medically nondeployable, this has a ripple
effect over time that creates stress on soldiers, families, and
employers.
9. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what
risk does your budget take with equipping and training the Guard and
Reserves?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The ARNG and Army Reserve are
being equipped based on a deliberate investment plan which is
commensurate with their mission and commitments. Over the last 4 years,
the ARNG and Army Reserve have been equipped and modernized at a pace
exceeding that of the Active component. Shortages do remain, but
working with the Reserve components we are ensuring they have the
necessary equipment to execute their State and Federal commitments.
From the Individual Training perspective, the ARNG accepts risk in
certain functional training courses in order to maintain the necessary
Duty Military Occupational Skills Qualification rate for deploying
units. This ensures that soldiers are qualified to perform their
primary duties when deployed. Functional courses teach soldiers
secondary skills such as advanced gunnery and maintenance courses, and
airborne or air assault training. The Army Reserve has adapted a
similar program. Soldiers from the ARNG and the Army Reserve also go
through Mobilization Training prior to deploying.
10. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, please
describe the Grow the Force initiatives that will increase the Army
Reserve Forces in Florida and other States.
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Pursuant to the Grow the Army
Initiative, the Army Reserve was granted an increase in Force Structure
Allowance from 205,000 to 206,000. Additionally, the Army Reserve
restructured 16,000 unstructured Trainees, Transients, Holdees and
Students spaces into structured forces to help meet the Army's
increased operational requirements. Due to resourcing constraints, the
Army Reserve has programmed the activation of these new units over a 5
year period (fiscal year 2009-fiscal year 2014) with the majority of
actions occurring in fiscal year 2010-2011. In some cases, previously
scheduled inactivating units are retained in the force, resulting in no
local community disruption. Given that programming the force is a
continuous process, the original Grow the Army list has changed. Today,
there are 144 Army Reserve units programmed in 32 States and Puerto
Rico. Florida has 11 units in 6 communities in the Grow the Army
program. The ARNG has no ``Grow-the-Force Initiatives'' that will
increase forces.
11. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what
additional military construction (MILCON) funding is needed to
rehabilitate and construct Reserve centers and National Guard
facilities for training and duty?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The funds requested in
President's fiscal year 2011 budget will be used complete the USAR's
Grow the Army efforts in order to provide new facilities for additional
soldiers. ``Military Construction Army Reserve'' funding, however, is
not sufficient to address all of the USAR's requirements, which include
modernizing our legacy facilities and upgrading our facilities to meet
current mission standards and Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP)
set back requirements. The Army Reserve would need $180 million in
additional MILCON funding to rehabilitate and construct these Reserve
centers for training and duty. These specific construction projects are
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Location Project Title Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Collins................. CO Army Reserve $11,200
Center.
Homewood..................... IL Army Reserve 12,800
Center.
Rockford..................... IL Army Reserve 10,800
Center/Land.
Fort Benjamin Harrison....... IN Army Reserve 50,000
Center.
Kansas City.................. KS Army Reserve 16,000
Center/Land.
St. Joseph................... MN Army Reserve 9,000
Center.
St. Charles.................. MO Army Reserve 26,000
Center.
Greensboro................... NC Army Reserve 16,500
Center/Land.
Schenectady.................. NY Army Reserve 16,000
Center.
Orangeburg................... SC Army Reserve 11,400
Center/Land.
-----------
Total $179,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ARNG requires $1.5 billion a year for 20 years to revitalize
its facilities.
mobilization for training for reserve component soldiers
12. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the
Army recently withdrew the mobilization for training option for Reserve
component soldiers. This concept relieved pressure on the State
National Guard training budgets, and it lengthened the dwell time for
soldiers in some cases. What prompted this change in policy, your
assessment of the change, and whether or not it is something that
should be revisited?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Mobilization for Training is a
cumbersome system that was not being effectively used by the state
Adjutants General. In most cases, the Mobilization for Training program
was used to ensure that soldiers received their requisite military
education. With the current ARFORGEN cycle, however, soldiers are being
afforded time to get needed training. Funding the Army School Systems
budget will help to ensure that the Mobilization for Training program
is no longer necessary.
7th special forces group
13. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the
Army's 7th Special Forces Group is in the process of moving from Fort
Bragg, NC, to Eglin Air Force Base, FL, to increase joint training
opportunities between the Army and Air Force Special Forces. What is
the status of the move?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The move of the 7th Special
Forces Group (SFG) to Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in accordance with
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is proceeding as planned.
Construction is on or ahead of schedule and is to be completed no later
than 1 August 2011. The unit move is slated for August and September
2011. The 7th SFG has advanced party elements in place at Eglin AFB to
coordinate and facilitate the logistics, and the operations associated
with the arrival of the 7th SFG.
14. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, is the
move on time?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The BRAC move of the 7th SFG is
currently on schedule, and is to be completed by 15 September 2011.
15. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what
issues remain?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. There are no BRAC related
issues at this time.
______
Questions Submitted b. Senator E. Benjamin Nelson
guard and reserve military construction
16. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, your
budget requests include significant funding increases to replace aging
facilities for the National Guard and the Reserves. This investment is
critical considering the Guard and Reserve personnel comprise some 51
percent of your end-strength. However, your request for Guard and
Reserve MILCON is $1.2 billion, which is less than 1 percent of your
total base budget and only a fifth of your total MILCON request. Some
of Nebraska's Guard units are lacking adequate space to store reset and
new equipment. For example, Nebraska units lack 33 acres for improved
and unimproved parking to store new trucks, tractors, and trailers, as
well as 8,000 square feet of heated storage and 3,500 square feet of
security vault storage. What is the current state of our Guard and
Reserve infrastructure, both nationally and within Nebraska?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Army Reserve Nationally: The
average age of Army Reserve facilities is over 42 years old. The
majority of facilities are under-sized for today's mission
requirements, encroached upon by local community activities and not
compliant with Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) standards. BRAC
Act funding helped to provide over 120 new AFRCs that meet today's
operational and training needs, as well as to modernize 11 percent of
the Army Reserve Center facility inventory.
Army Reserve Nebraska: The Army Reserve will construct and
modernize 7 of 13 facilities within the next 7 years. The remaining 6
facilities are inadequate and are not AT/FP compliant. The facility in
Fremont will be rehabilitated in fiscal year 2015 and the remaining
five facilities are not currently programmed.
ARNG Nationally: The Army is proposing in the fiscal year 2011
budget submission Army National Guard MILCON funding of $874 million,
more than in any previous budget submission. In the fiscal year 2011
budget, the ARNG has 20 projects where it is proposing to either build
new or revitalize existing Readiness Centers to address space or
condition shortfalls or to support new missions.
The ARNG infrastructure has about 80 percent of the required square
footage, and the average facility requires about 20 percent of its
original value in repairs. Critical shortfalls include Readiness
Centers, Training Facilities, and Maintenance Facilities. Replacing
aging and inadequate facilities with modern facilities that allow
efficient training to support the ARFORGEN cycle is a high priority for
the Army and the National Guard.
ARNG Nebraska: Nebraska's ARNG infrastructure also has about 80
percent of required building square footage, and the average facility
requires about 20 percent of its original value in repairs. There are
two MILCON Projects proposed for Nebraska in the fiscal year 2011
budget: a Readiness Center in Mead and a Readiness Center addition or
alteration in Lincoln.
17. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, you
noted that there is a concern that the investment in infrastructure
isn't enough and that equipment may not be properly stored and
maintained. I am concerned that this will undermine the readiness. What
is being done to address what are known facility gaps?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The ARNG is pursuing a number
of options to address well-known facility gaps related to equipment
storage and maintenance. Storage issues alone total about $2.2 billion.
This number reflects the upfront costs related to the requirements of
an Operational Force. Projects include constructing secured parking
areas and storage buildings, acquiring land and modifying facilities
(especially arms vaults to meet code requirements and increase
capacity). Most states have taken a hard look at this shortfall and
have plans to execute the funds quickly to resolve increasing storage
requirements. Short-term solutions include installing portable vaults
and erecting unheated storage buildings, which will allow rapid
installation and construction. Many states have looked at longer-term
solutions, such as acquiring additional land. Nearly all states have
itemized their shortfalls and stand ready to remedy these and other
well-known facility gaps.
18. Senator Ben Nelson. General Casey, barring constraints from
other mission areas, what level of funding do you need to address all
your MILCON requirements?
General Casey. Competing requirements from other mission areas will
always be a constraint. MILCON funding is currently not sufficient to
address all of the Army's MILCON requirements. The Army has prioritized
its existing resources to support the Army Modular Force, Grow the
Army, completing BRAC, completing Global Defense Posture Realignment,
and completing the barracks modernization. Long term solutions for all
of the remaining requirements (such as recapitalizing existing
facilities for existing missions) necessitates a long-term funding
strategy beyond the fiscal year 2012-2017 POM. Obsolete legacy
facilities adversely affect readiness, organizations, missions and
installations across the Army. The level of funding that the ARNG
requires for the facility revitalization is $1.5 billion a year for 20
years. At this level of funding the ARNG will meet its readiness
requirements.
ballistic missile defense
19. Senator Ben Nelson. General Casey, in your letter of February
19 to the House Armed Services Committee, you indicated that one of the
so-called unfunded requirements of the Army is the Patriot missile
defense system. Your letter indicated that an additional $134 million
of funding for Patriot would be valuable to our combatant commanders.
The Patriot system is our only combat-proven missile defense system,
and is a critical element of our ability to defend our forward deployed
forces and allies against existing short- and medium-range ballistic
missiles. Can you tell me how these additional funds would be used to
improve the Army's Patriot capability?
General Casey. The Patriot Advanced Capability-Phase 3 (PAC-3)
missile is a hit to kill surface-to-air interceptor. It provides the
most robust protection for troops and critical infrastructure against
Tactical Ballistic Missiles and Air Breathing threats. Funds are
necessary to repair and recertify PAC-3 missiles and return them to the
operational force. The Enhanced Launcher Electronic System (ELES) is
the upgrade kit applied to aging PAC-2 launching stations, to upgrade
them to fire the PAC-3 missile. The proposed funding would procure 24
additional ELES upgrade kits in fiscal year 2011, upgrading 24
additional PAC-2 launchers to the PAC-3 capability.
20. Senator Ben Nelson. General Casey, do you believe additional
Patriot capabilities would help meet the requirements of our combatant
commanders to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles
from countries like North Korea and Iran?
General Casey. Given the rapid proliferation of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles, it is critical that we continue to modernize
and grow our regional ballistic missile defense capabilities. We are
already increasing our Patriot capacity by growing our PAC-3 battalions
from 13 to 15 over the next 2 years. Within the broader ballistic
missile defense strategy, as articulated in the January 2010 Ballistic
Missile Review Report, 15 Patriot battalions is sufficient capacity to
address those threats that the Patriot can defend against. Our
modernization strategy will also focus on complementary ballistic
missile defense capabilities, including the Terminal High-Altitude Area
Defense system currently being fielded, the AN/TYP-2 radar, and
overarching command and control battle management architecture.
Additionally, it is important that we continue to procure PAC-3
missiles and Patriot launcher upgrades to enhance the capability of our
Patriot Battalions.
human capital
21. Senator Ben Nelson. General Casey, from a human capital
perspective, one of the biggest challenges facing the Services will be
managing expanding and new missions while maintaining a fixed end-
strength. The intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
mission is an area that is seeing a great deal of growth across all of
the Services due in large part to the significant expansion of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) or remotely piloted aircraft. What is the
current state of your training pipeline for operators and analysts, and
how are you expanding it to meet demand?
General Casey. The Army approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
training is a systematic, module-based training program, which produces
highly trained, professional and Federal Aviation Administration tested
Enlisted UAS operators. We have Common Soldier UAS Operator training
for Shadow, Hunter, Warrior-Alpha, and the Extended Range/Multi-purpose
(ERMP) UAS.
Through 2004, we trained less than 1,000 operators and maintainers
per year on a single shift, Monday through Friday. In 2005, we expanded
to two shifts to meet the increasing demand. In 2008 and 2009, we hired
and trained 253 additional instructors and support personnel, and
currently train in three shifts at multiple locations to accommodate
the 2,000+ operators and maintainers programmed for 2010. Current
training throughput requires Libby Army Airfield (LAAF) operations 6
days per week, 16 hours per day. The Army is in the process of
validating the requirement to increase airfield operations at LAAF to 6
days per week, 24 hours per day in order to meet the future UAS
training requirements.
To meet growing requirements for analysts, the Army's Intelligence
Center of Excellence has doubled the annual number of Imagery Analysts
graduates over the past 5 years. Since 2005, over 1,500 Imagery
Analysts have been trained at Fort Huachuca. This has resulted in a
current on hand strength of 110 percent for Active Army Imagery
Analysts (MOS 35G) throughout the force.
Full Motion Video (FMV) training is an integral part of the 105-day
Imagery Analyst course where students are exposed to current tactics,
techniques and procedures (TTPs) used in overseas contingency
operations (OCOs). Students utilize the Distributed Common Ground
System--Army approved software for exploitation of all Full Motion
Video (FMV). Soldiers in training also receive further scenario-based
FMV training as they conduct convoy live-fire exercises with a UAS
flying in support of the mission. Additional exposure to FMV
exploitation in support of intelligence, surveillance and exploitation
comes during a 10-day capstone exercise during which students plan,
execute and exploit simulated UAS missions in support of BCT
requirements/operations.
22. Senator Ben Nelson. General Casey, what kind of retention rates
are you seeing in UAV pilot and sensor operators and intelligence
analyst specialties?
General Casey. The Army is retaining nearly 100 percent of its
warrant officer Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 150U, (Tactical
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) Operations Technicians), who have
trained and deployed in this specialty over the past 5 years.
Although the Army transferred this specialty from Military
Intelligence to the Aviation in September 2008, it was originally
established under MOS 350U, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations
Technician. Since its transfer, the MOS has been restructured to be
managed with the Army's other Aviation skills. It is currently in the
fourth year of a 5-year growth and integration plan within the Aviation
Branch and is at 89 percent of assigned strength.
This specialty's unusually high retention rate is to be expected
during its initial development. Personnel are selected for their
longevity and interest, and, therefore, are very likely to continue
service. As the specialty matures beyond the initial growth phase,
however, the Army expects to see an increase in losses that more
closely resemble other Aviation Warrant Officer specialties. Regarding
enlisted personnel, the 15W Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operators specialty
is retaining just under 95 percent of first-term inventory
(approximately 500 soldiers), as compared to the average first-term
retention across all enlisted specialties of just over 87 percent.
unmanned aircraft
23. Senator Ben Nelson. General Casey, with regard to mission
effectiveness, how are you coordinating efforts with the Air Force to
integrate your growing fleet of drones with their unmanned and manned
aircraft into concept of operations that will ensure safe and effective
mission execution?
General Casey. Each of the Services have missions that require
specific capabilities, which are often unique to that Service. For
example, the Navy has a requirement to support maritime operations
using shipborne systems. The need to share information across all
Services, however, is not unique. To that end, the Department of
Defense (DOD) has stressed interoperability between the Services as the
cornerstone of all manned and unmanned Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance system acquisitions and employments.
Today, for example, a ground maneuver commander can expect full
motion video transmitted from any manned or unmanned aircraft overhead
will be received and displayed by another Service's remote video
receiver. This has been made possible through the Services working
closely together to develop interoperable data link protocols for
control, video and encryption. To ensure safe and effective mission
execution, we use joint processes, which apply to both manned and
unmanned systems, to ``de-conflict'' airspace and layer assets to
provide the best mission profiles.
24. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary McHugh, what process does DOD
have to produce a comprehensive plan to integrate policy and
requirements across the Services for unmanned aircraft programs?
Secretary McHugh. In 2007, due to the diversity of the Services'
unmanned aircraft programs, DOD created the UASs Task Force to
coordinate policies and acquisitions across DOD. Although the Services
retain their individual Title 10 authorities and responsibilities, this
organization, led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, is the central clearinghouse for
interoperability protocols, national airspace access initiatives and
the development of common procurements where applicable. An example of
this close cooperation between the Services can be seen in real time
transmission of Full Motion Video (FMV).
By adhering to a set of uniform standards for interoperability, the
Army One System Remote Video Terminal, and similar systems in other
Services, receive real time FMV from all transmitting manned and
unmanned aircraft overhead. This interoperability enables joint support
of combat operations regardless of the Services involved. Additionally,
policy is being developed and published by the Joint Staff, which will
guide standards of training for UAS operators across the Services.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jim Webb
transfer of ownership of fort monroe, va
25. Senator Webb. Secretary McHugh, it has come to my attention
that three critical health and safety projects at Fort Monroe, VA,
remain unfunded, in spite of the Army's plan to transfer ownership of
that installation's property to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2011. I
realize BRAC law does not provide for new MILCON, however,
infrastructure remediation, modernization, and maintenance that will
affect the health and safety of the installation's current staff and
personnel or its future owner should be completed prior to the transfer
of this property. These critical projects are:
1. $10.1 million to upgrade the water supply system to provide
adequate supply for the fire-suppression system;
2. $15.0 million to bring sanitary sewer infrastructure up to
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality standards; and
3. $20 million to complete flood-protection projects.
What are the Army's plans to address these health and safety
requirements before Fort Monroe is transferred to Virginia at the end
of fiscal year 2011?
Secretary McHugh. The current conditions of these systems meets
current Federal health and safety standards and are operating properly
to ensure the safety of our soldiers, our civilians and their families.
We have invested funds to ensure that the fire suppression system meets
all operational requirements with no shortfalls in safety standards.
The sanitary sewer infrastructure meets Federal safety standards, and
in 2003 the Army initiated and completed a $26 million flood control
construction project.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay R. Hagan
recapitalization of high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles
26. Senator Hagan. General Casey, I understand the Army is in the
process of recapitalizing its Humvees to increase survivability and
mobility. What is the status of the Army's Humvee recapitalization
program?
General Casey. The Army is developing a program to continue the
recapitalization of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
(HMWWVs) currently underway at Red River and Letterkenny Army Depots.
We have requested $983 million in fiscal year 2011 for this effort, and
may request permission to reprogram some amount of fiscal year 2010
funding to support this program.
27. Senator Hagan. General Casey, what are the requirements?
General Casey. The Army will recapitalize approximately 8,390
legacy High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) to reduce
the fleet age as HMMWVs will remain in the Army's fleet through at
least 2025. We will also have the requirement to recapitalize over
7,000 Up Armored HMMWVs returning from theater as we responsibility
draw down from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
joint light tactical vehicle cost
28. Senator Hagan. General Casey, I understand it is difficult to
generate an accurate cost estimate of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
(JLTV) program because it is still in development. However, defense
analysts suggest the JLTV program may cost as much as $30 to $70
billion, depending upon the final unit cost of the vehicle and the
number procured. What is the Army's JLTV procurement requirement, and
what is the current estimated per vehicle cost?
General Casey. The current Army JLTV procurement requirement is
54,883 vehicles. However, the Army is in the process of developing and
refining our tactical wheeled vehicle strategy; therefore, a final
planned JLTV quantity has not been determined. The Army is creating a
flexible vehicle strategy emphasizing a mixed fleet approach that spans
performance, protection and payload. Planning figures are subject to
change as the Army's tactical wheeled vehicles strategy evolves, the
availability of base funding changes, and service requirements develop.
The average base vehicle cost is between $370,000-$400,000, including
general and administrative fees and profit. This base vehicle cost
includes hull/structure, suspension, power pack/drive train, auxiliary
automotive, ring mount, Gunners Protection Kit and Government Furnished
Equipment A-Kit (all in-dash wiring and items integral to the vehicle).
29. Senator Hagan. General Casey, will the Army have to reduce
total JLTV acquisition quantities or scale back JLTV capabilities in
order to deal with rising costs?
General Casey. The Army is actively pursuing this vehicle. Although
the final planned quantity has not been determined, the current
procurement requirement remains 54,883 vehicles. The program is in the
Technology Development (TD) Phase. The requirements and cost data
developed during the TD phase are being evaluated to provide an
affordable system that is balanced between payload, performance and
protection. Based on current estimates of quantity, schedule, and
technical capability, there has been no cost growth and no reduction in
acquisition quantities.
next generation ground vehicle
30. Senator Hagan. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, Secretary
Gates emphasized the importance of having the Army adequately develop a
next generation ground vehicle capability that takes into account and
adapts to the lessons learned in theater. Can you discuss the status of
the Army's assessment with the Marine Corps on joint capability gaps
for ground vehicles?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Future Combat Systems
Acquisition Decision Memorandum, dated 23 June 2009, directed the Army,
in conjunction with the Marine Corps, to ``initiate actions to assess
joint capability gaps for manned ground vehicles.'' The Army
Capabilities Integration Center and the Marine Corps Combat Development
Command implemented a consolidated assessment process from June to
August 2009. Much like the Army's and Marine Corps' earlier assessments
for the JLTV, this review included comprehensive lessons learned,
current operational data for specific types of platforms and seminar
wargames with both Generating Force and Operating Force members.
In August 2009, the Army-Marine Corps Board approved the joint
capability gap assessment for manned ground vehicles, which addresses
protection, network, mobility and lethality shortfalls. This was
included in the Army's submission to the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC) as part of the approval process for the Ground Combat
Vehicle (GCV) Initial Capabilities Document in November 2009. The next
formal step in the requirements process is submission of a Capabilities
Development Document to the JROC.
31. Senator Hagan. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, can you also
discuss how the assessment is providing new requirements for Army GCV
modernization?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The joint capability gaps
assessment for manned ground vehicles provided key insights into
prioritizing modernization efforts for all combat vehicles. We apply
these lessons learned in our analysis of vehicle upgrades, divestments
and new procurements. For example, the capability gaps in protection
underpin our efforts to improve Stryker protection.
The assessment also weighed heavily in drafting the operational
requirements for the GCV (e.g., new kinds of weapon systems and/or
equipment needed by the warfighter in current operations). For example,
the capability gaps identified regarding protected mobility and non-
lethal assets for manned ground vehicles led to specific operational
requirements in the draft GCV Capabilities Development Document.
32. Senator Hagan. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what effect
will the vehicle modernization program have on the Army's force
structure, operational capabilities, procurement, and budget
requirements?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army's combat vehicle
modernization is a combination of the new GCV program with divestiture
and recapitalization (RECAP) of other existing combat vehicles, to
include rebuilds and upgrades. RECAP will continue for the Abrams,
Paladin, and Stryker and RESET will continue for Bradley as interim
solutions until GCV is available. Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
(MRAP) vehicle variants will also provide protected mobility.
The GCV effort is part of a holistic Army plan to modernize its
combat vehicle fleet within the existing force structure. The GCV
platform will be highly survivable, mobile and versatile. The GCV is
the first vehicle that will be designed from the ground up to operate
in an improvised explosive device (IED) environment. It is envisioned
to have greater lethality and ballistic protection than a Bradley,
greater IED and mine protection than an MRAP, and the cross country
mobility of an Abrams tank.
Our intent for the first installment of GCV procurement is conduct
a one for one replacement of Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicles in
Heavy BCTs with the first brigade being equipped in fiscal year 2019.
In conjunction with developing our program for fiscal year 2012-2017,
we will develop a balanced modernization effort across our platforms
based on capability needs and the resources available.
alternative fuel and power
33. Senator Hagan. Secretary McHugh and General Casey,
Afghanistan's mountainous terrain poses significant logistical
challenges, which drives up the cost of our operations in theater. I
believe we need to engage in significant research and development
initiatives involving alternative fuel and power sources, as well as
fuel efficient engines for the Army's tactical wheeled vehicles. What
are the Army Research Office and Program Executive Office doing to
increase the fuel efficiency of tactical wheeled vehicles?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Fuel efficiency is a Key System
Attribute (KSA) in the JLTV Capability Development Document. The JLTV
effort is the future of the light tactical vehicle fleet. The fuel
efficiency KSA states that the JLTV shall achieve 60 (Threshold) 65
(Objective) ton-miles per gallon as measured at gross vehicle weight
(including armor) using Test Operating Procedure 2.2.603 over the
Munson Standard Fuel Course. The Tank and Automotive Research,
Development and Engineering Center's analysis of the three technology
development contractor vehicles states that the JLTV is currently at 76
ton-miles per gallon. Clearly, this highlights the Army's commitment to
incorporating more fuel efficient vehicles into our Tactical Wheeled
Vehicle fleet.
The Army is also pursuing research and development initiatives in a
number of technological areas, which enable increased fuel efficiency
in the ground tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. Ongoing efforts include
development of the following: light-weight structural materials (armors
and composites, which can reduce the overall vehicle weight resulting
in more fuel efficient vehicles) and technologies to enable high
efficiency energy storage, efficient motors, exportable power and
thermal/power management for application on a hybrid electric vehicle.
In addition, the Army is evaluating a number of currently fielded
engines for their ability to perform in an operational environment
using alternative fuels. Although these fuels alone are not expected to
increase the vehicles' fuel efficiency, their widespread use could
reduce the Army's overall dependence on petroleum.
Finally, the Army Research Office is investing in promising
research in a number of fundamental technological areas, such as the
conversion of cellulosic materials into hydrocarbons, understanding the
chemical kinetics of hydrocarbon combustion, spray and combustion
diagnostics and new hydrocarbon spray methodologies. These basic
research investments have the potential to further enable the use of
alternative fuels and ultimately improve gas mileage.
army irregular warfare center
34. Senator Hagan. General Casey, I am pleased the Army is looking
into establishing an Irregular Warfare Center in order to streamline
irregular warfare doctrinal development. Has the Army made a decision
on the location of the Irregular Warfare Center?
General Casey. I have tasked TRADOC to assess and then recommend to
me whether we should establish an Irregular Warfare Center. Our
Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth currently has proponency for
all warfighting doctrine across the full spectrum of conflict including
operations against traditional threats, counterinsurgency, and
stability operations. In the execution of this responsibility, they
will closely coordinate with the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort
Bragg, NC. I expect TRADOC's recommendation within the next 90 days.
35. Senator Hagan. General Casey, what is the TRADOC's position?
General Casey. The U.S. Army TRADOC and the Headquarters,
Department of the Army are examining the benefits of creating a center
for Irregular Warfare (IW). If created, the IW center would leverage
expertise, experience and core capabilities, from sources both internal
and external to the Army, as well as harness the intellectual capital
of the growing IW community. The center would focus on collecting
lessons learned, identifying best practices and informing concept
development. This would more effectively enable the integration of
doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education,
personnel and facilities across TRADOC and the Army.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roland W. Burris
supplemental request
36. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, there is a
$20 billion supplemental request for fiscal year 2010 in addition to a
$102.2 billion OCOs request for 2011. If the supplemental is being
replaced by the OCO request, then why is there such a big disparity?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The $20 billion supplemental is
a requested increase to the $78 billion provided by the fiscal year
2010 OCO, which was enacted in December 2009. This is additional
funding required this fiscal year to support the increasing force
levels in Afghanistan. The fiscal year 2011 OCO request of $102 billion
is to provide fiscal year 2011 funding for all operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
balancing the force
37. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, it is my
understanding that in a speech to the Association of the U.S. Army and
other forums last fiscal year, that you expected the Army will achieve
operational balance in the force by 2011. Do you still believe that the
Army will reach that goal, specifically, with achieving the dwell time
ratios?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Although the recent troop
increase in Afghanistan delays the Army's long-term goal of a 1:3/1:5
ratio of time deployed versus time spent at home station (i.e.,
``BOG:Dwell''), the Army's current growth continues to mitigate this
new Operation Enduring Freedom force demand.
Because of the growth of the Army over the past 5 years (more than
70,000 troops since 2004; 40,000 of them in the last 2 years) and the
drawdown in Iraq, the Army can execute this increase without going to
15-month deployments, without going to less than 12 months at home
between deployments and without continued implementation of stop loss.
Assuming the drawdown in Iraq continues on schedule, the Army will
achieve our BOG:Dwell goals. The Army estimates that approximately 70
percent of the Active component and 80 percent of the Reserve component
will achieve BOG:Dwell goals of 1:2 Active component and 1:4 Reserve
component by 2011. The remainder of the force will continue to see an
increase in its dwell rate and will meet these goals by 2012.
38. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, will you
meet the Grow the Army objectives that are part of achieving
operational balance?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army will meet the Grow the
Army objectives of building or converting 301 brigades across all
components by the end of fiscal year 2014. The support from your
committee continues to ensure the Army will be capable of achieving
operational balance and conducting full spectrum operations.
force protection
39. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, you
testified in the past that force protection is a major imperative with
current and future OCO. Why did you not request mine-resistant ambush
protected (MRAP) vehicles and other force protection vehicles as part
of your 2011 budget, OCO, or fiscal year 2010 supplemental requests?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. To date, the MRAP initiative
remains a joint program and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) submits requests for programmatic funding. All funding received
is managed and controlled by OSD and the Joint Program Office--MRAP.
In fiscal year 2010, OCO funds were requested to procure MRAP-All
Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs) for the Army and other Services. There is no
MRAP procurement anticipated in fiscal year 2011, because the Army's
known needs will have been met.
The M-ATVs were requested for the Army as part of overall OSD
fiscal year 2010 OCO budget submission. Additionally, OSD recently
directed the procurement of an additional 1,300 MRAPs and 1,460 M-ATVs
for the Army in fiscal year 2010.
OSD anticipates that the MRAP initiative/program will transition to
individual Service management in fiscal year 2012. At that time, the
Army will assume budgetary control for our fleet of MRAP vehicles. The
Army is committed to incorporating the MRAP Family of Vehicles into the
future force structure.
40. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, how does
your UAV budget request compare with the other Services' requests?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army's UAV budget request
is comparable to that of the other services. The total DOD budget
request for procurement and development of UAVs was approximately $5.1
billion. Of that amount, the Army requested $1.45 billion to procure,
retrofit and develop the Extended Range/Multi-Purpose UAS, to retrofit
the RQ-7B Shadow with Tactical Common Data Link, longer wings and laser
designators and to procure new the RQ-11B Raven Small UAS and retrofit
it with digital data link kits. For their UAV programs, the Air Force
requested $1.1 billion; the Navy and Marine Corps requested $.7
billion; and the Special Operations Command requested $1.8 billion.
41. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, is separate
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement
necessary?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Separate RDT&E and procurement
budget lines are necessary, because each Service has different
requirements for its Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). The Army UASs are
tactical platforms under the direct control of the Combatant Commander
used to provide immediate, responsive, real-time Reconnaissance,
Surveillance, Target Acquisition and, if deemed appropriate, attack
support to influence the current fight. The Air Force uses its UASs to
provide Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance information for
analysis at a strategic level in order to influence future battles.
Finally, the Navy has its own unique requirements, such as overwater
operations, and therefore, designs its UASs to operate in a salt water
environment. Although each Service may manage and develop UASs to meet
its individual requirements, where appropriate, the Army leverages the
technologies being developed by the other Services.
army national guard and reserves
42. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, I applaud
the level of integration of the ARNG and the Army Reserves into the
total Army. The Army has carried the lion's share of the OCO missions
and should be commended. How would you characterize the success of
their integration and support to the world-wide missions of the Army?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. During the last 8 years of war,
our Reserve component (RC), the Army National Guard (ARNG) and U.S.
Army Reserve (USAR), has consistently demonstrated its readiness and
ability to make sustained contributions to ongoing operations. The
challenges facing the United States today and in the future require the
employment of the RC as part of a global operational force. To that
end, we have institutionalized the transformation of the RC from a Cold
War Era strategic Reserve to an operational Reserve.
The Army's procurement strategy for the ARNG/USAR is focused on
modernization on par with the Active component (AC) and in accordance
with the ARFORGEN model. Over the last 5 years (fiscal years 2006-2010)
the Army has invested a total of $28.4 billion in ARNG equipping.
Additionally, over the same 5 years, Congress appropriated an
additional $4.4 billion for the ARNG in the National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Appropriation. Much of the equipment from the fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2009 procurements are now emerging from production
and are being fielded. This filled shortages and modernized equipment
on hand (EOH)--giving units increased capability, (although readiness
calculations may not appear to show significant improvement due to a
concurrent growth in requirements).
The overall EOH summary by Components at the end of March 2009 was:
AC 80 percent; ARNG 77 percent; USAR 80 percent. The Army has
programmed approximately $102.4 billion over the next 5 years to
address shortfalls and modernize equipment. Based on current
operational requirements, the Army anticipates bringing the AC to 86
percent, the ARNG to 83 percent, and the USAR to 81 percent EOH by
2017. Transforming RC to an Operational Reserve will require the Army
to develop new policies and make targeted investments in support of
desired outcomes: efficient delivery of medically ready and trained
soldiers to RC units; incentives programs to sustain family and
employer support for the Guard and Reserve; policies for utilization
and integration of the total force; and investments in RC unit
management programs and collective training.
43. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, do you see
a need to ask for more funding to cover the costs of full-time manning
for the National Guard and the Army Reserves?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. No. Our Reserve components are
able to leverage OCOs funding to mitigate war-related demands for
additional manning.
44. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, it appears
that the majority of the ARNG's portion of the budget request is in the
OCO and supplemental. Will the baseline request adjust when these two
budgets are no longer needed?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Yes. The baseline will be
adjusted when the OCOs and supplemental budgets are not longer needed.
recruiting
45. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the fiscal
year 2011 baseline $43.9 billion Operation and Maintenance request
funds the recruiting and training the All-Volunteer Force program. Is
there a study examining the possibility of having one recruiting
command that serves the needs of the total force vice having three
separate agencies?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army combined the Army
Reserve and Regular Army recruiting programs in the 1990s, but has not
taken action to add ARNG recruiting. This is primarily due to the
authority that the 54 States and territories exercise in determining
whether an individual will be enlisted in the Guard. There are no
formal studies examining the possibility of having one recruiting
command that serves the needs of the total force--Regular Army, Army
Reserve, and ARNG.
post-deployment and mobilization respite allowance
46. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the Army
issued an information paper on February 17, 2010 titled, ``Post
Deployment & Mobilization Respite Allowance.'' It is my understanding
that there are over an estimated 20,000 National Guard and Reserve
soldiers who exceeded their original deployment schedule that are
eligible to receive post deployment and mobilization respite allowance.
It is my understanding this process has taken over 3 years, and to
date, many have not been paid. Can you explain to me how this situation
occurred and what is the timeline to expeditiously resolve this very
unfortunate issue?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Section 604 (Public Law 111-
84), authorized the Service Secretaries to retroactively compensate
former servicemembers for Post-Deployment Mobilization Respite Absence
(PDMRA) days earned from January 19, 2007, through the date the
Military Department implemented the PDMRA program. Under the statutory
authority, however, the Service Secretaries may provide such benefits
only in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense. The DOD implementation policy was approved on February 1,
2010, and the Army began payments on March 1, 2010. We will continue to
process and pay these claims until all eligible individuals are
appropriately compensated.
diversity
47. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the Army
has worked hard to advocate a robust diversity program that provides
opportunities for minorities and women to reach the highest ranks.
After reviewing your equal opportunity Army strength data, I see that
the overall number of minorities and women in the ARNG are very scarce
given that the Army National Guard makes up approximately 35 percent of
the total force. Is there not enough qualified minorities and females
officers available in the Army National Guard?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. At the national level, four of
the nine senior positions in the Army National Guard are occupied or
filled by a female or a minority officer. The percentage of female
officers in the Army National Guard has continued to increase over
time. In 1992, 7.8 percent of the Army National Guard officer corps was
made up of females compared to 12.2 percent at the end of fiscal year
2009.
Regarding African Americans, as of fiscal year 2009, 10.2 percent
of officers in the Active Army were African American, while in the ARNG
it was 7.9 percent. Although the disparity between the two is not that
great, there is obvious room for improvement. The ARNG has programs to
encourage African Americans, as well as other minorities to join the
Army. These programs apply to officer and enlisted personnel and are
integral to supporting the overall recruiting mission of the U.S. Army
Accessions Command.
48. Senator Burris. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, is there a
plan to address this disparity?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Although the overall disparity
is not that great, whatever differences there are may stem from the
fact that each state looks at its program individually, as does the
ARNG. Diversity programs vary from State to State based on their
individual requirements and demographics. The ARNG is considering one
standardized framework for continuity and measurement purposes.
Although one blanket set of standards may not work for all states,
recruiting goals and objectives could be tailored to address these
areas.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
army to revise requirements generation process
49. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, Lieutenant
General Reno (retired) recently completed an internal study of the
Army's requirement's generation process, which has not been shared with
Congress. We understand General Reno's report emphasizes the need to
make Army requirements realistically reflect resource constraints. This
would prevent the creation of future requirements which are neither
technologically nor financially obtainable. Do you agree with General
Reno's recommendation? Please explain how you plan to make the Army
requirements process better informed by resource constraints.
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. In June 2009, Lieutenant
General (R) William Reno completed the Reforming the Requirements and
Resourcing Processes in Support of Army Institutional Adaptation study
known as The Reno Study. The purpose was to recommend methods by which
the requirements system could be reformed and better aligned with the
resourcing systems of the Army. The Army intends to deliver The Reno
Study to the committee in early March.
I wholeheartedly support LTG Reno's recommendations to improve our
requirements determination processes. We must continuously improve our
acquisition model to ensure the Army identifies capabilities that
provide the best operational capability at the best cost. The Reno
Study provides several recommendations to incorporate cost-based
analysis earlier in the Army requirements generation process, which
will improve decisions on required capabilities informed by life-cycle
costs and operational risk. The earlier use of analytics to determine
best value (best capability for best cost) will identify feasible
alternatives with associated costs across the doctrine, organization,
training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities
(DOTMLPF) domains.
To implement these recommendations, we are updating our
requirements determination and programming policies, training analysts
to conduct cost-benefit analyses and placing them in our Capabilities
Development and Integration Directorates within the TRADOC, and
requiring cost-based analysis across the DOTMLPF domains for all new
requirements submitted to the Department. The culmination of these
efforts will enable our senior leaders across governance forums to
weigh choices based on best value and make better-informed decisions.
50. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, when will
this report be provided to the committee?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. In June 2009, Lieutenant
General (R) William Reno completed the Reforming the Requirements and
Resourcing Processes in Support of Army Institutional Adaption study,
also known as ``The Reno Study.'' The Army intends to deliver the study
to the committee in early March. The Army has conducted a detailed
analysis of the study, and has developed implementation proposals for
each of its 98 recommendations. The Under Secretary of the Army and the
Vice Chief of Staff Army are conducting final reviews of these
proposals.
end strength and deployment cycle time
51. Senator McCain. General Casey, you have put forward the goal of
increasing dwell time for soldiers so that they spend 2 years at home
for every 1 year deployed. There are two ways to achieve that goal: to
reduce our commitments overseas or to increase end-strength. What are
the budgetary and dwell-time implications of making the temporary end-
strength increase of 22,000 soldiers permanent?
General Casey. Budget: A sustained 22,000 increase would cost
$11.15 billion across the Future Years Defense Program (fiscal year
2012-fiscal year 2017) above the Program Objective Memorandum (POM).
This cost estimate includes $4.71 billion Operations and Maintenance
(O&M), $5.67 billion Military Personnel Appropriation Army (MPA) and
$0.77 billion Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund, assuming such
an increase would remain predominantly in grades E1 through E4.
Dwell: A sustained 22,000 increase above documented authorizations
would not add any rotational units to the force pool and therefore
would not have any impact on unit BOG: Dwell ratios. A sustained 22,000
increase would certainly relieve stress and strain on the force by
filling our deploying units appropriately, compensate for nondeployable
soldiers in deploying units, and improve readiness of units throughout
the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process.
52. Senator McCain. General Casey, in review of the 2009 QDR, I
noted that one of the objectives was ``to further rebalance the
capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces and institutionalize successful
wartime innovations to better enable success in today's wars while
ensuring that our forces are prepared for a complex future.'' The QDR
went on to assert priorities for the sizing and shaping of the force
which assumed a range of conflicts and contingencies similar to what
our Armed Forces are presently facing. Yet the QDR proposed a force
structure for the Army that is essentially what you currently have,
without the 22,000 soldiers. In your testimony today, you state that
``the Army has operated at a demanding pace for the last 8 years and .
. . the strain has placed the Army out of balance.'' You go on to say
that ``the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to create demands
that have our Army operating beyond sustainable capacity.'' I see a
disconnect between your testimony and the results of the QDR. Does the
QDR's recommendation regarding Army force structure allow the Army to
meet its goals regarding dwell time given the QDR's defense objectives
regarding prevailing in today's wars, preparing to defeat adversaries,
and preserving the force?
General Casey. The temporary manpower increase of up to 22,000 was
authorized by the Secretary of Defense to assist with near term manning
challenges and ensure units are appropriately manned prior to
deployment. The temporary manpower increase does not include force
structure and is intended to mitigate the increase in the soldier
nondeployable rate associated with the current high demand for forces.
With the upcoming responsible OIF drawdown and the subsequent projected
demand reduction on the force, the Army views the manning challenge as
temporary. Therefore, the projected decrease in demand on the
programmed Army force structure will allow the Army to achieve balance
by the end of 2011 and meet the rotation dwell time goals given the
QDR's defense objectives.
53. Senator McCain. General Casey, have you determined how many
deployed forces your current force structure levels can sustain to meet
your goals for dwell time? If so, what is that number?
General Casey. Our interim goal, only sustainable in the near-term,
is 2 years at home for every 1-year deployed for the Active Force and 4
years at home for every 1-year mobilization for the Reserve component.
At these dwell ratios, the Army can produce a continuous supply of 1
corps headquarters, 5 division headquarters, 20 BCTs, and about 90,000
troops worth of enablers.
Our long-term dwell goal, which we believe is necessary to maintain
the All-Volunteer Force, is a ratio of three periods at home for each
period deployed for the Active component, and 5 years for every 1 year
mobilized for the Reserve component. Our target for achieving this
long-term goal is 2015. At this dwell ratio, the Army can produce a
continuous supply of 1 corps, 4 divisions, 16 BCTs, and about 72,000
troops worth of enablers.
readiness of nondeployed readiness
54. Senator McCain. General Casey, in review of your February 23
testimony, I note your continued concern that ``presently, and for the
short term, we lack sufficient strategic flexibility, and we continue
to accumulate risk.'' This risk is reflected in the quarterly readiness
reports received by this committee that continue to show severely
degraded readiness for nondeployed units. I also note that the QDR does
not propose any initiatives or plans to specifically address the issues
of the reset or readiness of nondeployed forces in the Army and the
Marine Corps. In your opinion, why did the QDR not address the issue of
the readiness status of nondeployed units in the Army?
General Casey. We will continue to accumulate risk in the near-term
as we meet requirements for the current campaigns, and we anticipate a
tough few years ahead in providing sufficient strategic flexibility to
meet future contingencies. Eight and a half years at war builds latent
risks; risks that inherently impact soldiers and their families, and
their equipment.
The QDR addresses the primary readiness concerns to the Joint
Force. First, and most importantly, the QDR recognizes the need to
preserve the All-Volunteer Force and to sustain the health of our
soldiers, civilians, and their families. Next, the findings clearly
articulate the importance of managing deployment tempos and associated
challenges with resetting and reconstituting equipment. These two
issues directly impact readiness for the Joint Force, and particularly,
the Army.
Under the ARFORGEN's cycle, we do not apply a single, standardized
test of readiness to all units. Instead, different units in different
phases of ARFORGEN are expected to be at different levels of readiness.
As an example, ARFORGEN Reset phase is specifically designed without
any readiness expectations for unit personnel and equipment. Typically,
it is a 6-month process that systematically restores units--whether re-
deployed or nondeployed--to a level of personnel and equipment
readiness that permits resumption of training for future missions.
Reset encompasses those tasks necessary to reintegrate soldiers and
families, and tasks required to organize, man, equip, and train a unit.
As units progress from Reset to Train/Ready status, they possess the
soldiers and equipment required to train to a level of readiness that
will enable the Army to provide a surge capacity for contingencies. We
are not able to provide this now, but in the near- to mid-term we
expect to achieve this capacity and restore our strategic flexibility.
In the available cycle of ARFORGEN, soldiers and units are at a level
of readiness to execute assigned full spectrum operations.
Meeting the requirements of the last 8 years at war, the Army has
not achieved targeted deployment to dwell ratios creating heightened
stress to soldiers and their Families. By managing deployment tempos,
specifically deployment to dwell at home station time ratios, we build
readiness with predictability and sufficient physical and mental
recovery time for soldiers and their families. As dwell times at home
station stabilize and increase in time, individual soldier and unit
readiness will increase as they train and prepare for the full spectrum
of military operations.
As cited in the QDR, DOD is developing policies and initiatives to
assess the effects of stress to the force, the impact of low dwell
rates and measures to mitigate the same. Similarly, the Army has
implemented numerous initiatives to mitigate stressors to soldiers,
their families, and units. These initiatives, among many others,
include: the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program, the Army Suicide
Prevention Program, Army Family Action Plan and Warrior Care and
Transition.
Reset is essential in maintaining our equipment and Army Pre-
positioned Stocks (APS) readiness. During Reset, we repair or replace
destroyed, degraded and lost equipment. Although current support
provides for the full restoration and replacement of all equipment in
support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, success in restoring
readiness following responsible draw downs in both campaigns will
depend on reliable, timely and consistent funding to reset the force.
Of particular importance will be support to our soldier, families, and
veterans, and restoring the readiness of our equipment and pre-
positioned stocks. The combination of these actions will improve
readiness in the near- to mid-term.
55. Senator McCain. General Casey, what do you consider to be an
acceptable degree of risk for the readiness of nondeployed forces?
General Casey. The Army mitigates risk to the readiness of
nondeployed forces by progressively increasing unit readiness as they
cycle through the ARFORGEN force pools from RESET through Train/Ready
to the Available force pool.
The RESET force pool provides a unit time to reintegrate soldiers
with their Families, receive new personnel, field new equipment,
conduct individual training, attend institutional training and initiate
collective training. The Train/Ready force pool progressively increases
a unit's readiness by completing the fill of personnel shortages,
fielding equipment, conducting collective training and conducting
mission readiness exercises to validate unit readiness in meeting
Combatant Commanders' and Service requirements. Risk decreases as a
unit progresses from the RESET force pool, without any readiness
expectations, to the Available force pool.
Additionally, the Army is establishing ARFORGEN Aim Points to track
a unit's progression and focus resources to ensure its readiness
increase. The first Aim Point is when a unit emerges from the RESET
force pool. The second Aim Point is approximately 45 days before a
unit's mission readiness exercise. ARFORGEN will generate enough forces
to meet Combatant Commander and Global Force Management sustained
demands and to have depth to respond to contingencies.
56. Senator McCain. General Casey, what are your plans over the
next 2 years to mitigate this risk?
General Casey. The Army's plan to reduce risk to the force in the
near-term is contingent upon achieving sustainable deploy-to-dwell
ratios, adequately providing for soldiers, civilians, and families,
resetting our Soldiers and their equipment, and securing reliable,
timely and consistent funding.
With your support and no change to known troop requirements the
Army will reach a deploy-to-dwell ratio of 1 year deployed to 2 years
at home station for the Active component and one year deployed to 4
years at home station for the Reserve component in fiscal year 2012, as
well as begin to move towards our long-term deploy-to-dwell ratios.
Improving dwell times is critical to preserving the All-Volunteer Force
as we implement Army initiatives to improve and sustain the health of
our soldiers and their families, and provide them with a quality of
life that is commensurate with their service to the Nation.
We are developing a revised Modernization Strategy to build the
necessary capabilities required to meet future contingencies while
balancing capabilities between the Active and Reserve components.
Continued additional funding above the base budget is critical to
mitigating risk in the near to mid-term to allow us to reset equipment
and Army Prepositioned Stocks. This additional funding will be needed
for several years after completion of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
57. Senator McCain. General Casey, based on your plan, when is this
committee going to see an overall improvement in the readiness of
nondeployed units as reflected in quarterly reports?
General Casey. The Army plans to improve readiness by increasing
dwell times for Army units, reconstituting its Army Prepositioned
Stocks, and operationalizing the Reserve Component.
The recent approval of the Army's accelerated Grow the Army plan
was intended to rapidly improve the unit'' time deployed to time at
home'' ratio. As dwell time increases, we expect to see sustained
improvement in the readiness of nondeployed units. The Army is
continuing to transition the Reserve component to an accessible partner
of the total operational force and is integrating the ARNG and the U.S.
Army Reserve (USAR) into the Sustained Sourcing Approach. The Army has
programmed approximately $102.4 billion over the next 5 years to
procure shortfalls and modernize equipment, which is anticipated to
bring the ARNG and USAR to 83 percent and 81 percent Equipment On Hand
respectively by 2017 based on current operational requirements.
The current Army procurement strategy for ARNG/USAR is focused on
modernization and is on par with the active Component in accordance
with the ARFORGEN model. Integration of the Reserve Component into the
ARFORGEN cycle better enables Reserve Component employment as part of
the Joint Force while preserving some ability to expand the scope by
accelerating availability. With timely and predictable funding, we will
be able to provide units more of their required equipment earlier in
the process, not just-in-time for their deployment. This will also help
us restore the Army's strategic depth and increase our flexibility to
defend the Nation.
58. Senator McCain. General Casey, do you believe the funding
proposed for reset, manning, and training in the fiscal year 2011
budget and the Future Years Defense Plan will allow you to restore
readiness of nondeployed units to an acceptable level?
General Casey. The readiness of nondeployed formations continues to
be the biggest concern for the Army--it is the foremost concern driving
the Army's risk assessment for the Chairman. The Army has been at war
since September 11, and seen sustained growth annually in overseas
contingencies operations since the end of the Cold War. The fiscal year
2011 budget will help arrest the continued decline in the readiness of
nondeployed forces--but will not in and of itself reverse the decline
in nondeployed readiness. ARFORGEN accepts the proposition that some
forces are less ready due to their proximity in the deployment cycle.
Right now, too many nondeployed forces are at degraded readiness
levels. The readiness of nondeployed forces will not improve to an
acceptable level (based on ARFORGEN goals) until demand is reduced.
establishment of an army unit at thomson correctional facility
59. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the OCO
portion of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes
$350 million in a transfer fund for the detention facilities at
Guantanamo Bay, provides funding to make improvements at the Illinois
State Prison at Thomson, Illinois, in the amount of $150 million, and
includes another $158 million for information technology improvements
at the Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, to support DOD detainee
operations at Thomson. The current plan calls for approximately 600-
1,000 permanently-stationed Army personnel to perform duties at Thomson
with base support provided by Rock Island Arsenal, which is about 60
miles from the Thomson facility. Do you support the use of Army
personnel and facilities for this initiative?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army is the Executive Agent
for detainee operations policy, and we are coordinating closely with
DOD regarding the potential use of the Thomson facility. If DOD assigns
this task to the Army, we will develop the appropriate personnel
structure to accomplish this mission to the best of our ability.
60. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, does the
Army have the available manpower authorizations to support this new
mission?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. If OSD assigns the Army this
task, we will thoroughly review the manpower requirements needed to
accomplish the mission.
61. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, do you
support the proposal to require Army personnel to commute 60 miles each
way to work at the Thomson facility?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. If the Army was directed to
perform this mission, the senior commander within the local area has
the flexibility to establish and define the local commuting area. A
distance of 50 miles, one way, is normally considered to be within
reasonable commuting distance of a station, but the 50-mile rule is not
inflexible.
62. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, do you have
any proposals or plans to mitigate the effects of this dislocation for
soldiers and their families?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. In addition to the senior
commander's authority to establish and define the local commuting area,
the Army could accommodate short distance moves within proximity of the
facility if the Army is directed to perform this mission.
military construction requirements for afghanistan
63. Senator McCain. General Casey, the budget request for fiscal
year 2011 OCO contains $761 million for facilities and infrastructure
to be constructed in Afghanistan, plus an additional $90 million for
future planning and design of facilities in Afghanistan. In the
justification documents provided with the budget request, most of these
projects are not proposed to be completed until mid-2012, almost a full
year after the President's announced goal for start of the withdrawal
of forces. In other words, we may be faced with a scenario where we are
still constructing facilities at the same time we are withdrawing
forces. I ask you only because the amounts are requested by the Army.
Does this make sense to you?
General Casey. Yes, the Army continues to plan for all scenarios
and will adjust plans and operations as the situation develops. The
Afghanistan projects requested in the fiscal year 2011 MILCON base
program were identified to support CENTCOM's Global Defense Posture
plan. These projects serve a dual purpose by supporting CENTCOM's
enduring mission post conflict and contingency operations prior to unit
drawdown and mission accomplishment. fiscal year 2011 OCO projects
support current contingency operations. All projects were coordinated
with CENTCOM and ARCENT with the current timeline taken into
consideration. Projects will be cancelled or scaled down as needed.
64. Senator McCain. General Casey, are the proposed dates for
completion of construction consistent with the President's policies and
goals?
General Casey. Yes, we are planning for operational requirements,
consistent with the administration's policies and goals, beyond 2012.
In addition, based on the Global Defense Posture Plan, the Army
will have an enduring presence in Afghanistan and other countries in
Southwest Asia. Projects in the base budget are required to support the
enduring force.
65. Senator McCain. General Casey, should I read in these documents
the military's plan to maintain forces in Afghanistan long after June
2011?
General Casey. Based on the Global Defense Posture Plan, the Army
will have an enduring presence in Afghanistan and other countries in
Southwest Asia. Our plans support operational requirements, consistent
with the administration's policies and goals, beyond 2012.
implications of iraqi elections
66. Senator McCain. General Casey, the U.S. presence in Iraq is
currently about 96,000 uniformed personnel. General Odierno said
yesterday that the planned withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces by the
end of August 2010 could be delayed if conditions worsen in the coming
months as Iraqis choose a new government. Should the Iraqi elections
scheduled for March 7 be postponed, will the Army be capable of
sustaining the necessary forces in Iraq while fulfilling the
requirements of the troop increase in Afghanistan?
General Casey. All indications are the elections are going to take
place as planned.
equipment and readiness
67. Senator McCain. General Casey, with regard to excess military
equipment, specifically Class II, VII, and IX, currently located in the
Southwest Asia theater, what specific steps is the Army taking to
return excess equipment to nondeployed Army units?
General Casey. This question requires a two part answer:
First, with regard to excess Class II (general supplies) and IX
(repair parts), we will retrograde our serviceable stocks, and
redistribute them throughout the Total Army (to include Army
Prepositioned Stocks (APS)). The items may be redistributed to
Afghanistan, APS and other War Reserve requirements, as well as used to
offset the routine resupply of Army units worldwide.
Second, regarding excess Class VII (end items), our first priority
for materiel, which is not needed, is redistribution to satisfy
requirements in Afghanistan. If not needed there, it will redeploy to
the Continental United States, be Reset, and redistributed to
nondeployed units. The Army will use its Army's Resourcing Priorities
List to determine the distribution of this equipment. If not needed
within the Army anywhere, these items will be offered to Foreign
Military Sales customers as Excess Defense Articles, or will be
disposed of by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service. Excess
non-standard gear no longer needed by the Army will be offered to U.S.
State and local governments, subject to their willingness to pay
transportation costs to return the items to the United States.
68. Senator McCain. General Casey, how is equipment that was rushed
to Iraq, like MRAP vehicles, being incorporated into the Army's vehicle
fleet?
General Casey. The Army has developed a predecisional allocation
plan for MRAPs as they return from theater. This plan was briefed to
Army senior leaders and is undergoing revision based on guidance to
conduct a detailed cost benefit analysis. The results will be presented
to Army senior leaders the end of March 2010. Other pieces of non-
standard equipment that have been acquired to meet operational
requirements are being reviewed through the Non-Standard Equipment
(NSE) disposition process. As a part of the NSE disposition process,
selected NSE items that have potential to become enduring capabilities
will be sent through the Capabilities Development for Rapid Transition
(CDRT) process for additional detailed analysis. These processes use
wartime lessons learned and other inputs to determine if equipment
procured through non-traditional means should be incorporated into the
Army's long term force structure. If it is determined a piece of
equipment should be retained, a capabilities document is developed to
assist in the documentation of the structure, manning, training and
sustainment (including base budget) as the first step in the formal
process of becoming an acquisition program or being incorporated into
an existing acquisition program.
69. Senator McCain. General Casey, have these vehicles been placed
on units' property books?
General Casey. Yes, as the Joint Program Office issued MRAP
vehicles to units in theater, they were placed on unit property books.
Moreover, last year U.S. Army Central directed units in theater to
conduct 100 percent inventories to ensure all equipment (including MRAP
vehicles) appeared in our automated property book system, which
provides both accountability and visibility. We will continue to focus
on property accountability at every level during the drawdown in Iraq.
70. Senator McCain. General Casey, the President's 2011 budget
request ends production of the Humvee line of vehicles. In many
instances Humvees are no longer the preferred transport in theater,
having been supplanted by more heavily protected vehicles, like MRAPs.
When does the Army intend to finalize a tactical wheeled vehicle
strategy?
General Casey. The Army originally developed an overarching
tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) strategy in 2009. This strategy takes
maximum advantage of existing platforms; plans for the integration of
MRAP into the fleet; emphasizes a mixed fleet approach that spans the
``Iron Triangle'' of protection, payload and performance; and moves the
Army to a fleet of scalable protection. Additionally, we published a
TWV investment strategy on 30 October 2009.
We are currently working the latest updates to the strategy as part
of our POM 12-17 submission. This work includes the ongoing TRADOC MRAP
and TWV studies to determine the feasibility of adjusting the fleet
mix. This will inform long-term life cycle management decisions and
future investment strategies.
don't ask, don't tell homosexual conduct policy
71. Senator McCain. General Casey, in recent testimony before this
committee the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen,
stated his personal view that the current Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)
policy on homosexual conduct should be repealed. You testified on
February 23, 2010, to the effect that you are not ready to endorse
elimination of the DADT policy and that you want to first see the
results of the high level review that Secretary Gates has ordered
before you provide advice on this. Do you agree with the proposition
that some have advanced that the decision to repeal the DADT policy has
already been made by the President as Commander in Chief and that the
only reason for the review and delay is to formulate a plan for
implementation?
General Casey. In his State of The Union Address on 27 January
2010, President Obama indicated an intention to ``work with Congress
and our military to finally repeal [10 U.S.C. Sec. 654]. . . . ``
Secretary Gates stated, ``[t]o ensure that the department is prepared
should the law be changed, and working in close consultation with
Admiral Mullen, I have appointed a high-level working group within the
department that will immediately begin a review of the issues
associated with properly implementing a repeal of the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell' policy.'' Therefore the reason for the review is to
identify issues associated with the proper implementation of a repeal
of DADT, should Congress act to change the law.
72. Senator McCain. General Casey, what do you view as the purpose
and utility of the high level review?
General Casey. At the direction of the Secretary of Defense, the
Army is participating in an OSD Task force to determine the potential
impact of a repeal of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 to military readiness,
military effectiveness and unit cohesion and how to best manage any
noted impact during implementation if the law is ultimately changed.
The review will assess servicemember views and attitudes concerning
Don't Ask Don't Tell and will determine what changes to Service
regulations and policies may be necessary in the event that the current
law is repealed.
73. Senator McCain. General Casey, do you personally hold open the
possibility that you will review the outcome of the high level review
and determine that the DADT policy should remain in effect and not be
changed?
General Casey. The finding of the high-level review will certainly
inform my opinion as to whether and how the DADT policy should be
changed. However, the ultimate decision remains with Congress.
74. Senator McCain. General Casey, is it your understanding that
the DADT policy lawfully cannot be repealed or ignored, despite the
President's preferences, and that openly gay soldiers must continue to
be processed for separation until Congress repeals or modifies section
654 of title 10, U.S.C.?
General Casey. The Army's policy on homosexual conduct implements
DOD policy and Federal Law. DOD policy implements 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654
and applies to all branches of the Armed Forces. Due to current law and
governing policy, when a soldier has violated the homosexual conduct
policy, the commander must initiate separation procedures.
75. Senator McCain. General Casey, in your view, has the DADT
policy since 1993 affected the Army's military readiness negatively or
positively?
General Casey. Under the current homosexual conduct policy, the
Army continues to accomplish the mission of providing trained and ready
forces in support of the combatant commanders.
76. Senator McCain. General Casey, how would repeal of the current
law, in your judgment, affect recruiting and retention in the Army?
General Casey. The OSD Task Force study will help determine the
impact of repealing the current law on recruiting and retention. If any
impacts are identified and Congress changes the law, the Army will take
appropriate actions to address any effects on our recruiting and
retention programs.
77. Senator McCain. General Casey, has the current law and DADT
policy hindered the ability of the Army to increase its end strength in
recent years?
General Casey. The current law and ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy
has not negatively impacted the Army's ability to increase end
strength. The Army has enjoyed tremendous success in meeting the end
strength goals and is ahead of schedule (resulting in end strength of
543,645 for fiscal year 2008). The Army met the fiscal year 2010 end
strength goal of 547,400 in January 2009. As a result of meeting the
end strength growth early, the Army currently has enough enlisted
soldiers to fill all the current authorizations, which helps to
mitigate the stress of the high operational pace. The current fiscal
year 2010 end strength projection is 563,543 compared to our targeted
end strength of 562,400, which includes a 15,000 temporary end strength
increase. This success is based on both our recruiting and retention
programs.
78. Senator McCain. General Casey, in his testimony on February 2,
Admiral Mullen was clear that the Joint Chiefs have not yet developed
their best military advice about the impact of a repeal of the DADT
policy or the manner in which a change would be implemented. However,
many in Congress intend to move quickly through legislation to repeal
the law as quickly as possible, including imposition of a moratorium on
administrative separations while the high level review proceeds. Do you
support legislative change to the current policy before the Chiefs have
formulated their advice?
General Casey. The military must look hard at how a new policy
would be implemented and address any issues in the Armed Services that
may result from a repeal of the current law. It is important to have
accurate data on how soldiers and their families feel about
implementing a new policy. Because a moratorium would complicate the
process laid out by Secretary Gates, I would object to a moratorium
until the Services have a clearer picture.
79. Senator McCain. General Casey, what is the basis for your
objection to a congressionally-mandated moratorium on separations of
openly gay servicemembers under the DADT policy?
General Casey. It would complicate, and in some respects, undermine
the whole process that Secretary Gates had laid out. The practical
impact of a moratorium would be the same as the repeal of the current
law. We would be put in a position of actually implementing a
``repeal'' while we were studying the potential impacts of implementing
a repeal.
role of the joint chiefs of staff
80. Senator McCain. General Casey, Admiral Mullen is the principal
military adviser to the President and the Secretary of Defense, but
under law, he must consult and seek advice from the other members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders. Have you been
given adequate opportunity to state your views to date?
General Casey. Yes. The Chairman, Vice Chairman and Service Chiefs
meet regularly to discuss issues and collectively make decisions.
high level review of don't ask, don't tell
81. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, on February
2, Secretary Gates testified that a high-level working group within DOD
will review the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal
of the DADT policy. Part of this review, he testified, will be to reach
out to authoritatively understand the views and attitudes of the force.
Please explain what steps the Army has been asked to take in order to
implement the President's direction to ``begin the preparations
necessary for repeal of the current law and policy.''
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army fully supports the
working group established by Secretary Gates. General Carter Ham,
Commander, U.S. Army Europe, was selected as the co-chair of the
working group. It is my understanding that the group will seek input
from across the Army regarding the views and attitudes of the force
concerning changing the law and the current DADT policy. The group is
also expected to review the regulations used to implement the current
policy to determine if there are different ways to enforce existing
polices. Finally, the Army has ensured full participation in the
working group by assigning officers and enlisted personnel in the
specialties requested.
82. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, is it
correct that the actions the Secretary of Defense has directed are
intended to strengthen the argument for repeal of existing law?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The actions directed by the
Secretary of Defense are intended to ``objectively and methodically
examine all aspects of this question, and produce its findings and
recommendations'' by the end of this calendar year.
83. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what
difference will it make, if any, in DOD planning if a significant
proportion--say 50 percent--of servicemembers and their family members
register objection to a change in the policy?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The views of soldiers and Army
families will be relevant to our assessment of the potential impact
that a repeal of the current law may have on military readiness,
military effectiveness and unit cohesion. DOD policy implements 10
U.S.C. Sec. 654, which applies to all branches of the Armed Forces. If
the existing law is changed, the Army will comply with the new law and
resulting DOD policy. We will deal with this issue with the same
professionalism that has marked our conduct during this war and that
has been a hallmark of this institution for 234 years.
84. Senator McCain. General Casey, according to data provided by
the Services and DOD, the number of discharges for homosexual conduct
has consistently been far less than 1 percent, compared to discharges
for other reasons. The Congressional Research Service concluded that
most discharges occur among younger, less experienced personnel. How
many soldiers have been discharged since September 11, 2001, for
violating DADT?
General Casey. The total number of Army Homosexual Conduct
discharges from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2009 (9 years) is
3,211.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.......................................... 627
2002.......................................... 433
2003.......................................... 378
2004.......................................... 325
2005.......................................... 386
2006.......................................... 280
2007.......................................... 303
2008.......................................... 284
2009.......................................... 195
------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. Senator McCain. General Casey, does that number adversely
affect the readiness of the Army?
General Casey. As Chief of Staff of the Army, I am focused on my
Title 10 responsibilities of preparing and sustaining an Army at war.
That number of soldiers separated for violating the homosexual conduct
policy since September 11, 2001, has not affected the readiness of the
Army as we have accomplished the mission of fighting and winning this
nation's wars.
medium extended air defense system
86. Senator McCain. General Casey, the Medium Extended Air Defense
System (MEADS) is the Army's follow-on program to the Patriot missile
system. It is being co-developed by the United States (funding 58
percent), Germany (25 percent), and Italy (17 percent). MEADS is
designed to provide 360-degree coverage and protect against short-range
ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, UAVs, and aircraft. In their most
recent assessment of MEADS, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
determined that many critical technologies have not matured since
development started in 2004 and will not be fully mature until the
production decision in 2012. During the program's preliminary design
review (PDR) in 2008, it was determined that this program carried
excessive risk and that at least an additional $1 billion and more time
would be needed prior to Critical Design Review, which is now scheduled
for August this year. What steps are being taken to ensure that the
program stays within budget and schedule?
General Casey. As an international cooperative program, the
overarching decision body for MEADS is the National Armaments
Directorate. The representatives or National Armaments Directors are
senior defense officials of partner nations. The U.S. National
Armaments Director is the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE). Program
direction and oversight is being migrated from a Joint Steering
Committee to a more senior tri-national Board of Directors (BOD). The
senior U.S. member of the BOD is OSD for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (OSD-AT&L), The Office of Portfolio Systems Acquisition (PSA)
and is supported by the Army Acquisition Executive.
In an effort to contain costs and reduce program risks, the
National Armaments Directors agreed to pursue a rebaseline of the
original 110 month program. This would extend the Design and
Development program by up to 24 months. The nations are awaiting the
response to the proposal for the rebaselined program. Based on the
direction of the BOD, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization MEADS
Management Agency General Manager is conducting cost reviews and the
OSD-Cost Assessments and Program Evaluation is conducting an
independent cost estimate of the rebaselined program. Preliminary
projections indicate the extended program will add at least $700
million in cost to the U.S. over the remainder of the Design and
Development (D&D) program. Several changes are being sought to adjust
the program. We acknowledge the schedule and cost growth and are
discussing additional steps with the international partners to address
the cost and schedule changes in the upcoming years. The OSD-AT&L is
the lead for these international negotiations for the Department, so I
will defer to OSD-AT&L for a current status of those negotiations.
87. Senator McCain. General Casey, given the international
collaboration associated with MEADS, is it true that this program is
exempt from traditional DOD acquisition regulations? If so, was or is
MEADS in risk of breaching Nunn-McCurdy?
General Casey. The International (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO)) MEADS Program is exempt from DOD 5000 Regulations.
It is governed by the negotiated tri-national Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The International MEADS program is executed by a
NATO agent, NATO MEADS Management Agency, which complies with the MOU
and NATO rules and regulations.
As part of the normal stewardship of our funds, we assess the
program against typical program metrics, such as procurement and total
program unit costs as used in Nunn-McCurdy evaluations, as well as
requiring program documentation similar to those required by DOD 5000
(e.g. test plans, cost documents, etc.). Based on available estimates,
the U.S. MEADS current program assessments are within Nunn-McCurdy
thresholds. The department will have a more precise assessment at the
conclusion of the OSD Cost Assessments and Program Evaluation's Cost
Assessment.
88. Senator McCain. General Casey, is the Army looking at any
alternatives to a follow-on system for Patriot?
General Casey. The Army is continuing to program and plan for the
MEADS as a replacement for Patriot.
humanitarian missions
89. Senator McCain. General Casey, what effect will continuing
humanitarian operations in Haiti have on the Army's continuing missions
in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the ability to respond to contingencies
around the world?
General Casey. Assuming force requirements do not increase,
continuing humanitarian operations in Haiti should have little or no
effect on the Army's continuing missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, or
the ability to respond to contingencies around the world. It is
anticipated units supporting Haiti operations will be redeployed with
sufficient time for reset and train-up for scheduled future
deployments.
90. Senator McCain. General Casey, what is the Army's understanding
of the duration, personnel, and equipping requirements in response to
the continued humanitarian mission to Haiti?
General Casey. Duration - Our understanding of the duration of the
humanitarian mission is that units will remain in place until relieved.
The mission will not impact operations in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Personnel - Units are currently transitioning based on U.S.
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) timeline.
U.S. Army South (USARSO) is assuming command and
control of Joint Task Force (JTF) Haiti, from 18 Airborne
Command Post (ACP), not later than 15 Mar 2010. 18 ABC ACP is
redeploying and will return to home station.
2/82 Airborne (ABN) is redeploying and will return to
home station by end of Mar 2010. There is no requested backfill
for 2/82 ABN. FORSCOM projects 2/82 ABN will assume GRF mission
on or around 01 Apr 2010.
377 Theater Support Command (TSC) replaced the 3rd
Expeditionary Support Command (ESC) Headquarters on 06 Mar
2010.
Equipping - Units deployed to Haiti with organic equipment.
Equipment will not be left behind unless directed by Command Authority.
91. Senator McCain. General Casey, how is the Army preparing to
deal with future disaster relief missions, to include assisting
partners to better prepare for these regional and global responses?
General Casey. The Civil-Military Emergency Preparedness program,
which was created at the inception of the Partnership for Peace program
in 1994, is the Army's primary means to assist partner nations in
enhancing their disaster preparedness and response capacities.
Annually, this program conducts bilateral and regional events that
support DOD and Army security cooperation objectives by enhancing
civil-military cooperation and building our partners' capacity to
respond to both natural and manmade disasters.
In fiscal year 2009, the program, which is funded by DOD and
managed by Headquarters, Department of the Army, conducted 23 events
with 14 countries using a budget of $1.4 million. In fiscal year 2010,
the Army plans to conduct 32 events in 16 countries including support
to U.S. Africa Command's emergency response events using a $1.8 million
budget. Recently, the program developed a new global assessment tool
called Providing International Disaster Emergency Support, or ProvIDES,
which quantitatively assesses a nation's capabilities and capacity to
establish requirements for enhancing effectiveness across all phases of
preparedness and response.
Additionally, the Army assists partners with disaster preparedness
through security cooperation activities executed by the Army Service
Component Commands as well as through programs at the Army Medical
Command and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
(WHINSEC). Of note, since 2007 a total of 13 students from Chile have
participated in disaster preparedness training at WHINSEC.
mid-level officer shortfalls
92. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the
committee heard outside testimony last year that the Army is projected
to experience a shortfall of approximately 3,000 captains and majors
until at least 2013. Please describe the current status of this
shortfall, its impact, and the Army's mitigation efforts.
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army's current officer
shortages stem from force structure growth designed to support the
development of additional capabilities needed to meet emerging threats
in our OCOs. Based on this growth, we project the Army will be short
over 4300 captains and majors (across all officer competitive
categories) through fiscal year 2010, with the shortage dropping to
about 2900 in fiscal year 2011. We project the Army will be
specifically short approximately 3800 Army Competitive Category (ACC)
captains and majors through fiscal year 2010, with the shortage
dropping to about 2700 in fiscal year 2011. The Army expects to be
above full strength for captains in aggregate for fiscal year 2013 and
beyond.
A shortage of 1,000-1,300 (10 percent-12 percent) ACC majors will
continue from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013, and we will
remain short 1,900-2,200 (10 percent-12 percent) majors across all
competitive categories during the same time period. The Army will not
be able to eliminate the major shortage in the foreseeable future, but
can ease its effects by using captains to fill certain major vacancies
after fiscal year 2012.
Examples of measures taken to mitigate captain and major shortages
include the following: increasing Regular Army accessions to 5500 by
the end of fiscal year 2010; Reserve Component calls to active duty
(over 1500 to date); and the use of ``Blue-to-Green'' inter-Service
transfers (over 500 to date). The Army is also implementing high
promotion rates to both captain and major (including 2 years below-the-
zone eligibility for selection to major). We will work to lower these
rates gradually to allow additional opportunities to differentiate
exceptional performers. We are also slowly increasing promotion ``pin-
on'' points for lieutenants and captains as our personnel inventories
become more healthy.
The Army is also using incentives to help mitigate our shortages of
captains and majors. We offered the Captains' Retention Menu of
Incentives in September 2007 through March 2009 with a goal of
retaining and managing critical skills in officers to complete the
Army's modularity conversion. As a result of this program, the Army
increased captain retention through fiscal year 2011 for over 16,000 of
the 23,000 captains, who were eligible to participate. We have also
continued to use the pre-commissioning Officer Career Incentive
Program, first implemented in fiscal year 2006. By adding 3 guaranteed
years of active service to the initial obligations of officers
commissioned through USMA and ROTC programs, this program has increased
retention at the 8th year of service from a historical 47 percent to
between 62 percent and 69 percent.
brigade combat team modernization program
93. Senator McCain. General Casey, this year's budget request
continues work begun under Future Combat Systems (FCS) with a multi-
billion dollar request for the Army's BCT Modernization program, which
includes the Early Infantry BCT (E-IBCT) component. The Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) reported in February 2010 that
``all E-IBCT systems require further development before fielding,''
that E-IBCT systems ``demonstrated reliability well below user
requirements,'' and that the ``systems [tested] were not in the same
configuration as the systems intended for purchase.'' Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics [USD (AT&L)]
Carter recently approved the Army's request to move E-IBCT into Low
Rate Initial Production (LRIP), but said that ``testing has identified
large reliability shortfalls'' and that the Army lacks ``a clear
operational perspective of the value'' of these systems in their
current form. Why is the Army moving ahead with LRIP of the E-IBCT set
of systems, when they have not met important reliability goals?
General Casey. The Army has just entered year 3 of a 4-year test
cycle for Increment 1 capabilities. The Army will not field any new
equipment until system performance is sufficient to satisfy the
capability requirements of the warfighter. Given our desire to get E-
IBCT capabilities into the hands of soldiers as soon as possible,
Increment 1 employs an extensive developmental and operational test
program. This will culminate with one brigade set of low rate initial
production equipment being tested as part of initial operational test
and evaluation in 2011. The ``test-fix-test'' strategy we are utilizing
has allowed the program to continuously mature hardware models and
software as it progresses through the development process. One key
element of this strategy has been the use of the Army Evaluation Task
Force. Comprised of combat veterans, these soldiers evaluate all of the
E-IBCT equipment and provide invaluable feedback to the program which
permits continual improvement to these systems.
In 2009, the second year of warfighter tests, results indicated
that Reliability, Availability and Maintainability scores fell short of
their requirements. The Army has implemented an aggressive reliability
growth plan that has identified 100 percent of the root causes. To
date, 98 percent of the known failures have been corrected and are
implemented for Limited User Test 10.
As directed in the December 2010 Acquisition Decision Memorandum,
the Program Office will report to the OSD the results of these tests,
which will factor into approval to proceed with production and fielding
plans.
94. Senator McCain. General Casey, how does the Army intend to
mitigate E-IBCT developmental delays?
General Casey. Increment 1 equipment and software has undergone
robust testing and evaluation. All programmatic milestones including
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR) have
been met and approved through a series of Defense Acquisition Board
reviews and decisions ultimately leading to a Low Rate Initial
Production (LRIP) decision in December 2009.
Soldiers are part of a 4-year test and evaluation process. Early in
development the Army made the decision to deliver pre-production
equipment and network components to the Army Evaluation Task Force to
allow soldiers to test and evaluate the systems. Resultant soldier
feedback has played a key role in optimizing design throughout the
development phase leading to better product design. Increment 1
capabilities are only now in their third year of the pre-planned 4-year
test cycle.
OSD has asked the Army to report on the progress at the end of the
second year as these capabilities move through the 2010 test cycle. The
Army is required to report test and evaluation plans, risk mitigation
strategies and test and evaluation results at two Defense Acquisition
Board meetings in April 2010 and December 2010. These reviews will
shape the path ahead for the LRIP of the Early Infantry BCT (E-IBCT)
equipment sets 2 and 3.
The Increment 1 LRIP decision was based on sound acquisition
processes and multiple reviews/tests/evaluations of hardware and
software. Production will be intensely managed and will allow for
adjustments to be made in the LRIP stage as additional test results are
finalized. Such an incremental process will allow for technological
upgrades and refinements even during the fielding process.
The Government's interests are protected through a series of
established decision points.
1. Milestone C for Increment 1 in December 2009 authorized
acquisition of the first E-IBCT set of equipment. This decision was
supported by results from 2009 test cycle (year 2 of 4) and DODI 5000.2
Statutory and Regulatory requirements.
2. Limited User Test 2010 (year 3 of 4) assessment and breakout
decision review is scheduled for December 2010. This review evaluates
year 3 of 4 test and evaluation results plus risk mitigation plans
prior to authorization for the final two LRIP E-IBCT sets of equipment.
Finalization of the Full Rate Production (FRP) plan will also occur.
3. A FRP decision for the additional six E-IBCT sets of equipment
will occur in December 2011using all 4 years of test results. This
decision will be supported by the fiscal year 2011 (year 4 of 4)
testing including the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
demonstrating that Increment 1 production units are operationally safe,
effective, suitable, and survivable.
95. Senator McCain. General Casey, what are the advantages of
developing and procuring E-IBCT spin-out increments together under one
contract?
General Casey. The development effort and the procurement effort
are being acquired as two separate contracts. For clarification
purposes, there is only one planned spin out of the Early-Infantry
Brigade Combat Team (E-IBCT) capability. The Army, as directed by the
Milestone Decision Authority, is planning on two spin out programs
called increments. The Increment 1 E-IBCT program will field capability
to nine E-IBCTs and the Increment 2 program will field additional
capability to thirty-one IBCTs. The Increment 1 capability is
completing development under a cost-reimbursable development contract
(restructured from the former Future Combat Team Program). The
Increment 1 capability (systems) is being procured as an integrated set
for fielding to the E-IBCT under a separate fixed-price low-rate
initial production contract.
96. Senator McCain. General Casey, what would be the advantages or
disadvantages of incrementally upgrading E-IBCTs using multiple,
smaller contracts?
General Casey. For clarification purposes, there is only one
planned spin out of the Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team (E-IBCT)
capability. A follow-on incremental capability is under development for
the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT).
For purposes of responding to this question it is assumed that
``multiple, smaller contracts'' as used in this question refers to
platform level versus integrated system of systems performance
contracts.
Upgrading E-IBCTs using multiple, smaller contracts shifts overall
IBCT performance and schedule risk to the Government, which may or may
not be acceptable depending on the lifecycle phase. Breaking out
performance accountability across multiple contracts makes the
Government responsible for integrated performance versus the
contractor. Prior to completion of integrated operational test and
evaluation, this risk was determined unacceptable for E-IBCT given the
magnitude of cost and schedule impacts associated with managing and
fixing component (platform) deficiencies to meet the integrated
specification. Under a single contractor, that contractor is
responsible for meeting the integrated performance and, therefore,
responsible for any deficiency. Furthermore, if each platform is being
developed or enhanced under separate contracts, the Government becomes
responsible for coordinating the timely delivery of each platform.
Should effort under one platform fall behind schedule then it could
become grounds for Government caused delay and equitable adjustment
entitlement claims by contractors performing on the other contracts.
Post fielding, the advantage to using multiple contracts for
upgrade efforts is greater flexibility and insight in making platform
specific changes. The disadvantages of using multiple contracts are
contracting and administrative staffing needs substantially increase to
accommodate the award and monitoring of multiple contracts.
Additionally, contracts for associated E-IBCT systems may be impacted
by each platform change which would have to be contractually addressed.
internal threats to army personnel and their families
97. Senator McCain. General Casey, in January 2010, an independent
panel appointed by Secretary Gates to identify gaps or deficiencies in
DOD force protection policies following the horrific killing of 12
servicemembers, 1 Army civilian, and the wounding of 43 others at Fort
Hood, TX, on November 5, 2009, concluded that DOD was inadequately
prepared to address internal threats. Do you agree with that finding?
General Casey. The independent review chaired by Former Army
Secretary Togo West and retired Navy Adm. Vernon Clark identified
shortfalls in DOD's procedures for identifying and responding to
potentially dangerous internal threats.
I agree with their assessment and concur with Secretary Gates' view
that, as a result of the shortcomings revealed by the Fort Hood
tragedy, DOD must do more to adapt to the evolving domestic internal
security threat to American troops and military facilities that has
emerged over the past decade.
98. Senator McCain. General Casey, what actions have you taken
since the killings at Fort Hood to assess the specific threats posed by
violent extremism to U.S. Army personnel and their families?
General Casey. On 23 November 2009, the Army issued an All Army
Action message on Force Protection (DTG 231751ZNov 09). The message
directed the immediate review of force protection measures to identify
potential insider threats and to prevent or mitigate acts of violence
directed against the Army.
The message tasked Army leaders to become familiar with the ten key
indicators of terrorist activities and to use them in conjunction with
Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the Army (SAEDA) training. It
also directed leaders to engage their soldiers and know their behavior
on and off duty, to train leaders in identifying indicators of
potential violence and terrorist behavior and to identify and report
soldiers exhibiting indicators of potential violence. The message
tasked senior leaders to ensure compliance with existing privately
owned weapons registration policies, ensure leaders emphasize SAEDA
training and ensure soldiers know how to report those suspected of
subversion and espionage. Leaders are to take appropriate actions
wherever soldiers exhibit behaviors that adversely affect good order
and discipline in the Army.
In addition, the message tasked mission commanders and installation
commanders to perform risk assessments of their installations and to
consider detailing, on a routine but random basis, law enforcement
officials to observe behavior at primary gathering places like
commissaries, schools and hospitals. It directed them to increase
community oriented policing programs, review and adjust Random
Antiterrorism Programs, and revitalize Neighborhood Watch Programs. The
message also tasked installation commanders to coordinate information
sharing between local civilian and installation law enforcement
officials so commanders receive feedback on off base activities.
My office is reviewing the findings and recommendations of the DOD
Independent Review of the Fort Hood Shootings, and, where appropriate,
is in the process of implementing many of the recommendations, in
accordance with Army policies and processes.
99. Senator McCain. General Casey, what actions have you taken to
reduce the risk that internal threats driven by violent extremism will
result in harm to U.S. Army personnel and their families, such as
improved awareness and reporting programs?
General Casey. On 23 November 2009, the Army issued an All Army
Action message on Force Protection (DTG 231751ZNov 09). The message
directed the immediate review of force protection measures to identify
potential insider threats and to prevent or mitigate acts of violence
directed against the Army.
The message tasked Army leaders to become familiar with the ten key
indicators of terrorist activities and to use them in conjunction with
Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the Army (SAEDA) training. It
also directed leaders to engage their soldiers and know their behavior
on and off duty, to train leaders in identifying indicators of
potential violence and terrorist behavior and to identify and report
soldiers exhibiting indicators of potential violence. The message
tasked senior leaders to ensure compliance with existing privately-
owned weapons registration policies, ensure leaders emphasize SAEDA
training and ensure soldiers know how to report those suspected of
subversion and espionage. Leaders are to take appropriate actions
wherever soldiers exhibit behaviors that adversely affect good order
and discipline in the Army.
In addition, the message tasked mission commanders and installation
commanders to perform risk assessments of their installations and to
consider detailing, on a routine but random basis, law enforcement
officials to observe behavior at primary gathering places like
commissaries, schools and hospitals. It directed them to increase
community oriented policing programs, review and adjust Random
Antiterrorism Programs, and revitalize Neighborhood Watch Programs. The
message also tasked installation commanders to coordinate information
sharing between local civilian and installation law enforcement
officials so commanders receive feedback on off base activities.
My office is reviewing the findings and recommendations of the DOD
Independent Review of the Fort Hood Shootings, and, where appropriate,
is in the process of implementing many of the recommendations, in
accordance with Army policies and processes.
100. Senator McCain. General Casey, what actions have been taken to
improve the application of military personnel evaluation policies with
respect to medical personnel, and to hold accountable supervisors who
fail to report substandard performance?
General Casey. We are currently in the process of reviewing our
evaluation reporting systems including leader counseling and
development, roles and responsibilities of rating officials, and the
synchronization of evaluation report assessments with the
identification and selection of qualified leaders. Insights from
investigations into the Fort Hood tragedy are being carefully
considered in our review.
army suicide study
101. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh, in July 2009, the Department
of the Army launched a $50 million study by the National Institute of
Mental Health on Army suicides. The study is reportedly designed to be
able to identify quickly potential risk factors that can inform
existing prevention strategies. What is the status of the research
project and how much DOD money has been expended to date?
Secretary McHugh. The Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in
Servicemembers (Army STARRS) is a 5-year study being conducted through
a cooperative agreement grant award from the National Institute of
Mental Health (NIMH). In July 2009, NIMH awarded the grant to a
consortium consisting of the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences, Columbia University, the University of Michigan, and
Harvard University. The research is being conducted by the grantees, as
well as NIMH scientists. Army scientists are also participating in
scientific coordination and review.
Army STARRS began receiving historical data from internal Army
sources in January 2010. This followed a detailed review to identify
relevant data sources, the establishment of a Data Use Agreement, and
demonstrating compliance with the Army's Information Assurance
protocol. Parallel Data Use Agreements with applicable DOD data sources
are being processed. The Study is scheduled to begin new data
collection from current soldiers and new recruits over the next 6
months.
The Army transferred $10 million to NIMH in June 2009 to cover the
fiscal year 2009 expenditures. An additional $10 million is programmed
for fiscal year 2010.
102. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh, what specific findings, if
any, have been helpful in improving prevention strategies?
Secretary McHugh. From a scientific perspective, it is too early in
the study to have substantive findings. In the interim and at our
request, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has provided a
report on civilian ``best practices'' regarding suicide prevention and
behavioral health care. NIMH and the Army are working together to
identify where relevant interventions could be implemented.
103. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh, what are future deliverables
and when are they expected?
Secretary McHugh. The STARRS will report its progress and findings
on a quarterly basis, as well as on an ad hoc basis as it makes new
findings.
In the coming year, Army STARRS is scheduled to deliver initial
findings on risks and protective factors for suicide and related
outcomes. This will be based on analyses of historical data, as well as
detailed new information on the characteristics, exposures and
experiences of current soldiers and new recruits, with a particular
focus on known risk factors for suicide, such as mental health
problems.
In subsequent years, the study will follow soldiers over time,
identify those who have particular negative (or positive) outcomes and
deliver practical, actionable information on specific risks and
protective factors for suicide. This is designed to assist the Army
preventing suicide and improving soldiers' overall psychological
health.
traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder
104. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, please
provide a comprehensive list and description of policy and program
actions which are underway in the Army to identify and treat traumatic
brain injury (TBI), including mild TBI, and post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army TBI program is a
standardized, comprehensive program that provides a continuum of
integrated care and services for soldiers and patients from point-of-
injury to return to duty, or transition from active duty and/or return
to highest functional level.
The policy documents supporting the program include the following:
the TBI Task Force report, the TBI Action Plan, four All Army Activity
messages, and the TBI Operations Order. The Army is also initiating an
``Educate, Train, Treat & Track'' campaign plan to facilitate leader
and medical collaboration to improve acute concussion identification
and management. The plan's goal is a cultural change in warfighter
management after concussive events to include identification and
treatment close to point of injury, documentation of the incident and
expectation of recovery with early treatment.
Key actions that facilitate identification and treatment of TBI
include: educating the Force on TBI; funding over 350 staff to provide
TBI care; implementing TBI screening for all medically evacuated
patients and all soldiers during post-deployment; implementing the
Military Acute Concussion Evaluation for initial concussion assessment;
and developing and implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines for the
management of soldiers with concussion in both the deployed and
nondeployed settings.
To help those dealing with PTSD and other psychological effects of
war, Army leadership is taking aggressive, far-reaching steps to ensure
the availability of an array of behavioral health services for soldiers
and their families. Key actions that have facilitate identification and
treatment of PTSD include: improving the distribution of behavioral
health providers in theater and increasing access to care; implementing
the Respect-Mil program to integrate behavioral healthcare into the
primary care setting; incorporating Battlemind training in the
Deployment Cycle Support program; producing two DVD/CDs that deal with
family deployment issues; screening soldiers using the Post-Deployment
Health Assessment and Reassessment; revising the questionnaire for
national security positions regarding mental and emotional health;
instituting post traumatic stress training for our health care
providers; and hiring approximately 350 additional behavioral
healthcare providers and 44 marriage and family therapists across the
Army Medical Command.
Additionally, on 1 Oct 2008 the Army established the Comprehensive
Soldier Fitness Program. The mission of this program is to develop and
institute a holistic, resilience building fitness program for soldiers,
families, and Army civilians. The program focuses on optimizing five
dimensions of strength: Physical, Emotional, Social, Spiritual, and
Family. Comprehensive Soldier Fitness expects this to enhance the
performance (capability) and build the resilience (capacity) of the
Force in this era of persistent conflict and high operational tempo.
Finally, the Army supports and conducts innovative TBI and PTSD
research. The Army Medical Research and Materiel Command manages the
Congressional Special Interest medical research program and serves as
the Executive Agent of the DOD Blast Injury research program. In
partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Defense Center
of Excellence, civilian hospitals and research institutes, as well as
other organizations such as the National Football League, the Army is
working aggressively to improve our understanding of TBI and
psychological health conditions.
105. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, how much
is provided for these programs in the fiscal year 2011 request?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The President's proposed budget
for the fiscal year 2011 Defense Health Program (DHP) provides the Army
$285 million for TBI and psychological health, focused on initiatives
related to access, surveillance, quality, resilience and transition.
The DHP also enhanced funding for medical research, which will include
funds directed toward research on TBI and psychological health.
106. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, are there
any unfunded requirements for personnel, programs, treatment or
research with respect to TBI and PTSD? If so, please identify each such
requirement.
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The President's proposed budget
for the fiscal year 2011 DHP fully funds the Army's identified
requirements for personnel, programs and treatment with respect to TBI
and PTSD. Similarly, the combined Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation investment of Army and the DHP adequately addresses the key
gaps in our knowledge of TBI and PTSD, as well as the technological
development required to field improvements in medical treatment and
prevention.
nursing shortage
107. Senator McCain. Secretary McHugh, what is the current state of
the nursing shortage within the U.S. Army and what actions are underway
to increase the supply of nurses available to the Army, both in uniform
and civilian nurses?
Secretary McHugh. The Army Nurse Corps has been successful in
meeting its recruiting goals for Active Duty nurses. In the aggregate,
the Army Nurse Corps is over 100 percent of required end strength. As
such, the recruiting focus has shifted from building capacity to
building capability.
The Army Nurse Corps will continue its current accession
strategies, but enhance them through precision recruiting initiatives.
We have realigned recruiting incentives to make Army Nursing
competitive with incentives offered nationally. Our focus is recruiting
experienced nurses in specialties such as trauma/critical care,
emergency nursing and all behavioral health disciplines to ensure
position fill in low density, high complexity areas of concentration.
Incentive Specialty Pay for nurses, who achieve and maintain
certification in these areas of concentration, has been an effective
retention incentive that assists the Army Nurse Corps to maintain
capability in critical fill areas to support operations at home and
abroad.
Through effective recruitment, we have successfully increased the
number of civilian registered nurses (RNs) throughout the Army Medical
Command, even as the mission requirements of a protracted conflict have
generated an increased demand for healthcare providers. The staffing
strength has steadily increased to over 5,300 civilian RNs in 2009,
representing a 45 percent increase over the 2007 end strength.
The Civilian Nurse Loan Repayment Program (CNLRP) and the
Recruitment, Relocation and Retention Initiatives Program (3Rs) are two
successful civilian nurse incentive programs. The 3Rs support our newly
appointed and current employees by offering incentives commensurate
with service agreements. Since its inception, the CNLRP has supported
tuition loan repayment for over 283 RNs and 32 licensed practical
nurses. Central funding of the CNLRP at $1.5 million annually began in
2006. The use of 3Rs for Army Medical Command civilian nurses increased
from $4.8 million in 2007 to $8.2 million in 2009. Although the
recruitment and retention incentives for RNs have been successful, Army
Medical Command still had over 650 open hiring actions for RNs at the
end of 2009. These open actions represent about 12 percent of our
civilian RN workforce and are typical of the number of vacancies we
manage as part of routine turnover.
The Army Medical Command's success in attracting experienced nurses
into the military healthcare system may be partially due to the
downturn in the economy and private sector salaries. We must maintain
aggressive recruitment efforts and incentives for nurses, regardless of
the Economic environment, to ensure future success.
mental health resources in afghanistan
108. Senator McCain. General Casey, the Army's most recent Mental
Health Advisory Team study identified a shortage of mental health
providers for Army personnel serving in Afghanistan. What actions have
you taken to address that gap in staffing?
General Casey. There is currently no staffing gap in Afghanistan.
Based on the Mental Health Advisory Team's (MHAT) findings and
recommendations, the Army pushed additional behavioral health providers
into Afghanistan to close the staffing gap. There are approximately 104
behavioral health providers serving in Afghanistan providing clinical
services to the supported force. The ratio in Afghanistan of 1
behavioral health provider for every 663 servicemembers improves upon
the MHAT's recommended ratio of 1:700.
medical evacuation in afghanistan
109. Senator McCain. General Casey, in March 2009 Secretary Gates
directed that medical care and evacuation capabilities in Afghanistan
achieve parity with the Iraq theater. Have we achieved that goal?
General Casey. Critically wounded personnel in both theaters are
being delivered to surgical facilities consistently in less than 1
hour. The Army recognizes the strategic value of this mission, and have
reprioritized our resources, changed our structure and invested in
improvements to take care of the wounded in Afghanistan. The Army
implemented several initiatives to achieve this standard. The greatest
being the increase in assets deployed to the Theater.
In March 2009, there were 15 HH-60 medical evacuation (MEDEVAC)
helicopters and 3 Forward Surgical Teams (FST) deployed. Today, the
Army has deployed 39 HH-60 MEDEVAC helicopters and an additional 6
FSTs. Additionally, the Army's increased assets include Level III
surgical augmentation and a medical brigade command and control
headquarters. Other initiatives include changing doctrine for
aeromedical evacuation to 1 hour for urgent and urgent surgical
missions, increasing force structure, increasing additional assets,
fielding improved aircraft capabilities, streamlining procedures,
establishing new data collection/reporting requirements and releasing a
VCSA SENDS Aeromedical Evacuation Message. The Army's force structure
changes include aggressively growing 9 additional MEDEVAC companies in
the Reserve component (two of which will be deployed this year) and a
force design structure change in each of the 37 MEDEVAC companies
increasing from 12 aircraft/12 crews to 15 aircraft and 20 crews. The
first of these newly designed companies will be deployed this year.
The Army also continues to modernize MEDEVAC aircraft with improved
engines, satellite communication capability and forward looking
infrared technology. We are committed to aggressively pursuing
initiatives that further improve medical care and evacuation
capabilities for our fighting forces.
110. Senator McCain. General Casey, are sufficient MEDEVAC
helicopters, crews, and forward surgical teams available in Afghanistan
to ensure rapid evacuation and care for the wounded?
General Casey. Currently we have sufficient evacuation capability
to ensure rapid evacuation of the wounded. The challenge is the surge.
Although we all know that requirements will go down in Iraq, the
reality is that future demand will have a short term net increase that
may exceed our available supply. In order to mitigate this challenge,
the Army has changed its sourcing strategy. The Army is beginning to
source the requirement with the new 15 aircraft/20 crew MEDEVAC
companies instead of replacing units in the fight with the older
construct of 12 aircraft/12 crew MEDEVAC companies. This strategy will
increase capacity and capability and mitigate surge requirements. These
efforts are part of a larger joint effort to ensure sufficient MEDEVAC
capability is sustained in Afghanistan.
111. Senator McCain. General Casey, what is the ratio of U.S.
personnel who are injured to those who die, and how does that compare
with experience in the Iraq theater?
General Casey. The ratio of U.S. personnel injured in Operation
Enduring Freedom to those who die is 1 Soldier Killed in Action for
every 7 Soldiers Wounded in Action (based on reports from theater since
October 7, 2001). For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the ratio of U.S.
personnel injured to those who die is one soldier killed in action for
every nine soldiers wounded in action (based on reports from theater
since March 19, 2003). This information, from the Defense Manpower Data
Center Contingency Tracking System, is current as of February 6, 2010.
support for survivors
112. Senator McCain. General Casey, please provide information
describing the Army's Survivor Outreach Services (SOS) program.
General Casey. In fiscal year 2008, the Army began a holistic
review of programs, services, and policies for survivors of the fallen
to ensure we serve them in a manner commensurate with their level of
service and sacrifice to the Nation. The Army created the SOS program
to standardize services and ensure we meet our commitment to these
family members.
The SOS program has been operational for 1 year and provides a
holistic and multi-agency service delivery model to our survivors. The
SOS program supports all survivors--including Reserve component
survivors--who have lost loved ones while on active duty, regardless of
whether the loss was a result of combat, accident, illness or suicide.
The SOS Program services remain available until the survivors no longer
desire them; however, some services, such as medical care requires the
recipient be a DOD ID card holder. The SOS helps Survivors understand
their benefits and make timely and more accurate decisions that impact
positively on them and their families.
The range of services covers the entire spectrum of care, from life
skill education to treatment. Services are tailored to the needs of the
survivors and may include support groups, educational seminars,
financial counseling, advocacy, information, referral, and behavioral
health treatment.
The Army increased SOS Program staffing levels by adding support
coordinators and financial counselors at garrisons and communities
closest to where the families live. Support coordinators serve as the
long-term support agent and links survivors to programs and services.
Additional staff was placed at the Casualty Assistance Centers to
include benefit coordinators and trainers who are subject matter
experts on benefits and entitlements, and provide standardized training
for Casualty Assistance and Notification Officers.
113. Senator McCain. General Casey, what are the goals of the
program?
General Casey. Our Fallen Warriors have paid the ultimate
sacrifice, and the Army is committed to serving their families--both
Active and Reserve component survivors--for as long as they desire. The
goal of the SOS program is to deliver on this promise by expanding and
standardizing services, as well as building a comprehensive program
that embraces and reassures survivors that they are continually linked
to the Army for as long as they desire.
114. Senator McCain. General Casey, are sufficient resources
available to achieve those goals?
General Casey. The current fiscal year funding of $53.8 million has
been adequate to establish the program. To ensure we reach out and
fully support every survivor, as well as improve our case management
systems, the Army plans to increase our garrison and headquarters
capabilities by adding a full-time SOS Support Coordinator at every
garrison and increasing staffing at the Department of the Army level.
115. Senator McCain. General Casey, what additional resources or
legislative authority, if any, are needed?
General Casey. At this time, no changes to legislation are required
to support the SOS program. As we refine and develop the program, we
will request additional funding in future budget requests as necessary.
support for military spouses
116. Senator McCain. General Casey, please provide a comprehensive
description of training and support programs provided to military
spouses at all points in the career of Army personnel.
General Casey. Families are important to the Army, a priority to
soldiers, and a vital factor in the Army's overall readiness. A
prepared Family is better able to manage deployment, long-term
separations, and Army life in general. The Army has a myriad of
training and support programs that are geared towards our spouses, both
Active and Reserve Component.
To help new spouses adapt to the Army, we have developed the New
Spouse Orientation Seminar, which this available online.
The Building Strong and Ready Families is a commander-directed
program that is primarily for first-time soldiers and spouses as they
adapt to Army life.
Army Family Team Building classes provide junior spouses and those
new to the military with the skills and tools to successfully maneuver
through the Army system.
Senior Spouse Leadership Seminars are offered annually to spouses
whose soldiers are attending training at the Army War College and the
Sergeants Major Academy. These courses are designed to assist senior
spouses in enhancing their roles as mentors and advisors.
The Enlisted Spouse Outreach and Training Plan prepares enlisted
spouses for requirements of key assignments through drill sergeant,
recruiter, and first sergeant spouse seminars.
The Joint Senior Spouse Course is the only senior spouse course
regarding leadership. It is jointly conducted and is the 5-day course
for spouses of newly promoted general officers. This course complements
the CAPSTONE course for general officers conducted by the National
Defense University.
In addition to these training programs, there is a multitude of
programs and services, which offer support to spouses. Let me take a
few moments to highlight some of these programs.
Services for Multi-Cultural Families target support for Families
with foreign-born spouses.
Liaison for Citizen Immigration Services is available to Families
seeking guidance for the citizenship and residency application process.
Hearts Apart offers support to all waiting Family members--Active
Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard spouses and children.
The Operation Resources for Educating About Deployment and You
(Operation READY) training program assists commanders in meeting family
readiness objectives. Operation READY includes training modules and
resources designed to help soldiers and their families cope with
personal, Family, and financial demands of deployment.
Military Family Life Consultants (MFLCs) provide non-medical,
short-term, problem-solving counseling services which help soldiers and
families cope with the reactions to stressful or adverse situations
created by deployments and reintegration. The MFLC works directly with
Army Community Service, ARNG Headquarters and Army Reserve Regional
Commands to provide deployment and reintegration support to soldiers
and their families. Consultants with specialized skills (e.g.,
financial, child, and youth needs) may be requested to respond to
installation and Reserve Component needs. The goal is to prevent Family
distress by providing education and information on Family dynamics,
parent education, support services, and the effects of stress and
positive coping mechanisms. In April 2009, MFLCs increased the number
of nonmedical Behavioral Health counseling sessions offered for
servicemembers and their Families from 6 to 12 sessions per person/per
issue.
Family Readiness Group (FRG)/Rear Detachment Training is available
to FRG leaders and rear detachment commanders. Virtual FRGs (vFRG)
provide all the functionality of an FRG via a secure, online setting to
meet the needs of geographically dispersed units and families.
The Employment Readiness Program provides assistance to family
members in acquiring skills, networks, and resources that will allow
them to participate in the work force and to develop a career plan.
Employment services are available to all Army components regardless of
location. Services include: career counseling and coaching; employment
training classes; job fairs; Army Spouse Career Assessment Tool; job
listings; and information and assistance on the Military Spouse Career
Advancement Account.
The Army Spouse Employment Partnership (ASEP) is an expanding
partnership that is mutually beneficial to the Army and corporate
America. ASEP consists of a small group of committed partners from the
private sector, military, and Federal Government who have pledged their
best efforts to increase employment and career opportunities for
military spouses. The partnership provides Army spouses the opportunity
to attain financial security and achieve employment goals through
career mobility and enhanced employment options. Additional training
and support opportunities includes Battlemind Training for spouses,
which assists in understanding PTSD and TBI.
The Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) Program provides
education and training opportunities to eligible dependents of certain
veterans. DEA reduces tuition by offering up to 45 months of education
benefits.
The Stateside Spouse Education Assistance Program (SSEAP) is a
need-based education assistance program designed to provide spouses of
active duty and retired Army soldiers, and widows(ers) of Army soldiers
who died either on active duty or in a retired status, and residing in
the United States, with financial assistance in pursuing educational
goals. The program assists spouses/widows(ers) in gaining the education
required to allow them to qualify for increased occupational
opportunities. SEAP provides for up to $2,500 maximum per academic year
for fees, supplies, or books.
The Army has a website (Army OneSource) which provides detailed
information for all of these programs.
117. Senator McCain. General Casey, what resources are available to
support these programs in the fiscal year 2011 request?
General Casey. The resources requested for training and support
programs for military spouses has more than doubled from the fiscal
year 2008 budget of $116.9 million to the fiscal year 2011 budget
request of $321.1 million.
118. Senator McCain. General Casey, are there any unfunded
requirements with respect to programs to support military spouses? If
so, please identify each such requirement.
General Casey. All programs provided by Army Community Services
that support military spouses are fully funded.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
army structure
119. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the 2010
QDR states, ``In the mid- to long-term, U.S. military forces must plan
and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations that may occur in
multiple theaters in overlapping time frames. This includes maintaining
the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors.'' I
am concerned that DOD is being short sighted in our QDR and budgeting
process; that the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan is coming at the expense
to maintaining our long-term military capability. The Army's fiscal
year 2011 budget request appears focused more on maintaining the force
in the current fight and less on developing a force capable of winning
across the spectrum of future threats. Is the Army postured and
structured properly to counter the full spectrum of threats, low and
high end, in the near- and far-term?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army has outlined two major
priorities: Restoring Balance and Setting Conditions for the Future. To
restore balance, we are targeting the four imperatives of Sustain,
Prepare, Reset and Transform. First, we must sustain the All-Volunteer
Force by ensuring a quality of life for our soldiers, families, and
Army civilians that is commensurate with their quality of service.
Second, we must prepare soldiers, units, and their equipment for future
deployments by providing adequate time to train for full-spectrum
operations and to reduce uncertainty and stress for soldiers and their
families. Third, we must reset the force as it returns from extended
deployments, to a level of personnel and equipment readiness that
permits the resumption of training for future missions across the full
range of potential military operations. Finally, we must continuously
assess and transform the force to meet combatant commander requirements
by revising our modernization strategy, completing transformation from
Cold War legacy formations to modular formations, and improving
business processes.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget reflects how we have transformed the
Army and prioritized programs and efforts that show promise for today
and tomorrow. The Army incorporated a BCT modernization plan that
continuously modernizes equipment to meet current and future capability
needs through upgrade, replacement, recapitalization, refurbishment,
and technology insertions. Army efforts in this line of effort include
our request for $887 million for the procurement of 16 Block III AH-64
Apache Helicopters, as well as the upgrade of 13 AH-64 Helicopters to
Block II. Block III Apache is part of a long-term effort to improve
situational awareness, performance, reliability, and sustainment of the
Apache. Block II upgrades continue our commitment to modernize the ARNG
Aviation Fleet. Additionally, in this line of effort, we have requested
$505 million dollars to upgrade Shadow RQ-7 UAVs. This key upgrade will
increase the payload capacity and enhance the performance of this key
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) asset for our BCT
commanders.
We are confident the current program provides the resources and
structure to meet the imperatives defined above while also setting
conditions for the future. The Army continues to serve the needs of the
Nation in an increasingly unpredictable global security environment.
While me must maintain access to consistent, timely and reliable
funding, we believe the fiscal year 2011 base budget and OCOs requests
provide the resources necessary to sustain the force, ensure deployment
readiness, reset the force, and to transform the Army to ensure an
adaptive, capable and dominant force in support of combatant commanders
and the Nation. The Army takes seriously its obligation to maintain
responsible stewardship of the resources appropriated to it by the
American public. Current enterprise initiatives are studying how to
continually improve Army business practices and policies to better
enable this stewardship.
As we responsibly draw down our forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan
and train for Full Spectrum Operations, we must sustain reliable,
timely, and consistent funding. A force capable of deterring or
defeating emerging adversaries is supported by funding that restores
balance and readiness for our soldiers, families, and veterans, and
allows us to reset our equipment and Army Prepositioned Stocks.
120. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, does the
Army have the right equipment currently in inventory or being developed
to address these contingency requirements?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Yes. The current and future
strategic environments of persistent conflict require the Army to
modernize our capabilities continuously and aggressively to stay ahead
of our adversaries. The objective of the Army's modernization effort is
to develop and field a versatile and affordable mix of the best
equipment available to allow soldiers and units to succeed in full
spectrum operations both today and tomorrow.
The Army will accomplish our modernization goals by focusing our
efforts on three major lines of effort: develop and field new
capabilities to meet identified gaps through traditional and rapid
acquisition processes; continuously modernize equipment to meet current
and future needs through the procurement of upgrades, recapitalization
and divestment; and meet continuously evolving force requirements in
the current operational environment by fielding and distributing
capabilities in accordance with Army priorities. Examples include the
ongoing Apache Block III and Paladin Improvement Programs, new GCV and
Joint Light Tactical Truck Programs.
combat vehicles and helicopters
121. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the Army's
current fleets of combat vehicles and helicopters were developed and
procured over 30 to 60 years ago and are aging at an increasingly rapid
rate. The M1 Abrams tank was developed in the 1970s and fielded in the
1980s, the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle was developed over 25 years ago,
and the M109A6 Paladin howitzer is on its sixth version. The Army's
helicopter fleet continues to get older and suffer the effects of
continuous combat operations, with ages ranging from 15 to 40-plus
years, with the CH-47 dating back to 1962 and on its seventh version
(CH-47F). How does the Army achieve a balanced and full spectrum
strategy when its fleet of combat vehicles and helicopters range from
30 to 50 years old?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army reduced the Fleet Age
of M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles by conducting a
national level reset of its vehicles returning from deployments. This
combat vehicle reset restored capability or ``life'' lost during combat
operations. Additionally, the Army recapitalized these vehicles by
installing equipment upgrades to incrementally modernize the vehicle
fleet resetting a vehicles' age to zero hours/miles. These actions
reduced the fleet age in aggregate, while allowing the Army to
integrate lessons learned from OEF/OIF to enhance survivability and
battle command.
We are making a similar investment in the M109A6 Paladin 155mm,
Self-propelled howitzers and Field Artillery Ammunition Vehicles
(FAASV) with the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program. The PIM
program will produce a new chassis with Bradley common engine,
transmission and suspension systems. The new PIM chassis combined with
the current cannon turret will provide the needed power to maneuver the
howitzer and FAASV with the Abrams and Bradley fleets. In addition,
with Bradley common components, the PIM program will reduce the
logistic footprint of the Heavy BCT, while restoring the fleet age and
minimizing the overall maintenance costs.
The Army will also continue to modernize its aviation fleet through
procurement, recapitalization and reset. A total of 464 CH-47F model
aircraft are planned for delivery to the Army over the next 12 years.
Of these, 220 will be new builds and the remaining 244
``remanufactured'' aircraft utilize dynamic components from the
divested CH-47D. Unlike the CH-47D which was created on the same aging
frame of the CH-47A fleet, the CH-47F will include a new airframe,
wiring harness and hydraulic system. The current average age of the CH-
47D fleet is 20 years and the current age of the CH-47F fleet is 2
years. Other Army airframes are receiving similar attention like the
UH-60A to A to L RECAP Program, which recapitalizes 228 UH-60A ARNG and
USAR legacy fleet Black Hawk helicopters in fiscal year 2010 thru
fiscal year 2015.
122. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what is
the plan for Army helicopter modernization for fiscal year 2011 and
beyond?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Army Aviation continues to
transform and modernize to meet current and future full-spectrum
aviation requirements. The Aviation Transformation Plan, which guides
fleet modernization strategy and aviation formation transformation, is
based on a full, in-depth analysis that integrates lessons learned from
recent operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom. The Plan restructures Army Aviation warfighting units into 21
Combat Aviation Brigades (13 Active, 8 Reserve components).
Additionally, we have significant MEDEVAC and cargo/utility modular
capabilities above division level to support the combatant commander
requirements ensuring the aviation units are modular, capable, lethal,
tailorable and sustainable. To maintain our current capability, and
meet future requirements, we are executing a combination of aircraft
recapitalizations and remanufactures, in addition to replacing wartime
losses with brand new aircraft.
The future vision for Army Aviation is being assessed and developed
throughout the aviation community of operators and materiel
development. The challenge is to chart a future for Army Aviation while
maintaining and fighting the world's best rotary wing and unmanned
system fleets. To do this, we must continue the cooperation with
industry and academia to ensure we provide the incentive to make the
next leap in technology that will bring us the development of future
propulsion systems and revolutionary aircraft designs that will meet
our future requirements for faster, more capable, more efficient and
more easily sustained aircraft systems.
As part of the process, the Army is participating in several
studies looking at future Rotorcraft capabilities. These include the
DOD's Future Vertical Lift Study, the Joint Future Theater Lift effort,
and our own Joint Multi-Role Helicopter Study. These capabilities-based
assessments will lay out a strategic plan for the Department's vertical
lift that will take us to the next fleet of rotorcraft and vertical
lift aircraft in the 2025 timeframe.
The Army will also continue to modernize its aviation fleet through
procurement, recapitalization and reset. A total of 464 CH-47F model
aircraft are planned for delivery to the Army over the next 12 years.
Of these, 220 will be new builds and the remaining 244
``remanufactured'' aircraft utilize dynamic components from the
divested CH-47D. Unlike the CH-47D which was created on the same aging
frame of the CH-47A fleet, the CH-47F will include a new airframe,
wiring harness and hydraulic system. The current average age of the CH-
47D fleet is 20 years and the current age of the CH-47F fleet is 2
years. Other Army airframes are receiving similar attention like the
UH-60A to A to L RECAP Program, which recapitalizes 228 UH-60A ARNG and
USAR legacy fleet Black Hawk helicopters in fiscal year 2010 thru
fiscal year 2015.
ground combat vehicle program
123. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the
cancellation of the Armored Gun System, Comanche, Crusader, and the FCS
Manned Ground Vehicle program, along with recent reports on the
uncertainty of the GCV as part of the BCT Modernization program, gives
me cause for concern over the Army's capabilities in the coming years.
Since the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of FCS was terminated last
year, you have made it a priority to field the new GCV within the next
7 years. The press has been reporting that there is disagreement
between DOD and the Army about the Army's GCV program--``U.S. Army,
Pentagon at odds over new vehicle''--Reuters, February 17, 2010. Is
there disagreement and if so, what is it based on?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army and OSD agree on the
need to develop the new GCV in response to current and emerging threats
and the limitations of the existing combat vehicle fleet. In response
to the Secretary of Defense's direction, the Army has reviewed
requirements and developed an acquisition plan for GCV that is
consistent with DOD policy and law. As part of the Materiel Development
Decision approval process, the Army provided OSD with several briefings
to ensure that all questions and concerns were addressed. The shared
goal is to see the GCV program proceed in a way that will ensure its
success. As a result of Army's last meeting with OSD, the GCV Request
for Proposal was released. In accordance with DOD policy and law, OSD
will continue to be involved in the planning for the GCV program as it
moves toward a Milestone A decision.
124. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what are
you doing differently to ensure that the GCV doesn't suffer the same
fate as other failed programs?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The GCV program plan has
incorporated several mitigation strategies into the program plan. First
of all, we will have contractors deliver subsystem level competitive
prototypes early in the development. This will give the program manager
an undeniable indication of the contractor's progress. Second, we will
retain competition throughout the Technology Development (TD) and
Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phases. This will keep
the competing contractors responsive and innovative; they will not have
any assurance that they are the sole source for GCV production. This
strategy required the contractors to maintain schedule and reduce costs
as they progress through the TD and EMD phases. Third, we will stay
focused on maintaining the program schedule during execution, even if
that results in slightly less capability. A 7-year schedule is the
constant even if that schedule results in an 80-85 percent solution.
Finally, the modular design approach with growth margin to support
system updates will support performance improvements over time and will
provide flexibility for emerging/changing requirements.
125. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, if the GCV
is fielded in accordance with your schedule, how long will the current
fleet of vehicles such as the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles remain
in the force?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The current fleet of combat
vehicles including the Bradley will remain in use through 2030. The GCV
will replace the Bradley in its Infantry Fighting Mission Role starting
in 2017 with replacement of the Bradley's other mission roles to
follow.
126. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what are
your plans to upgrade the other vehicles such as the engineer, field
artillery, ambulance, and command vehicles?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army continues to explore
an incremental approach to conduct modernization for its combat vehicle
fleet. This effort is tied to how the Army conducts its current fight
and adjusts its force structure and mix analyses. The Army has a
significant number of M113 variants which are serving in command and
control, engineer, field artillery and ambulance roles. There are about
5,200 of these variants required. As the Army builds its Program
Objective Memorandum (POM) 12-17 investment program, we will be
exploring options for the replacement of these vehicles. Those options
include using Strykers, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and MRAP vehicles to
fill some or all of these roles.
health and quality of the army
127. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the Army's
strength is in its soldiers, their families, and the Army civilians who
support them. Even after 8-plus years of combat operations, the Army
remains resilient and capable, a fact that never ceases to leave me in
awe. I applaud you, General Casey, for the emphasis you have placed on
the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program, the Army Risk Reduction
Program, and the Health Promotion Program as part of your stated
objective to ``sustain soldiers, civilians, and families.'' I also
applaud the Army in taking an aggressive approach last year to address
the soldier suicide issue and continue to pursue the right solutions
for the growing trend of suicides among family members. What is your
assessment of the health and quality of the Army?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Our soldiers, families, and
civilians are clearly stressed and fatigued by nearly 9 years of
combat. The Army is out of balance, and that balance needs to be
restored to sustain this All-Volunteer Force for the long haul. Yet
through it all, our Army remains amazingly resilient, determined, and
extraordinarily effective. Today, our soldiers have more expertise,
education, training and capabilities than ever before, and in fiscal
year 2009 our incoming Active component soldiers had the highest high
school diploma rates since fiscal year 2003.
128. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, where is
the Army in terms of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program, the
Army Risk Reduction Program, and the Health Promotion Program?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
(CSF) is a rapidly maturing program designed to develop psychological
and physiological resilience across the entire Army community,
including soldiers, family members, and Department of the Army
civilians. To date, over 395,000 soldiers have taken the Global
Assessment Tool, which is a web-based strengths assessment. Eight web-
based training modules that target resilience skills are currently
available to soldiers once they complete the Global Assessment Tool,
and 20 modules will be available by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Additionally, CSF has trained 829 Master Resilience Trainers at the
University of Pennsylvania and satellite locations, with a goal of
training at least 1,800 trainers by the end of fiscal year 2010. These
Master Resilience Trainers lead resilience development training in
their units and local communities. CSF is currently budgeted for $42
million annually over the next 5 years.
The Army considers reduction of soldier high-risk behaviors as an
ultimate goal. These behaviors, whether they be substance abuse,
domestic violence, financial problems, self-medication or others are
viewed by the Army as possible precursors to suicide, as well as
serious issues that must be dealt with individually. In essence, many
of our human services fall under the general rubric of risk reduction.
The Army also has a specific Risk Reduction Program that aids
commanders and human service providers in tracking 15 high-risk soldier
behaviors in units and addressing areas of high risk. This program is
now being expanded to deployed units and to the Reserve and National
Guard as a result of initiatives from the Army Suicide Prevention Task
Force.
The goal of the Army Health Promotion Program is to maximize
readiness, warfighting ability and work performance. Objectives include
enhancing the well-being of all soldiers, Army civilians, family
members, and retirees; and encouraging lifestyles that improve and
protect physical, behavioral and spiritual health. The Army Health
Promotion Program encompasses a variety of activities designed to
facilitate behavioral and environmental alterations to improve or
protect health and well-being. This includes a combination of health
education and related policies, organizational, social, behavioral,
spiritual and health care activities and initiatives. These are
integrated to produce a single comprehensive program evaluating
population needs, assessing existing programs and coordinating targeted
interventions.
129. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, how have
the measures taken in 2009 helped to reduce the suicide rates in the
Army?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army had a record number of
suicide deaths in January and February 2009. If the trend had
continued, the Army was on track to exceed 200 Active Component suicide
deaths for 2009. The Army's senior leadership engaged this problem
head-on.
The Army conducted a ``suicide stand-down'' in March 2009, released
an interactive suicide training video and implemented several
initiatives to reduce the ``stigma'' associated with seeking behavioral
health services. The Confidential Alcohol Treatment and Education Pilot
program in Schofield Barracks, HI; Fort Richardson, AK; and Fort Lewis,
WA allows self-referral into treatment programs without command
notification. Several ``tele-behavioral'' health pilot programs are
underway, which require all redeploying soldiers, from the senior
commander to the most junior soldier, to receive behavioral health
screening.
In 2010, we have continued this effort by expanding the training
for ``peer support'' using the Ask - Care - Escort model, developing
new interactive training videos, and increasing access to behavioral
health care thru telemedicine initiatives. Finally, the Army fully
supports the requirement set forth in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 for ``person to person''
behavioral health assessments for every servicemember upon their
redeployment from an overseas operation.
130. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, what is
the Army doing to address suicides among family members?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. : The Army Suicide Prevention
Task Force and the Army Campaign Plan for Health Promotion, Risk
Reduction and Suicide Prevention have addressed family member and Army
civilian suicide prevention efforts.
Many of our outreach efforts have a specific family member focus.
For example, this year's interactive training video ``Home Front'' will
have specific scenarios for family member's--both spouses and children.
The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research developed Family Battlemind
training for use in both pre- and post-deployment settings. Key
components include teaching families the following:
Independence: the capability of having a fulfilling
and meaningful life as part of an Army-centric Family
Resiliency: The ability to overcome setbacks and
obstacles and to maintain positive thoughts during times of
adversity
The Army Medical Department has expanded access to behavioral
health within Military Treatment Facilities and through TRICARE. The
Army helped initiate the TRICARE Assistance Program and Tele-Behavioral
Health program for geographically dispersed Family Members. This
demonstration project will expand access to existing behavioral health
services by using audiovisual telecommunication systems, such as video
chat and instant messaging to access existing behavioral health
centers. It also expands access to the behavioral health call centers
and counseling services for eligible beneficiaries, which assists
Reserve component and Active component families, who do not live near
an Army post.
equipment reset
131. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, since
2003, Army units have left behind a significant amount of their
organizational equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan as with some given to
Iraqi or Afghan forces, some abandoned and some left in place to
provide future capability in theatre. In some instances, leaving this
equipment has created home-station training challenges for units going
through reset in preparation for another deployment. In the fiscal year
2011 OCO request, $10.8 billion is highlighted for reset of Army
equipment. As well, it was noted that ``the Army has reset 29 brigades
worth of equipment in fiscal year 2009 and continued the reset of 13
more, with a grand total of some 98,000 pieces since September 11,
2001.'' As I understand reset, it is a continuous requirement,
occurring as brigades return from combat operations and prepare for the
next, and will have to continue well after operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan have ceased. Is the Army experiencing any equipment
shortages due to reset or recap funding?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. No. The Army does have some
equipment shortages, but they are not due to inadequate reset or
recapitalization funding. The Army greatly appreciates all of the
support Congress has provided for Army equipment reset, which has
enabled the Army to meet all such requirements for redeployed units.
You are correct regarding continuous reset. As our Army
organizations return from operational missions, they immediately move
to reset to prepare for the next mission. When equipment shortfalls are
identified, the Army uses our ARFORGEN model as a mitigation strategy
to support training and homeland defense missions for nondeployed
forces. Many of our current equipment shortages can be traced to the
extraordinary demands imposed by fighting two wars simultaneously.
water purification
132. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the task
of supplying U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan is a daunting
task, a task that was challenging even without the deployment of
additional U.S. and coalition forces and the increase in ground
operations. Supply lines to Afghanistan are long and difficult, with
many of our operating bases in austere locations. One piece in a
February 14 New York Times article about the movements of a Marine
company in Helmand Province caught my eye--some of the Marines were
carrying 5-gallon jugs of water which increased the weight they were
carrying to 100 pounds or more. I have received reports from Army,
Marine, and Special Operations units regarding the need for man-
portable water filtration units. What is the current state of supply
operations to your soldiers in Afghanistan?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. U.S. Forces Afghanistan has the
capacity to produce and distribute both bulk and bottled water for
current forces, as well as for the future force structure.
Current bulk water requirements are 1.5M gallons per day and
147,000 cases of bottled water per day. With the surge, projected bulk
requirements will rise to 2.5 million gallons per day and projected
bottled water requirements to 220,000 cases per day. Today, the current
maximum bulk capacity for water production supporting Afghanistan is
3.4 million gallons per day and a bottled water capacity of 544,000
cases per day. This capacity is based on the forward positioning of
five commercial water bottling plants: two in Kabul, and one each in
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and United Arab Emirates.
We fully recognize that the major challenge in tactical water
operations in Afghanistan, as with any supply commodity in that
theater, is distribution, not necessarily capacity or wholesale
production. To address this distribution challenge, the Army has
deployed its full array of tactical water purification systems, as well
as water storage and distribution assets as far forward as possible.
These tactical systems range from larger capacity production units,
such as the 3,000 gal per hour Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit,
to lighter weight purification systems that are designed to support
smaller unit configurations, such as Teams, Platoons, and Company-sized
elements. These lighter systems are capable of being delivered by air
along with a robust storage capability to support them.
Moreover, there are currently seven Expeditionary Water Packaging
Systems (EWPS) being deployed to various operating bases in
Afghanistan, placing water production and distribution closer to the
forces. The EWPS are government owned, contractor operated water
bottling systems using tactical production equipment. Each is capable
of producing a minimum of 5,000 one-liter bottles per day.
Finally, we recently deployed six well drilling rigs, currently in
Afghanistan, to drill new wells closer to the point of consumption.
This will shorten the distribution leg. The CENTCOM water strategy
continues to be the development of water resources and the production
of water at the forward operating bases (FOBs); thus reducing
transportation requirements.
Currently, there are no Operational Needs Statement or Joint Unit
Operational Needs Statement or Rapid Equipping Force 10 Liner
requirements for a manportable water filtration unit.
133. Senator Inhofe. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, can you
check on our ability to purify water in austere locations, ensuring a
safe supply of drinking water for our soldiers in theater?
Secretary McHugh and General Casey. The Army has sufficient water
purification, storage and distribution systems available for employment
in a tactical environment. Each of these systems is approved for use by
the U.S. Army Health Command; thereby ensuring that the water is safe
for soldier consumption. These systems have been successfully
supporting Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Our forces
continue to receive potable and palatable water on-time and in
sufficient quantities to meet all water requirements for consumption
and personal hygiene.
To ensure that water production capability is closer to the point
of consumption in austere areas, we have deployed six well drilling
rigs in Afghanistan, to expand water resources and production of water
at our FOBs.
Currently, we also have the following tactical systems, designed
for austere deployment, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom:
Water Purification Units:
The 600 Gallon per hour (GPH), trailer mounted,
Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit (ROWPU) is capable of
purifying 600 gallons of seawater and 900 gallons fresh water
per hour. Eighteen (18) of these systems are in deployed status
providing a total capability of 10,800 GPH.
The 3000 GPH, trailer mounted, ROWPU is capable of
purifying 2,000 gallons of seawater and 3,000 gallon of fresh
water. Twenty-four of these systems are in a deployed status
providing a total capability production of 72,000 GPH.
The 1500 GPH, Tactical Water Purification System is
capable of purifying 1,200 GPH seawater and 3000 GPH fresh
water. Nine systems are in a deployed status providing at total
production capability of 13,500 GPH.
The Light Weight Purifier (LWP), which is the Army's
most expeditious reverse osmosis purification unit, is capable
of producing 125 GPH from a fresh water source and 75 GPH from
a salt water source. Both air transportable and air droppable,
26 systems are in a deployed status providing a total
capability production of 3,250 GPH.
Storage and Distribution:
Water Tank Rack (HIPPO) consists of a 2,000 gallon
potable hard wall water tank in an ISO frame with an integrated
pump, hose and fill stand.
Water Storage and Distribution Systems, which consists
of 800,000 and 40,000 gallon system, are collapsible tanks and
support equipment and that provide large volumes of bulk
potable water storage and distribution (two 800,000 and three
40,000 systems are in a deployed status providing a storage and
distribution of 1.7 million gallons of water).
The Expeditionary Water Packaging System, which is a
newly developed tactical water purification system capable of
bottling water, is being deployed to Afghanistan (7 systems
total). These systems are designed to operate at austere FOBs,
placing water packaging and distribution closer to U.S. forces.
Each system is capable of bottling 5,000 one liter bottles per
day.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
army aviation
134. Senator Sessions. General Casey, I am very happy about the QDR
plus-up of two Combat Aviation Brigades for the Army. With this plus-up
of aviation assets must come a plus-up in resources. Do you believe
adequate resources are available to support the growth in Army
aviation?
General Casey. Yes, I think we have what we need. The first of
these combat aviation brigades (CAB) was organized by consolidating
existing aviation force structure within the Army. With the exception
of adding some required headquarters personnel and common equipment
such as trucks and generators, the resources required were minimal. All
aircraft and crews required were already in the existing force
structure. As for the second CAB, the majority of the funding required
($5.5 billion) was provided. While we have determined that it is
feasible to activate this CAB, there is an unfunded requirement
remaining ( $1.2 billion) to cover operations, training and some
personnel costs, which we will have to make adjustments for in our
budget process.
135. Senator Sessions. General Casey, are you planning to increase
resources for the Aviation Training Center at Fort Rucker?
General Casey. Yes. We have already begun increasing resources for
training at Fort Rucker. Funding there increased from $775 million
(fiscal year 2009) to $995 million (fiscal year 2010) to $1.067 billion
(fiscal year 2011) annually to cover increases in undergraduate and
graduate flight training. Fort Rucker has already hired 40 new contract
instructor pilots to train AH-64, CH-47, and UH-60 flight training with
plans to increase the total to 52 new instructors. The Aviation Center
has received an additional 21 AH-64Ds and 20 UH-60s to meet the
increased training requirements. New hangar ($36 million) and
maintenance facilities ($29 million) are being constructed in fiscal
year 2011 to support training increases. Additionally, $34 million in
improvements will be made this year to existing structures and ranges
to support increased training.
136. Senator Sessions. General Casey, will this plus-up of Army
aviation include manned and unmanned teaming increases?
General Casey. The Army has achieved great success by combining the
capabilities of manned and unmanned systems in combat operations, and
will maximize this new aviation organizational force design construct.
Additional Combat Aviation Brigades (CABs) and their manned helicopter
assets will be paired with existing unmanned systems, to provide
greater manned-unmanned operations capability. In addition to teaming
with UAS resident within BCTs, the Extended Range Multi-Purpose UAS
will be assigned to CABs. We are also developing concepts combining
Shadow UAS with manned scout helicopters in an Armed Reconnaissance
Squadron. These efforts will greatly expand the Army's manned-unmanned
capabilities.
137. Senator Sessions. General Casey, will the Center of Excellence
for unmanned aerial systems at Fort Rucker receive additional resources
to continue doctrine development, integration, and execution planning
for the manned and unmanned team initiative?
General Casey. The Army Unmanned Aircraft System Center of
Excellence (UAS CoE) is a critical organization that provides a
professional and focused team to ensure the Army maintains our
leadership role in the UAS community across all Army warfighting
functions. This includes our groundbreaking efforts to develop and
improve manned-unmanned operations.
The UAS CoE is currently a provisional organization and is
resourced through May 2010. Fort Rucker has forwarded a Concept Plan to
Headquarters, TRADOC to ensure that the UAS CoE remains as an enduring
organization with 6 military and 11 civilian personnel authorized on an
approved Table of Distribution and Allowances. As the Army reviews our
Generating Force personnel numbers (including TRADOC), our unmanned
systems mission growth is a key area upon which we will focus.
anniston army depot
138. Senator Sessions. Secretary McHugh, I just visited Anniston
Army Depot last week while working in Alabama. I understand that the
Army is considering placing the installation under the command of the
Army's Installation Management Command. The community is up in arms
over this decision. Do you believe Anniston Army Depot will increase
its productivity and lower its Army Capital Working Fund rates because
of this realignment of command?
Secretary McHugh. The Army Materiel Command (AMC) and Installation
Management Command (IMCOM) are in the process of conducting a transfer
of responsibility for base operation functions in a pilot at ANAD.
IMCOM will assume responsibilities for non-Army Working Capital Fund
(AWCF) base operation support functions.
Under the pilot concept, ANAD with the support of AMC and IMCOM
regional office, will create a virtual structure to determine if the
proposed transfer of non-AWCF base operating functions and costs to
IMCOM can be done with no impacts to the ANAD production mission and no
additional cost to Army as a whole. If the pilot is successful and
implementation is approved there will be a reduction in base operating
costs (overhead costs) that have to be allocated to stabilized
workload; however, due to the complex nature of rates this would only
be a good measure if all extraneous variables were held constant (i.e.
direct labor hours available to allocate overhead costs, direct labor
and material costs, Accumulative Operating Results adjustments, etc).
139. Senator Sessions. Secretary McHugh, if productivity does not
increase and Army Capital Working Funds rates are not reduced, will you
carry on with the reassignment?
Secretary McHugh. The Army will consider all factors prior to
moving forward with the reassignment. We have established three guiding
principles for assessing the results of the pilot: (1) maintaining or
reducing costs; (2) maintaining or improving mission effectiveness; and
(3) preserving the mission commander's flexibility to direct resources.
As we conduct the pilot program, we will adjust the parameters as
required to address any issues encountered.
afghanistan
140. Senator Sessions. General Casey, I think we would all agree
that the Anbar Awakening during the Iraq war was a great success and
signaled the beginning of stabilization in that troubled theater. A
recent Washington Post article that appeared on January 22 highlights
U.S. Central Command's use of local defense initiatives to similarly
train local militias as security forces to bridge the gap until more
Afghan army and police forces can be trained. Recent estimates imply
that 32,000 soldiers need to be added over the next 10 months in order
to meet the stated goal of 134,000 troops by the end of the year. While
not all lessons from the Iraq war can be applied to Afghanistan, former
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf recently wrote, ``Afghanistan for
centuries has been governed loosely through a social covenant between
all the ethnic groups, under a sovereign king. This structure is needed
again to bring peace and harmony.'' Would you agree that this program
will spread coalition influence into remote regions and bridge the gap
until we can recruit and train adequate Afghan army and police forces?
General Casey. Central Command (CENTCOM) is working on several
initiatives to achieve local security by incorporating more community
involvement. It's my understanding that these initiatives are Afghan
led and supported by the CENTCOM.
141. Senator Sessions. General Casey, do you think the Afghani
government can be persuaded to support this program or is this
something that will have to be implemented independently?
General Casey. I believe the Afghan government will proceed with
caution as the initiatives are more fully developed and implemented,
but I defer to CENTCOM for their assessment.
142. Senator Sessions. General Casey, what is your opinion on our
ability to adequately screen militia candidates for this program to
ensure that we are not training the wrong folks?
General Casey. I defer to CENTCOM to respond since they are on the
ground and better able to assess the situation.
143. Senator Sessions. General Casey, the Post article addressed
differences between DOD and the Department of State (DOS) concerning
implementation of a timeline. General McChrystal has already
implemented this program on a small scale using existing funding. In
order to fully implement, though, Ambassador Eikenberry must release
additional funds. How are existing Commander's Emergency Response
Program funds being used to support this program and are these funds
adequate to fully implement local defense initiatives?
General Casey. Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP)
funding is used for short-term, private sector contracts for temporary
guards of critical infrastructure, not to train local militias as
security forces. The CERP program supports local defense initiatives by
funding development projects in targeted areas. As noted in the same
Washington Post article, ``In Afghanistan, compensation will be in the
form of money for development projects in areas where the groups
operate.'' Current CERP funding is adequate to accomplish these
development efforts.
144. Senator Sessions. General Casey, what support is needed from
DOS and what is DOD doing to resolve these differences in a timely
manner?
General Casey. I believe there is a lot of cooperative activity
taking place between DOD and Department of State. We have ongoing
partnerships with the Iraqi Security Forces and the Afghan National
Security Forces with a number of counter-terrorism initiatives ongoing.
As for the specific details regarding support that DOD needs from the
Department of State, I have to defer to DOD to respond.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator David Vitter
medium extended air defense system
145. Senator Vitter. Secretary McHugh, GAO and OSD have confirmed
that MEADS will cost billions more than expected. What amount of
additional funding will be necessary that exceeds the existing budget
baseline?
Secretary McHugh. The cost growth for the International Program is
estimated to be over $1.2 billion to be shared by the three Nations.
The U.S. share of this is estimated to be in the range of $700 million
(preliminary estimates). The OSD for Cost Assessments and Program
Evaluation assessment is ongoing and will be used to refine these
estimates further.
146. Senator Vitter. Secretary McHugh, why has the MEADS program
not been scrutinized under Nunn-McCurdy?
Secretary McHugh. We evaluate and assess the program against the
Nunn-McCurdy criteria as part of our normal program management. The
program has been reporting program unit costs against Nunn-McCurdy
criteria since September 2004, and current estimates are within the
thresholds. We continue to monitor the matter closely, and OSD directed
the Cost Assessments and Program Evaluation office to develop an
independent estimate.
147. Senator Vitter. Secretary McHugh, MEADS was designed to
upgrade the capabilities of the U.S., German, and Italian Air and
Missile Defense (AMD) systems. However, the MEADS program is 9 years
behind to deliver the capability to our troops and our allies. What is
the reason and justification for this delay and how will we defend
ourselves from current threats while we continue to wait for MEADS?
Secretary McHugh. The MEADS Design and Development program of
record began in July 2004. Issues emerged during the program's
Preliminary Design Review, necessitating an Army and OSD independent
review. The independent review assessed the program to be approximately
18 months behind schedule, with a high degree of concurrency and risk
leading into Critical Design Review and testing. The independent review
team recommended a rebaseline of the program, adding approximately 18-
24 months (at additional cost), to reduce engineering and test
concurrency and reduce overall risks. The MEADS initiative has
experienced a series of starts and stops since the concept inception in
the early 1990s. Since the Milestone B Defense Acquisition Board in
2004, the program has been fully funded but will require approximately
$700 million between fiscal year 2012-17 to support the rebaselined
schedule and effort.
The United States utilizes a combination of Air and Missile Defense
systems to provide required capability to the force today. Most
notably, the Patriot Missile System is forward deployed in multiple
Areas of Responsibility. These systems undergo periodic upgrades to
increase capability against an evolving threat, mitigate obsolescence,
and minimize sustainment costs. Patriot is the only combat-proven
Tactical Ballistic Missile Defense in the force. Patriot continues to
match the threat and provide our troops with excellent Air Defense
coverage.
148. Senator Vitter. Secretary McHugh, in addition to years of
program delays, cost overruns, and technological challenges for the
MEADS program, I understand there may be changes to the key performance
parameters (KPPs) for MEADS. What changes have been made to the KPPs?
Secretary McHugh. Currently, no changes to the KPPs are being made;
however the U.S. Army TRADOC has been tasked to review MEADS
requirements
149. Senator Vitter. Secretary McHugh, is it possible that an AMD
system could be centered around the upgraded Patriot AMD system, which
I understand would be a more cost-effective alternative to MEADS?
Secretary McHugh. While it is possible, even an upgraded Patriot
Air and Missile Defense system would not meet the MEADS requirements
for a 360-degree surveillance and fire control capability.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in room
SDG-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
Akaka, Bill Nelson, Webb, Hagan, Begich, Burris, Inhofe,
Sessions, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, and Collins.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; Jessica L. Kingston, research
assistant; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; Jason W. Maroney,
counsel; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; John H. Quirk V,
professional staff member; and Russell L. Shaffer, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Michael V. Kostiw, professional staff member;
Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Christopher J.
Paul, professional staff member; and Diana G. Tabler,
professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Paul J. Hubbard, Christine G.
Lang, and Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher Griffin,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to
Senator Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka;
Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Juliet
Beyler and Gordon Peterson, assistants to Senator Webb; Julie
Holzhueter, assistant to Senator Hagan; David Ramseur,
assistant to Senator Begich; Brady King, assistant to Senator
Burris; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe;
Sandra Luff, assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV,
assistant to Senator Chambliss; Jason Van Beek, assistant to
Senator Thune; Erskine Wells III, assistant to Senator Wicker;
Brian Walsh, assistant to Senator LeMieux; and Chip Kennett,
assistant to Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. We welcome
Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, and General Conway to our
committee this morning to testify on the plans and programs of
the Department of the Navy in our review of the fiscal year
2011 annual budget and overseas contingency operations (OCO)
request. This committee is grateful to each one of you for your
service to our Nation and for the valorous and truly
professional service of the men and women under your command,
and we are also grateful to their families.
Since our last meeting, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
completed the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). We look
forward to the witnesses' assessments of the 2009 QDR, what it
means for the Department of the Navy today and into the future,
and how their fiscal year 2011 budget request supports the
changes which were directed.
Our witnesses this morning are faced with a number of
critical issues that confront the Department of the Navy in the
budget, such as balancing modernization needs against the costs
of supporting ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
President's strategic review, concluded in December, called for
a surge in additional U.S. Marine Corps forces to Afghanistan,
including an increase to 18,500 marines in Afghanistan by March
2010, with that number rising to 19,400 by mid-April.
The recent launch of major operations in southern
Afghanistan represents a critical test of the President's
counterinsurgency strategy and the campaign plan developed by
the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander,
General McChrystal, to implement that strategy. U.S. and ISAF
personnel, with the U.S. Marines playing a central role, are
partnering side by side with Afghan forces in support of
extending the authority of the Government of Afghanistan to the
Central Helmand River Valley, including the former Taliban
stronghold of Marjah.
The ratio of Afghan to U.S. troops in Marjah is almost one
to two, one Afghan soldier to two coalition troops, a
considerable improvement, as I've mentioned before, over the
one to five ratio which was the case when a number of us
visited the marines in Helmand Province last September. General
Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), has
called this operation the initial salvo of a 12- to 18-month
military campaign. The extraordinary bravery of our soldiers
and marines, as well as our allies, reminds us once again how
truly heroic our men and women in uniform are.
I've argued for a long time that our principal focus in
Afghanistan should be the building of the capacity of the
Afghan army and police so they can take the lead in providing
for their country's security. In this respect, it is difficult
to understand why there has been a persistent shortfall in the
number of trainers available to provide the 8-week basic
training to Afghan security forces. That is a totally
unacceptable situation.
As we discussed in my office, General Conway, you and the
Marines are looking for ways to help out General Bill Caldwell,
the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Training Command in Afghanistan, to help him to fill the gap by
deploying Marines on shorter rotation to Afghanistan to serve
as trainers for the Afghan army, and we're going to be
interested in getting your update on the progress in supplying
those marines as trainers.
We have proceeded with the drawdown of Marine Corps forces
in Iraq. Where these forces once averaged roughly 25,000
marines, as of last Friday there were only about 150 marines in
Iraq. By spring, the marines will have completed their
redeployment.
The Navy has also been contributing directly to the war
effort in CENTCOM as well. In addition to normal deployments of
ships and aircraft in support of these operations, the Navy
currently has deployed almost 12,000 individual augmentees
(IAs) to support these missions on the ground in Afghanistan
and Iraq. In total, the Navy provides approximately 15,600
sailors in the form of IAs, including 3,800 personnel in the
training pipeline to fulfill mission requirements of the
combatant commanders.
So we express the thanks of this committee for how well and
ably the men and women of the Department of the Navy and their
families are responding to these challenges.
Many of the challenges facing the Department of the Navy
center on acquisition programs. We have great concerns about
cost problems in the shipbuilding arena, the most notable
example being the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. Since
last year the Navy has decided on a winner-take-all acquisition
strategy for the contract for the two LCS vessels approved in
the fiscal year 2010 budget.
We also look forward to receiving all of the analytical
efforts that were required by our National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 regarding future surface
combatant production and the truncation of the DDG-1000
production line. We understand that the Navy decided to make
this change for a number of reasons, including mission
requirements and affordability. However, we want to ensure that
whatever program we pursue has a sound basis in reasoning
behind it before we launch on another vector.
If the Department of the Navy is unable to get control of
its acquisition programs and cost growth, there is no way that
the Navy is going to be able to afford the fleet of 313 ships
that Admiral Roughead says that he needs, and it is obvious
that other capabilities would suffer as well. I cannot
overstress the importance that the whole Navy Department
shoulders its responsibility to correct mistakes in acquisition
programs because the future strength of our Navy depends on it.
General Conway, lest you feel left out of the acquisition
discussion, you're pursuing the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
(EFV) program. In your prepared statement you emphasize the
importance of the EFV to the Marine Corps' amphibious assault
mission and of the continuing relevance of that mission and
capability to our Nation's defense. The Marine Corps'
amphibious assault concept rests on launching an assault from a
safe distance from shore, beyond where our ships can be easily
observed and attacked. This concept depends on an ability to
swim ashore from 20 to 30 miles out to sea with armored
vehicles, which is the purpose of the EFV.
The QDR heavily emphasized the need to overcome the so-
called anti-access capabilities and strategies that might be
employed by potential adversaries and approved continuing the
EFV program despite previous cost, schedule, and performance
issues with the program. So we need to understand how the
Marine Corps' amphibious assault mission relates to the anti-
access concerns and initiatives discussed in the QDR and what
are you doing in the EFV program to correct the previous
problems with the program.
The President last year signed the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA). While I'm certain that this
legislation is going to help correct past problems, we also
know that we will succeed only through concerted efforts within
the executive branch to implement the spirit of that
legislation and improve past behavior within the Department. We
in Congress cannot legislate a culture change. So we look
forward to hearing how the Department of the Navy is proceeding
to implement the provisions of this act.
Another concern surrounds future ship and aircraft force
levels. We are facing the prospect that the current Navy
program will lead to potentially large gaps between the forces
that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has said that he needs
and the forces that will be available to his successors. For
instance, the Navy is facing a shortfall of as many as 250
tactical fighters needed to outfit our 10 aircraft carrier air
wings and 3 Marine Corps air wings in the middle of this
decade. With shortfalls that large, we could be faced with
drastically reducing the number of aircraft available on short
notice to the combatant commanders, either because we have
deployed under strength air wings or because we did not deploy
the carrier at all because of these aircraft shortages.
Since the last time we saw a Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP), we've actually had a slight net loss of production of
new strike fighter aircraft over comparable years in the FYDP,
a result that cannot help this situation.
Turning to naval readiness, currently the Navy is operating
with a 1-year backlog in aircraft and ship depot maintenance.
When asked for your unfunded priorities in the fiscal 2010
budget request, Admiral Roughead, you only had two unfunded
items on your list, aircraft and ship depot maintenance in the
amount of $395 million. Both sides of the aisle on this
committee, as well as our House counterparts, authorized that
critical funding, but, unfortunately, that addition was not
supported by the appropriators. As a result, over $188 million
in deferred maintenance was not executed last year.
In the fiscal year 2011 presidential budget request, again
we have a very short list from the Navy of unfunded
requirements, including aircraft and ship depot maintenance and
aircraft spares to meet the Navy's maintenance requirements.
While we encourage the Navy's commitment to these vital
readiness accounts, we're very interested in hearing from the
witnesses today specifically why this funding is critical to
the Navy's mission, what were the effects of not receiving last
year's maintenance funding, and what are the potential
ramifications of not receiving additional fiscal year 2011
funds to support these needs.
Readiness rates need to be restored rather than delayed.
Additionally, I believe it is essential that the Navy not rely
on OCO funding to make up for maintenance shortfalls. Such an
approach does not contribute to long-term sustainment and risks
degrading the expected service life of the fleet.
We look forward to hearing your testimony. Again, we are
grateful to you and your families for supporting your service
and, of course, the men and women that you command.
Senator McCain is not here. Senator Inhofe is the acting
ranking member this morning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go ahead and
submit Senator McCain's statement for an opening statement. But
I'd like to make an observation. When we have these Navy
posture hearings, I look around and I see a very heavy
representation from coastal States, and I'm not sure why. I'd
like to remind my colleagues up here of something that may
surprise them a little bit: We in my State of Oklahoma are in
fact navigable. We have a navigation way that we put in many
years ago.
In fact, when I was in the State senate many years ago, the
head of the World War II submarine veterans came to me and he
told me the story of the submarine veterans, about how half of
them died in World War II and the other half took care of the
families of those others. He said, ``I'd like to do a memorial;
I'd like to bring a World War II submarine all the way up to
Oklahoma.''
We studied it and it could be done. So we went down to
Orange, TX, and got the USS Batfish and we took all 300 feet of
this thing all the way up the channel. It had to go down under
some of the bridges and have flotation and all that. All my
adversaries were saying, ``We're going to sink Inhofe with his
submarine.'' But we made it, so we have a submarine in my State
of Oklahoma.
We also have quite a presence, which surprises people, of
Navy and Marines, with TACAMO Operations for E-6s at Tinker Air
Force Base. There is a very large presence of Navy there. At
Vance Air Force Base we're doing primary training of not just
Air Force, but also Navy and the Marines. Then down at Fort
Sill we do most of the artillery training, General Conway, for
marines there at Fort Sill in my State of Oklahoma. So we have
a great personal interest in this hearing today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our witnesses here today to
discuss the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 for the
Department of the Navy. I'm sure I speak for all members of our
committee when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with all the
deployed sailors and marines, with their families, and with particular
concern for those marines who are currently engaged in the combat
operations. I also want to commend the thousands of men and women of
the Navy and Marine Corps who deployed to Haiti within just a few hours
of the earthquake to support humanitarian efforts there. Their hard
work and dedication reflects the very finest traditions of the
Department of the Navy.
While supportive of your fiscal year 2011 budget submission, I do
have concerns about the Navy's future force that I would like to have
you specifically address.
For example, last year, the Navy estimated that its shortfall of
carrier-based strike-fighter aircraft was growing larger than previous
estimates--243 aircraft short by 2018. That number is now 100. I'd like
to know what the Navy's current appraisal of that ``strike-fighter
gap'' is and what steps it is taking under its budget proposal to
manage that issue. While this is undoubtedly an important issue,
protecting taxpayers' interests requires that any proposal to buy more
F/A-18s under a multi-year contract fully complies with applicable law.
On the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, with a newly
announced slip in development of 13 months, that program appears to be
headed into another breach of Nunn-McCurdy's cost growth limits. Among
my concerns here is whether the Navy and Marine Corps will be equipped
with the F-35 in time to have the capability they need, when they need
it. With the Marine Corps expected to take delivery of a squadron of
these fighters first among all the Services in 2012 and its acute
reliance on this Program to provide much-needed capability, my concerns
about this Program apply with the most force to them.
On ship depot maintenance, I am encouraged that this year the Navy
has added about $1.2 billion over last year's request to overhaul ships
and, in particular, restore those systems that affect safety and
current combat capability to established performance levels. But, that
amount does not cover the ship maintenance periods that were not funded
in last year's budget--because the appropriators saw it fit to strip
that money away to fund earmarks. Still, that leaves nine additional
ships that will not undergo repair work next year. From the witnesses,
I would like to hear their concerns about underfunding ship overhauls
and whether our surface fleet may be returning to the days of a hollow
force.
On the Littoral Combat Ships Program, the Navy will down-select to
a single sea frame and split its production between two competing
shipyards--reflecting a new acquisition strategy designed to reduce the
ship's overall cost. I would like to know whether the costs of that
troubled program will be below the congressional cost cap and whether
the Program will finally deliver the capability that it was designed to
provide at its inception.
Next, the LPD-17 amphibious ship program has too seen more
challenges than we had hoped. From the witnesses, I would like to know
if we are seeing a systemic problem with the readiness of the Navy's
amphibious ships and how the budget request addresses that issue.
Finally, the Navy's 30-year Shipbuilding Plan calls for the
replacement of 14 Ohio-class submarines and the multi-year procurement
of 2 Virginia-class attack submarines per year to replace Los Angeles-
class submarines. But, those ballistic missile submarines run about
$6.5 billion each and the Virginia-class submarines cost about $2
billion each. That alone consumes over 75 percent of the current
shipbuilding budget. Particularly in the context of our current
economic challenges, we have to be careful that our commitment to
recapitalizing the submarine fleet does not impinge on our commitment
to the surface fleet. I hope the witnesses can give us their views on
the impact of the Plan on our force projection capability in the future
and the shipbuilding industrial base.
I would like to take a moment to convey my support the Department's
decisions to terminate or cut back on those Navy and Marine Corps
programs that have benefited from a reassessment of our requirements or
suffered from a chronic inability to manage development and production
risk. Those programs include canceling plans to build two new joint
command ships; delaying the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program; and
terminating the EP-X manned intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance aircraft program, as well as the JSF Alternate Engine
program and the Next Generation Cruiser (CG(X)). According to the
Office of Management and Budget, those program cuts will save taxpayers
as much as $573 million over last year's budget, freeing up resources
much needed by our combatant commanders to fight the fights we are in
and defense against threats likely to arise in the future.
I look forward to hearing from these witnesses on these, and other,
tough but important issues, which go squarely to how we arm and equip
those men and women who serve their Nation so selflessly at home and
abroad.
Thank you, Chairman Levin.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
Secretary Mabus.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR., SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and distinguished
members of this committee, it's a real pleasure to be here
today with you. The CNO, the Commandant, and I are grateful for
the commitment that the members of this committee have shown to
the men and women in uniform in the Navy and Marine Corps. We
are exceptionally proud to be here today representing our
sailors, marines, civilians, and their families.
The Navy and Marine Corps remain the most formidable
expeditionary fighting force in the world, capable of
operations across the entire spectrum of warfare. Today 40
percent of our forces are deployed and over half our fleet is
at sea. In Helmand Province, Afghanistan, more than 15,000
marines are engaged in major combat, counterinsurgency, and
engagement operations, including, as the chairman pointed out,
the effort to clear the Taliban from their stronghold in
Marjah. They're supported by naval aircraft flying close air
support from the Eisenhower and our forward-deployed
expeditionary aviation assets.
A total of 12,000 sailors are on the ground in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and across the broader Middle East and another
9,000 sailors and marines are embarked on our ships at sea. Off
the coast of Africa, ships are protecting international
commerce off Somalia, and ships are operating as partnership
stations with our regional allies. Off the coast of South
America, more ships are stemming the flow of illegal drugs into
the United States.
Our ballistic missile defense forces are ready to defend
against any threat to international peace in Europe, the Middle
East, and the Pacific Rim, where our forward-deployed forces
continue their role as a strategic buffer and deterrent against
rogue states and potential competitors alike. Today in Haiti, 9
ships and 1,900 marines from the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit
(MEU) continue to provide humanitarian aid, medical assistance,
and disaster relief.
The Navy and Marine Corps are flexible, responsive, and
everywhere our Nation's interests are at stake. Our global
presence reduces instability, deters aggression, and allows us
to respond rapidly to any crisis.
I believe that the President's fiscal year 2011 budget for
the Department of the Navy is a very carefully considered
request that gives us the resources we need to conduct
effective operations and meet all the missions we have been
assigned. Our shipbuilding and aviation requests concur with
the findings of the QDR and its objectives of prevailing in
today's wars, preventing conflict, preparing for future wars,
and preserving the force.
With this budget, the Navy and Marine Corps will continue
to maintain the maritime superiority of our forces, sustain a
strong American shipbuilding base, and ensure our capacity for
rapid global response.
Across the FYDP, we have requested the funds to build an
average of 10 ships a year, including 1 carrier, 1 big-deck
amphibious ship, 10 Virginia-class submarines, and 17 LCSs.
We'll leverage the technologies captured from the canceled
Future Cruiser Program and truncated DDG-1000 program into what
will become our Flight 3 Burke-class guided missile destroyers.
These technologies include the SPY-3 and air and missile
defense radar.
Through the submitted shipbuilding plan, we will increase
the size of our fleet to approximately 320 ships by 2024. In
our shipbuilding program, I believe we have made the most cost
effective decisions to achieve the most capable force, one that
achieves equal flexibility to confront missions across the
spectrum of conflict from the technically complex, like
ballistic missile defense and integrated air defense, to low
intensity, humanitarian response, and regional engagement.
In aircraft procurement, we have requested just over 1,000
aircraft across the FYDP, including both fixed and rotary wing.
Over the next year, the Navy and the Marine Corps will continue
to move ahead with changes to our acquisitions process. In
compliance with the WSARA, we are aggressively developing our
acquisition strategies to ensure that on-time and on-budget
becomes the standard for the Navy and Marine Corps.
I'm grateful for the support of this committee for the
decision to recompete the LCS program when it failed to meet
program standards, and I can assure you that we will not
hesitate to recompete or cancel other programs whenever
substandard performance demands such a change.
Change is also required to address the way in which the
Navy and Marine Corps use and produce energy. Energy reform is
an issue of national security and it's essential to maintaining
our strategic advantage, warfighting readiness, and tactical
edge. By 2020, I've committed the Navy to generate half of all
the energy we use from alternative sources.
Forty years ago, I stood watch on the deck of the USS
Little Rock as a young junior officer. Today I have the great
and solemn privilege of standing watch on behalf of our Navy
and Marine Corps in a time of war and national challenge. I'm
honored by the trust that the President and Congress have
placed in me and fully recognize the solemn obligation I have
to those who defend us.
I, along with the CNO and the Commandant, look forward to
hearing your thoughts, answering your questions about our
budget request, our specific programs, and our policies. I also
look forward to working closely with you as we move forward to
sustain the Navy and Marine Corps as the most formidable
expeditionary fighting force in the world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mabus follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Raymond E. Mabus, Jr.
Chairman Levin and Senator McCain, it is a pleasure to be here
today with the Senate Armed Services Committee as the representative of
the nearly 900,000 sailors, marines, and civilians that make up the
Department of the Navy. The Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant
of the Marine Corps and I are privileged to lead some of the best men
and women in the country, who are selflessly serving the United States
all around the world in support of our safety, our security, and our
national interests.
The Navy and Marine Corps remain the most formidable expeditionary
fighting force in the world. We are America's Away Team. The mission
and experience of our team is well matched to the multiple and varied
challenges that threaten our Nation's security and global stability.
Today the Navy and Marine Corps are conducting operations across
the spectrum of military operations, from major combat and ballistic
missile defense to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
Fifteen thousand marines are at the forefront of our Nation's
defense, serving in and around Helmand Province, Afghanistan. By spring
this number will grow to almost 20,000. It is a testament to the
responsiveness and combat capability of the Marine Corps that the first
troops to depart for Afghanistan in the wake of the President's
December 1 announcement were 1500 marines from Camp Lejuene, NC. The
new arrivals, who deployed before the end of last year, joined the
Second Marine Expeditionary Brigade already in place. Together they are
taking the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda in their sector and
assisting the Afghan Provincial Government in reestablishing control.
General Conway describes their capability as a two-fisted fighter,
capable of simultaneously combating an adaptive and insidious
insurgency among the Afghan civilians while maintaining the skill set
to conduct major combat operations.
The Navy in Afghanistan is contributing Special Operations Forces,
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams, Seabee civil engineering assets, all
of the airborne expeditionary tactical Electronic Warfare capability,
medical and intelligence professionals, and logistical support. From
our carriers operating in the Indian Ocean, we are launching a
significant percentage of the close air support that watches over our
marines and soldiers on the ground. The Navy has over 12,000 sailors on
the ground in Central Command supporting joint and coalition efforts in
both Iraq and Afghanistan and another 9,000 sailors at sea supporting
combat operations.
The Navy and Marine Corps today are globally engaged in a host of
other security and stability operations. In our cruisers and
destroyers, the Navy has built a strong ballistic missile defense
force. These multi-mission ships routinely deploy to the Mediterranean,
the Arabian Gulf, and the Western Pacific and extend an umbrella of
deterrence. Across the Future Years' Defense Program we will expand
this mission and operationally implement the President's decision in
September 2009 to focus on sea-based ballistic missile defense.
That capability is complemented by the continued preeminence of the
ballistic missile submarines in our strategic deterrent force, who
operate quietly and stealthily on station every day of the year.
In the Gulf of Aden and Western Indian Ocean, Combined Task Force
151 is leading the international effort to combat piracy in the Gulf of
Aden. They are coordinating their operations with forces from the
European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and a total of 24
Nations contributing ships, aircraft, and staff personnel as well as
operational and intelligence support.
Our ships and maritime patrol aircraft in the Caribbean and off
South America are working with the Coast Guard-led Joint Interagency
Task Force-South, which ties together information and forces from 13
nations to stem the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States.
In 2009 alone they contributed to the seizure or disruption of almost
220,000 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of over $4 billion.
Both the Navy and Marine Corps routinely conduct training exercises
and multi-lateral operations with nations all around the world to
solidify our relationships with traditional allies and forge
partnerships with new friends. Global Partnership Stations in Africa,
South America, and the Pacific are training hundreds of sailors,
marines, and coastguardsmen from dozens of nations and are supporting
regional diplomatic and humanitarian engagement efforts, like those of
the hospital ship USNS Comfort and the Fleet Auxiliary USNS Richard E.
Byrd in the summer of 2009. The two ships together treated over 110,000
patients in the Caribbean, South America, and Oceania, and the USNS
Comfort furthered an existing partnership with numerous civilian aid
organizations.
The Navy-Marine Corps team remains on the frontline of response to
natural disasters. In 2009 we provided humanitarian assistance to
Indonesia, the Philippines, and American Samoa, and delivered thousands
of tons of food, water, and medical supplies to those affected by
devastation. After the January 12 earthquake in Haiti, the Navy and
Marine Corps responded immediately. Within a week of the earthquake, 11
Navy ships, including the carrier USS Carl Vinson, the big-deck
amphibious ship USS Bataan, and the hospital ship USNS Comfort were on
station off the coast of Haiti. These ships embarked 41 Navy and Marine
Corps helicopters and approximately 2,000 marines of the 22nd Marine
Expeditionary Unit. On station, our units treated patients, provided
helicopter lift capability, and delivered hundreds of tons of relief
aid. Additional personnel and capabilities continued to flow in over
the next weeks. Our mission there will continue as long as required.
The Navy and Marine Corps are flexible, responsive, and everywhere
that our Nation's interests are at stake. The Navy and Marine Corps'
global presence reduces instability, deters aggression, and allows for
rapid response to a wide range of contingencies.
In order to ensure our continued global mobility, the Department of
the Navy strongly supports accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.
The United States must continue to take maximum advantage of the
navigational rights contained in the Convention. Ratification would
enhance stability for international maritime rules and ensure our
access to critical air and sea lines of communication.
I have now been the Secretary of the Navy for 9 months, and in that
short period of time I have met thousands of our sailors and marines
serving on the frontlines at sea and ashore. I have been constantly
inspired by the high morale, courage, and commitment to serving our
country displayed by every one of them as they conduct our missions. In
return, I have continually expressed to them the appreciation of the
American people for the sacrifices they and their families are making
every day.
I have met our operational commanders and seen first-hand the
warfighting readiness of our Fleet and our Marine Forces. I have
inspected the facilities of our industry partners who are building the
Navy and Marine Corps of tomorrow. With the advice and support of my
leadership team, I have made some initial decisions to better prepare
the Navy and Marine Corps for the challenges of the future. These
observations and our initial actions have given me a good picture of
the Navy and Marine Corps, and from this vantage I can report to
Congress and the President the current state of the Services, the
budgetary requirements we need to successfully perform our mission, and
the future direction I believe we must take.
The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2011 budget request
reflects the President's priorities, Secretary Gates' strategic and
fiscal guidance, and fundamentally aligns with the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) priorities:
(1) Prevailing in today's wars
(2) Preventing and deterring conflict
(3) Preparing for a wide range of future contingencies
(4) Preserving and enhancing the All-Volunteer Force
This budget request of $160.7 billion will maintain across the
Future Years' Defense Program our commitment to a strong industrial
base. The fiscal year 2011 request of $18.5 billion for contingency
operations includes incremental costs to sustain operations, manpower,
equipment and infrastructure repair as well as equipment replacement to
support our focus on increasing threats in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, we have included funds for
nine ships, including two additional Virginia-class submarines, two
destroyers in the restarted Arleigh Burke line, a lower-cost commercial
variant of the Mobile Landing Platform, the multi-role Landing
Helicopter Assault Replacement, a Joint High Speed Vessel, and two
Littoral Combat Ships, which will be constructed under the terms of the
down-select we will conduct this fiscal year. In aviation, we have
requested 206 aircraft in fiscal year 2011, including 20 F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters for both the Navy and Marine Corps, 24 MH-60R and 7 P-
8As to begin replacing our aging anit-submarine warfare (ASW) and
maritime patrol squadrons, 18 MH-60S for logistics support, 28 H-1
variant helicopters, and 30 MV-22 for the Marine Corps, 22 F/A-18E/F
and 12 EA-18G to continue replacing the EA-6B. For Marine Corps ground
operations, we have requested funding for an additional 564 Logistics
Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) and High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) tactical vehicles. The fiscal year 2011 budget
request also contains development funding for the Navy Unmanned Combat
Aerial System and continues development of the Broad Area Maritime
Surveillance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). We have continued our
support of the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command, including funding
for a fourth Riverine Squadron.
The Department's long-range shipbuilding and aviation intentions
are designed to sustain our naval superiority and they achieve a
balance of capability and affordability that both wins today's wars
even while preparing for the challenges of the future.
There are four strategic, tactical, and personnel management
imperatives I believe the Department of the Navy must also address to
maintain preeminence as a fighting force and successfully address
whatever comes in the future. These four areas reinforce the strategic
framework of the QDR and address the areas of risk it identifies. They
are:
(1) Taking care of our sailors, marines, civilians, and their
families
(2) Treating energy in the Department of the Navy as an issue
of national security
(3) Creating acquisitions excellence
(4) Optimizing unmanned systems
They underpin the development of our fiscal year 2011 budget
request, execute Presidential policy, and comply with and respond to
congressional direction.
taking care of sailors, marines, civilians, and their families
Sailors and marines are the fundamental source of our success. They
are our most important asset, and they must always come first in our
minds and in our actions. One of my most important responsibilities as
Secretary is to ensure adequate compensation, medical care, and family
support services are provided to our sailors, marines, civilians, and
their families.
The Navy and Marine Corps will continue to recruit and retain the
same high quality individuals we brought into and kept in the service
in 2009. We remain committed to providing a competitive pay and
benefits package to aid recruiting. The package includes not only basic
pay and housing allowances, but also provides incentives for critical
specialties in health care, explosive ordnance disposal, and nuclear
propulsion.
Beyond compensation, we recognize that quality of life programs are
crucial to retention and the military mission. We are providing
expanded career opportunities, opportunities for life-long learning,
and a continuum of care and family support. The Department continues to
support a wide array of readiness programs, including deployment
support services, morale and welfare services, and child and teen
programs. Our innovative personnel management and human resource
programs were in fact recognized by civilian experts as among the best
in the country when, in October 2009, the Navy was named by Workforce
Management Magazine as the winner of the Optimas Award for General
Excellence.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, over 10,000 marines and
sailors have been wounded in action. Their service has been exemplary
and unselfish, and in their sacrifice they have given so much of
themselves for our country. The Department of the Navy, through the
Wounded Warrior Regiment and the Navy Safe Harbor Program, provides
support and assistance to our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers
and their families throughout recovery, rehabilitation, and
reintegration. We continue to provide encouragement and support for
wounded sailors and marines, in partnership with the Department of
Veterans Affairs, long after they have left the Service.
Our medical community has continued to strive for excellence in the
care of our sailors and marines. Navy Medicine has reached out to its
civilian colleagues, and we have established partnerships with civilian
hospitals to improve our understanding and care for those affected by
traumatic brain injuries, mental health issues, amputation, and
disfiguring injuries. I had the opportunity last fall to see this
first-hand, when I witnessed groundbreaking pro-bono work in
reconstructive surgery on behalf of Wounded Warriors at the UCLA
Medical Center.
We will continue to aggressively address the issues of sexual
assault prevention and response. Sexual assault is a criminal act that
is corrosive to the readiness and morale of a professional military
organization. In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, we have requested
funds to support a reinvigorated program under the supervision of a new
Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, which I created
within the Secretariat to focus attention on the issue, develop
effective training, and coordinate prevention and response programs
across the Navy and Marine Corps.
In 2010, the Department will move forward on expanding the
opportunities for women in the Navy. We will establish a process to
integrate women into the submarine force, beginning with nuclear-
trained and Supply Corps officers on our ballistic and guided missile
submarines.
After 8 years of continuous combat operations, the Navy and Marine
Corps' people remain strong, and the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO),
Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), and I are very focused on
maintaining the overall health of the force. The fiscal year 2011
budget request reinforces these goals and is designed to provide the
fiscal support necessary to sustain the force. The visible support of
Congress to our personnel programs is deeply appreciated and has been
vital in maintaining overall readiness.
energy reform
The way in which we use and produce energy is an issue of national
security and is essential to maintaining our warfighting capabilities.
At present, we simply rely too much on fossil fuels, which are
susceptible to both price and supply shocks caused by events in
volatile areas of the world largely outside the scope of our control.
Those potential shocks have, in turn, strategic, operational, and
tactical effects upon our forces. In addition, fossil fuel emissions
are the root cause of many of the impending security challenges of
tomorrow, and the QDR has correctly identified that climate change and
its effects: rising sea levels, pressure on natural resources, and
changes to the polar regions, will increasingly affect our force
structure and the global security environment as the 21st century
progresses. In order to improve our long-term strategic and fiscal
position, I have set the Navy and Marine Corps on a path to change the
way in which we use and produce energy.
In October 2009, I issued five energy targets. They are ambitious
in their scope, but I firmly believe that little will be accomplished
without bold, innovative, and timely action. The most important of the
targets commits the Navy and Marine Corps to generating half of all the
energy we use, including that used by the operational fleet, from
alternative sources by 2020. I have also committed the Navy and Marine
Corps to consider energy as a mandatory evaluation factor in
contracting, and to consider as an additional factor in our business
dealings, the energy footprint of the companies that sell to the Navy
and Marine Corps.
America is a world leader precisely because of our willingness to
not just embrace change, but to create it. The U.S. Navy has always
been a technological leader. We moved from wind to coal in the 19th
century, coal to oil early in the 20th century, and to nuclear power in
mid-century. In every transition there were opponents to change, but in
every case the strategic and tactical position of naval forces
improved. In this century, I have asked the Navy to lead again by
pioneering technological change through use of alternative energy. But
I want to reiterate that every action and program we undertake must and
will have as an effect improved warfighting capability. We will strive
in every case to improve energy efficiency and reach cost-neutrality
over the life of the program.
Many of our initiatives are already doing this. We conducted a
ground test of an F/A-18 Hornet jet engine this fall running on a
biofuel blend and we intend to conduct an airborne test of the ``Green
Hornet'' later this year. In late 2010, the Navy will also conduct
tests of a more efficient F/A-18 engine, which will increase the
aircraft's range. Afloat, the USS Makin Island, the first ship
constructed with a hybrid-electric drive that dramatically lowers fuel
consumption at lower speeds, saved approximately $2 million in a single
transit to her new homeport in San Diego. Over the life of the ship, we
estimate the savings will be up to $250 million using today's fuel
prices. Writ large across the Navy, as we begin to retrofit our DDG
fleet with similar propulsion systems, the potential fuel savings will
only grow.
In addition to these tactical applications, we have implemented a
number of energy projects at our facilities ashore, and numerous other
efficiency initiatives throughout the Fleet. As the President clearly
stated in Copenhagen, changing the way we use and produce energy is a
national security imperative.
acquisition excellence
The ships and aircraft of the Navy and Marine Corps are unmatched
at sea and over land. Our precision munitions, networked targeting
systems, armored vehicles, stealth technology, and unmanned vehicles
are advanced systems that define the leading edge of warfare in all
domains.
These truths have been brought home to me during my visits with the
defense industry. I have had the opportunity to visit shipyards,
aircraft manufacturers, factories, and depots; and I applaud the hard
work and dedication of this country's skilled workforce--Americans who
take as much pride in their patriotism as they do in their
craftsmanship.
The issue before us all, however, is affordability. Acquisition
costs are rising faster than our budget's top-line, and without
deliberate, sustained action to reverse this trend, we put the size and
capability of the future force at risk. In accordance with the Weapons
System Acquisition Reform Act passed by Congress in 2009, the Navy and
Marine Corps will aggressively pursue additional ways to make the
acquisitions process more rigorous; we will prudently safeguard the
resources entrusted to us by the American taxpayer, and we will fully
meet the obligation we hold to our Sailors and Marines.
This requires close examination of the way we do business in our
policies, practices, priorities, and organization, with a clear focus
on controlling cost. The Navy and Marine Corps will continue
initiatives to raise standards, to improve processes, to instill
discipline in procurement, and to strengthen the professional corps
that manages our major defense acquisition programs.
We are pressing forward with key initiatives that promise to
improve our ability to affordably deliver combat capability to the
fleet.
We are improving the quality of our cost estimates, which underpin
our investment decisions. We are strengthening our cost estimating
group, requiring independent cost estimates, and incorporating
Departmental best practices in the formulation of our Service Cost
Position for all major programs. We are using these realistic cost and
schedule estimates to drive difficult decisions at the front end of the
requirements process.
We are developing our acquisition strategies with the intent of
expanding the use of fixed price contracts, leveraging competition, and
tightening up on the use of incentive and award fees to ensure quality
systems are delivered consistently on budget and on time to our sailors
and marines. When we could not achieve these objectives this past year
on the Littoral Combat Ship program, we rewrote the program's
acquisition strategy to improve performance through competition. I
thank the committee for its strong support of this revised strategy,
and I assure you that I will not hesitate to recompete or cancel
programs when substandard performance demands change.
We are demanding strict discipline in the execution of our
contracts. Before commencing production on new start ship programs, I
have reported to you the results of reviews conducted to ensure that
designs are mature. We are specifically clamping down on contract
changes, the most-often cited reason for cost growth, through improved
policies and increased oversight.
Our goals for modernizing today's force and recapitalizing the
fleet affordably cannot be accomplished without a healthy industrial
base and strong performance by our industry partners. We have worked
hard to procure our ships, aircraft, and weapon systems at a rate
intended to bring stability to the industrial base and enable efficient
production. The Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan was developed with
particular regard for maintaining the unique characteristics and
strength of the base and our efforts support the QDR's emphasis on
maintaining the defense industrial base with appropriate levels of
competition, innovation, and capacity. The Future Years' Defense
Program outlines construction of a balanced force of 50 ships, an
average of 10 ships per year, which requires the full breadth of
capabilities and services provided by our major shipbuilders and
vendors.
In the end, industry must perform. We will work with our shipyards,
aircraft manufacturers, and weapon systems providers to benchmark
performance, to identify where improvements are necessary, to provide
the proper incentives for capital investments where warranted, and to
reward strong performance with terms and conditions that reflect our
desire for a strong government-industry partnership.
To meet our objectives, we must be smart buyers. The acquisition
workforce has been downsized over the past 15 years and in truth our
professional acquisition corps has been stretched too thin.
Accordingly, and with your strong support, we are rebuilding the
acquisition workforce through a number of parallel efforts. We must
both increase the number of acquisition workers and restore to the
government the core competencies inherent to their profession. The
Department has added 800 acquisition professionals in the last year
towards the goal of increasing the community by 5,000 over the Future
Years' Defense Program. This represents a 12 percent growth in our
workforce.
unmanned systems
The complex nature of today's security environment, as well as
current and future anti-access threats faced by the United States
require that the Navy and Marine Corps investigate the contributions
unmanned systems can make to warfighting capability. Unmanned systems
are unobtrusive, versatile, persistent, and they reduce the exposure of
our sailors and marines to unnecessary threats. They perform a vast
array of tasks such as intelligence collection, precision target
designation, oceanographic reconnaissance, and mine detection, and that
array will grow exponentially year to year.
Navy and Marine Corps unmanned systems have already made key
contributions to operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the counter-
piracy effort off the coast of Africa. Unmanned aircraft systems have
flown thousands of flight hours in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom. Unmanned ground vehicles employed by
the Marine Corps have conducted thousands of missions detecting and/or
neutralizing improvised explosive devices. Unmanned maritime systems
have provided improved port security.
We continue to support research and development activities to
improve these capabilities and increase the level of autonomy in
unmanned systems. Over the Future Years' Defense Program we will
continue to focus on transitioning from research and development and
limited deployments, through test and evaluation, to full fleet
integration and operations. In order to best direct our research and
harness the capabilities of unmanned systems, I am tasking the
Department to develop a comprehensive roadmap for unmanned system
development, to include a coordinated strategy for air, ground,
surface, and subsurface systems focused on integration and
interoperability with our existing platforms and capabilities.
The initiatives and investments contained in the fiscal year 2011
budget request will move us onto this path. I look forward to reporting
continued progress throughout the year.
closing
In this statement, I have discussed the strategic and tactical
imperatives that guide the Department and influence the future
decisions we will make. Specific programmatic requests are reflected in
the fiscal year 2011 budget request, which I believe incorporates the
difficult trade-offs and disciplined decision making that you and the
American taxpayer expect of us. We have carefully weighed risks and
made proposals to you that will ensure we retain a ready and agile
force capable of conducting the full range of military operations. We
will continue to work hard to be effective stewards of the resources
you allocate to us.
Forty years ago I stood watch on the deck of the USS Little Rock as
a young junior officer. Today I have the solemn privilege of standing
watch on behalf of our Navy and Marine Corps in a time of war and
national challenge. I am honored by the trust the President and
Congress have placed in me and I fully recognize the solemn obligation
I have to those who defend us.
That obligation fueled my desire to observe our people up close in
their varied and often dangerous jobs. I've seen first hand the courage
of our young marines in Helmand, the determination of a wounded SEAL to
walk despite losing two legs, the pride of a young sailor in a hot
engine room, the selfless dedication of corpsmen, nurses, and doctors
caring for the fallen.
Sacrifice and service created and preserve the freedom and
opportunity that we enjoy as Americans. Although we aspire to create a
world in which violence and aggression have been eliminated, we
understand that peace and stability are often secured only when strong
nations and good people are willing and prepared to use decisive force
against those who threaten it. The Navy and Marine Corps stand ready to
do so.
Your commitment to the service of our country and your recognition
of the sacrifice of our sailors, marines, civilians, and their families
has been steadfast and is fully reflected in the support of this
committee for our key programs and our people.
I, along with my partners, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
Roughead, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway, look
forward to hearing your thoughts and answering any questions you may
have about our budget request or specific programs of interest. I also
look forward to working closely with Congress as we move forward to
sustain the Navy and Marine Corps as the most formidable expeditionary
fighting force in the world.
Thank you and Godspeed.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral Roughead.
STATEMENT OF ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Admiral Roughead. Thank you, sir. Chairman Levin, Senator
Inhofe, members of the committee, it is my honor to appear
before you again representing more than 600,000 sailors and
Navy civilians. Sixty-five thousand of them are deployed,
12,000 on land in the CENTCOM area of operations, and 56
percent of our fleet is underway carrying out our maritime
strategy, a prescient precursor to the 2010 QDR.
They are projecting power into Afghanistan, building
partnerships in Africa, delivering relief in Haiti, silently
patrolling under the sea in every ocean, and providing
ballistic missile defense in the Arabian Gulf, the Western
Pacific, and the Eastern Mediterranean with pride and
determination.
They are even deployed on the first LCS, 2 years ahead of
schedule, and I think it's noteworthy that in the first week of
that ship's deployment it seized over a quarter of a ton of
cocaine.
It is our sailors and Navy civilians who make all things
possible, and thanks to your support we made important progress
in building tomorrow's Navy, remaining ready to fight today,
and supporting our sailors, Navy civilians, and families last
year. This year's budget submission will take us even further.
As the high demand for our Navy continues apace, we have
stabilized end strength and the tone of the force remains
positive. We will continue to aggressively improve wellness
programs and medical and social services for our wounded
warriors, indeed for all who serve. For our fleet as a
continuously deployed force, we must continue to reset in
stride. Conducting regular maintenance and training so that our
ships and aircraft reach their expected service lives is
extremely important.
This year's budget aligns our baseline budget for operation
and maintenance (O&M) accordingly and reflects a significant
shift away from supplemental funding. I strongly request your
support for this important change.
While we reset, we must also procure ships and aircraft to
reach our requirement of more than 313 ships. Last year we
commissioned 9 ships and over the next decade our plan procures
an average of 10 ships per year, significant growth for the
near term.
For aviation, we remain committed to bringing new
capabilities on line, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and
unmanned aircraft, and to maintaining the readiness of our
current naval air force, all of which give our Nation
flexibility in response unencumbered by overseas basing.
Affordability for all our plans will remain fundamental to
our decisions. The effectiveness of our unmanned systems,
ships, and aircraft is a feature of the systems which connect
them. Last year, I brought information capabilities and
resources under a single Information Dominance Directorate
within the Navy staff and commissioned Fleet Cyber Command 10th
Fleet. I see benefits of that already.
I am proud of our Navy's accomplishments last year and I am
confident we can achieve more with this year's budget
submission. Our risk continues to trend towards significant and
achieving the right balance within and across my priorities
remains critical to mitigating it. But I remain optimistic
because of our outstanding sailors and Navy civilians and the
spirit of our Nation. We have seen more challenging times and
emerged prosperous, secure, and free.
I ask you to support our 2011 budget request and thank you
for all you do to make the U.S. Navy a global force for good
today and into the future. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Roughead follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM Gary Roughead, USN
navy fiscal year 2011 posture statement
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee, it is
my honor and pleasure to appear before you, once again, representing
the more than 600,000 sailors and civilians of the U.S. Navy. Every
day, our dedicated Navy men and women are forward deployed protecting
the global commons in every domain: sea, land, air, space, and
cyberspace. I appreciate your continued support for them as our Navy
protects our Nation and our national interests.
When I signed our Maritime Strategy with General Conway and Admiral
Allen more than 2 years ago, I was confident that the strategy would
prepare us well for the current and future security environments. Since
then, it has guided our operations and investments, and I am further
convinced of its relevance to our operations today and of its enduring
attributes. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) validated the
underlying principle articulated in the Maritime Strategy that
preventing wars is as important as winning wars. The QDR also declared
that U.S. security and prosperity are connected to that of the
international system, that deterrence is a fundamental military
function, and that partnerships are key to U.S. strategy and essential
to the stability of global systems. These themes reinforce the tenets
of our Maritime Strategy and the six core capabilities it identified
for our maritime Services: forward presence, deterrence, sea control,
power projection, maritime security, and humanitarian assistance and
disaster response (HA/DR).
My priorities for the Navy remain unchanged: to build tomorrow's
Navy, to remain ready to fight today, and to develop and support our
sailors, Navy civilians, and their families. We are making progress in
these areas thanks to your continued support. Some highlights follow.
We added nine new ships to our fleet in 2009, including USS Freedom
(LCS-1), currently on its first deployment, and USS Independence (LCS-
2), our second Littoral Combat Ship. We delivered three DDG-51
destroyers and restarted the DDG-51 line to increase surface combatant
capacity for maritime security, deterrence, and anti-submarine warfare.
We are adapting our force to meet the President's demand for sea-based
ballistic missile defense (BMD) of Europe while sustaining our current
BMD missions in the Arabian Gulf and Western Pacific. Our Virginia-
class submarine program continues to excel with the delivery of USS New
Mexico (SSN-779) 4 months ahead of schedule. We rolled out our first
carrier variant of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (F-35C) aircraft, the
timely delivery of which remains essential to fulfilling our strike
fighter requirements. We are conducting the first deployment of our
Vertical Take-Off and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) and we
expect the first test flight of our Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial System
demonstrator this year.
In the information and cyberspace domain, I established Fleet Cyber
Command/U.S. Tenth Fleet as the global operator of Navy's cyber,
networks, cryptology/signals intelligence, information, electronic
warfare, and space operations. I restructured the Navy staff to bring
all Navy information capabilities and resources under our new
Information Dominance Deputy Chief of Naval Operations and created the
Navy Information Dominance Corps, integrating more than 45,000 sailors
and civilians from our existing intelligence, information professional,
information warfare, meteorology/oceanography, and space communities.
About 1,400 of these sailors are deployed globally as individual
augmentees (IAs) today, most supporting operations in the Central
Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.
More than 40 percent of our fleet is underway daily, globally
present and persistently engaged. Our forward presence enabled the
rapid response of our aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and numerous
other surface and USNS ships, helicopters, and personnel to Haiti to
provide humanitarian aid after the devastating earthquake in January.
We remain engaged in operations in Afghanistan and in the drawdown of
U.S. forces in Iraq. Navy has more than 21,000 Active and Reserve
sailors on the ground and at sea in CENTCOM. This includes a doubling
of our construction battalion (SEABEE) presence in Afghanistan and
ongoing IA support to both operations. I recently issued our Navy
Vision for Confronting Irregular Challenges to shape how our Navy will
plan for, resource, and deliver a wide range of capabilities to
confront irregular challenges associated with regional instability,
insurgency, crime, and violent extremism at sea, in the littorals, and
on shore.
Our Navy continues to support our people and their families. We are
in the process of expanding opportunities for service at sea to women
in the Navy by opening to them assignments on submarines for the first
time in history. Our Navy has received 19 national awards in the past
18 months for its workforce planning, life-work integration, diversity,
and training initiatives. Most notably, Workforce Management magazine
awarded Navy the 2009 Optimas Award for General Excellence, which
recognized the U.S. Navy as an employer of choice among the ranks of
previous distinguished recipients such as Google, Intel, and Hewlett-
Packard. We have met or exceeded overall officer and enlisted (Active
and Reserve) recruiting goals for 2009 and we are on track to achieve
similar success in 2010. I appreciate the support of Congress for our
fleet and its dedicated sailors, Navy civilians, and their families
that serve our Nation every day.
I continue to focus on ensuring our Navy is properly balanced to
answer the call now and in the decades to come. Last year, I stated our
risk was moderate trending toward significant because of the challenges
associated with Fleet capacity, increasing operational requirements,
and growing manpower, maintenance, and infrastructure costs. This risk
has increased over the last year as trends in each of these areas have
continued. We are able to meet the most critical combatant commander
demands today, but I am increasingly concerned about our ability to
meet any additional demands while sustaining the health of the force,
conducting essential maintenance and modernization to ensure units
reach full service life, and procuring our future Navy so we are
prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
The costs to own and operate our fleet continue to rise due to
increasing operational demands, higher maintenance requirements, and
growing manpower costs. Over the last decade, the overall size of our
active fleet decreased by more than 30 ships, about 10 percent, and our
active duty end strength decreased by about 13 percent, while
operational demands globally have grown. Our Navy's high tempo of
operations has placed additional stress on our smaller fleet of
sailors, ships, and aircraft and we are consuming the service life of
our fleet at a higher than expected rate. We are implementing force
management measures in the near term to stretch the capacity of our
285-ship force to meet increasing global requirements. Through our
Fleet Response Plan, we are tailoring our training and maintenance
cycles to generate ready forces, allowing us to meet the most critical
combatant commander requirements today. The impact of these measures on
our fleet has been felt in longer deployments and shorter dwell times,
which increase stress on our sailors and drive up maintenance
requirements and costs for our ships and aircraft. Regular maintenance
of our ships and aircraft, and training and certification of our crews
between deployments, is essential to our ability to sustain our force.
It is how we reset. This ``reset in stride'' is different from other
Services. It ensures our ships and aircraft maintain the required
continuous forward presence whether supporting coalition troops in
Afghanistan, deterring North Korea and Iran, or providing humanitarian
aid in Haiti. For our Navy, continuous reset translates into decades of
service for each ship and aircraft, a significant return on investment.
Our reset and readiness are tied directly to our operation and
maintenance (O&M) funding. Over the last decade, we have relied upon a
combination of base budget and overseas contingency operations (OCO)
funding to operate and maintain our Navy. Our fiscal year 2011 OCO
request for O&M is tightly focused on supporting our ongoing and
increased operations in CENTCOM. Our fiscal year 2011 base budget
request for O&M is focused on properly sustaining our ships and
aircraft so they reach their expected service life; funding enduring
readiness requirements, particularly in aviation; and funding price
increases, most notably in fuel, to support our enduring operations.
Together, our OCO and base budget O&M requests reflect our commitment
to resource current operations while preserving our fleet for future
operations. I ask for your full support of this year's O&M request.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget request achieves the optimal balance
among my priorities to build tomorrow's Navy, to remain ready to fight
today, and to develop and support our sailors, Navy civilians, and
their families. It supports our Maritime Strategy and the 2010 QDR and
continues us on the path we started in fiscal year 2010 to support our
forces forward, take care of our people, continue rebalancing our force
to meet current and future challenges, and reform how and what we buy.
Highlights follow.
build tomorrow's navy
Since the release of our Maritime Strategy, I have stated that our
Navy requires a minimum of 313 ships to meet operational requirements
globally. This minimum, a product of our 2005 force structure analysis,
remains valid. We are adjusting our requirement to address increased
operational demands and expanding requirements, as outlined in the QDR,
for BMD, intra-theater lift, and forces capable of confronting
irregular challenges. Our shipbuilding plan addresses these operational
needs by growing our fleet to 315 ships in 2020 and peaking at 320
ships in 2024. Per the President's direction, we will improve our
capacity to conduct sea-based BMD of Europe by increasing our inventory
of Aegis-capable ships through our restarted DDG-51 production line and
modernization of our existing cruisers and destroyers. The funding for
these upgrades will deliver the capability and capacity of ships
required to perform this mission while maintaining sustainable
deployment ratios for our sailors. To fulfill combatant commander
requirements for intra-theater lift, we will increase the number of
Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) in our Fleet; the large payload bays,
speed, and shallow draft of these versatile ships make them capable of
supporting a wide range of naval missions, including security
cooperation, security force assistance, and logistics support. To
provide forces capable of confronting irregular challenges, we will
continue to pursue the planned number of Littoral Combat Ships,
providing a flexible and modular ship optimized for operations close to
shore. We are moving from developing a Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) squadron optimized for high-end, forcible entry operations to
augmenting our three existing Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons (MPS)
with enhanced sea basing capabilities that are useful across a wide
range of military operations. The augmented MPS will support our
amphibious warfare force, which we will build to a minimum of 33 ships
to increase our capacity to conduct theater security cooperation,
sustain combat and assistance operations from the sea, and hedge
against future conflict.
We have improved the balance among capability, capacity,
affordability, and executabilty in our procurement plans by developing
a shipbuilding plan that procures our most needed capabilities,
increases Fleet capacity in the near-to-mid-term, and is fiscally
executable within the FYDP. It carefully manages increasing levels of
operational and institutional risk, recognizing that, for as much as
our Navy does to protect our national security and prosperity, the
overall economy of our Nation undoubtedly does more. I am confident our
near-term plan provides the capability and capacity we need to conduct
contingency operations and build partner capacity while retaining our
ability to deter aggressors, assure allies, and defeat adversaries.
Beyond 2024, I am concerned about the decrease in Fleet capacity that
will occur as our legacy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and
amphibious ships reach the end of their service lives. Many of these
ships were brought into service during the 1980s, when we procured some
ship classes at a rate of four to five ships per year. While economic
and security conditions are sure to change between now and then, it
takes 10 to 15 years to design and build our ships, which then remain
in service for 20 to 50 years. A long view is necessary to ensure our
Navy has sufficient capacity to protect America's global national
interests in the future.
As directed by the QDR, we are working with the Air Force and
Marine Corps on an Air Sea Battle concept that will identify the
doctrine, procedures, training, organization, and equipment needed for
our Navy to counter growing military threats to our freedom of action.
This joint effort will help us inform investments and identify future
opportunities to better integrate naval and air forces across the
entire range of operations. We are already moving forward with the Air
Force to streamline capabilities, manpower, and resources related to
our unmanned aviation systems. We continue to pursue our unique
maritime aviation capabilities in carrier-based strike, anti-submarine
warfare, and naval special warfare missions.
Underpinning the capacity and capability of our fleet is a highly
technical and specialized industrial base. A strategic national asset,
our shipbuilding and aviation industrial base is essential to
sustaining our global fleet and remains a significant contributor to
our Nation's economic prosperity. Our shipbuilding industrial base
directly supports more than 97,000 uniquely-skilled American jobs and
indirectly supports thousands more through second and third tier
suppliers. The highly specialized skills in our shipbuilding base take
years to develop and, if lost, cannot be easily or quickly replaced.
Level loading and predictable ship procurement allow industry to
stabilize its workforce and retain the critical skills essential to our
national security.
I am committed to reducing the total ownership cost of our fleet so
that what we buy today does not pressurize our ability to operate
tomorrow. Significant cost drivers for our Fleet include increasing
technical and design complexity, changes in requirements, reductions in
the number of ships procured, and higher labor costs. To reduce these
costs, we are pursuing common hull forms and components, open
architecture for hardware and software, and increased modularity.
Moreover, we are considering total ownership costs in procurement
decisions. We are exploring new ways to design our ships with greater
affordability throughout their lives, including reducing costs of fuel
consumption, maintenance, and manpower and by increasing the efficiency
of our maintenance and support processes and organizations. We are
leveraging open production lines to deliver proven and required
capabilities, such as in our DDG-51 and EA-18G programs. We are
promoting longer production runs with our Virginia class SSNs, EA-18G
and F/A-18E/F, P-8A, BAMS, and DDG-51 programs. We are capitalizing on
repeat builds to control requirements creep and increase predictability
with our aircraft carrier, destroyer, and submarine programs. Finally,
we are pursuing evolutionary instead of revolutionary designs to
deliver required future capabilities. Our future missile defense
capable ship, for example, will be developed by spiraling capability
into our DDG-51-class ships, instead of designing and building a new
cruiser from the keel up.
I remain committed to delivering a balanced and capable fleet that
will meet our national security requirements. I seek your support for
the following initiatives and programs:
aviation programs
Aircraft Carrier Force Structure
The Navy remains firmly committed to maintaining a force of 11
carriers for the next 3 decades. With the commissioning of USS George
H.W. Bush (CVN-77) and inactivation of the 48-year-old USS Kitty Hawk
(CV-63), our last conventionally powered aircraft carrier, we now have
an all nuclear-powered carrier force. Our carriers enable our Nation to
respond rapidly, decisively, and globally to project power, as we have
done in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to deliver humanitarian assistance, as
we have done in Haiti, while operating from a small, yet persistent,
footprint that does not impose unnecessary political or logistic
burdens on other nations. Our carriers remain a great investment for
our Nation.
Our 11-carrier force structure is based on worldwide presence and
surge requirements, while also taking into account training and
maintenance needs. I thank Congress for granting us a waiver to
temporarily reduce our force to 10 carriers for the period between the
inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and the delivery of Gerald R.
Ford (CVN-78). We will continue to meet operational commitments during
this 33-month period by managing carefully carrier deployment and
maintenance cycles. After the delivery of CVN-78, we will maintain an
11-carrier force through the continued refueling program for Nimitz-
class ships and the delivery of our Ford-class carriers at 5-year
intervals starting in 2020.
CVN-78 is the lead ship of our first new class of aircraft carriers
in nearly 40 years. Ford-class carriers will be our Nation's premier
forward-deployed asset capable of responding to crises or delivering
early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. These new
carriers incorporate an innovative new flight deck design that provides
greater operational flexibility, reduced manning requirements, and the
ability to operate current and future naval aircraft from its deck.
Among the new technologies being integrated in these ships is the
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), which will enable the
carrier's increased sortie generation rate and lower total ownership
costs. EMALS is on track for an aircraft demonstration later this year
and is on schedule to support delivery of CVN-78 in September 2015.
Strike Fighter Capacity: Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18 E/F
Our Navy remains committed to the JSF program. The timely delivery
of the F-35C carrier variant remains critical to our future carrier
airwing strike fighter capacity. Our Navy has the necessary tactical
aircraft capacity in the near term to support our Nation's strategic
demands; however, a January 2010 assessment forecasts a decrease in our
carrier-based strike fighter capacity that peaks in 2014 and remains
through 2019. We have a plan to address this capacity decrease that
involves several management and investment measures.
Our force management measures are targeted at preserving the
service life of our existing legacy strike fighter aircraft (F/A-18 A-
D). We will reduce the number of aircraft available in our squadrons
during non-deployed phases to the minimum required. We will reduce our
Unit Deployed squadrons (UDP) from 12 aircraft to 10 aircraft per
squadron to match the corresponding decrease in Marine Corps
expeditionary squadrons. We are accelerating the transition of five
legacy F/A-18C squadrons to F/A-18E/F Super Hornets using available F/
A-18E/F aircraft and will transition two additional legacy squadrons
using Super Hornet attrition reserve aircraft. These measures make our
legacy strike fighter aircraft available for High Flight Hour (HFH)
inspections and our Service Life Extension Program, which together will
extend their service life and manage to some extent the decrease in our
carrier-based strike fighter capacity through 2018. These measures
expend the service life of our Super Hornets earlier than programmed,
so we are refining our depot level production processes to maximize
throughput and return legacy strike fighter aircraft to the fleet
expeditiously. Our fiscal year 2011 budget procures 22 additional F/A-
18E/F aircraft.
Our investment measures are targeted at extending the service life
of our F/A-18 A-D aircraft and procuring JSF. HFH inspections, which
have been in place for 2 years, provide the ability to extend the
service life of our legacy F/A-18 A-D aircraft to 8,600 flight hours,
while engineering analysis is underway to determine the SLEP
requirements necessary to reach the service life extension goal of
10,000 flight hours. The HFH and SLEP programs increase our
institutional risk by diverting investment and maintenance funds from
other accounts, but they are necessary measures to address our strike
fighter decrease while preserving our investment in JSF.
I remain committed to the JSF program because of the advanced
sensor, precision strike, firepower, and stealth capabilities JSF will
bring to our Fleet. While the overall schedule for JSF has slipped,
causing us to reduce the overall rate of procurement, initial operating
capability is still planned for 2014 and we have not reduced the total
number of airframes we plan to buy. We are monitoring the JSF program
closely and managing our existing strike fighter capacity to meet power
projection demands until JSF is delivered. Procurement of an alternate
engine for JSF increases our risk in this program. The Navy does not
have a requirement for an alternate engine, and its additional costs
threaten our ability to fund currently planned aircraft procurement
quantities, which would exacerbate our anticipated decrease in strike
fighter capacity. Our fiscal year 2011 budget request procures seven F-
35C aircraft.
EA-18G Growler
The proliferation of technology has allowed state and non-state
actors to use the electromagnetic spectrum with increasing
sophistication. Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) provides one of the
most flexible offensive capabilities available to the joint warfighter
and it remains in high demand in traditional, irregular, and hybrid
conflicts. The Navy continues to provide extensive AEA support from our
carriers afloat and from our expeditionary EA-6B Prowler squadrons
deployed currently to Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are leveraging the mature and proven F/A-18E/F airframe
production line to recapitalize our aging EA-6B aircraft with the EA-
18G Growler. As directed in the QDR, we are planning to procure an
additional 26 EA-18G Growler aircraft across the FYDP to increase joint
force capacity to conduct expeditionary electronic attack. Our program
of record will buy 114 total EA-18G aircraft, recapitalizing 10 Fleet
EA-6B squadrons and four expeditionary squadrons. The program continues
to deliver as scheduled. In September, our first EA-18G transition
squadron, based at NAS Whidbey Island, reached Initial Operational
Capability and it will deploy as an expeditionary squadron later this
year. Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests funding for 12 EA-18Gs.
P-3 Orion and P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft
Your continued support of the P-3 and P-8A force remains essential
and is appreciated greatly. Our P-3 Orion roadmap focuses on
sustainment and selected modernization until it is replaced by the P-8A
Poseidon. These aircraft provide capabilities ideally suited for
regional and littoral crises and conflict, and are our pre-eminent
airborne capability against submarine threats. Our P-3s are in high
demand today for the time-critical intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance they provide to the joint force on the ground in CENTCOM
and for their direct contributions to our maritime domain awareness in
key regions across the globe.
P-3 Zone 5 wing fatigue has resulted in the unplanned grounding of
49 aircraft between 2007 and 2009, with more expected. Mitigation
measures include a combination of targeted Zone 5 modifications and
outer wing replacements. As of December, we have returned 12 aircraft
to service after completing Zone 5 modification and 32 aircraft are
currently being repaired. As part of our sustainment program, we have
included $39.6 million in our fiscal year 2011 budget request to
conduct outer wing installations on nine of our P-3 aircraft. P-3
sustainment and modernization programs are critical to ensuring
successful transition to the P-8A, while preserving essential maritime
and overland battle space awareness.
The P-8A completed it's first Navy test flight this past October
and will resume integrated flight testing in March of this year. The P-
8A will achieve initial operating capability and begin replacing our
aging P-3 aircraft in 2013. Our fiscal year 2011 budget request
procures seven P-8A aircraft.
MH-60R/S Multi-Mission Helicopter
The MH-60R and MH-60S successfully completed their first deployment
together this past summer with the USS John C. Stennis carrier strike
group. The MH-60R multi-mission helicopter replaces the surface
combatant-based SH-60B and carrier-based SH-60F with a newly
manufactured airframe and enhanced mission systems. With these systems,
the MH-60R provides focused surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare
capabilities for our strike groups and individual ships. Our fiscal
year 2011 budget request procures 24 MH-60R helicopters. The MH-60S
supports surface warfare, combat logistics, vertical replenishment,
search and rescue, air ambulance, airborne mine counter-measures, and
naval special warfare mission areas. Our fiscal year 2011 budget
request procures 18 MH-60S helicopters.
surface ship programs
Littoral Combat Ship
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a fast, agile, networked surface
combatant that is optimized to support naval and joint force operations
in the littorals and capable of supporting open-ocean operations. It
will operate with tailored-mission packages to counter quiet diesel
submarines, mines, and fast surface craft. The modular and open
architecture design of the seaframe and mission modules provides the
inherent flexibility to adapt or add capabilities beyond the current
Anti-Submarine, Mine Countermeasures, and Surface Warfare missions.
These ships will employ a combination of manned helicopters and
unmanned aerial, surface, and undersea vehicles.
USS Freedom (LCS-1) has completed her post-delivery testing, trial,
and shakedown periods and commenced her maiden deployment in February
to Southern Command and Pacific Command. Her deployment 2 years ahead
of schedule will allow us to incorporate operational lessons more
quickly and effectively as we integrate these ships into our Fleet. USS
Independence (LCS-2) completed builder's trials in October 2009 and
acceptance trials in November 2009. We accepted delivery of
Independence on 18 December 2009, and commissioned her 16 January 2010.
In March 2009, fixed price contracts were awarded for USS Fort Worth
(LCS-3) and USS Coronado (LCS-4) which are now under construction by
Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics respectively.
I am impressed and satisfied with the capabilities of both LCS
designs and am committed to procuring 55 of these ships. Affordability
remains the key factor in acquiring LCS in the quantities we require.
After careful review of the fiscal year 2010 industry proposals,
consideration of total program costs, and ongoing discussions with
Congress, we made the decision to cancel for affordability reasons the
Phase II requests for proposals for three fiscal year 2010 LCS ships
and adjust our acquisition strategy. In fiscal year 2010, we will
conduct a competition among the existing LCS industry participants to
down-select to a single LCS design. The winner of the down-select will
be awarded a block buy contract for up to 10 ships, to be procured from
fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014 at a rate of two ships per
year, built in one shipyard. To sustain competition and increase
capacity, the winner of the down-select will be required to deliver a
Technical Data Package to the Navy to support competition for a second
contract source. We plan to award up to five ships to a second source
beginning in fiscal year 2012 with one ship and continuing with an
additional two ships per year through fiscal year 2014. The winner of
the down-select will provide combat systems equipment, up to 15 ship
sets, for the ships built by the two contract sources: 10 sets for the
10 ships under contract with the winner of the down-select and up to 5
additional sets for the 5 ships being procured by the second contract
source. The five additional sets will later be provided as government-
furnished equipment to support the second source LCS contract. We
intend to procure all future LCS ships within the national Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 revised cost cap. Our
down-select strategy leverages competition to the maximum extent
practical, provides for economic procurement quantities, improves
learning curve and commonality opportunities, and ultimately provides
for program stability. We recently issued the requests for proposals
for this contract and expect industry bids in March of this year.
Consistent with our new strategy, our fiscal year 2011 budget
requests two LCS seaframes and an additional $278 million to secure an
LCS block buy, which is essential to lowering unit costs. I request
your support as we acquire LCS in the most cost-effective manner and
deliver its innovative capability in sufficient capacity to our Fleet.
Integrated Air and Missile Defense
Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) incorporates all aspects
of air defense against ballistic, anti-ship, and overland cruise
missiles. IAMD is vital to the protection of our force, and it is an
integral part of our core capability to deter aggression through
conventional means. The demand for sea-based BMD is increasing
significantly. The Navy's mature and successfully demonstrated maritime
BMD capability will play a primary role in the first phase of our
Nation's plan to provide for the missile defense of Europe. Aegis BMD
counters short, medium, and some intermediate-range ballistic missiles
through active defense and is able to pass target information to other
BMD systems, thereby expanding the BMD battlespace and support of
homeland defense. Currently, 20 ships (4 cruisers and 16 destroyers)
have this capability and are being used to perform maritime BMD. All of
the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and nine of the Ticonderoga-class
cruisers are planned to receive BMD capability through our
modernization program.
DDG-51 Restart and Future Surface Combatant
To address the rapid proliferation of ballistic and anti-ship
missiles and deep-water submarine threats, as well as increase the
capacity of our multipurpose surface ships, we restarted production of
our DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (Flight IIA series). These
ships will be the first constructed with IAMD, providing much-needed
BMD capacity to the Fleet, and they will incorporate the hull,
mechanical, and electrical alterations associated with our mature DDG
modernization program. We will spiral DDG-51 production to incorporate
future integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
We are well underway with restarting DDG-51 production. We awarded
advance procurement (AP) contracts for DDG-113 and -114, and expect to
award an AP contract for DDG-115 in the coming months, to support the
long lead items necessary for production of these ships. I thank
Congress for supporting our fiscal year 2010 budget, which funded
construction of DDG-113. We anticipate a contract award for DDG-113
production this spring. Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests funding
for the construction of DDG-114 and DDG-115 as part of our plan to
build a total of eight DDG-51 ships through the FYDP.
The Navy, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, conducted a Radar/Hull Study for future surface combatants
that analyzed the total ship system solution necessary to meet our IAMD
requirements while balancing affordability and capacity in our surface
Fleet. The study concluded that Navy should integrate the Air and
Missile Defense Radar program S Band radar (AMDR-S), SPY-3 (X Band
radar), and Aegis Advanced Capability Build (ACB) combat system into a
DDG-51 hull. While our Radar/Hull Study indicated that both DDG-51 and
DDG-1000 were able to support our preferred radar systems, leveraging
the DDG-51 hull was the most affordable option. Accordingly, our fiscal
year 2011 budget cancels the next generation cruiser program due to
projected high cost and risk in technology and design of this ship. I
request your support as we invest in spiraling the capabilities of our
DDG-51 class from our Flight IIA Arleigh Burke ships to Flight III
ships, which will be our future IAMD-capable surface combatant. We will
procure the first Flight III ship in fiscal year 2016.
Modernization
As threats evolve, we must modernize our existing ships with
updated capabilities that sustain our combat effectiveness and enable
our ships to reach their expected service life, which in the case of
our destroyers and cruisers, is more than three decades. Our destroyer
and cruiser modernization program includes advances in standard
missiles, integrated air and missile defense, open architecture, and
essential hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) upgrades. Maintaining
the stability of the cruiser and destroyer modernization program is
critical to achieving relevant future Navy capability and capacity.
Our Navy plans to conduct DDG modernization in two 6-month
availabilities. The first availability is focused on HM&E
modifications, while the second availability, conducted 2 years later,
is focused on combat systems modernization. The program will commence
in fiscal year 2010 and focuses on the Flight I and II DDG-51 ships
(hulls 51-78). All ships of the class will be modernized at midlife.
Key tenets of the DDG modernization program include: an upgrade of the
Aegis Weapons System to include an Open Architecture (OA) computing
environment, an upgrade of the SPY radar signal processor, the addition
of BMD capability, installation of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
(ESSM), an upgraded SQQ-89A(V)15 anti-submarine warfare system,
integration with the SM-6 Missile, and improved air dominance with
processing upgrades and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air
capability.
The Cruiser Modernization Program will modernize all remaining
cruisers (Baseline 2, 3, and 4). The first fully modernized cruiser,
USS Bunker Hill (CG-52), was completed in June 2009. The key aspects of
the CG modernization program include: an upgrade to the Aegis weapons
system to include an OA computing environment, installation of an SPQ-
9B radar, addition of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), an
upgrade to Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Block 1B, an upgraded SQQ-
89A(V)15 anti-submarine warfare system, and improved air dominance with
processing upgrades and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air
capability. Six Baseline 4 cruisers will receive the BMD upgrade.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests funding for the modernization
of three cruisers and three destroyers.
DDG-1000
The DDG-1000 Zumwalt guided missile destroyer will be an optimally
crewed, multi-mission surface combatant designed to fulfill long-range
precision land attack requirements. In addition to providing offensive,
distributed and precision fires in support of forces ashore, these
ships will serve as test-beds for advanced technology, such as
integrated power systems, dual band radars, and advanced survivability
features, which can be incorporated into our other ship classes. The
first DDG-1000 is under construction and approximately 20 percent
complete. We recently notified Congress of a Nunn-McCurdy breach in
this program as a result of our decision to reduce the number of DDG-
1000s in the original program. DDG-1000 will be a three-ship class. It
is scheduled to deliver in fiscal year 2013 with an initial operating
capability in fiscal year 2015.
Joint High Speed Vessel
Intra-theater lift is key to enabling the United States to rapidly
project, maneuver, and sustain military forces in distant, overseas
operations. The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program is an Army and
Navy joint program that will deliver a high-speed, shallow draft
surface ship capable of rapid transport of medium payloads of cargo and
personnel within a theater to austere ports without reliance on port
infrastructure for load/offload. In addition, the Navy JHSV will be
capable of supporting extensive Security Force Assistance and Theater
Security Cooperation operations, including the hosting of small craft
for training. A JHSV Production Readiness Review was completed in
October 2009 and the first vessel construction began this past December
with an anticipated delivery to the Army in fiscal year 2012. The
second ship, a Navy vessel, is scheduled to be delivered in 2013. Our
fiscal year 2011 budget includes funds for the construction of Navy's
third JHSV. Navy continues oversight of JHSV procurement for the five
Army-funded vessels in this program. The Army assumes full
responsibility for these five vessels following acquisition.
submarine programs
Virginia-Class SSN
The Virginia-class submarine is a multi-mission submarine that
dominates in the littorals and open oceans. Now in its 13th year of
construction, the Virginia program is demonstrating that this critical
undersea capability can be delivered affordably and on time. Thanks to
Congress, these ships will begin construction at a rate of two a year
in 2011, with two ship deliveries per year beginning in 2017. The Navy
continues to realize a return from investments in the Virginia cost
reduction program and construction process improvements through
enhanced shipbuilder performance on each successive ship. These
submarines are under budget and ahead of schedule, and their
performance continues to exceed expectations with every ship delivered.
Three of the five commissioned ships completed initial deployments
prior to their Post Shakedown Availabilities, a first for the Navy. I
am pleased with the accomplishments of the combined Navy-Industry team
and look forward to even greater success as we ramp up production to
two submarines next year.
SSGN
Our Navy has four guided missile submarines that provide high-
volume strike and irregular warfare capabilities in support of
operations and missions across the broad spectrum of conflict. SSGNs
are performing well on deployment, and we are learning valuable lessons
from each mission. Combatant commanders value the long-range strike
capability they provide and we are investigating options to sustain
this capability in the most operationally and cost effective manner, to
include options for expanding the long-range strike capacity of the
submarine fleet.
SSBN and Ohio Replacement
Our Navy supports the Nation's nuclear deterrence capability with a
credible and survivable fleet of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarines (SSBN). Originally designed for a 30-year service life, this
class will start retiring in 2027 after more than 42 years of service.
The United States needs a reliable and survivable sea-based
strategic deterrent for the foreseeable future. To ensure there is no
gap in this critical capability, our fiscal year 2011 budget requests
research and development funds for the Ohio replacement to support the
start of construction of the first ship in fiscal year 2019. The Ohio
replacement will be a strategic, national asset with the endurance and
stealth to enable our Navy to provide continuous, survivable strategic
deterrence into the 2080s. Appropriate R&D investment is essential to
design a reliable, survivable, and adaptable submarine capable of
deterring all potential adversaries. We completed our Analysis of
Alternatives study in 2009, and Milestone A is planned for April 2010.
The Ohio Replacement program will leverage the many successes of the
Virginia SSN program to achieve acquisition and total ownership cost
goals. The United States will realize significant program benefits as a
result of our close partnership with the United Kingdom's Vanguard SSBN
replacement program, particularly in the design and construction of a
common missile compartment. Our cooperation with the UK mitigates
technical risk and shares design costs.
amphibious warfare ships
Our amphibious warfare ships provide essential capabilities for the
full range of military operations, including theater security
cooperation, humanitarian assistance, conventional deterrence, and
forcible entry as part of major combat operations. With the unique
capability to move hundreds of personnel and substantial material
through complementary surface and air capabilities, these ships are key
to our ability to overcome geographic, political, and infrastructure
impediments to access. The Commandant of the Marine Corps and I have
determined that a minimum of 33 amphibious assault ships represents the
limit of acceptable risk in meeting the 38-ship requirement for
supporting a forcible entry operation conducted by an assault echelon
of two Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEB). Our 33-ship force would be
comprised of 11 LHA/D amphibious assault ships and a mix of 11 LPD-17
amphibious transport dock ships and 11 LSD dock landing ships. At this
capacity, we are accepting risk in the speed of arrival of the combat
support elements of the MEB. The QDR and our 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
account for 29-31 amphibious warfare ships within the FYDP. We plan to
procure the 11th LPD-17 in 2012, which will allow us to realize a 33-
ship minimum amphibious force in about fiscal year 2016. We continue to
review options to achieve and sustain the minimum 33 amphibious ship
assault echelon force.
LPD-17 Class Amphibious Warfare Ship
The LPD-17 class amphibious warfare ships represent the Navy and
Marine Corps commitment to an expeditionary fleet capable of power
projection, security force assistance, and theater security cooperation
in diverse operating environments. These ships have a 40-year expected
service life and will replace four classes of older ships: the LKA,
LST, LSD-36, and the LPD-4. Two LPD-17 class ships have completed their
initial deployments, and USS New York (LPD-21), forged with steel from
the World Trade Center, delivered in November 2009. We continue to
apply the lessons learned during construction and initial operation of
the early ships to those under construction. Quality is improving with
each ship delivered as we continue to work closely with the shipbuilder
to address cost, schedule, and performance concerns.
LHA Replacement (LHA(R))
LHA(R) is the replacement for our aging Tarawa class ships, which
will reach the end of their already extended service life between 2011-
2015. LHA(R) will provide us flexible, multi-mission amphibious
capabilities by leveraging the LHD-8 design and increasing aviation
capacity to better accommodate the JSF, MV-22, and other aircraft that
comprise the future Marine Corps Air Combat Element. We laid the keel
of the lead ship, USS America (LHA-6), in April 2009 and our fiscal
year 2011 budget includes one LHA(R) which is split-funded in fiscal
year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.
Mobile Landing Platform and Future Maritime Preposition Force
The Future Maritime Preposition Force (MPF(F)) program was
envisioned as a forward-deployed squadron of ships capable of at-sea
assembly and rapid employment of forces in an area of interest during a
crisis. Our requirement for amphibious and joint forcible entry
operations was reevaluated during the QDR and, as a result, we have
adjusted our approach to augment our three existing Maritime
Prepositioning Squadrons (MPS) instead of developing an MPF(F)
squadron. MPF(F) was optimized for high-end, forcible entry operations,
while the augmented MPS will provide enhanced sea basing capabilities
across a wide range of contingency operations. Each existing MPS will
be augmented by one Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) cargo
ship (transferred from the Army), a T-AKE combat logistics ship, and a
new Mobile Landing Platform (MLP). The MLP will be based on existing
designs for commercial ocean-going tankers and will meet most of the
mission requirements envisioned for the original MLP design. The three
augmented MPS reflect the QDR's emphasis on day-to-day deterrence and
partner capacity building, while continuing to meet forcible entry
needs. Our fiscal year 2011 budget request procures one MLP.
information dominance programs
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
We are investing in unmanned aircraft to meet an increasing
warfighter demand for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(ISR), and we are making technology investments to expand UAS
operations to other mission areas. The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
(BAMS) UAS will enhance our situational awareness and shorten the
sensor-to-shooter kill chain by providing persistent, multiple-sensor
capabilities to Fleet and Joint Commanders. The VTUAV Fire Scout is on
its first deployment aboard the USS McInerney (FFG-8). We are
developing a medium endurance maritime-based UAS and a Small Tactical
Unmanned Aerial System (STUAS) that will support a variety of ships,
Naval Special Warfare and Navy Expeditionary Combat Command units, and
Marine Corps elements.
The Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft System demonstration (UCAS-D) is
designed to prove carrier suitability of an autonomous, unmanned, low
observable, carrier-based aircraft. This effort includes maturing
technologies for aircraft carrier catapult launches and arrested
landings, as well integration into carrier-controlled airspace. Initial
flight tests to demonstrate carrier suitability are scheduled to start
later this year and autonomous aerial refueling demonstrations are
planned for 2013. We will leverage the lessons learned from operating
the demonstrator in developing a low-observable unmanned carrier-
launched airborne strike and surveillance system.
Mobile User Objective System
Our Maritime Strategy demands a flexible, interoperable, and secure
global communications capability that can support the command and
control requirements of highly mobile and distributed U.S. and
coalition forces. Satellite communications give deployed forces a
decisive military advantage and often offer the only communication
means to support on-going operations. Rapidly expanding joint demand
for more access at ever-higher data rates requires moving beyond our
current legacy Ultra High Frequency (UHF) satellite capabilities. The
Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) will satisfy those demands when
initial operational capability is reached in fiscal year 2012. I
request your continued support of MUOS and the critical UHF satellite
communication capability it will provide to the joint warfighter as the
aging UHF Follow-On constellation degrades.
Next Generation Enterprise Network
The Navy is continuing its transition from disparate independent
computer networks to a single secure network environment. We are
currently evolving our ashore network from the Navy Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI), the largest intranet in the world, to the Next
Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN). NGEN Increment 1 is the follow-on
to the existing NMCI contract, which expires at the end of fiscal year
2010. NGEN will sustain the services currently provided by NMCI, while
increasing government command and control of our network and enabling
secure, reliable, and adaptable global information exchange. Future
NGEN increments will expand on services currently provided by NMCI and
support seamless transition between afloat and ashore environments. A
continuity of services contract is expected to be awarded this spring
and NGEN Initial Operating Capability is scheduled for the summer of
2012.
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, which replaces the E-2C, will
improve nearly every facet of tactical air operations and add overland
and littoral surveillance to support theater Integrated Air and Missile
Defense against air threats in high clutter, complex electro-magnetic
and jamming environments. The airborne radar on the E-2D, with its
improved surveillance capability, is a key pillar of the Navy
Integrated Fire Control concept. The E-2D is scheduled to begin
operational test and evaluation in 2012. The first Fleet squadron
transition is planned for 2013, with deployment planned for October
2014. Our fiscal year 2011 budget requests four E-2D Hawkeye aircraft.
remain ready to fight today
Our Navy continues to operate at a high tempo. We are filling new
combatant commander requirements for BMD, electronic attack,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), combat support,
combat service support, and maritime security force assistance, in
addition to conducting ongoing deployments in support of our maritime
and national strategies.
In CENTCOM alone, we have more than 9,000 sailors at sea, including
a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and air wing dedicated to providing 24/7
air support to U.S. and coalition forces on the ground. Navy Riverine
forces are on their sixth deployment to Iraq, conducting interdiction
patrols and training their Iraqi counterparts. Our surface ships in the
region are providing BMD and conducting counterterrorism,
counterpiracy, maritime security, theater security cooperation, and
security force assistance operations. On the ground in CENTCOM, we have
more than 12,000 Active and Reserve sailors supporting Navy, joint
force, and coalition operations. Navy Commanders lead 6 of the 12 U.S.-
led Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan. We have doubled our
construction battalions (SEABEEs) in Afghanistan, increasing our
capacity to build forward bases for U.S. forces and improve critical
infrastructure in that country. Our Naval Special Warfare Teams
continue to be engaged heavily in direct combat operations and our
Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams continue to conduct lifesaving
counter-Improvised Explosive Device operations on a daily basis. As we
shift our effort from Iraq to Afghanistan, demand for Navy individual
augmentees (IAs) has grown. We are providing IAs to support the
increase of U.S. forces in Afghanistan while our IAs in Iraq remain at
current levels to support the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops,
maintain detention facilities and critical infrastructure, and assist
coalition efforts until they can be turned over to Iraqi forces. During
my recent trip to CENTCOM, I met with many of our dedicated Navy men
and women supporting these efforts and I could not be more proud of
their contributions. Their expert skill, ingenuity, competence, and
drive are impressive and unmatched.
Our high tempo will likely continue as combat forces draw down in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Navy enabling forces will remain in CENTCOM to
provide protection, ISR, and logistics support to our troops and
partner forces in the region, while we will continue to maintain a
forward-deployed presence of about 100 ships around the world to
prevent conflict, increase interoperability with our allies, enhance
the maritime security and capacity of our traditional and emerging
partners, and respond to crises. Global demand for Navy forces remains
high and continues to rise because of the unequalled and unique ability
of our naval forces to overcome diplomatic, geographic, and military
impediments to access while bringing the persistence, flexibility, and
agility to conduct operations from the sea.
Reset in stride is how our Navy prepares our Fleet to deploy again.
Lifecycle maintenance and training between deployments is essential to
our reset and to the ability of our ships and aircraft to reach their
expected service lives. Although we are on pace to grow our fleet for
the next 10 years, our fleet reduced in size over the past decade. As a
result, while we continue to maintain the same number of ships at sea
assigned to combatant commanders, we have a historically low number of
ships available for at-sea training, exercises, and surge operations.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget request balances the need to meet
increasing operational requirements, sustain our sailors' proficiency,
and conduct the maintenance required to ensure our ships and aircraft
reach their full service lives. Highlights follow of initiatives that
ensure our Navy remains ready to fight today.
Depot Level Maintenance
Our ships and aircraft are capital assets that operate in
challenging physical and security environments. Keeping these assets in
acceptable operating condition is vital to their ability to accomplish
assigned missions and to reach their expected service lives. Timely
depot level maintenance, performed in a cycle determined by an
engineered assessment of expected material durability and scoped by
actual physical condition, will preserve our existing force structure
and ensure it can meet assigned tasking. Continued investment in depot
level maintenance is essential to our efforts to achieve and sustain
the force structure required to implement the Maritime Strategy.
Last year, I established the Surface Ship Life Cycle Management
(SSLCM) Activity to address deficiencies in our ship class maintenance
plans that could prevent our ships from reaching their full service
life. SSLCM has established an engineered approach to surface ship
maintenance that optimizes existing maintenance availability work
packages and better tracks ship material condition through robust
inspections and corrosion control tasks. We accelerated our review of
the requirements for certain ship classes, significantly improving the
accuracy of our surface ship maintenance requirements in fiscal year
2011 over prior years. We are committed to a full review of all surface
ship class maintenance plans, which will take several years. The value
of investing in an engineered approach to maintenance is evident in our
submarine force, where we have successfully extended the time between
scheduled availabilities based on demonstrated material conditions and
verification of engineering analysis. Because we have invested in this
engineering and planning effort, we have been able to safely recover
additional operational availability and reduce the overall depot level
maintenance requirement for our submarines. This significant step has
provided some of the resources needed to make additional investments in
surface ship maintenance.
Our combined fiscal year 2011 budget funds 99 percent of the
projected depot ship maintenance requirements necessary to sustain our
Navy's global presence. Our budget funds aviation depot maintenance to
provide 100 percent of the airframes for deployed squadrons and 96
percent of the nondeployed airframes. I request that you fully support
our baseline and contingency funding requests for O&M to ensure the
effectiveness of our force, safety of our sailors, and longevity of our
ships and aircraft.
Shore Readiness
Our shore infrastructure is a fundamental enabler of our
operational and combat readiness and is essential to the quality of
life and quality of work for our sailors, Navy civilians, and their
families. As I described last year, rising manpower costs and growing
operational demands on our aging fleet have led our Navy to take risk
in shore readiness. This risk increases our maintenance, sustainment,
restoration, and modernization requirements and continues our reliance
on old and less efficient energy systems. These factors increase the
cost of ownership of our shore infrastructure and outpace our efforts
to reduce costs through facilities improvements and energy upgrades. At
our current investment levels, our future shore readiness, particularly
the recapitalization of our facilities infrastructure, is at risk.
To manage our risk in shore infrastructure, our fiscal year 2011
budget request prioritizes funding for our most critical needs,
including Navy and Joint mission readiness, nuclear weapons security
and safety, and improving our bachelor quarters through sustained
funding for our Homeport Ashore initiative. To guide investment in
other areas ashore, we continue to pursue our capabilities-based Shore
Investment Strategy, which targets our investment in shore
infrastructure to where it will produce the highest return on
investment and have the greatest impact on achieving our strategic and
operational objectives, such as in areas that enable critical
warfighting capabilities, improve quality of life, and fulfill Joint
requirements.
We have made essential progress and improvements in nuclear weapons
security, child care facilities, and bachelor's quarters. Thank you for
funding all our requested military construction projects in 2010, as
well as 19 additional projects and our Reserve program. Your support
allowed us to address ship, aircraft, systems, infrastructure, and
training requirements, while enhancing the quality of life and quality
of service for our sailors and their families. Your similar support and
assistance through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
was also very helpful. As you requested, we identified Military
Construction projects for Child Development Centers and barracks and
prioritized them according to operational need and the ability to
obligate funds quickly. We selected infrastructure and energy projects
based on mission requirements, quality of life impact, environmental
planning status, and our ability to execute quickly. Our aggressive
execution schedule is on track; we have awarded all but 1 of our 85
initial projects and construction outlays are ramping up swiftly.
Training Readiness
Our Fleet Synthetic Training (FST) program provides realistic
operational training with seamless integration of geographically
dispersed Navy, Joint, Interagency and Coalition forces. Using virtual
and constructive training environments has allowed us to reduce our
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while providing the
level of sophistication necessary to prepare our sailors for
operational and tactical mission proficiency. We continue to evolve FST
to provide our sailors with exposure to a multitude of warfare areas.
Last year, we conducted our first BMD Fleet Synthetic Training event,
proving the viability and effectiveness of integrated Navy, Joint, and
partner-nation BMD training.
The proliferation of advanced, stealthy, nuclear, and non-nuclear
submarines continues to challenge our Navy's ability to guarantee the
access and safety of joint forces. Effective Anti-Submarine Warfare
(ASW) training with active sonar systems is vital to meeting potential
threats. The Navy remains a world leader in marine mammal research and
we will continue our robust investment in this research in fiscal year
2011 and beyond. Through such efforts, and in full consultation and
cooperation with other Federal agencies, Navy has developed effective
measures that protect marine mammals and the ocean environment from
adverse impacts of mid-frequency active sonar while not impeding vital
Navy training. We continue to work closely with our interagency
partners to further refine our protective measures as scientific
knowledge evolves. It is vitally important that any such measures
ensure the continued flexibility necessary to respond to future,
potentially unforeseen national security requirements.
Over the last year, we completed environmental planning for seven
existing and proposed at-sea training and combat certification areas.
We expect to complete planning for another six areas by the end of 2010
as we continue to balance our responsibility to prepare naval forces
for deployment and combat operations with our responsibility to be good
stewards of the marine environment.
Conducting night and day field carrier landing practice (FCLP)
prior to at-sea carrier qualifications is a critical training
requirement for our fixed-wing carrier-based pilots, who must develop
and maintain proficiency in the fundamentals necessary to conduct safe
carrier-based flight operations. We continue to seek additional
airfield capacity in the form of an outlying landing field (OLF) that
will enhance our ability to support FCLP training for fixed-wing,
carrier pilots operating from Naval Air Station Oceana and Naval
Station Norfolk. The additional OLF will allow Navy to meet training
requirements and overcome challenges related to capacity limits, urban
encroachment, and impacts from adverse weather conditions at existing
East Coast facilities. In August 2009, the Navy announced that the
release of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for
construction and operation of an OLF would be delayed. This delay was
necessary to ensure JSF noise analysis is included in the OLF draft
EIS. The Navy is committed to developing, with local, State, and
Federal leaders, a plan to ensure the OLF provides positive benefits to
local communities while addressing Navy training shortfalls.
Energy and Climate
Energy reform is a strategic imperative. The Secretary of the Navy
and I are committed to changing the way we do business to realize an
energy-secure future. In alignment with the Secretary of the Navy's
five goals, our priorities are to advance energy security by improving
combat capability, assuring mobility, ``lightening the load'', and
greening our footprint. We will achieve these goals through energy
efficiency improvements, consumption reduction initiatives, and
adoption of alternative energy and fuels. Reducing our reliance on
fossil fuels will improve our combat capability by increasing time on
station, reducing time spent alongside replenishment ships, and
producing more effective and powerful future weapons. Most of our
projects remain in the demonstration phase; however, we are making good
progress in the form of hybrid-electric drive, delivered last year on
the USS Makin Island (LHD-8), bio-fuel engines, advanced hull and
propeller coatings, solid state lighting, and policies that encourage
sailors to reduce their consumption through simple changes in behavior.
Thanks to your support, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
funded Navy energy conservation and renewable energy investment in 11
tactical and 42 shore-based projects totaling $455 million. Tactical
projects included alternative fuel, drive, and power systems, while
ashore projects included alternative energy (wind, solar and
geothermal) investments in 10 States and the installation of advance
metering infrastructure in three regions. Our fiscal year 2011 budget
continues to invest in tactical and ashore energy initiatives,
requesting $128 million for these efforts.
In our Maritime Strategy we addressed maritime operations in an era
of climate change, especially in the ice diminished Arctic. In May
2009, I established the Navy's Task Force on Climate Change to develop
policy, investment, and force-structure recommendations regarding
climate change in the Arctic and globally over the long-term. Our focus
will be to ensure Navy readiness and capability in a changing global
environment.
Second East Coast Carrier-Capable Port
Hampton Roads is the only nuclear carrier capable port on the East
Coast. A catastrophic event in the Hampton Roads area affecting port
facilities, shipping channels, supporting maintenance or training
infrastructure, or the surrounding community has the potential to
severely limit East Coast Carrier operations, even if the ships
themselves are not affected. Consistent with today's dispersal of West
Coast aircraft carriers between California and Washington State, the
QDR direction to make Naval Station Mayport a nuclear carrier-capable
homeport addresses the Navy's requirement for a capable facility to
maintain aircraft carriers in the event that a natural or manmade
disaster makes the Hampton Roads area inaccessible. While there is an
upfront cost to upgrade Naval Station Mayport to support our nuclear
aircraft carriers, Mayport has been a carrier homeport since 1952 and
is the most cost-effective means to achieve strategic dispersal on the
east coast. The national security benefits of this additional homeport
far outweigh those costs.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The Law of the Sea Convention codifies navigation and overflight
rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global
mobility of our Armed Forces. It directly supports our national
security interests. Not being a party to this Convention constrains
efforts to develop enduring maritime partnerships, inhibits efforts to
expand the Proliferation Security Initiative, and elevates the level of
risk for our sailors as they undertake operations to preserve
navigation rights and freedoms, particularly in areas such as the
Strait of Hormuz and Arabian Gulf, and the East and South China Seas.
By becoming a party to the Convention, the United States will be able
to expand its sovereign rights to the increasingly accessible outer
continental shelf areas of the resource rich environment of the Arctic,
as well as in other locations where technological advances are opening
up previously unobtainable resources. Accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention remains a priority for our Navy.
develop and support our sailors, navy civilians and their families
Our sailors, Navy civilians, and their families underpin our
Maritime Strategy and are the foundation of our Nation's global force
for good. We have great ships, aircraft, weapons, and systems, but it
is our skilled and innovative sailors who turn these ships, aircraft,
and technologies into capabilities that can prevent conflict and win
wars. In January 2010, we released the Navy Total Force Vision for the
21st century to guide our efforts to attract, recruit, develop, assign,
and retain a highly-skilled workforce and reaffirm our commitment to
supporting our uniformed and civilian people wherever they serve and
live.
We have transitioned from reducing end strength to stabilizing our
force through a series of performance-based measures. Our stabilization
efforts remain focused on maintaining a balanced force in terms of
seniority, experience, and skills while supporting growth in high-
demand areas such as cyber and special operations. We recognize the
importance of retaining the talent and experience of our sailors after
they complete their active duty obligation so we are actively removing
barriers associated with the transition between Active and Reserve
careers to allow for a continuum of service over a lifetime. Our fiscal
year 2011 budget requests authorization and funding for 328,700 Active
end strength and 65,500 Reserve end strength. We continue to request
OCO funding for our individual augmentees that are performing non-core
Navy missions in support of contingency operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. OCO funding remains critical to our ability to meet these
missions without adversely impacting fleet readiness or sailor dwell
time.
We continue to provide support to our sailors and their families,
including those who are wounded, ill, and injured, through expanded
Fleet and Family Support services, Navy Safe Harbor, and our
Operational Stress Control (OSC) program. We are addressing
aggressively the recent rise in suicide rates by implementing new
training and outreach programs for fleet commanders, sailors, and Navy
families to increase suicide awareness and prevention. We are focused
on reducing sexual assaults in our Navy through our new Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response (SAPR) Office and initiatives that emphasize
our intolerance for sexual assault and related behavior in our Navy. We
remain committed to helping our sailors balance work and family
commitments through initiatives such as 12-month operational deferments
for new mothers (the most comprehensive policy of all military
services), 21 days of administrative leave for adoptive parents, 10
days of paternity leave, a Career Intermission pilot program, and
flexible work options. I continue to emphasize diversity outreach and
mentorship to ensure we attract, leverage, and retain the diverse
talent of our Nation. Diversity among U.S. Naval Academy and Navy
Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) applicants and graduates
continues to grow each year. Through our Naval War College and Naval
Postgraduate School, we are providing Joint Professional Military
Education (JPME) and world-class higher education and training to our
sailors. We continue to build our Foreign Area Officer program to
strengthen existing and emerging international partnerships.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget request represents a balanced approach
to supporting our sailors and their families, sustaining the high tempo
of current operations, and preserving fleet and family readiness. I
request the continued support of Congress for our fiscal year 2011
manpower and personnel initiatives.
Recruiting and Retention
Our Navy has attracted, recruited and retained a highly-skilled
workforce over the past several years, and we expect this success to
continue into fiscal year 2011. Fiscal year 2009 marked the second
consecutive year Navy achieved its aggregate officer and enlisted
recruiting goals in both the Active and Reserve components. At the
forefront of this effort is our highly trained and professional
recruiting force, which has postured us to respond to changing trends.
We continue to attract the highest quality enlisted recruits in our
history. We are exceeding DOD and Navy standards for the percentage of
non-prior service enlisted recruits who have earned a high school
diploma and whose test scores are in the upper mental group category.
We met the Navy standard of 95 percent of recruits with a high school
diploma in fiscal year 2009 and are currently at 96 percent this fiscal
year. We exceeded the Navy standard of 70 percent of recruits in the
upper mental group category in fiscal year 2009 (77 percent tested into
this group) and we are currently at 78 percent this fiscal year.
Navy will remain competitive in the employment market through the
disciplined use of monetary and non-monetary incentives. Using a
targeted approach, we will continue our recruiting and retention
initiatives to attract and retain our best sailors, especially those
within high-demand, critical skill areas that remain insulated from
economic conditions. Judicious use of special and incentive pays
remains essential to recruiting and retaining these professionals in
the current economic environment, and will increase in importance as
the economic recovery continues. Our goal remains to maintain a
balanced force, in which seniority, experience, and skills are matched
to requirements.
Diversity
Our Navy draws its strength and innovation from the diversity of
our Nation. We continue to aggressively expand our diversity. We are
committed to implementing policies and programs that foster a Navy
Total Force composition that reflects America's diversity. We have
increased diverse accessions through targeted recruiting in diverse
markets, developed relationships with key influencers in the top
diverse metropolitan markets, and are aligning all Navy assets and
related organizations to maximize our connection with educators,
business leaders and government officials to increase our influencer
base. Recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce, reflective of the
Nation's demographics at all levels of the chain of command, is a
strategic imperative, critical to mission accomplishment, and remains
focus area for leaders throughout our Navy.
We continue to expand our relationships with key influencers and
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-based affinity
groups to inform our Nation's youth about the unique opportunities
available in our Navy. To increase our accessibility to diverse
markets, we established NROTC units at Arizona State University and
Tuskegee University. Tuskegee University accepted students in the fall
of 2009, and ASU will accept students in the fall of 2010. Our
diversity outreach efforts have contributed to our 2013 U.S. Naval
Academy and NROTC classes being the most diverse student bodies in our
history. In the years ahead, we will continue to focus our efforts on
retaining this talent by building and sustaining a continuum of
mentorship approach that reaches out and engages sailors throughout
their career. This approaches includes social networking, strong
relationships with affinity groups, and various programs offered by our
sailors' immediate commands and associated leadership in addition to
their respective enterprises and communities.
Women on Submarines
The Secretary of the Navy and I are in the process of changing the
Navy policy that restricts women from serving aboard our submarines.
This move will enable our Navy and, specifically, our submarine force
to leverage the tremendous talent and potential of our female officers
and enlisted personnel. Initial integration will include female
officers assigned to ballistic missile (SSBN) and guided missile (SSGN)
submarines, since officer accommodations on these submarines have more
available space and appear to require less modification. The plan also
integrates female supply corps officers onto SSBNs and SSGNs at the
department head level. We are planning the first female submarine
officer candidate accessions into the standard nuclear training and
submarine training pipelines this year, making it possible to assign
the first women to submarines as early as fiscal year 2012. Integration
of enlisted females on SSBNs and SSGNs and integration of officer and
enlisted female personnel on attack submarines (SSNs) will occur later,
once the extent of necessary modifications is determined. This
initiative has my personal attention and I will continue to keep you
informed as we integrate these highly motivated and capable officers
into our submarine force.
Sailor and Family Continuum of Care
We remain committed to providing our sailors and their families a
comprehensive continuum of care that addresses all aspects of medical,
physical, psychological, and family readiness. Our fiscal year 2011
budget request expands this network of services and caregivers to
ensure that all sailors and their families receive the highest quality
healthcare available. Navy Safe Harbor, Navy's OSC Program, Reserve
Psychological Health Outreach Program, Warrior Transition Program
(WTP), and Returning Warrior Workshop (RWW) are critical elements of
this continuum.
Navy Safe Harbor continues to provide non-medical support for all
seriously wounded, ill, and injured sailors, coastguardsmen, and their
families through a network of Recovery Care Coordinators and nonmedical
Care Managers at 16 locations across the country. Over the past year,
Safe Harbor's enrollment has grown from 387 to 542. Over 84,000 sailors
have participated in OSC training, which is providing a comprehensive
approach designed to actively promote the psychological health of
sailors and their families throughout their careers while reducing the
traditional stigma associated with seeking help. The WTP and RWWs are
essential to post-deployment reintegration efforts. WTP, established in
Kuwait and expanded via Mobile Care Teams to Iraq and Afghanistan,
provides a place and time for individual augmentees to decompress and
transition from life in a war zone to resumption of life at home. The
RWW identifies problems, encourages sailors to share their experiences,
refers family members to essential resources, and facilitates the
demobilization process.
Stress on the Force
As we continue to operate at a high operational tempo to meet our
Nation's demands in the Middle East and around the world, the tone of
the force remains positive. We continue to monitor the health of the
force by tracking statistics on personal and family-related indicators
such as stress, financial well-being, and command climate, as well as
sailor and family satisfaction with the Navy. Recent results indicate
that sailors and their families remain satisfied with command morale,
the quality of leadership, education benefits, health care, and
compensation.
Suicide affects individuals, commands and families. We continue
efforts at suicide prevention through a multi-faceted approach of
communication, training, and command support designed to foster
resilience and promote psychological health among sailors. Navy's
calendar year 2009 suicide rate of 13.8 per 100,000 sailors represents
an increase from the previous year rate of 11.6 per 100,000 sailors.
Although this is below the national rate of 19.0 per 100,000
individuals for the same age and gender demographic, any loss of life
as a result of suicide is unacceptable. We remain committed to creating
an environment in which stress and other suicide-related factors are
more openly recognized, discussed, and addressed. We continue to
develop and enhance programs designed to mitigate suicide risk factors
and improve the resilience of the force. These programs focus on
substance abuse prevention, financial management, positive family
relationships, physical readiness, and family support, with the goal of
reducing individual stress. We continue to work towards a greater
understanding of the issues surrounding suicide to ensure that our
policies, training, interventions, and communication efforts are
meeting their intended objectives.
Sexual assault is incompatible with our Navy core values, high
standards of professionalism, and personal discipline. We have
reorganized our efforts in this critical area under the Navy SAPR
program, which takes a multi-faceted approach to raise awareness of
effective prevention methods, victim response and offender
accountability. Recent program reviews undertaken by the Government
Accountability Office, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the
Military Services, and the Navy Inspector General will help us to
identify program gaps and refine our program so we can continue to
promote a culture that is intolerant of sexual assault.
Learning and Development
Education and training are strategic investments that give us an
asymmetric advantage over our adversaries. To develop the highly-
skilled, combat-ready force necessary to meet the demands of the
Maritime Strategy and the Joint Force, we have 15 learning centers
around the country providing top-notch training to our sailors and Navy
civilians. We continue to leverage civilian credentialing programs to
bolster the professional qualifications of sailors in all ratings and
increase sailor equity in their own professional advancement. We are
balancing existing education and training requirements with growth in
important mission areas such as cyber warfare, missile defense, and
anti-submarine warfare. Cultural, historical, and linguistic expertise
remain essential to the Navy's global mission, and our budget request
supports expansion of the Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture
program for NROTC midshipmen, as well as implementation of the AF-PAK
Hands Program. We recognize the importance of providing our people
meaningful and relevant education, particularly JPME, which develops
leaders who are strategically-minded, capable of critical thinking, and
adept in naval and joint warfare. Our resident courses at Naval War
College, nonresident courses at Naval Postgraduate School and Fleet
Seminar program, and distance offerings provide ample opportunity for
achievement of this vital education. I appreciate the support of
Congress in the recent post-September 11 GI Bill. We have led DOD in
implementing this vital education benefit and continue to carefully
balance our voluntary education investments to further develop our
force.
conclusion
Our sailors are performing brilliantly, providing incredible
service in the maritime, land, air, space, and cyberspace domains
around the world today. I am optimistic about our future and the global
leadership opportunities that our Navy provides for our Nation. Our
fiscal year 2011 budget request continues the progress we started in
fiscal year 2010 to increase fleet capacity, maintain our warfighting
readiness, and develop and enhance the Navy Total Force. I ask for your
strong support of our fiscal year 2011 budget request and my identified
priorities. Thank you for your unwavering commitment to our sailors,
Navy civilians, and their families, and for all you do to make our U.S.
Navy an effective and enduring global force for good.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Admiral Roughead.
General Conway.
STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC, COMMANDANT OF THE
MARINE CORPS
General Conway. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to report to you on the posture of your Marine
Corps. My pledge, as it has been over the years, is to provide
you with a candid and honest assessment.
Having recently returned from a trip to theater, I'm
pleased to report to you on the magnificent performance of your
marines and sailors in combat. If you count a 4-year enlistment
as a generation of marines, we are now experiencing our third
generation of great young patriots since our Nation was
provoked on September 11. The first generation broke trail,
leading strikes into Afghanistan and Iraq. The second
generation quelled a once-violent province of Anbar. Today
there are less than 150 marines in Iraq. But our third
generation has more than 15,000 serving in Afghanistan.
Your marines are fighting a skilled and determined enemy,
but, with the Afghan Security Forces, they are once again
proving they are the strongest tribe in the Taliban stronghold
of Helmand. Let me assure you from what the Sergeant Major and
I witnessed first-hand, the highest morale in the Corps resides
in those units that are posted to Afghanistan.
My written statement to the committee provides a snapshot
of the Corps and describes our near-term focus, long-term
priorities, and our vision of the future. That vision matches
closely the results of the QDR. The Secretary of Defense seeks
to create a U.S. military more closely focused on hybrid
threats, yet capable of responding to a major-level
contingency. That combination essentially describes the Marine
Corps that we have built today, a Corps that we call a two-
fisted fighter, able to perform equally well in a
counterinsurgency or in a high-intensity combined arms fight.
Our resource expenditures, moreover, reflect our dual, or
swing, capacity. That is to say that 100 percent of Marine
Corps equipment can be used in a hybrid conflict or in a major
fight. Equipment procurement is indeed our primary concern as
we look at the fiscal year 2011 budget and beyond. Our
requirements for equipment density in Afghanistan and our
resolve to reestablish our maritime prepositioned squadrons
have driven equipment stocks to an all-time low in our
operating forces at home station. The ability to perform and
train for deployment and certainly the ability to respond to an
unexpected contingency is at significant risk based on this
increasing shortfall.
Congress has promised us resources for reset and
reconstitution, but increasingly we cannot wait for the guns to
fall silent in Afghanistan for such an effort to begin. We ask
for your help in this critical area.
Our military construction (MILCON) accounts in the fiscal
year 2011 budget and the FYDP are sufficient to help maintain
the promise we made to our marines that they'll have quality
living spaces while they're home between deployments. One need
only visit some of our major bases and stations to realize that
we waited too long to begin the effort.
Similarly, we believe that even in wartime we must continue
a heavy emphasis on education of our officers and senior staff
NCOs. A strong reservoir of strategic and operational thinkers
is a must on a sophisticated joint and combined battlefield.
Therefore, a quality Marine Corps University with facilities to
match our already world class student body, faculty, and
curriculum is a major priority. We trust we will receive your
fully support on our MILCON investments that will pay huge
investments in the years to come.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I must admit my own
surprise that our Marine Corps and their families have remained
so resilient over these 9 years of conflict. They have been
incredibly determined, loyal, and courageous in an effort to
see these two wars to a successful close. Much of the credit
goes to you in Congress for providing them with the finest in
terms of equipment, warrior care, quality of life for families,
and compensation.
The number one question in the minds of our troops is
always: Is the country behind us? The Members of Congress have
answered that question in spades, both by your apportionment of
the Nation's precious resources and also through personal
efforts to visit both the troops in theater and our wounded at
Bethesda and Walter Reed.
As a result of the above and the natural tendency of
marines to stick around for a fight, our recruitment and
retention are at all-time highs. I predict that for the second
year in a row we will close out reenlistment opportunities for
first-term and career force halfway through the fiscal year.
Clearly, such a phenomenon would not be possible if marines and
their families were not happy in the service of their country.
One day this long war with terrorists and Islamic
extremists will be over. Your Marine Corps will cease being a
second land army and will gladly rejoin our Navy brothers
aboard amphibious ships in order to project American global
presence, demonstrate American good will, and if need be
protect America's vital interests. Until that day comes,
however, your Corps will continue, as we say, to do windows.
That is, we'll continue to take aboard the indomitable youth of
America and make them marines, with the absolute conviction
that as a result they will one day be better citizens. We will
be trained and as equally prepared to route Taliban fighters in
Marjah as we are to feed beleaguered Haitians outside Port au
Prince.
With your continued support and that of our loyal
countrymen, we will do whatever the Nation asks us to do and do
it exceedingly well.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of General Conway follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. James T. Conway, USMC
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to provide a written report for the record on the
current posture of the Marine Corps. My pledge, as always, is to
provide you with a candid and honest assessment. On behalf of all
marines, their families, and our civilian employees, I want to thank
you for your concern and continued support.
This brief statement contains a summary of our near-term focus and
enduring priorities, an update on your Marine Corps today, a discussion
of the challenges we see ahead, and our vision of the future. In
addition to any testimony you wish to receive from me, I have directed
the Deputy Commandants of the Marine Corps to meet with you as
individuals and members of your respective subcommittees, and to
provide you any other information you require. Our liaison officers
will also deliver copies of 2010 U.S. Marine Corps Concepts and
Programs to the offices of each member of the committee. This almanac
and reference book contains detailed descriptions of all our major
programs and initiatives. We hope you will find it useful.
i. your marine corps
We believe that Americans expect their marines to be ready to
respond when our country is threatened; to arrive on the scene on short
notice anywhere in the world via the amphibious ships of the U.S. Navy,
as was necessary when a disastrous earthquake recently struck Haiti;
and to fight and win our Nation's battles. The public invests greatly
in the Marine Corps. In turn, our commitment is to uphold their special
trust and confidence and provide them the best return on their
investment.
Characteristics
Your Marine Corps is a young force that provides great value to the
Nation.
The average age of a marine is 25 years old.
Almost half of the enlisted force--84,830 marines--is
between the ranks of private and lance corporal (pay grades E1-
E3).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of 23 December 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 70 percent of your marines are on their first
enlistment, and some 30,000 have been in uniform for less than
a year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As of 1 December 2009, the percentage of marines on their first
enlistment was 68.6 percent, and the number of marines with less than 1
year on active duty is 29,032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ratio of officers to enlisted marines is 1:9--the
lowest of all the Services.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Authorized end strength of 202,000 = 21,000 officers + 181,000
enlisted marines = 1:9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 136,000 marines (67 percent) are in
deploying units--what we call the Operating Forces. Nearly
30,000 marines are forward deployed, forward based, or on
training exercises around the world.
For 6.5 percent \4\ of the baseline 2010 Defense
budget, the Marine Corps provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 6.5 percent of DOD budget represents fiscal year 2010 USMC
Green dollars and Direct Blue (Navy) dollars.
17 percent of the Nation's active ground
combat maneuver units
12 percent of the Nation's fixed wing tactical
aircraft
19 percent of the Nation's attack helicopters
Expeditionary
The Marine Corps is the Nation's naval expeditionary, combined-arms
force-in-readiness. To marines, expeditionary connotes fast, austere,
and lethal.
Expeditionary means rapid deployment by air or sea to
respond to crises of temporary duration. For example, within 24
hours of the speech by the President of the United States in
December announcing the current strategy in Afghanistan, the
lead elements of 1st Battalion, 6th Marines from Camp Lejeune,
NC, were en route to Afghanistan.
Expeditionary means being efficient and effective
while operating in an austere environment--a task-organized
force that is manned and equipped no larger or heavier than
necessary to accomplish the mission.
Expeditionary means being prepared for decisive
action--to be lethal, if necessary--but also possessing the
lesser-included capabilities for security cooperation,
humanitarian assistance, or disaster relief.
In summary, the term expeditionary to marines goes to
the very heart of our service culture, core values, and warrior
ethos. Service as part of an expeditionary force means
embracing a Spartan way of life and regular deployments on
foreign soil in furtherance of our Nation's interests.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This is consistent with the official Defense Department
definition of an expeditionary force: ``An armed force organized to
accomplish a specific objective in a foreign country.'' Joint Pub 1-02
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms
(Washington, DC: 2001, as amended through 31 August 2005), p. 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization
The Marine Corps is the only general-purpose force in the
Department of Defense (DOD) that is trained and equipped as the
Nation's first responders.
We organize in Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs).
Under a single command element, the MAGTF integrates three
major subordinate elements: (1) Ground Combat Element, (2)
Aviation Combat Element, (3) Logistics Combat Element. Each
element of the MAGTF is complementary, and Marine Corps forces
are most effective and best employed as MAGTFs within the joint
or multinational command structure.
MAGTFs are adaptive, general-purpose rapid response
forces. They are multi-capable, transitioning seamlessly from
fighting conventional and hybrid threats to promoting stability
and mitigating conditions that lead to conflict. For example,
in 2003, after completing a conventional, 350-mile attack over
land from Kuwait to Baghdad, I Marine Expeditionary Force--a
60,000-marine-plus MAGTF--was able to transition quickly to
security and stability operations.
Near-Term Focus
We understand the economic challenges facing our country and the
hard decisions Congress must make. We thank you for your unwavering
support. This report discusses the near-term focus of the Marine Corps:
The current fight in Afghanistan and the responsible
drawdown in Iraq
Readiness and reset of equipment
Modernization of the MAGTF
Preparing for the next contingency and the
uncertainties of the future
Enduring Priorities
Through the Future Years Defense Program and beyond, we are focused
on:
Providing the Nation a naval expeditionary force fully
prepared for employment as a MAGTF across the spectrum of
operations
Remaining the most ready when our Nation is least
ready
Providing for our marines and their families
ii. iraq and afghanistan
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Since testimony before your committee last year, the Marine Corps
has transferred authority for Anbar Province to the U.S. Army and is
near completion of a responsible drawdown from Iraq.
From 2003-2009, our force levels in Iraq averaged
25,000 marines.
As of February 19, 2010, there were 159 marines in
Iraq. By spring of this year, our mission in Iraq will be
complete and your marines will redeploy.
Operation Enduring Freedom
In Afghanistan, the mission has expanded.
As of September 23, 2009, there were more marines in
Afghanistan than in Iraq.
By March 2010, there will be more than 18,500 marines
in Afghanistan, and by mid-April, that number will grow to a
robust MAGTF of 19,400 personnel with equipment, and will be
commanded by a Marine two-star general.
Your marines have already had success and have made a
difference in some of the toughest regions of Afghanistan,
primarily Helmand Province in the south--formerly a Taliban
stronghold, and the source of the highest volume of opium
production in the world. However, more work remains to be done.
Summary
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have required the
Marine Corps to fight as a second land army. Although we have
been successful in our assigned missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan, that success has come at the price of degraded
readiness for our designed missions. The Marine Corps will
always do whatever the Nation requires. But, as Congress has
authorized and resourced, the Marine Corps is trained,
organized, and equipped for our primary mission as a force in
readiness.
The harsh environments and tempo of operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan through 8 years of combat have accelerated wear
and tear on our equipment. The enemy's weapon of choice--the
improvised explosive device (IED)--has forced us to increase
the weight of our personal protective equipment and the armor
on our vehicles.
The distributed nature of operations has shown us that
our legacy tables of equipment were inadequate. The required
type and number of ground vehicles, radios, and other major end
items of equipment have significantly increased. In our
infantry battalions, for example, the number of tactical
vehicles has almost doubled while the number of radio sets has
grown sevenfold. Our preliminary estimates indicate that the
cost of restructuring the Marine Corps' tables of equipment
would be $5 billion over fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year
2015.
The amount of equipment that has been damaged,
destroyed, or has reached the end of service life from
accelerated use has increased, and the cost associated with
fixing or replacing this equipment has increased significantly.
Based upon the Marine Corps current analysis, our
estimated reset cost is $8 billion. The $8 billion consists of
$3 billion requested in the fiscal year 2011 OCO and an
additional long-term reset liability of $5 billion upon
termination of the conflict.
Equipment on hand at home station to support training
has been serious degraded. Particularly worrisome is our
capacity to respond to other contingencies.
We are institutionalizing the lessons learned in Iraq
and Afghanistan in training, education, organization, doctrine,
and capability development. One of the ways we are doing this
is through the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned.
The current operating environment in Iraq and
Afghanistan has led to an exponentially increased need for
intelligence collection assets down to lower levels of command.
The Marine Corps Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Enterprise provides support to the MAGTF in this operating
environment by organizing all of the intelligence disciplines,
sensors, and equipment and communication architecture into a
single capability that is integrated and networked across all
echelons.
iii. readiness
1. Personnel Readiness
Our people--the brave men and women who wear our uniform and the
spouses, children, and the parents who support them--are our most
valuable resource. In 2009, your Corps lost 65 marines to enemy action
in combat. We also lost 52 marines who died by suicide--this serious
issue, which will be discussed later in this report, has my personal
attention.
End Strength
Current authorized end strength is 202,100 marines in the Active
component and 39,600 marines in the Selected Reserve.
During fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps requested
and received authorization to grow 27,000 additional personnel
by the end of fiscal year 2011.
We completed our growth during fiscal year 2009--2
years ahead of schedule. We attribute this to four factors:
quality recruiting, exceptional retention, reduced personnel
attrition, and a great young generation of Americans who want
to serve their country during wartime.
With this personnel increase, we will improve
training, upgrade readiness, and enhance the quality of life
for all personnel and their families. The goal is to build the
equivalent capacity of three Marine Expeditionary Forces--the
largest MAGTF and principal Marine Corps warfighting
organization.
We are continuing to shape the Marine Corps with the
right mix of units, grades, and occupational specialties.
Quality
Recruiting. In fiscal year 2009, we exceeded goals in
numbers and standards for the Active component and the Selected
Reserve. The Active component accessed 31,413 personnel, and
the Selected Reserve accessed 9,627 personnel. In fiscal year
2010, our goal is to access 27,500 enlisted personnel in the
Active component and commission 1,800 new officers.
Enlistment Standards. One of the DOD standards for new
recruits is that at least 90 percent will possess a high school
diploma. The Marine Corps has chosen to maintain a higher
standard; our goal is a high school graduation rate of 95
percent. In fiscal year 2009, for our combined active and
Reserve components, the high school graduation rate of our
recruits exceeded 98 percent.
First-Term Reenlistments. In fiscal year 2009, 8,011
first-term marines reenlisted, meeting 109.2 percent of our
goal. This represented a retention rate of 33.7 percent,
exceeding our traditional retention rate of 24 percent. In the
first quarter of fiscal year 2010, 5,194 first-term marines
have already reenlisted--77 percent of the goal for the entire
year.
Subsequent Term Reenlistments. In fiscal year 2009,
7,985 marines who had completed at least two enlistment
contracts chose to reenlist again. This number represented 107
percent of our goal and a 78.6 retention rate--the highest in
history. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, 5,685
marines who had completed at least two enlistment contracts
chose to reenlist again--82 percent of the goal for the entire
year.
Officers. The quality of officers accessed and
retained remains high. In one example, the share of Marine-
option U.S. Naval Academy candidates in the top third of their
graduating class greatly exceeded representative levels in
2008. The number of Naval Academy graduates who chose to become
Marine Corps officers last year was 270--the highest number in
history for the second year in a row.
In fiscal year 2009, our officer retention rate was 93
percent and during fiscal year 2010, we expect officer
retention to remain stable.
Reservists
The Marine Corps Reserve is a full partner in the total force. As
of January 2010, there were 39,164 marines in the Selected Reserve and
another 55,233 in the Inactive Ready Reserve. Marine Forces Reserve
includes 183 training centers in 48 States, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.
The extensive contributions of the Reserve have
reduced deployment requirements for the Active component,
thereby improving the health of the total force. More than
54,000 marines from the Selected Reserve and the Inactive Ready
Reserve have mobilized and deployed in support of Operations
Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, or other operational
commitments around the globe.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As of 3 January 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Every Marine into the Fight''
The majority of your marines joined the Corps after our Nation was
already at war. They expect to train, deploy, and fight because that is
what they believe marines are supposed to do. As such, the 2007 ``Every
Marine into the Fight'' initiative adjusted personnel assignment
policies so marines serving in nondeploying units or the supporting
establishment would have the opportunity to deploy. At the same time,
we monitor carefully the frequency and duration that units and
individual personnel spend deployed.
To date, 73 percent of the available marines have
deployed in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom, or other operational commitments around the globe.
Individual Deployment Tempo. We measure individual
deployment tempo on a 2-year sliding scale--the number of days
deployed out of the previous 730 days. In the last 7 years, we
have seen a 20-fold increase in the individual deployment tempo
of marines in the Active component. In October 2002, the number
of marines who deployed for at least 120 consecutive days in a
2-year period was 4,845. As of January 2010, 100,760 marines
had deployed for at least 120 consecutive days.
Unit Operational Tempo. The metric we use to measure
unit operational tempo is the ratio of ``deployment to
dwell''--months deployed to months at home station. We limit
the duration of deployments for units and individual marines to
no more than 7 months for battalions and squadrons. Higher
headquarters units deploy for 1 year.
Our goal is to achieve a 1:2 deployment to dwell ratio
in the Active component and a 1:5 ratio in the Reserve
component. Our Reserve units are currently operating at a ratio
that more closely approximates a ratio of 1:4, while many of
our Active component units, on average, are nearing the goal of
1:2 (see Table 1).
Table 1. MAGTF Unit Deployment to Dwell Ratios \7\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Ratio (Months
MAGTF Element Deployed : Months Home
Station)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command Element........................... 1:1.43
Ground Combat Element..................... 1:2.08
Aviation Combat Element................... 1:2.11
Logistics Combat Element.................. 1:1.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As of 18 November 2009.
The subordinate units most frequently deployed are
Intelligence Battalions, 1:1.01 (Command Element); Infantry
Battalions, 1:1.78 (Ground Combat Element); VMU Squadrons,
1:1.10, and Attack Helicopter Squadrons, 1:1.28 (Aviation
Combat Element); and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Companies
1:1.30 (Logistics Combat Element).
Suicide Prevention
The number of marines who have died by suicide in recent years is
shocking and unacceptable. This issue has my personal attention, and we
have multiple programs at work to reverse this trend.
Causes. Our studies have shown that regardless of duty
station, deployment, or duty status, the primary stressors
associated with marine suicides are problems in romantic
relationships, physical health, work-related issues, such as
poor performance and job dissatisfaction, and pending legal or
administrative action. Multiple stressors are typically present
in a suicide. This is consistent with the findings of the other
services and civilian agencies.
Deployments. We analyze suicides monthly and annually
for combat-related trends such as the number of deployments and
dwell time. Although it is reasonable to assume that one or
more deployments may cause an increase in suicides, to date, we
have been unable to establish a direct correlation between
deployments and suicides.
Civilian Employees
Civilian employees are a vital part of the Marine Corps. In fiscal
year 2010, civilian Federal employees will number more than 25,000.
Through initiatives in management and career development, the Marine
Corps is dedicated to maintaining a civilian workforce with the
leadership skills and technical competencies necessary to meet the
challenges of today as well as those of the future.
Traditionally, civilian employees have served
primarily in the supporting establishment. Now, more than ever
before, they are deploying with the operating forces and
serving in positions traditionally occupied by Active Duty
marines. For example, we are in the process of hiring more than
260 tactical safety specialists, who will each rotate on
deployments with the operating forces. We are also
participating in DOD's program to build a deployable Civilian
Expeditionary Workforce.
Families
While we recruit marines, we retain families. More than 45 percent
of your marines are married, and we believe that investing in military
families is critical to the long-term health of the institution. When
marines know that their loved ones at home station have access to
quality housing, healthcare, child development services, and education,
they are better prepared to face the rigors of deployment and more
inclined to stay in uniform when they return home.
Family Readiness Programs. Our baseline budget in
fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for family programs is $399 million
per year. We have reformed our family readiness programs at
every level of command at all of our installations. As an
example, we have created more than 400 full-time positions for
family readiness officers down to the battalion and squadron
level.
Child Care. Today, we are currently meeting 64 percent
of potential need for child care spaces. To meet the DOD
standard of 80 percent of potential need based on the current
population, we would require approximately 3,000 additional
spaces. With your support, we have programmed an additional
2,615 spaces that will open over the next 18-24 months.
Families with Special Needs. With an increase of $11
million for the Exceptional Family Member Program in this
year's baseline budget, we have made great strides improving
the programs that support special needs family members.
Enrollment is now mandatory and more than 8,900 exceptional
family members are in the program. The Marine Corps assigns a
caseworker to each family, who assists during relocation,
deployment, and life events. In addition, the Marine Corps now
underwrites the cost of up to 40 hours of respite care per
month for families in the program. To date, the Marine Corps
has provided more than 250,000 hours of respite care.
Wounded Warriors
About 9,000 marines have been injured or fallen seriously ill while
serving in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom. We
are deeply committed to their care as well as the welfare of their
families. Since activation in April 2007, the Wounded Warrior Regiment
has provided a wide range of nonmedical care for the injured and ill.
The Marine Corps now also has wounded warrior battalions at Camp
Pendleton and Camp Lejeune.
Infrastructure. The Marine Corps is investing $50
million from the 2009 Overseas Contingency Operations
supplemental for the construction of resource and recovery
centers at Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune. These recovery
centers will provide spaces for counseling, physical therapy,
employment support, financial management, and other training
and outreach programs in support of our wounded.
Outreach. With a 24-hour call center for wounded
marines and their families, the Wounded Warrior Regiment has
contacted 99.4 percent of all marines (7,654 out of 7,703) who
were wounded since the beginning of Operations Iraqi Freedom
and Enduring Freedom, in order to determine their health
status. We also maintain a toll-free number to the medical
center in Landstuhl, Germany, for families to contact their
loved ones who have been wounded.
Recovery Care. The Marine Corps has 42 recovery care
coordinators, who coordinate non-medical services for marines
and their families during recovery, rehabilitation, and
transition.
Mental Health
Traumatic Brain Injury. Naval medicine
remains at the forefront of researching and
implementing pioneering techniques to treat traumatic
brain injury. One technique, Hyperbaric Oxygen
Treatment, is showing great promise. We anticipate a
study to begin this spring that tests the efficacy of
this revolutionary treatment. The Marine Corps has a
formal screening protocol for marines who suffer
concussions or who are exposed to blast events in
theater.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. We are
attentive to the mental health of our warriors and we
are dedicated to ensuring that all marines and family
members who bear the invisible wounds caused by stress
receive the best help possible. We developed the Combat
Operational Stress Control program to prevent,
identify, and holistically treat mental injuries caused
by combat or other operations.
With the increased workload, we do have concerns about
the capacity of mental health care in military medicine.
Operational support and current treatment facility demands
continue to stretch our mental health professional communities,
even though DOD has taken many steps to increase mental health
services. Our shortages of mental health professionals are a
reflection of Nation-wide shortages of this specialty. We are
actively engaged in discussions about possible solutions.
2. Equipment Readiness
We have sourced equipment globally, taking from non-deployed units
and strategic programs to support our forces in theater. As a result,
the amount of equipment remaining for non-deployed units to use for
training and other potential contingencies is seriously deficient.
For example, while the overall supply rating of Marine
Corps units in Afghanistan is near 100 percent, the supply
rating of units at home station is less than 60 percent.
Additional equipment is being procured with
supplemental funds, but the production rates are too slow to
meet our requirements for new equipment orders.
Equipment Reset
As mentioned previously, the distributed and decentralized nature
of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown us that our legacy,
20th century tables of equipment are significantly inadequate.
Moreover, the tempo of operations has accelerated the wear and tear on
equipment. Also, the diversion of equipment in theater from Iraq to
Afghanistan has delayed reset actions at our logistics depots in the
United States.
Our preliminary estimates indicate that the cost of
restructuring the Marine Corps' tables of equipment would be $5
billion over fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015.
In light of the continued high tempo of operations in
Afghanistan, and the delay in reset actions due to the
diversion of equipment in theater, we estimate the cost of
reset for the Marine Corps to be $8 billion ($3 billion
requested in the fiscal year 2011 OCO and an additional $5
billion reset liability upon termination of the conflict).
Aviation Readiness
All Marine Corps aircraft in support of overseas contingency
operations are exceeding programmed rates, and are thus consuming
service life at a rate sometimes three times higher than that scheduled
for the lifetime of the aircraft. (See Table 2.) This will eventually
result in compressed timelines between rework and, ultimately, earlier
retirement of the aircraft than originally programmed.
It is critical that our aviation modernization
programs, discussed in the next section of this report,
continue to receive the support of Congress.
