SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
??–???
2005
[H.A.S.C. No. 109–2]
HEARINGS
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 9, 2005
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS—BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Ninth Congress
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
HOWARD P. ''BUCK'' McKEON, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
JIM RYUN, Kansas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan
CATHY McMORRIS, Washington
MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
LANE EVANS, Illinois
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
ADAM SMITH, Washington
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
4MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TIM RYAN, Ohio
MARK UDALL, Colorado
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
Robert L. Simmons, Staff Director
Eric R. Sterner, Council
Jeffery A. Green, Council
Jordan Redmond, Intern
C O N T E N T S
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2005
HEARING:
Wednesday, February 9, 2005, Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act—Budget Request from the Department of the Army
APPENDIX:
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005
FISCAL YEAR 2006, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services
WITNESSES
Harvey, Hon. Francis J., Secretary of the Army
Schoomaker, Gen. Peter J., Chief of Staff, United States Army
APPENDIX
PREPARED STATEMENTS:
Harvey, Hon. Francis J. Harvey joint with General Peter J. Schoomaker
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[There were no Documents submitted.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
Mr. Abercrombie
Mr. Andrews
Mr. Bartlett
Mr. Calvert
Mr. Everett
Mr. Franks
Mr. Hayes
Mr. Hunter
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Meehan
Dr. Schwartz
Mr. Skelton
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Thornberry
Mr. Wilson
FISCAL YEAR 2006, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 9, 2005.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The CHAIRMAN. This morning, the committee formally kicks off the fiscal year 2006 budget process with the review of the Army's budget request; and our witnesses are the Honorable Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army, and General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army.
Let me start by officially welcoming the new Secretary of the Army, Fran Harvey, to the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Secretary, we look forward to working with you, and I am confident we are going to continue to build upon the productive partnership that this committee has forged with the Army.
And General Schoomaker, always good to have you before the committee. Thanks for being back with us. As you said, maybe you shouldn't have taken that cell phone call in your pickup in Wyoming a couple of years ago. We are glad to have you here. These are times that we need you.
The fiscal year 2006 defense budget requests $98.6 billion for the Department of the Army. But this figure and what it covers only tells part of the story. This budget request does not include funding for a number of activities the Army will clearly undertake next year, proposing instead to fund them through supplemental appropriations. Such activities properly include the cost of operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they also appear to include additional end strength, expansion of military benefits, modularity costs and other important areas, and some areas which traditionally have been part of the base bill.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So while we all look forward to receiving the Administration's supplemental appropriations proposal for the remainder of fiscal year 2005, it is important to note that we will not get an opportunity to see precisely what the Administration proposes for these unbudgeted fiscal year 2006 activities until this time next year, 12 months from now.
Turning back to what is before us, the fiscal year 2006 request continues a trend of focusing on military personnel and operations and maintenance, reflecting the fact that our people are our most important assets in the war that we face.
The budget also continues the process of Army transformation, intended to create a larger rotation base by modularizing deployable brigades and improving their capabilities by bringing new technology and operational concepts to the Army.
Gentlemen, we can all agree that this Nation is blessed with talented and dedicated men and women in uniform who have demonstrated an ability to perform their mission effectively and adapt to unpredictable and changing realities on the ground.
The successful elections in Iraq and Afghanistan are a testament to their skills and sacrifices. Just as they are doing their job, our task is to determine the policies that will guide our Nation's approach to the long-term challenge of winning the Global War on Terrorism.
Even with the 4.8 percent increase this year, the President's defense budget request represents just 3.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). That is a far cry from the six percent of GDP we spent during the Reagan build-up or the nine percent of GDP we spent during the JFK Administration. The stakes for our national security are not lower now, and we must act accordingly.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time, we need to pay closer attention to our industrial base and the ability to mobilize our economy in defense of our freedom. In order to prevail, our industrial base must be capable of responding quickly to the changing needs of our military as it engages our enemies.
Congress has provided the military with waivers from the bureaucratic tangles of red tape that slow up efforts to properly equip our troops. That is, I think, strongly manifested in this provision that we passed, both independently and as part of our base bill last year, that gives the program managers and the service secretaries the ability basically to waive all U.S. regulations when they are taking casualties on the battlefield and they need to react quickly.
So we need to ensure that everyone in the chain of command is doing everything possible to make sure that they are not taking unnecessary risks to perform those missions. That is our job here in Washington and on this committee. We know we can count on our two guests to accomplish this important task properly and effectively.
So, gentlemen, we look forward to your testimony. We appreciate your appearance today, and the country is fortunate to have your public service.
You know, as we watched those people putting those ballots into the boxes throughout Iraq with what appeared to be great enthusiasm and some degree of courage and perseverance in light of the threats that were made and the attacks that were made on polling places, I couldn't but reflect as we saw those desert cami uniforms in the background, the great people that wear the uniform of the United States, that this election stood on the shoulders of your soldiers and our Marines and our airmen and our sailors. And I hope that everyone, gentlemen, from your leadership echelons on down, felt that they had contributed something of great value to the cause of freedom and to our country.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have got a lot of work to do. It is good to have you before us this morning. I just wanted to tell my colleagues, with this new Secretary of the Army, Secretary Harvey, that when I called him up and had some issues on armor and on steel being available in the theater that this gentleman rolled up his sleeves and went right down and worked this thing personally, right down to locations of armor, locations in depots, steel locations, and ascertained that in fact things were moving and moving in the right direction and that, by God, he had in place, what his papers that were in front of him said he had in place. You have got a hands-on Secretary of the Army, and coupled with the good leadership of General Schoomaker we have got good leadership.
So let's work together this year and try to do as good a job in our places as our soldiers are doing on the ground. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. I would like to recognize now my partner on this committee, Mr. Skelton, for any remarks he would like to make. The gentleman from Missouri.
STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. SKELTON. Thank you very, very much. Secretary Harvey, welcome to House Armed Services Committee for your very first testimony. I am sure you will have occasion to be here and that we will get to see you many times in the coming years. We look forward to building a strong and very positive relationship. And, General Schoomaker, certainly good to see you once again. And you, as always, are most welcome here.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary Harvey, General Schoomaker, I will tell you that each time you come before this panel I will tell you that I sound like a broken record. I remark on how wonderful your soldiers are and how stressed your force is. Make no mistake, I mean it every time. You truly lead America's most treasured resource, our sons and daughters. It not just a bumper sticker. These soldiers are wonderful. They do all we ask of them, and they do more, and they do it amazingly well and with professionalism. They go forth without a murmur and do the most difficult tasks. Frankly, I worry for them; and I know you do, too. So please thank them for us whenever you have the opportunity.
This hearing marks the annual event when the Army leadership comes before the committee to tell us about the state of the Army. Today, it is your turn to stand up and testify about the welfare and the future of the Army; and I look forward to a candid exchange which will enable this committee to execute its constitutional responsibilities.
Frankly, looking at this budget, it occurs to me that we can win this war but come out the weaker for it if we are not very careful. Breaking the force in the process would make it a hollow Army, and I have got a real concern about it.
First, General Schoomaker, your plans for transitioning the Army to a modular configuration are dramatic and important. It is an audacious vision, and I commend you for tackling the task and for recognizing the security challenges of the 21st century and that they require a fundamental rethinking of how we train, man and equip the force. And there are risks involved.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need to find over 9,000 additional soldiers in critical occupations. You need to convert over 100,000 more to new jobs to make this transition work. The demand for more equipment to outfit these new units is enormous. Putting aside for the moment the issue of paying for much of this out of the supplemental budget request instead of through the normal budget process, it is still not clear to me that the costs are fully accounted for regarding the transition to modularity.
And even this does not begin to address the challenge covering the National Guard or the reserve or building the facilities we will need to house and train the new brigades. I will be interested to hear today how you are going to manage those tasks.
The high tempo of operations is wearing out equipment at a tremendous rate. Some equipment is aging five times as fast as it would be expected in peacetime. This is to be expected by the nature of the campaign, but the stewards of our Army need to take every step possible to identify the Army's maintenance requirements and articulate them to us here in the Congress.
The Army has indicated that there is a bow wave of maintenance that is building, and we are falling behind. We cannot fall behind. We cannot allow ourselves to go back to the hollow Army of the late 1970's and the early 1980's. I remember it so well, and I know, General, you do as well, when units were unable to conduct training because their equipment was broken and spare parts were so scarce. I well recall them.
We must be ready for what lies around the next corner. Congress can't help if we are not fully informed as to what you need.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ultimately, however, warfare isn't about machines. It is about people. It is the quality of our people that wins the wars for us. In that sense, your soldiers and, of course, all of the civilians in the Army family never cease to impress me. That is why I am worried that the budget doesn't go far enough in doing what we need to do properly to support them. It only provides a bare minimum pay raise of 3.1 percent. It does not provide a targeted pay raise to the troops we need the most to retain, the senior enlisted, the junior and the warrant officers, nor does it recommend the proposed increases in the death benefit.
The most important thing we can do for our soldiers and their families is to give them a chance to catch their breath now and again, and we do that by matching the size of the force to the demands required of it. We do that by arguing, as I have done, for an Army end strength increase of 40,000. I have been saying this since 1995, as have others on this committee.
I was pleased that, as a result of the bipartisan effort last year in this committee, we got a modest one year's addition thereto; and I am pleased with the bipartisan effort in that regard.
But I am disappointed to see that the cost of this coming year is not included in the baseline budget. Permanent addition to the force is needed and ought to be included in the normal budget process.
Last, you have got two missions as I see it, to fight these wars, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, and, second, to prepare for the next war. The golden age of professional military education was the period following the First World War. It sustained the Army's war falling competency during the lean times and produced the commanders that led the Nation to victory in World War II. That is no small thing.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Intellectually, the United States Army was prepared as a result of the professional military education that the officer corps received after World War I and prior to the Second World War. Today, warfare is becoming more complex at a lower level. Our professional military education must continue to evolve to develop the thinking warriors that the future will require.
Military education is so very important. Sir William Francis Butler said a century and a half ago, he put it very well: ''The Nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.''
It is time to consider what we need to do to renew that golden age for military education, for the demands of the present and the future. If you recognize this and work with us in Congress, future generations of military leadership will be prepared for the uncertain future conflicts which, as God made little green apples, they are going to happen.
Mr. Secretary, General Schoomaker, each of you knows how much I value your service. All us value your service as well as the men and women under your command. We must forthrightly address the challenges facing the force so that we might better address them in the coming year. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We welcome them today.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Skelton, for a very thorough and thoughtful statement and thank you for your partnership on this committee.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Secretary, without objection, your prepared statement and that of General Schoomaker will be taken into the record. Welcome, and the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS J. HARVEY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Secretary HARVEY. Thank you, Chairman Hunter, Representative Skelton and distinguished members of the committee. General Schoomaker and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning and to offer testimony on the posture of the United States Army, which today is conducting operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and some 120 other countries around the world.
Let me begin by saying a few words about the great soldiers in our Army, the centerpiece of our formations.
Our Nation is blessed with the world's finest Army, an all-volunteer force representing the best that our country has to offer. On that note, General Schoomaker and I are pleased to be joined today by three soldiers who, in turn, represent the over one million soldiers in our Army. The Chief will introduce these soldiers to you at the end of my opening statement.
Let me add here that, since becoming the 19th Secretary of the Army 3 months ago, I have become more and more impressed with all of our uniformed people, from senior leaders such as the Chief, who provides me candid and wise counsel, to the splendid soldiers serving in the Army. And when I say soldiers, I include all volunteers serving in the active component as well as those in the Army Reserves and the Army National Guard.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The condition of the Army today can only be understood when one considers where we have been and where we are going, both the results of decisions made over the past decades.
In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, there was a widespread and apparently reasonable assumption of a peace dividend, of a new world order in which conflicts would be less frequent and less threatening to the United States. This assumption affected defense planning and budgeting and resulted in a significant decrease in the size and readiness of the Army and a structure which was more reflective of the threats of the past.
Unfortunately, because of subsequent events, these decisions resulted in a significant funding deficit that has and is being redressed. Those subsequent events are, of course, the events of 9/11 which have radically altered the realities of America's security environment, making it clear that the United States is in a protracted war against a global enemy that fights with different means and standards of conduct that includes a total disregard for human life.
The changes in the world have made us realize that, to ultimately be successful in the Global War on Terror, we must transform our capabilities. We will not be ready and relevant in the 21st century unless we become more expeditionary, more joint, more rapidly deployable and adaptive, as well as enhance our capabilities to be successful across the entire range of military operation from major combat to the condition of stability.
The future environment is uncertain and likely to remain so, making the Army's transformation even more imperative. The Army has put tremendous effort in understanding and planning transformation, even as we wage war. Most important, our transformation is built on the enduring values and rich traditions of the Army.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now in order to accomplish our mission of providing the necessary forces and capabilities to the combatant commanders in the support of national security and defense strategies, we have developed and are executing four over-arching and interrelated strategies supported by 20 different initiatives. Transformation is engrained in all of these strategies as well as in all of the supporting initiatives.
These strategies are: First, providing relevant and ready land power to the combatant commanders; second, training and equipping our soldiers to serve as warriors and growing adaptive leaders; third, attaining a quality of life for our soldiers and their families that match the quality of their service; and, finally, providing the infrastructure to enable the force to fulfill its strategic roles and missions.
I will briefly address each of these strategies by highlighting a few of the 20 supporting initiatives by which these strategies are being implemented. Let me stress that, in executing these initiatives, our actions will at all times and in all places be guided by the highest of ethical standards.
Among the nine initiatives supporting the strategy of providing relevant and ready land power, I will discuss one, the Army Modular Force Initiative, which is our major transformational effort. This initiative essentially involves the total redesign of the operational Army into a larger, more powerful, more flexible, more rapidly deployable force, and moves us away from a division-centric structure, one built around a brigade combat team unit of action.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By larger, we mean that we will grow the operational Army from 33 to 43 brigade combat teams. Let me note here that, because the brigade combat team unit of action is much more capable and a much more powerful unit, it is not particularly useful to only talk about the mandated end strength of the Army. It is more useful to talk about the number of units as well as the combat power of those individual units. Because, at the end of the day, it is the total combat power of the operational Army that counts.
Furthermore, because we are in the process of converting military jobs to civilian ones, in that part of the Army which generates the force, the so-called institutional Army, we may increase the personnel strength of the operational Army without increasing overall end strength.
Now the brigade combat team unit of action is a stand-alone, self-sufficient and standardized tactical force of between 3,500 and 4,000 soldiers that is organized the way it fights. Consequently, these brigades are more strategically responsive across the broad spectrum of operations required by the 21st century security environment.
Furthermore, because of the standardization, a heavy brigade unit of action in, say, the Third Infantry Division will be exactly the same as any other heavy brigade, thus aiding in planning and logistics. Additionally, we are developing standardized support brigades in higher headquarters.
This transformational effort will result in a force with a number of key advantages. First, there will be a 30 percent increase in our active component's combat power by 2007, an increase from 33 to 43 brigade combat teams, as I previously stated. Second, the number of usable brigade combat teams in the rotational pool will be increased from 48 to 77. Third, the headquarters will be joint capable and organized the way it will operate in theater. Fourth, future network-centric developments can be readily applied to the modular force design. And, finally, and very importantly, when complete, modularity, in combination with rebalancing the type of units in the active and reserve components, will significantly reduce the stress on our force because of a more predictable rotational cycle for all of the components of the force, coupled with a much longer dwell time at home base.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Next, I would like to highlight two of the five initiatives we are implementing in support of our strategy of training and equipping our soldiers to serve as warriors and growing adaptive leaders.
First, in the area of recruiting and retaining soldiers, we essentially met all of our goals in 2004, with the exception of the National Guard recruiting goal. Through the first quarter of 2005 fiscal year, we again are either on or are very close to our recruiting and retention goals in the active force and the reserves. However, in the case of the National Guard, we failed to meet our recruiting goal but made the retention objective.
Now, in my mind, there is no question that the remainder of 2005 will be a very challenging year, especially for recruiting. For that reason, we have added over 2,000 new recruiters, which is an increase of 25 percent over 2004, with the goal of adding 1,000 more. In addition, we have increased the incentives across the board.
Let me end this part of my statement by saying that recruiting and retention of soldiers is not just an Army challenge, it is a challenge for our country. Every one of us in both the military and Congress must do our part to emphasize to our young people the importance of service to the country.
Now, next, in the area of equipping our soldiers, the Army continues to adapt to changes in the battle space. In the fall of 2003, when the insurgency in Iraq began to intensify, there were approximately 250 armed tactical wheeled vehicles in theater.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the support of Congress, acting in full partnership with industry, the Army has dramatically increased the pace of production and fielding. By the end of this month, at least 32,500 tactical wheeled vehicles will be in the Iraq and Afghan theaters, and they will be protected.
Most importantly, after February 15th, no vehicle carrying an American soldier will leave a protected base without armor. This overall effort has increased the number of armored vehicles in theater by a factor of over 100 since August of 2003.
With the strong support of this committee, we are implementing our strategy of obtaining a quality-of-life for our soldiers and their families that match the quality of their service. Let me highlight the new and renovated housing made possible through the Residential Communities Initiative. This program is truly a great success story, and it is very popular with Army families.
Since this privatization initiative first began in November of 1999 at Ft. Carson, the Army has transferred ownership of over 50,000 houses at Fts. Hood, Lewis, Bragg, Stewart, Campbell, Belvoir, Irwin, and Polk, among others. Actions such as these sustain our combat power because we enlist soldiers, but we reenlist families. We deeply appreciate this committee's continuing support of this program.
The final strategy I would like to address is providing the infrastructure to enable the force to fulfill its strategic roles and missions. We have a number of initiatives in this area. The one I will address today is business transformation.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to free up resources for the Army's primary missions, we plan to reduce the cost of the business side of the Army by streamlining our organizations, reengineering our manufacturing, repair and administrative processes, outsourcing where it makes sense, applying information technology, and empowering our leaders to make the required changes and holding them accountable.
With these 4 over-arching strategies and 20 supporting initiatives, in conjunction with a fully-funded base budget request and supplemental, the Chief and I are confident that the Army can accomplish its mission and reach our strategic goal of being ready and relevant for both today and tomorrow.
Let me end by saying that none of this would be possible without the continuing strong support of Congress and specifically the House Armed Services Committee. Thank you for this past support, and I ask you for your full support of the base budget request as well as the supplemental.
General Schoomaker will now introduce the three soldiers with us today. And after that, we will be happy to address any questions that you may have. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Harvey joint with General Schoomaker can be viewed in the hard copy.]
The CHAIRMAN. General, thank you for being with us, and please proceed.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF GEN. PETER J. SCHOOMAKER, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY
General SCHOOMAKER. Thank you, Chairman Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Congressman Hunter, Congressman Skelton, distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for the kind words as you opened and for the normal warm reception here before the House Armed Services Committee.
Without question, the most important reason why I took a temporary leave from the confines of my pickup truck were to be able to serve these young soldiers like these today, the ones that they represent and, of course, the civilians that are in our Army. So it is with a great deal of pleasure, and I would ask each to stand as I talk about them just briefly here.
The first on my right, your left, is Staff Sergeant Judy Ewing. Staff Sergeant Ewing is from the 30th Brigade Combat Team out of North Carolina. She just returned from Iraq, and she is an information systems specialist. Her job in Iraq was to integrate the First Infantry Division and the 30th Brigade Combat Team information systems so that they could do battle command and do the wonderful work that they have done there. We welcome her home, and we thank her for her service.
I promised these soldiers that they wouldn't have to testify but that I wanted them to be able to see firsthand a civic lesson, the process for which they have served and fought; and I am just real pleased to have them here with us. So, thank you, Staff Sergeant Ewing.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The next soldier, Sergeant First Class Matt Gruidl. Sergeant First Class Gruidl was with the Third Infantry Division when they captured Baghdad, and he participated. He is a linebacker—what is called a Bradley linebacker platoon sergeant. He participated in every major battle on the way to Baghdad and was present in the two major battles that seized Saddam International Airport. He earned the Silver Star during this period and the Army Commendation Medal with a ''V'' device for valor. He is now what we call an Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course (ANOC) instructor. He teaches at Ft. Bliss, Texas. So we are bringing combat experience into the classroom and helping pass his experiences of leadership to our future noncommissioned officers and soldiers. So thank you very much, Sergeant Gruidl.
Sergeant First Class Wilson Frantz is from the U.S. Army Reserve, and he is a military policeman (MP) just returning from Iraq where he earned the Bronze Star. He was involved in planning, coordinating and supporting over 1,000 convoy operations in Iraq during his period of duty there and over 700 different area security missions during his tenure and he has recently returned with the 336th MP Battalion out of the U.S. Army Reserve. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, General, that is about the best opening statement you ever made.
General SCHOOMAKER. I thought you would appreciate that, sir. With that, I will conclude my opening statement. I stand behind the Secretary of the Army in our joint statement and everything that he has said before you, and I am prepared to join him in answering your questions.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of General Schoomaker joint with Secretary Harvey can be viewed in the hard copy.]
The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, General and Mr. Secretary.
To my colleagues, you had a lapse of the chairman in the last hearing in which we carried on—we on the top row here carried on for far beyond our allotted five minutes per question, and we had a lot of members on the other rows that didn't get a chance to ask questions. So I want to ask Mr. Sterner to put us on a four-minute timer here, Mr. Sterner, if you could.
What I would like to ask my colleagues to do is to, in respect for their fellow members, we have got lots of people who want to ask questions, we have a big committee today, please ask just one question and allow one of our two guests to answer it. If you ask five questions, which I have been prone to do myself, and you ask both witnesses to answer it, you end up having ten answers, and we end up going way beyond time, and our guys on the other rows don't get a chance. So let's go on the four-minute timer, and that should be for question and answer.
So, to our witnesses, Mr. Secretary and General Schoomaker, you are going to get a short question, and you might wind that up about as quickly as you can. Be very succinct if you can.
In that spirit, let me yield my time to a guy who has got a big piece of Army in his district, Mike Conaway of Texas.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned dwell time and the goals that you are assessing. We have been at a hearing recently which showed a chart of I think the next three reshuffles through Iraq. What kind of progress are you making? Are you making progress on the desired dwell times of a year or two years between deployments?
Secretary HARVEY. Let me just answer that by saying, and the Chief can chime in, our goal there is for the active component to have one year in theater and two years dwell time at home station. For the National Guard, we want to have one year in theater and five years of dwell time and, for the reserves, one year in theater and four or five years in dwell time. We are starting to move to that way as we modularize the force, but we probably won't be there until probably 2007 for the active component.
General SCHOOMAKER. I think that is correct. We have seen several units, Third Infantry Division, for instance, that is returning to Iraq with anywhere from 17 to 19 months dwell time in those brigades, direct result of both the added brigade combat teams as well as the fact that the Army National Guard has picked up their service in there. So our goal is 24 months. That will ebb and flow until we get the transformation complete, but we see evidence it is going in the right direction.
Mr. CONAWAY. Well, as difficult as limited dwell time is in the active Army, it is even more important in the reserve and National Guard. Can you talk to us about the impact there or the progress there?
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. As the Secretary said, the dwell time in the National Guard, the objective is to do a turn, a deployment, in five or six years and add a great deal more predictability to—if you take a look at our proposed force generation model, you have the active force turning at about twice the speed of our reserve component structure. We believe it will give stability to those formations, a great deal—amount of predictability and, of course, increased readiness on it.
Mr. CONAWAY. The active Army is 2007. Can you give a sense of when you will get to that desired dwell times or redeployment frequencies in the guard and reserve?
General SCHOOMAKER. I think you will start seeing that in the same time frame. Of course, our National Guard transformation carries on well beyond this program. So it goes out probably to—what—2018 in that area.
Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Boren.
Mr. BOREN. Thank you, sir. I just would like each of you to comment on the increase in the death benefit.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary HARVEY. Well, I can say that we are—I personally am certainly for it. I think it is a great idea. I know that legislation is now being formulated. So it is not what; it is, I think, how. We have to do it in a fair and equitable manner, and we are standing by. There has been testimony. The Vice has testified. But we are solidly in favor of a death gratuity, an improvement in that, and also in the life insurance component. So we are firmly behind it.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, following your lead, I will yield my time to Mr. Kline.
Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding; and, boy, I wish this could get to be a habit.
Gentlemen, I am looking at the numbers for end strength. As you know, many of us have been expressing concern for some time about the stress on the force, the guard and reserves and active force. I think it was the sense of many of us on this committee that we needed to increase the size of the active Army to help relieve some of those ops tempo stress on the active force and the reserve component. We have put an increase of end strength, and I think, as I am looking at the notes here in the budget, that you haven't continued that end strength increase into the outyears.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What I guess the question is, what are you thinking about the overall long-term size of the Army? Is it in agreement with our expressed desire to increase that or do you have another plan?
Secretary HARVEY. Let me respond to that. There is a difference between the end strength and where it is budgeted at. We are aware that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 has mandated end strength at the end of fiscal year 2005 of 502,400, which is 20,000 above the 482,000 which that number, the funding for that number, is in the base budget. After that time, the Act specifies that the Secretary of Defense has the authority to go up another 10,000 if he sees the need to do that. At the present time, I mentioned in my testimony that we have a large business transformation initiative ongoing which is intended to reduce the size of the institutional Army.
So, having said that, our plan is to increase the size of the operational Army but to decrease the size of the institutional Army simultaneously. The success of that is kind of to be determined. So it is hard to say what a number is right now. But the operational Army is increasing. And, again, as I said in my testimony, it is most important that we focus on combat power. We are going from 33 to 43 brigades, and those brigades have much higher technology, and they will continue to have higher technology. So we are certainly increasing the size of the operational Army.
Mr. KLINE. Thank you. I see I still have a green light. Let me just follow up by saying that I hope that we are increasing the sustaining capability as well—I mean, increasing combat brigades. I know—General Schoomaker, you know this very well—it is very handy, but they have got to be able to get to the fight and stay in the fight. It is not clear to me how that organization is coming. It is not really a question, because I am going to turn into red, but it is a concern.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary HARVEY. I can say that part of the Army modular force is to have sustained unit of actions. That has been planned. There is going to be 92 of them. That is in the plan. And we are going to start converting to the sustainment unit of actions starting this year. But we can provide more detail later on that.
Mr. KLINE. Thank you. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, General, good to see you. I am going to try and make this question as short as I can.
But one of the five elements, key things identified in the Army fiscal year 2006 budget news release was repair, reset and to recapitalize equipment. But from what I see, I think that you are being funded at a 73 percent level, and I think that you are counting now on a supplemental to finish getting all of the money requests that you need so that you can continue this war on global terrorism. Now are you going to depend on a supplemental to finish your funding?
General SCHOOMAKER. The answer is yes. We—as the Secretary stated in his statement, we have a combination of both what is in the core budget for 2005 and what we expect in the supplemental that we have laid out for both the support, the Army modular force transformation, which we do as we prepare for and return from deployed duties, the reset money, as we have in the past, to fund the recapitalization and resetting of the force, as we consume the force and then, of course, the additional manpower that is in there. All of which is in the supplemental funding.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we are—I personally am very satisfied, and I believe—I won't speak for the Secretary, but I know he has told me that we are very satisfied with the support that we have gotten out of the Department in the preparation of this budget and that we can't look at the 2005 budget itself in isolation from the ongoing war cost in the supplemental funding.
Secretary HARVEY. Let me just say that I am satisfied. Since we can't get into the specifics of the supplemental, but if you put the two together, you are going to see somewhere near $10 billion for reset, recap, rebuild, maintenance, the whole ensemble. So, again, we are quite satisfied that we have the resources required to do that.
This is very important. It is very important not only this year but in the succeeding years, and after the conflicts are over we have got to continue to do that for a couple of years after that. It is very important so that we are ready, as Representative Skelton said, for the next operation.
Mr. ORTIZ. So we are assuming that the request will be in the range of $10 billion.
Secretary HARVEY. Yes, as a package.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield my time to Geoff Davis, a new member of our committee from Kentucky.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. Thank you. I think we have got the new guys are on point right now.
I enlisted in the Army nearly 29 years ago and lived through the dark period, the rebirth of the service during the 1980's. I even have comrades in the room from those days long ago, who served with great distinction and brought great honor to the service and also to the country.
I am very proud of the men and women in uniform and what you all have done to make the country safer. But now, looking at the changes, watching that Army grow, participating in some of the force structure design at that time and then working professionally in a parallel field after getting off of active duty, what I see is an Army that is effectively one-third smaller in actual numbers in that point, and operations tempo it is more than twice what we had around the time of Desert Storm prior to 9/11 and facing some great changes.
I think the efforts are commendable regarding the move to modularity, increasing jointness and flexibility. But, at the same time, I am wondering about how realistic some of the goals are that are laid out on the table for this transition with the force structure the way it is at this time. Specifically, I would cite the Third Infantry Division, for example, which served with distinction in Iraq, came back home, but effectively, as I understand, it had seven national training center rotations in the midst of this transformation, is now nearing its time to redeploy.
Secretary HARVEY. It is.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. That being said, do you feel that the—how are we going to achieve the sustainment goals, maintain troop levels within the current force structure? Or might it not be more realistic, in order to maintain a flexible reserve, to respond to threats as they emerge in other parts of the world potentially where we do have some challenges now to meet those goals, have that sustainable force and be effective in this transformation?
Secretary HARVEY. Well, I think one of the real benefits of the modularity is the fact that we are going to end up with 77 brigade combat team unit of actions between the active and the Army National Guard. We talked about the rotational cycle and the force generational cycle of that. However, if we have to surge, we can surge also. You know, our model is based on a 20 brigade unit, brigade combat teams deployed at any one time. If we have to surge and provide more, we can.
Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. For example, if you had to surge in the next six months, how would we do that?
Secretary HARVEY. I talked about the end state. He can tell you what we would do in the interim.
General SCHOOMAKER. We have the capability to surge in the next six months, without question, from the residual that we have in the States and what we have got available globally.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to build on this whole notion just for a minute, because I think it is really important to instruct us for the future.
In the Army that you served in and I served in, in those times, there is no comparison to the Army of today, either in capability or in quality of service or anything. We have always had great people, but we have come a long way in terms of things.
I would tell you that you might remember that, in the decade of the 1990's, from the time that—let's just say from the end of the first Gulf War until the end of the 1990's, we reduced the active Army force by 300,000 people and took almost a hundred billion dollar procurement holiday across DOD.
If you cut down 300,000 trees, you can do that pretty quick. But now grow 30,000 of them back. But there is an analogy there that is pretty apt. It takes time, as you know, to grow the quality soldier, quality leaders that we have. We have done very well.
When I sat here last year this time and announced that we were going to grow the Army by 30,000 in a temporary way, and the Congress has come back and validated that and authorized it, that was a steep climb. We now have almost achieved 20,000 of that number, growing at a time that we have also been at war.
So our transformation has created more capacity. It is increasing our actual capability and the effectiveness of the force at the same time that we are doing this transformation. And we are in a position right now to respond, obviously, differently than we would if we didn't have the level of service, the level of deployment that we have got to the Middle East. But, nevertheless, we have the capability because as a joint force we fight differently and more effectively than we ever have. So I would—this is an unclassified session, but I would just say I would not want any of our potential enemies to miscalculate here. Because we have apt capability at our disposal to deal with things.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan.
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome Mr. Secretary and General.
General Schoomaker, there have been press reports indicating that we are building 14 bases in Iraq. In my trips to Iraq, obviously, we see a lot of construction, a lot of pouring of concrete. I am concerned that these bases send the signal that we plan on keeping a permanent presence in Iraq. How much money are we spending on these bases? Where are the bases? Is there funding in the current budget request or in the upcoming supplemental request for base construction; and, if so, what for? I am interested in whether we would return these properties to the Iraqis when our forces mission is complete; and, if so, do we have an agreement with the Iraqis to turn these bases over to them?
General SCHOOMAKER. First of all, I have no knowledge of creating any permanent basing anywhere over there. We are creating forward operating bases to provide adequate force protection and adequate quality-of-life for the soldiers that we have deployed. But I know of no efforts to create permanent basing.
However, we will take that for the record and make sure that we correct it.
Mr. MEEHAN. General, like the 14 bases, is that not accurate? I have seen that reported a few times.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. I will have to take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
General SCHOOMAKER. There are numerous forward operating bases, for instance, Bahlad and the Anaconda. The air field and logistics construct now that we have created up there, I would classify it as a forward operating base. And, yes, we are putting in things to increase the force protection and increase the quality-of-life for the soldier there, but I would not compare it to building a base as people understand permanent basing that perhaps you would find in the United States or even in Europe.
Secretary HARVEY. Let me just also add that I am not aware of any plan to have a permanent forward base. I am not aware of that. But we will look into that and get back to you on the record.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. MEEHAN. In the budget that you are submitting or in the supplemental, are there any plans for any moneys for construction of bases?
General SCHOOMAKER. For force protection and quality-of-life, yes, in that direction. But for establishing permanent bases, I have no knowledge.
Secretary HARVEY. It would be for force protection. We are doing a lot there. The chairman knows very well our plans in counter rocket and mortar. We are continuing to do things like that to protect the bases, protect the soldier, provide for a quality-of-life. Those are very important and we will continue to fund those, but I have no knowledge of any permanency.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MEEHAN. Is there any agreement with the Iraqis once our military mission is completed to turn over the bases or have there been any discussion with the new Iraqi government or the prior government on that issue?
General SCHOOMAKER. Those kinds of discussions would be taking place between General Casey, Ambassador Negroponte and General Abizaid. I don't have any knowledge, but we will certainly check into it.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Just a note to my colleague that, at this point, there is not a permanent Iraqi government to give permission to the U.S. for any basing accommodations. But every soldier and every Marine, every airman every sailor who is stationed in Iraq has a base; and the base at Bahlad is Saddam Hussein's old fighter base that we basically moved operations into.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the question is, how do we distinguish construction that is not permanent from the type of construction that you speak of? That is what I am trying to get at, because there are press reports.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand. But the question presupposed that there is an ability of the Iraqis at this point to give a permanent basing agreement to the U.S. and there isn't, because we are under transitional law and under United Nations resolution. In a number of months, when the constitution is in place and the permanent government is in place, they will be able to have relations with other countries just like any other country can.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In keeping with your precedent, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Schwarz.
Dr. SCHWARZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am going to change pace a little bit, if I may, here.
I am a Navy guy, which makes me suspect immediately, I assume, Mr. Secretary and General Schoomaker. In my home of Michigan, there are numerous guard and reserve components. In my district, there are numbers of them as well. I am the only physician in my specialty in my part of the State of Michigan who accepts TRICARE, the only one; and I have military dependents driving sometimes more than a hundred miles to get care because physicians in their communities do not accept TRICARE.
My question is this: Is there a plan in the budget to increase payment for TRICARE for military dependents living off a base and living at home, dependents and their children, while the active duty individual is in Iraq or elsewhere, but certainly remote from their family?
It would seem to me to be appropriate that the payment that TRICARE makes might be increased some so other physicians would take the payment that TRICARE makes. Many of them don't. It drives me up the wall that they don't. And I have done everything I can to try and convince physicians to do so.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The multispecialty group in which I practice wanted to drop TRICARE. I had to convince them, show them the mistake in their ways in that, and they continued to accept TRICARE. Part one.
Part two, are there plans to make TRICARE available to dependents of guard and reserve individuals who are serving remotely from their families? Certainly that should be part of the plan as well.
I would simply like your comments on TRICARE and perhaps most particularly to the two points I brought up.
Secretary HARVEY. Let me say that I am certainly not aware of the details of a physician's right or not right to accept TRICARE; I assume it is similar to Medicare where they have their own personal choice not to or they can. So I guess it is a free country. We certainly would encourage physicians throughout the United States to accept TRICARE. It is important to us, it is important to our soldiers, it is important to their families.
You know, I do know that the Department overall will spend in excess of over $26 billion this year on medical care, so it is not like we don't care and we don't have a very good program. And, you know, I am also part of it, and I think it is very good. But I don't think I can intelligently comment on the decisions of a local physician one way or the other, to certainly encourage him and say we have asked our soldiers and their families to serve this country, they are defending our freedom, they are over in very difficult circumstances, and please rethink it; you know, they serve our country, please, you serve our country. But having said that, you know, it is a free country.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now in terms of reserves, Chief, you may want to comment on this. I know there is a provision that says that for every 90 days that you are deployed as a reserve or National Guard, you get one year of TRICARE. I know that that passed, I believe, last year. So there is a provision in the law now that provides TRICARE for reserve and guard based on their deployment time in theater. That is the extent of my knowledge. And I don't know of any plans to extend that at this time.
General SCHOOMAKER. And I don't really have anything to add, but I am getting a nod from our brain trust back here that what the Secretary said is correct. I think we ought to accept your question for the record and give you some detail on what is in there because I can't add to what the Secretary said.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Dr. SCHWARZ. I know the red light is on, but I would just comment, I will make this comment. I would hope that the Department would make public statements, very much like the Secretary made, to try to convince some of my fellow physicians that this is what they ought to do. There are physicians who faithfully, like myself, accept TRICARE and never will not accept TRICARE; there are so many others that don't, and we need to enlighten them up a little bit.
Secretary HARVEY. And let me just end by saying we appreciate you doing that very much. Thank you very much.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reyes.
Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, welcome for your first appearance before the committee. And, General Schoomaker, as always, thanks for your service. And to your brain trust, and in particular the three American heroes that you brought here, thank you for bringing them here; and thank all of you for serving.
My question deals with the Stryker Brigade. Late last year, the last time that Chairman and I and a couple other Members were in Iraq, we got a chance to not just see them, but actually ride with some of the soldiers in one of those vehicles, and so I have a could of questions regarding the Strykers.
Now, the first one is, according to the information that we have, the Army plans to activate five active Stryker Brigades by 2007 and one National Guard Stryker Brigade by 2010. And on your posture statement here for 2005, there is an actual picture here of one of those vehicles that is providing support for our infantry troops. And so I was wanting to know, first of all, is this enough, given the value that they have proven and the kind of combat that we are in today; that is the first question: Is this the schedule, and is it enough?
And the second question is, can you give us some personal testimony on how effective you know them to be in Iraq?
General SCHOOMAKER. Well, thank you for that question, because I would say that we are absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done in its performance not just as a vehicle, but as a system. And the Stryker Brigade Combat Team as a system is a very good snapdog view into the brigade combat team unit of action, enabled by information technologies with great mobility, great operational reach for strategic deployability, and large numbers of well-trained infantrymen, as well as joint fires and all the rest of it.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think one of the best examples is—and I won't get too specific on this—but at one time in the last year, a Stryker Brigade in the most northern reaches of Iraq dispatched a battalion combat team that did a 420-mile move, entered battle on that move at one place, won, and moved to another battle, and did all of this in 48 hours; and did it with planning on the move, great blue force situation awareness, great joint interconductivity, and exactly the kind of leadership, exactly the kind of combat capability we are looking for as we move toward our future combat system.
And so the Stryker Brigade is a good example. It also has demonstrated the highest operational readiness of any system that we have had over there. It is routinely above 95 percent in a war rate—always above 90, to the best of my knowledge—and it is one of the most survivable vehicles we have. And when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan in the theater over Christmas, I spent some time up north in Mosul with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team up there, and every soldier thought they were in the most special outfit that ever was devised. I mean, it was just a huge deal to do.
So we are very pleased with it, and we now—when you ask somebody like me is it enough, it is like saying is there enough ice cream in the field. You know, obviously we are very happy with it. We have got a schedule right now that is going to take us several years to meet, but we will be better informed, and we will make other decisions as we move forward here.
And as you know, last year there was monies put in for some additional battalions, and so we are looking at what—how the leverage—that support that you have given us, and what we might do; do we need to go to a 7th Stryker Brigade, how else—looking at it.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I will just wrap up with one more statement. In fact, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is working with us now and is interested in Stryker variance as perhaps part of their solution for Special Operations force. So I would say Stryker has acquitted itself very well, and we are very pleased with it.
Secretary HARVEY. Let me just add one—I know we are over, let me add three seconds' worth. If you look at the budget, you will see that the biggest single line item in the procurement is Stryker, so I think that is a reflection of how important we think it is.
Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Everett.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid I might have to break our little—I am late to another committee meeting, and I have a question that, frankly, is very important not only to my district, but to the Army, Navy and to the Marines, and that concerns the fact that I was quite disappointed to see that the budget, the Army's 2006 budget, contained no funding for the Joint Common Missile (JCM) Program. This missile was scheduled to replace the Maverick, TOW, Hellfire, and Longbow aviation missiles, as you know, which are all nearing the end of their life span. The JCM would provide beyond-line-of-sight capability and the flexibility to be used as an air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapon.
What troubles me most, I think, is that in terminating the program, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has elected to use the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, JCIDS, process to determine the needs for the missile. However, it was the very same JCIDS process that has already determined that the Army, Navy and Marines have critical gaps in their missile technology.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In canceling this program it seems to me that the Department of Defense, as well as the Army, is ignoring the cost and performance benefits of an advanced missile system that meets current and future requirements. The program is far ahead of schedule, under budget, meeting all requirements, low risk, and will replace aging programs.
Gentlemen, it is my understanding that the requirement for this munition still exists. Do you believe that requirement still exists, and if so, how do you plan to address these requirements without the Joint Common Missile?
General SCHOOMAKER. Well, I would say that, first of all, that was a joint program. I believe the Navy—am I correct in saying that—the Navy was the program office on it. And you are correct that that was a joint decision.
It would be great to have it, yet—but there are precision means available to us, and that was one of the areas in which—in the overall construct of things, one of the areas in which it was believed that there was acceptable risk in making that decision.
Again, it goes back to it would be wonderful to be able to afford every one of these capabilities, and I really couldn't say more about it than that.
I don't think——
Mr. EVERETT. With due request, my question was, does the requirement for the missile still exist? And what are those other methods that we can use?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. I don't think there is an absolute void. You mentioned it, Hellfire can perform some of that, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), can perform some of it, laser-guided munitions and other things that we have. And granted, some of these are adaptations, and some of them don't have the future growth potential of what you are talking about, but nevertheless, there is not a void in the precision area that is there.
Secretary HARVEY. I can just chime in a little bit and say that you may be familiar—this is a decision that comes out of what is called the JCIDS process, the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System, where they look at capability gaps, if there is any, and determine whether or not there is a gap existing in that capability. I think the decisions were made that the gap is small and the risks are small, and therefore, even though it is a marvelously performing—or at least on paper it is—it is not needed at this time. And unfortunately, in a resource-constrained environment, you have to make decisions, and you have to establish priorities.
But there is, I think, from my point of view, there is a methodical systematic process for doing that, and there are a lot of people involved in that, and it is just not an arbitrary and capricious decision.
Mr. EVERETT. Well, thank you for your answer, and I see my time is out. Thank you for being here. And I appreciate, General Schoomaker, what you said about our soldiers, who are doing historic things over in Iraq to not only free people in Iraq, but protect this Nation. But I will have some follow-up questions for the record, I believe. Thank you.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. I might just add that what is happening at Anniston, to help us with the great progress we have made in being able to provide the add-on armor protection, is phenomenal.
Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate that. But I expect my folks down at Ft. Rucker——
Secretary HARVEY. We greatly appreciate it.
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. And thank you, Mr. Secretary and General, for being here today, and also for bringing those three great soldiers behind you; we are really excited to see them.
I have a lot of questions. I am going to submit most of them to the record, but hopefully I will get through a couple of these.
The insurgent violence continues to intensify since the January 30th elections in Iraq, and I don't know anyone in the Pentagon who really believes that it will subside in the coming year.
In the last 9 days, 15 United States troops have been killed in combat, and 153 Iraqis have also been killed, including 106 Iraqi Army and police.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year seven nations withdrew from the coalition in Iraq, and this year already the Ukraine, Poland and the Netherlands have announced their intentions to withdraw most of their forces. And yesterday General Petraeus announced that—admitted yesterday that insurgent intimidation is cutting his ability to recruit Iraqi soldiers. And, of course, we already know that the Pentagon has proven incapable of giving Congress accurate reports about the status of the Iraqi security forces.
So my question is, with the rising insurgent violence and decreasing international support to the coalition, isn't it equally possible that the U.S. will have to increase our forces in Iraq this year? And second, is the Army, as the main force provider for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), developing contingency plans for meeting possible force increases in OIF?
General SCHOOMAKER. First of all, the reason I believe insurgent violence is as you described it is because the election is scaring them to death, and that obviously, you know, they are doing all they can to try to reverse the very positive kind of things that occurred at the end of January.
We always plan so that we have options. The indications right now from theater, and that is where we get our requirements, is that we are planning against a level effort. Our hope is that as we build the Iraqi forces across the full security spectrum—Army, border police, all of those that have been talking about and described so well—that we will have the opportunity to start going to a different level of overwatch that has been described several times by General Casey and General Abizaid.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is their call, not our call. Our job is to organize, train, equip and provide the resources that they ask us to do. And it is prudent for us to plan against worst case or against their best—greater than what we anticipate would be the demand. And right now I know of nothing that changes the assumptions that we are on, which are that we will be able to start adjusting our force levels based approximate the production that—now, what General Petraeus said about insurgent activity and intimidation is right on. I mean, that is the nature of insurgency, that is the nature of the whole deal. And I believe that it is a direct result of—you know, of the success that occurred in January with those elections. And we are going to have to continue to knuckle through and do what we are doing.
Secretary HARVEY. Let me just add that rest assured that there is a—and you are probably familiar—this is an enormous effort going on to organize, train and equip Iraqi forces. There is something like 136,000 that have been; there is a goal to get to 200,000, I think, by the end of the year.
Their capability has to be improved. There are a lot of plans to give them a command-and-control structure. I know there are some North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or European Union countries involved in setting a school up, a training indoctrine-type school up. There is a lot of infrastructure going on. So there is a lot of effort, and I think let's see how it develops in the future.
You do realize that you have a group of people that are slowly but surely losing control and will not be in charge of this country in the future, so their behavior, as abhorrent as it is and as evil as it is, is somewhat expected, and we have got to continue our efforts to organize, train, equip and have them have the capability that we have in our own Army. So that is ongoing. And General Petraeus is doing an outstanding job; he is a great soldier.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Secretary, I had the opportunity to talk at length with General Petraeus when I was in Iraq at Christmas time. He also acknowledged that one of the problems that we had in Mosul was that we took our men and women out of Mosul and we put them to the Fallujah front, and, of course, then Mosul fell apart, and our Iraqi Army and National Guard and policemen there, almost 5,800, ran away, took their equipment and have never been seen again.
So this is the concern that I have, that as much as you banter around, 120,000, 137,000, 200,000, the fact of the matter, after having a long discussion with Petraeus—and I have his numbers—we are nowhere close to 137,000 full capability, National Guard——
Secretary HARVEY. I don't disagree with you.
Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. Army, and, you know——
My concern is I have the best-equipped, best-educated, best-trained military that the world has ever seen, and they are getting killed every day out there. And you want to replace them with Iraqis who I know aren't trained, educated, equipped anywhere close. And, General, hope is not a strategy. So, you know, the concern is that more of our fine young people like the three behind you will end up being in Iraq. And we haven't really planned for the worst-case scenario all along in this war, quite frankly, General.
Secretary HARVEY. Congresswoman, let me just say that the Chief and I are the 2 people that sign 15 condolence letters a week, okay? And I take them every Sunday morning before I go to church and I sign those letters. So I feel the same way you do. I don't like it any better than you do. But I also know that my freedom and this country is being defended. So we are the ones that sign it, we are the ones that go to Arlington National Cemetery for funerals, we are the ones that go to Walter Reed (Army Hospital). And my fondest hope is to eventually end this, and the way to end it is the strategy of training, equipping and making them capable.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are seeing sausage being made in a sense. And let's give General Petraeus a chance. There are other things going on behind the scenes that will bolster the military and the government, but it is sausage being made, and it is tough. But you don't have to tell the Chief and I about how tough this is. It is very tough on me, and it is very tough on the Chief, but it is also our freedom, and it is our country, and that is the compromise.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I have a very quick question for the record, and then if I may, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Franks.
You are going to come to us with a supplemental. Let's imagine that the war ends when that supplemental runs out, and to make sure that the tip of the spear is as sharp as possible—I know that you have been bleeding money from operations and maintenance (O&M). I know that our equipment is wearing out, that the supplemental will not include the cost of replacing that equipment. There may be additional personnel training cost.
If the war were to end at the end of this supplemental, how much money will it take to make you whole? I know you probably don't have that at the tip of your tongue, so if you take it for the record and give us a good accounting of that, I would be very appreciative.
And let me yield the remainder of my time now to Mr. Franks, if I might.
General SCHOOMAKER. Did you want a response, or just take——
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BARTLETT. If you have it on the tip of your tongue, great. It won't take long to give me the number, 20 billion, 40 billion; what is it?
General SCHOOMAKER. We will give you a complete answer for the record, but if you take a look at the entire program out through 2011, you will see that the money for modulizing the force continues out through 2011 at about $5 billion a year. I have testified several times in here that it will take us at least two years of supplemental funding to reset the force, to repair, replace, recapitalize our equipment whenever this ends. And, of course, the additional strength in the Army we will deal with year by year as we have this year, but we would really anticipate that would be supplemental as well.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. FRANKS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bartlett.
Well, my father served in the Army, so I am always especially encouraged when you come before this committee, and I just can't express to you now how grateful that I am personally, and I know the entire committee is, for all the great service you do for this country.
My dad used to say that—he was an Army engineer, but he used to say that the infantry were among the greatest heroes because they often took the greatest number of casualties; and I know that remains the situation today.
I was particularly impressed, Mr. Secretary, with your testimony today that, if I understood it right, that not only have we increased our armored vehicle capability—if I understood you right—a factor of 100, but that now it is such that people do not—our people do not leave a base in Iraq without either armored escort—and I am not exactly sure what the perspective there is—but does that reflect a retrofit of existing vehicles, or does that reflect replacing some of the Humvees with Stryker vehicles? What makes that happen; what makes that true?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary HARVEY. We kind of have a multicomponent strategy. There are three levels of armor; there is level one, level two and level three. Level one is that which is made in the factory. It is like our up-armored Humvees; they are armored—the Humvee comes off the line as a frame, and then armor is incorporated into it. So that is kind of an integrated.
Then we have these add-on kits which you heard about, and those are added on in Kuwait, sometimes they are added on in this country when they are preparing to go, I know Fort Carson is doing it. And they have produced about over, in a combination of our depots and arsenals, Rock Island—and Anniston, as you heard, is involved; and then we have industry doing that. So there is a whole—there is something like 10 or 12 organizations, government and industry, doing that. We are getting welders from the Navy, the Air Force. They are taking them and going up to New York. It is all out-factored.
Then in theater we have this level three armor, which is cut—we have plasma torches, and we have designs, and we cut it out and we weld them onto the vehicle in theater. A lot of that goes on in Balat, and it goes on in Kuwait. So we have those three levels.
Our eventual objective is to get to all level one and two eventually, and we will have that done by May or June. In the meantime, like I said, there are 32,500 plus that have either level 1, 2 or 3. So it has been an absolute—I like to use it as a compliment to the institutional Army, they adapt—like we do in the battlefield, we adapt it here back in Congress.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. I would just like to add to that. The public focus generally has been on the Humvee and where we have made real progress in the Humvee. The real boost has been in the fact that we are now armoring every wheeled vehicle, so trucks, heavy equipment transporters (HETS), PLF trucks, tankers, all of those. And so that is where you have seen this mushroom of—and much of that was done—and it has taken design time and a bunch of other stuff to be able to do that.
But the other piece of it is that we are now—our production line, we have focused our production now on heavier-framed vehicles. In other words, instead of buying a lighter-weight Humvee that isn't designed to carry this armor, all of our Humvees in the future will be on the 1151 frame, which is a very heavy-duty frame which allows——
Secretary HARVEY. Heavy frame. Bigger engine, bigger transmission.
General SCHOOMAKER. It is very complex. And thankfully we are at a point now where we are able to harvest all this great work that has taken so long to plant.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY [presiding]. Mrs. Tauscher.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you. Mr. Secretary and General Schoomaker, it is good to see you both.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Secretary, I know you have only been on the job for a few months. I have to tell you I am disturbed by your answer to Congresswoman Sanchez's question. You have your job, and we have our job, and our job is to ask you questions. And this is your first appearance at the committee.
You are not the only person that has gone to funerals, and you are not the only person that has gone to Walter Reed. And I appreciate the fact that it is deeply disturbing to have to sign condolence letters, but these are our constituents that are dying, too, and we have a lot of accountability that we need to be sitting for. And you weren't here for a lot of these decisions, and maybe part of your defensiveness is that you don't like some of the decisions that have been made. I certainly don't like a lot of the decisions that have been made.
Now, you came from the business community. Can you explain to me why we are relying, riskily, on two years of supplementals to fund Iraq and Afghanistan? And would you believe that you would ever do that and get away with it in the private sector?
Secretary HARVEY. Let me say I didn't want to lecture anybody, I just wanted to indicate that I share the same feelings you do. I mean, there are legitimate feelings, I feel the same way. I am highly motivated to bring the troops back. In fact, that picture is on my desk, and I think about it every day. I am the Secretary for that infantryman right there.
My understanding—and this is more of a question, I think, for the rules—my understanding is that these are one-time expenditures, and that is appropriate to be funded in supplementals. And that is what my understanding——
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. TAUSCHER. With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, if I had an apartment, and then I all of a sudden bought a house, and I decided I was going to take my thousand-dollar apartment payment and my $2000 mortgage payment and I was just going to act as if my mortgage payment was just a temporary thing because I may sell the house someday, and I was going to fund it all on a credit card, you would call me crazy, wouldn't you?
Secretary HARVEY. Sure.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, that is what we are doing here. We know what the run rate and the burn rate to this OIF and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), have been for 2–1/2 years and 3 years. We know what the burn rate is. It is almost $5 billion a month, and we are using basically a credit card and borrowing this money every 10 or 12 weeks, $75-, $80 billion a clip, and we are acting like we have got two sets of books. And I don't believe that we are being accountable or responsible. I think it is risky; and I think, frankly, we are floating on this attitude that we can just call off the war on terrorism, and the American people will go along with it. It is irresponsible accounting.
Secretary HARVEY. Well, I can't comment on that because I thought those were the rules; I don't make the rules. And if the rules change, we will go accordingly, but my understanding is one-time costs are in supplementals.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, I don't call a recurring war, an ongoing war, where we have no idea when it is going to end, a one-time cost.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General, the issue of end strength has come up every other question. We have kind of had a deal to agree but disagree on how to deal with it. We have temporarily increased troops by 30,000; we decided to fund it in the supplemental. We can't quite agree on deciding, I think, once and for all that we have to, perhaps, I believe, increase the size of the active duty force. Where are we on this whole process right now?
General SCHOOMAKER. Well, we are—as I described, we are trying to grow back 30,000 in the force at the same time we are rebalancing inside the force at the same time that we are recalibrating inside the force and doing military-to-civilian conversions to increase the size of the operational Army. So it is not just you are on the force. You know, we are in motion and have grown by about 20,000. The reality is we have about 640,000- to 650,000 people on active duty right now, and that the active component, 502,000, is just a piece of that. I mean, we will get back into the disagreement over supplementals here.
We have—in my view, we still have time to make a decision about the permanency of this because we have got to get through—see, I think from where I sit that we have got options that go both ways, and I think that because of discussions certainly the Secretary has had, but I certainly had previously with the Secretary of Defense and others, I am fully confident that if I were to walk through the door of Secretary of Defense and tell him that we needed to grow the Army again, that he would say to do it.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, I would be right behind you the day you do that. And I frankly don't care what you call it. The Secretary is very facile with definitions. I don't care if you call it temporary, part-time, sometimes, maybe. I just think we need more active duty troops, and I hope we will get to that sooner than later.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. If I could just add, I think the issue of permanency or temporary has got to do with the funding more so than——
Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, we have already decided to fund it out of the one-time supplemental that——
General SCHOOMAKER. Whether in our core budget or whether it is in the supplemental funding, but we are building real soldiers that will be with us.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for bringing the three great heroes with you. Thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Hayes.
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; thank you, gentlemen. And we appreciate your efforts doing everything we can for our soldiers. They are represented by the men and women behind you. We particularly appreciate their service.
Three questions for you. I continue to be concerned—we have talked about this in previous years—about the way maintenance money goes down to our bases. In the past we appropriated money here, the money doesn't get down there. Right now, today, yesterday, there are 303 buildings at Fort Bragg that didn't have any heat. Only 42 percent of the money that was appropriated by Congress—we appropriated 97 percent of what they needed—didn't get to that base. I want you all to tell me why this is happening and how we can get the money. Is the Installation Management Agency (IMA) deal not working?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Number two, we have got a good MILCON construction budget, which I appreciate, but if we build more buildings, until we get the flow of money for reserve and maintenance straightened out, then that problem is going to get worse.
And last but not least, hurricane costs in 2003 were handled in supplemental funds. The money that went away from my Corps Support Command (COSCOM) barracks at Fort Bragg to help with hurricane relief was supposed to come back. It wasn't—it is not back yet. Can we get that money back?
Secretary HARVEY. I can take the barracks question.
I am very pleased to say that the Chief and I had a review of our barracks modernization program a couple of weeks ago, and we both decided that it will take too long to bring some substandard barracks up to quality levels; it takes them like three or four years as part of the modernization program. We made the decision to have two parts to the barracks modernization, a short-term part which will take 20,000 substandard barracks totally up to quality levels this year. It will be done this year, calendar year 2005.
So in terms of that, it is consistent with my philosophy, my priorities of importance of the soldiers and their families, there will be no substandard barracks after this year; 136,000 barracks will be all at the quality. The Chief and I made that commitment. We just said, ''Go find the money.''
So in terms of barracks, if you have substandard barracks in Fort Bragg, they won't be there. If they are there in January, the Chief and I are going to be very unhappy. So that is the barracks component of it.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. We have 177 barracks that we have identified. I would say on average that we are going to be repairing, on the average, of about 20 a month as we go forward, buildings. And I agree with the Secretary, I am going to be very disappointed if we are not there.
On the rest of your question, I am going to have to take it for the record, because by the time we got to the hurricane—I just remembered the front part. But I don't know the answer to that, and we will take it and get you an answer.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Secretary, thanks. We are upgrading the barracks and doing a great job, but they are coming out of a warm barracks, and tomorrow they go into these 303 buildings that don't have any heat on, and we are backing up. So find out where sustainment, resteration, modernization (SRM) money—92 percent appropriated and only 40 something is getting out——
Secretary HARVEY. We will look into that. I don't know the detail either, but we will provide you an answer for the record on that issue.
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Andrews. Welcome back.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be here. I thank the witnesses for their testimony this morning. I especially thank the soldiers they brought with them who stand here today representing all of their brothers and sisters that are serving around the world. Please know there is a unanimous feeling of pride in your achievements and respect for your commitment to your country.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Secretary, you said what secretaries always say, we always say, which is that you recruit the soldier, but you retain the family. We all agree with that principle, which is why, when you look at the budget proposals in the area of military construction and military housing, I am alarmed and troubled.
Last year the Secretary of Defense and the services came before this committee and projected that in this fiscal year we would be spending $1 billion more in the area of military construction than you have proposed to spend in this fiscal year. If you go back a year, look at what the fiscal year 2006 projection was in MILCON departmentwide, not just for the Army. Your own projection was it would be $1 billion higher than you have actually proposed this year.
Second, if you look at the Army MILCON proposal it is $600 million less than we spent last year; the Army family housing proposal is $200 million less than we spent last year.
The way I would keep score on this is before we get to the other services, that means that we are somewhere in the vicinity of $1–1/2 billion dollars short of what we thought we were going to have—what you thought you were going to have a year ago.
First question is, are these numbers adequate to meet the needs for military construction of Army family housing that you see in existence? I doubt that they are, but if I am wrong, tell me. And if, as I assume, they are not adequate to meet the needs for military construction and Army family housing, why aren't they, in a budget that is $98.6 billion? Now, if you said, ''Go find the money,'' in the discussion we just had for the barracks, which I fully embrace, why can't we go find the money to bring MILCON and military housing up to where it ought to be?
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary HARVEY. Yeah; I may not be fully informed on this issue. My understanding is that the Army family housing is for—mainly for overseas locations in the residential community initiatives which I talked about, which we have gotten 50,000 homes under—have been transferred is primarily for the continental United States. So that is my understanding, but I could be wrong on that.
Mr. ANDREWS. Well, if I may, we certainly want top-quality housing for our personnel and their families, irrespective of where they are stationed.
Secretary HARVEY. Well, I agree with you, but there are two different accounts. So in terms of the residential communities initiative (RCI), I know there is—besides the projects that have been transferred, I have a list in front of me that has dates of—we will transfer about 8,000 more in 2006, and 16,000 more—actually in 2005 and 2006, they have been awarded. And then in the future there is 8,000 more. So there is a plan in place to get up to about 95 percent of the housing in the United States.
Now, in terms of the Army family component of it, I am just not as knowledgeable on that; I will take a look into the record. I think it may have something also to do with the global rebasing, that if there is housing in Germany, for example, in Korea, and we are bringing people back, then we wouldn't be investing in that housing as heavily as we have in the past.
Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate that——
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary HARVEY. I think it may be tied up in that, but I will take that and get you an answer.
Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate that. And we would like an answer for the record.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. ANDREWS. Just briefly, though, I would ask you to focus again on this point. Not our numbers or someone else's numbers, the Department's own numbers a year ago suggested that the need for fiscal year 2006 would be $1 billion more for MILCON than you are proposing for fiscal 2006. Did we suddenly have $1 billion worth of needs evaporate, or what is the problem?
Secretary HARVEY. Well, I certainly can't speak for the other services, but again, for the record, I will look into specifically if, in fact, the Army's MILCON budget has decreased year over year, 2005 to 2006, and why that is.
Mr. ANDREWS. Well, according to the data we have for today's hearing, the fiscal year 2005 appropriated amount was $2.5 billion, and the President's budget is $1.9 billion.
General SCHOOMAKER. I think—if I could just add to this, and we will get a statement to you for the record, an answer for the record—but last year we were successful in getting support out of Congress to raise the cap on the RCI, and because we were allowed to get the cap raised, we were able to expand the number of installations. And I believe we are up now to about 32 installations with the residential—or the commercial industry, and that has an impact, I believe, an offset—am I correct here on some of the——
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information referred to can be found in the hard copy.]
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank you. I think you will find agreement on both sides of this committee that this is something we all want to do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. And the Ranking Member had more to follow briefly on that.
Mr. SKELTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Along that line, General, a reminder that you had received a letter from me asking for a list of unfunded requirements, and we would appreciate that at your earlier convenience, sir.
Thank you very much.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Wilson.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary and General, for being here. And thank you for bringing three American heroes with you. And also, I have great faith in your brain trust, particularly with the guard and reserve, and I want to let you know that you have got a great team.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I feel like we have another team, and that is the active duty forces with guard and reserve; they are serving together so well. I have seen it firsthand with my 31 years in the Army National Guard. I am very grateful. I have a son who just completed his one-year service in Iraq. He is on his way home, will be returning to his law practice. It is a classic National Guard case. And then two weeks ago one of his younger brothers started officer basic training; and so we are very proud of our Guard participation. And then I even have one a little bit off track. He is in the Navy, active duty, and I am very proud of his service as an ensign. But as I raise this—he is in the medical corps like Congressman Schwarz, too.
As I look at all of this, I will be providing—and we are limited in our questions today, understandably—I will be providing, separately, questions and suggestions in regard to six-month deployment boots on the ground for our guard and reserve members overseas.
Additionally, I have a real interest, obviously, in benefits and retirement for Guard members. I am working today with Congressman Tom Latham and U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. We will be presenting at one o'clock a bill which provides for the Guard and Reserve Readiness and Retention Act. This is an act to provide for TRICARE expansion; additionally for retirement at an earlier age than 60, based on service of 20 years; and 2 years that you get a credit of 1 for the reduction. What we are trying to do is address stress on the military, on families and employers.
But in addition to the benefits that we are talking about, are there any other specific benefits—recently the expansion of TRICARE—are there other benefits and pay increases that can be cited as we all work on recruiting and retention?
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary HARVEY. Well, I am aware—I don't know the specifics, and we can provide those for the record, but I am aware of—recruiting and retention incentives across the board have been increased this year, and we are specifically talking of reserves and the National Guard. The retention incentives and the recruiting incentives and educational benefits and student loan forgiveness, there is a whole bunch of things that have been done. We can provide that for the record. But I am aware qualitatively that we have done all those things.
It is very important for us to maintain not only the numbers, but most importantly—and I am very impressed with this—they have quality measures. And I failed to mention that we are meeting all of our quality measures. We may not get exactly the number of people we want, but we are not sacrificing quality there. But we will get for the record the incentives.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
General SCHOOMAKER. I think the National Guard will tell you that some of the incentives that we just recently had the opportunity to put in has had an impact already. I know we have done in the active force some targeted—Special Forces, for instance, we have targeted; we have got some programs in areas like interrogators, linguists where we have targeted, and we have seen some impact on that.
But first I would like to wrap up and tell you that we are absolutely committed to one force, one Army, across all these components; we are very, very proud of the service of all of them, and particularly thankful for your own service and your kin's service there.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I want to tell you a little ditty. Yesterday I got a little bird that came into my office, because, as you know, we are mobilizing the 48th Brigade out of Georgia right now, and they are drawing their equipment, and this little ditty said that two soldiers—you know, we are giving them the brand new Army combat uniform (ACU) now. The very first unit to get their new ACUs is the 48th Brigade out of the Army National Guard, just like the first brigade to get the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) equipment last year was the 81st out of Washington.
But anyway, these two soldiers were talking and were overheard sayingy that, ''Do these bozos know that we are in the National Guard? You know, they are giving us these brand new uniforms.'' And the good news is we knew they were in the National Guard, we are doing it on purpose. We have been doing it, and I think we are getting the results out of a single Army here in a way that is historic, and we plan to continue to build it in a positive way.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, again, for your commitment.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from San Diego, Mrs. Davis.
Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here. And to our highly professional soldiers, thank you very much for your service as well.
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that the quality-of-life should match the quality of the service that our men and women perform, and I whole-heartedly agree with that, and I think that that is a fair statement. I think, perhaps, you know, our credibility with that has to be very strong, and some of the frustration that you sense from us, I think—from all of us, really, is that we want to be sure that the quality of the preparation for this effort matches the quality of their sacrifice as well, and that is why sometimes we are concerned that that message is transmitted and that we are credible with our numbers, that we are credible with what is on the ground.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I wondered if you could just be a little bit more specific in terms of the quality-of-life issues and how that is demonstrated in our budget. Can a family look to the budget and see that we are increasing our effort to match the quality of the service that is being performed today? How would we do that?
We talked about housing. I am concerned about the postappointment health screenings, mental health screenings; will that be adequate? Are we relying too much in our programs on some volunteer assistance and help? And we have a Disabled Service Members Program, and that is a positive thing, but that relies largely on volunteers.
What are we doing to make sure that any family who looks at that budget and our commitment today would see that they are being taken care of?
Secretary HARVEY. In regards to the disabled, if you are referring to the Disabled Soldiers Support System Program for disabled soldiers, that is an excellent program that was started last year which is intended to provide an advocate for the wounded soldier for five years and transition him, if that is—him or her—from, say, from the hospital into his—back to his or her community and get them a job. And I am very pleased to say that the—I am sure you are aware of this program, the Civilian Aides to the Secretary of the Army, the so-called CASA program; there are something like 120 of them. They have taken this on as one of their programs, so that if a soldier returns to his hometown, and he wants to have one of these CASAs be his advocate to help him find a job, find the proper medical—help his family do that, it is kind of like a big brother or sister type of thing. So that is actually for free, the CASAs do that on their own. But that is an excellent program.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, you know, I have been on the job three months, so I am not an expert in a lot of this stuff, and I have still got to learn, but I know with the reserves and guard, when they demobilize, that in-theater, there is an in-depth evaluation done of each of the soldiers to make sure that they are mentally okay and that they don't have any problems. And then when they get to the demode station—and the Chief can chime in here—they have extensive evaluations of the soldiers in terms of their physical and mental state before they are released; and that, I think—let me just address that in a qualitative way.
And then, as you said, housing and, you know, the defense health program, the benefits, the—unfortunately the death benefit—there are a lot of things that are going on right now, both tangible and intangible, but the Chief can comment on a little more detail of that demode for the reserves and guard.
Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Gentlemen, perhaps in your comment are the professionals telling us that, in fact, they believe that the time that we are allotting for that—and again, if National Guardsmen with a 90-day deployment only have a year of TRICARE, is that enough? Because we know that this is a continuing—can be a continuing problem and could affect many, many soldiers.
General SCHOOMAKER. Well, we had this conversation last time when we testified here, and you talked about your concerns out in San Diego with post-traumatic stress and some other kinds of things, and I can guarantee you that what we have done, included in the reintegration programs and the counseling areas soldiers are getting, regardless of component, you know, we are doing our very best to make sure they understand how to access this vast array of resources that are available to them. However, our commitment and our requirement to return soldiers to civilian life, reserve component soldiers, as an example, are whole, is a commitment we can't avoid and we are committed to.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And as you know, we have medical-hold programs, and we have modified how we return some of these soldiers within the community, trying to get them close to their communities to recover in the hospitals, et cetera, are all part of a big process.
The Disabled Soldiers Support System isn't just a bridge to Veterans Affairs (VA), it is actually a commitment to the soldier, even though he is also incorporated into the VA business. And we have got tremendous, wonderful Americans that have wrapped their arms around this program and are helping this, and that is going to continue to grow.
To the heart of your question, how can you cross-reference this budget to support to families, we will give you that for the record, but I can tell you that we are funding family readiness group representatives, we are funding—depends on the installations. It is a direct reflection of the commitment to these families, things like—you know, we fought hard, and with your help gained increase in the RCI program for family housing, which if you haven't seen it, it is wonderful, and it is the fastest track to get our families in the right kind of housing. MILCON is a very slow track; this RCI is a very fast track.
Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I appreciate that. And we will look for the numbers. Is that all within this budget, or is some of that also included in the supplemental?
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Secretary HARVEY. This is in the budget.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General SCHOOMAKER. No. This is in the budget.
Secretary HARVEY. I know we are overtime, but let me just add a very important thing, and it is also going on for families. We call it stabilization. Right now we have a plan not to replace individuals in, say, a brigade, but to transfer units, and then to have them stay with that unit for six or seven years so that the family stays in one place for six or seven years. Now we are not there yet, but we have this plan in place. That is an intangible, but it is very important that we don't send individuals one at a time from Korea back here and back and forth. We send a unit, and the unit's family stays in one place.
So that is another transformational initiative that we have ongoing, and it is not dollars and cents, but it is important to families, so I just wanted to add that in. But we will get you, as Chief said, a number for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Akin.
Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am an old graduate of the Army Belvoir Engineering School, but I do have to confess I have a wayward son, he is a combat engineer, but he is a Marine. I don't know what happened to him. But we are delighted to have you here.
The CHAIRMAN. I have got the same problem.
Mr. AKIN. I appreciate you, Secretary, for coming to the breakfast this morning, your comments and priorities and everything. I think that is excellent.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My interest really centers around kind of a combination of things—the Army transformation that you are committed to and that is moving forward, and also how that interfaces with the future combat systems (FCS). And I guess we have seen some examples in the past of very large programs that the Army has had where you have creeping program requirements, tremendous budgets on them, and finally the thing crashes and burns because it gets kind of heavy, and you just can't keep up the funding.
I guess my concern is, is there a level to keep up because this future combat system is a huge chunk of money to try to develop something, just by nature?
I have had a chance to have some fairly in-depth briefings on it. You have all of this stuff that is just integrated like a bowl of spaghetti. You have got to get the software to meet the hardware, and the hardware has got to meet the software; they talk about on-ramps and off-ramps, if this technology didn't come due, then this thing we are plugging into.
My only question is, they have got all these on-ramps; what happens if we don't fund it, and how does that impact things? Are you still committed to making that a priority?
Secretary HARVEY. You know, the Chief has done—I am going to start off and ask him to chime in, because he has done a great job on this, and I don't think he takes enough credit for it.
Last year, under his leadership, the program was restructured. You know, I had read about it before I became Secretary. And not to be clairvoyant, I did not think it was executable. The chief did not think it was executable. He restructured it. It had a low probability of success.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He restructured it under his lea