Page 1       TOP OF DOC
[H.A.S.C. No. 107–31]










 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

MARCH 7, 8, 13, and 14, 2002




JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
BOB RILEY, Alabama
J.C. WATTS, JR., Oklahoma
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Ranking Democrat
LANE EVANS, Illinois
JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington

Peter M. Steffes, Professional Staff Member
Mary Ellen Fraser, Counsel
Virginia H. Johnson, Counsel
Diane W. Bowman, Staff Assistant



    Thursday, March 7, 2002, Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act—Adequacy of the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request to Meet Readiness Needs
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thursday, March 7, 2002



    Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative from Colorado, Chairman, Military Readiness Subcommittee


    Fallon, Adm. William J., Vice Chief of Naval Operations
    Foglesong, Gen. Robert H., Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force
    Keane, Gen. John M., Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
    Williams, Gen. Michael J., U.S. Marine Corps, Asst. Commandant of the Marine Corps


Fallon, Adm. William J.
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Foglesong, Gen. Robert H.
Keane, Gen. John M.
Williams, Gen. Michael J.

[There were no Documents submitted for the Record.]

[Questions and Answers for the Record are pending.]


House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Readiness Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 7, 2002.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.


 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HEFLEY. The meeting will come to order.

    This is not where you all are used to testifying nor are we used to conducting the committee here in the Science Room, but Mr. Ortiz and I just decided this is nicer than 2212 so we may take this over. In fact, I started—I didn't get on the Armed Services Committee in my first term in Congress, but I did get on the Science Committee; and so it is like coming home, but it has been a long time.

    This afternoon the Subcommittee on Military Readiness begins its review of the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request and the adequacy of that budget request to sufficiently support the critical readiness needs of our Armed Forces.

    In the time that I have had to review the budget request, one word comes to mind that best describes the Administration's budget proposal. At best, the budget proposal before us, it seems to me, is a ''triage''. It is an attempt to rectify long-standing readiness problems by the triage method. But this triage approach to readiness funding—I mean, DOD has acknowledged that there is a problem, has attempted to stabilize the problem, but has done little to convince us that the long-term solutions are firmly in place to achieve the levels of readiness that we all expect.

    I believe that the readiness of our Armed Forces has been on life support for a number of years and that dedicated corrective actions must be taken and sustained to provide the best equipment facilities for our men and women of our Armed Forces. I and many other members of this committee have been sounding alarms on declining readiness for the past several years, and at long last the Administration appears to have heard these alarms by increasing readiness funding in several critical accounts.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    After much fanfare and media attention to the Administration's announcement that next year's budget request is one of the largest in recent history, it is my opinion that the request before us is not much more than a band-aid approach to a problem that is on the critical list. The triage approach sustains readiness in the near term. It may slow down the decline, but much more is needed to really cure readiness.

    According to the Administration, the budget request for fiscal year 2003 seeks to address readiness shortfalls by providing $150.4 billion for operations and maintenance accounts, an increase of $22.7 billion over last year's amount. However, of the 22.7 increase, $16.7 billion is proposed for the Defense Emergency Response Fund, and $4.1 billion is for increased health costs, and most of the remainder is due to an accounting ledger change reflecting civilian personnel retirement costs.

    The budget proposal funds readiness for tank miles at 849, an increase from last year's 730 Navy ship steaming days for quarter for deployed units at last year's level of 54.0 and the same flying hour program as last year for all aircraft and the military services.

    Although readiness funding may appear to slightly increase over last year, I am concerned that, due to the operational tempo of deployed forces necessary to prosecute ongoing military actions, there are increasing signs that the military readiness will be difficult to maintain. Not only is there concern for sustaining adequate readiness for the duration of the current conflict, there is also a looming concern for the reconstruction of our forces when the war has concluded.

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Many of our major combat weapon systems are long past their initial design life span, and there are only a few replacement items on the drawing boards. This committee and indeed the entire Congress has long recognized the practice in previous years of underfunding many of the critical readiness accounts. These critical readiness accounts include base operations, combat vehicles, ship and aircraft depot maintenance, funding for increased operations such as flying hours and combat vehicle tread miles, facility and infrastructure repairs and mobility enhancement funds. Between 1994 and 2001, this committee recommended the addition of over $11.4 billion to the Administration's annual budget request in just these areas.

    Some in Congress make the hollow charge that Congressional increases represent pork barrel additions and say that the Pentagon did not ask for the increased funding. I would argue that additions to these accounts are not Congressional district specific and, therefore, should not be categorized as pork. The fact that the Pentagon did not ask for the additions is one of the primary reasons why we have readiness problems today.

    I have been asked why, with the level of effort Congress places on these specific accounts, do we continue to have readiness problems. The answer is simple. Much of the funding for these accounts has been diverted to other underfunded accounts that must pay bills.

    One of the bright spots found in next year's budget request is the Administration's addition of $7.4 billion for ''realistic costing,'' which we were informed is intended to fully fund the budget request. This additional funding will not buy any more equipment maintenance, spare parts or facilities maintenance. It will all go to fully funding existing programs.

 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This sustainment of the charges made by Congress over the years, that many programs were intentionally underfunded and require mid-year reprogrammings and supplemental funding requests, is certainly a step in the right direction.

    We are fortunate this afternoon to have the Vice Chiefs of Staff from each of the four military services. We look forward to hearing from these senior officers on how each of the military departments is addressing current and future readiness with the funds that have been made available.

    Before we get into the hearing with our panel I would like to yield to the honorable Solomon Ortiz, the Ranking Democrat on the Readiness Subcommittee, for any statement he would like to make.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming our distinguished guests to this hearing today.

    First, I want them to know how proud I am of the performance of our forces. They have risen to the challenges and deserve our commendations. That includes not only those forces serving under combat conditions in some of the most remote and desolate locations of the world but also those who have been serving here in the continental United States, whether it be at the Winter Olympics, at commercial airports, flying air patrols, or at other locations where enhanced security has been required.

    Those personnel who have been asked to do more in support of ongoing activities, I hope you will convey my expression of appreciation to all of them.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I do not want to take too much time with these opening remarks, but I want to share my concerns about the readiness of the force. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that we have entered into a brand new era that has already placed increased demands on the readiness of the total force. And when I use the term ''total force'' I am speaking about active and reserve component uniformed personnel and the dedicated civilian workers who contribute so much to the force readiness. They are all busier today than at any time since Desert Storm; and from all indications, this will continue well into the future.

    As highlighted by Chairman Hefley, I, too, am pleased that the budget request does include some increases in the O&M account. But most of it is not in the direct readiness activities. I am concerned about what I perceive to be a gap between advertised message and the readiness reality. What is the real need? It does not appear that the increase in the direct readiness funds have kept pace with the personal tempo or the operations tempo. If that is the case, we will not be able to sustain the readiness gains of the last few years or further reduce the backlog in equipment or infrastructure maintenance.

    The force readiness has allowed our forces to perform so well it has not been easy to achieve—we all remember hearing about the severe shortage of spare and repair parts, no aircraft mission capable rates and personal equipment, and lots of war stories related to the shortage of training dollars. We also know the high deployment accelerates wear and tear on the equipment and increases the required level of maintenance which shows up in increased costs for maintenance, spare parts consumption and the preventive maintenance personnel.

    I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I am convinced that we do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past. I am also concerned because of the nature of current operations—our forces will not be trained to perform all of the essential military tests that they will be required to perform in future combat operations. It is not just about tank crews not being able to fire all their qualification tables or the conduct of joint integrating training. I recently heard about similar training challenges being experienced by Air Force aviators. These are not new challenges, but they require attention.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With lots of knowledge about the degradation and the specific skills and readiness and that individuals have not been able to train for extended periods, we also know what happens when we continue to neglect the needs of our training infrastructure. And, Mr. Chairman, there is no question in the fact that the readiness of our civilian workforce is still problematic. I would have believed that by now we would have a comprehensive plan in place to remedy the problem.

    All I hear is talk about the emerging crisis caused by the aging workforce and the difficulty the Department is having in finding and retaining the quantity and quality of civilian personnel needed to back field those workers approaching retirement. I remain concerned about the long-term implications of the Department not having a comprehensive civilian personnel strategy to address this looming crisis. I hope the Department has not decided to rely on outsourcing as a solution to solve these personnel problems.

    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing today. There is much to be learned about the Department's allocation of readiness, resources and what we on this committee can do to support our forces. They deserve the best; and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.

    Our witnesses today are General John Keane, who is the Vice Chief of Staff for the Department of the Army; Admiral William Fallon, who is the Vice Chief of Staff of Naval Operations; General Robert Foglesong, who is the Vice Chief of Staff of the Department of the Air Force; and General Michael Williams, who is Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    You know, we have as many witnesses as we have committee members; and these are high-powered witnesses, so I feel compelled to apologize to you that we don't have more committee members here and thank those committee members who are here; because you have to realize that the culture of Congress is that, when the votes are over on a Thursday, Congressmen scatter like a covey of quail throughout the country, so we are fortunate to have the folks with us that we do have.

    Your entire statement will be placed in the record and will be important to the decisions that we make, and you are free to summarize your statement or to express in any way you feel is necessary to get your message across to us.

    Mr. HEFLEY. I think we will start with General Keane, and we will proceed down the table that way.


    General KEANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to be here today with my fellow service vice chiefs, and I appreciate the opportunity to be appear before you today to discuss the readiness of the Army.

    I will submit a prepared statement for the record. I want to summarize some points here today and make a couple of others.

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We appreciate your great support of the 2002 budget. We appreciate very much your support of Army readiness in that budget, pay for soldiers and Army transformation; and, frankly, we will need a supplemental to the 2002 budget to meet all of our emerging requirements as a result of the war on terrorism.

    As we gather here today, our Nation has been at war for almost six months. There is no better proof of our readiness than the way the United States military has responded. Our soldiers and leaders have performed magnificently from the outset.

    From the attack on the Pentagon, with the outright heroism which was so vital to saving so many lives; to the fortitude of a workforce, both military and civilian, that returned to work the next day despite the horrific loss of their coworkers; to the 30,000 active, guard and reserve soldiers who are defending Americans at home; a black beret has come to symbolize security in America.

    To the 4,400 soldiers who provided security at the Olympic games—a footnote to that story, 11 Army athletes participated in the games, winning one gold, one silver and three bronze medals—we are proud of all of our American Olympians.

    To the 27,000 soldiers involved in ENDURING FREEDOM—and, as we speak, the soldiers of the 10th Mountain 101st Airborne Division, along with Air Force and Navy air power, are taking the fight to the al-Qaeda network in the mountains of Afghanistan. Their courage and their commitment are nothing less than inspirational.

    As to the President's 2003 budget, it is a down payment on unaddressed requirements. It goes a long way to funding Army priorities, winning the war on terrorism, preparing for the next war, which we call transformation, and taking care of our people. For the Army, it represents a $10 billion increase over the 2002 request. It is a balanced base program that will allow the Army to remain trained and ready throughout 2003, while ensuring our forces are protected as we execute the war on terrorism.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Specifically, in terms of operational readiness, OPTEMPO was funded at 96 percent for tank miles and flying hours. A footnote to that is we permitted zero migration last year in OPTEMPO dollars, and we are on track for the same kind of execution in this current year, 2002. Sustainment, restoration and modernization, what we used call RPM, now SRM, is funded over 90 percent vice to 60 percent in the 2002. Base operations is funded over 90 percent vice the 80 percent in 2002. And we have dedicated $639 million to training enablers to modernize training ranges, combat training centers and simulators, 76 percent funding request over the 49 percent in the 2002.

    In terms of people readiness, recruiting and retention are fully funded. We have made our recruiting and retention goals for the last 2 years, and every indication is that we will do the same again this year.

    In terms of readiness for future wars, which we define as transformation, we are fundamentally changing the way the Army will fight and the way we will employ the Army. We intend to begin fielding the objective force, which is our future force, this decade. In this budget, we dedicate 97 percent of our science and technology funds to that force, the objective force. This budget funds the third interim brigade, the first two having previously been funded in the 2001 and the 2002. And this budget fully funds selective recapitalization of 17 systems that will be viable for the next 15 to 20 years.

    While this budget reflects the funds for our priorities, the budget does not fund everything. We had to make some tough, hard choices. We terminated 18 systems and restructured 12 others. We reduced our helicopter inventory by 25 percent in our attempt to get out of the inventory the Vietnam-era helicopters, some 1,000. We are reducing our headquarter staff at the Department of the Army by 15 percent. We are exploring other headquarters' reductions, and we will report out later in the year.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We still need some help. Some areas are depot maintenance, SRM backlog, ammunition and force modernization accounts, to name a few.

    In conclusion, just let me say that maintaining the trained and ready Army is a shared responsibility. With your help, our Army is trained; with your help, our Army is ready; and, with your help, our Army is fighting and winning. We appreciate your continued support, and I look forward to your questions.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of General Keane can be found in the Appendix on page ?.]

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Admiral Fallon.


    Admiral FALLON. Thank you, Chairman Hefley, Mr. Ortiz, other distinguished members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here with you today. Thank you for your very, very strong support of our sailors and Marines worldwide. We very much appreciate everything you have done for us and continue to do.

    Today, the Navy has 318 ships in the inventory. More than 100 of those are forward deployed as we sit here today. The Navy is continuing support of combat operations in the Arabian Sea. We have Navy SEALS operating with the special force units up in the mountains of Afghanistan. Aircraft from the carriers Stennis and Roosevelt; Kennedy providing close air support and strikes and support of those forces. We have Marines and sailors embarked on two amphibious ready groups out in that area, Bonhomme Richard and Baton. There is another amphibious group, the Wasp, in the Mediterranean; two more groups in the western Pacific, Kitty Hawk battle group and the Essex amphibious ready group.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Our routine cycle of deployments continues, but at a much accelerated pace. The last three battle groups that have left that are working up now are, in fact, operating on accelerating schedules from a couple of weeks to a couple of months; and this is about the most solid evidence that one can find of payoff in investment and readiness. Our people were able to respond when called, and I think you would probably join me in agreeing that they are doing a bang-up job.

    The Navy continues to provide forward-deployed, sustainable combat power around the world. There is a high demand for these forces in many areas, whether it is engaging the al Qaeda, assuring our allies, dissuading adversaries or deterring aggression or coercion. Readiness is improving. Many, many positive indicators, and we have you to thank for that. The investments in the personnel accounts, in training and maintenance, in spares have paid off as evident in the performance, I believe, in ENDURING FREEDOM.

    There has been progress across the board, including, finally, in the nondeployed readiness area. For example, our air wings nondeployed readiness is up eight percent in the last two years, and that is a big turnaround from where we have been in the last decade.

    People. CNO, in stacking his priorities, put people as number one. It is beginning to pay off in great ways. This year, our enlisted first term retention rate is above 64 percent. I think that is astounding. And that backs up last year, which was at basically an all-time record for my time in the Navy at 57 percent. That is almost double what it was in previous years. There is no doubt in my mind that that is a direct result of attention to detail by the leadership and by the tremendous support that the Congress has given our people, and I thank you very much for that.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So we are really focused on return on investment. The dollars that you make available and that we dedicate have really given us something for that money.

    However, we still need some help. We have got problems still with depot maintenance, OPTEMPO for the war.

    For example, the carrier Theodore Roosevelt has been deployed since September, and they had four days in port. They broke a dubious record of long standing. They now are the holders of the record for most time sustained at sea since the Vietnam era, 159 days, before they finally got into port. They have been doing it willingly, and their morale is great and still out there operating; but it is going to come at a cost, as you know.

    We still have pressures from encroachment at our training ranges and bases. It is continuing, and we are going to need some help in this area.

    Facilities. Infrastructure has been substantially underfunded. We know it. We tried to shift priorities, but at the end of the day it is the infrastructure that has taken a hit, and we need to continue to improve it.

    We need more ammunition, particularly in the key area of precision munitions and people to continue the business of antiterrorism and force protection.

    We need some help with the spring supplemental, so-called spring supplemental. The key item for the Navy in this is a bill that is yet to be paid for the mobilization of our reservists. We have got almost 10,000 reservists on active duty right now, and we have to figure out a way to accommodate the costs of those people being on board.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Of course, while we devoted this effort to readiness with substantial payoff, we have been doing that at a price, too, and that is our future readiness. And we have not been able to effectively recap or modernize the force to the extent we would like to do it. I think these are pretty well-known items. And we need more ships and more airplanes.

    While continuing this war effort, we are trying to transform the institution for the future. We are trying to do it in two areas; first, adapting the force to accommodate the new technology that is available today; and, second, to change the processes and procedures by which we operate so that we can have a more efficient force and truly get more effectiveness out of the dollars invested.

    I have submitted a written statement for the record; and I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you could accept that. I would like to thank you once again on behalf of our sailors and their families for the opportunity to testify and for the help you have given us, and I stand ready and anxious to answer any questions you might have.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Admiral Fallon.

    [The prepared statement of Admiral Fallon can be found in the Appendix on page ?.]

    Mr. HEFLEY. General Foglesong.

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General FOGLESONG. I, too, have a statement for the record, if you would accept it, sir; and I will just summarize very quickly a couple of points I would like to make.

    First of all, thanks for the time today to let us come over and discuss readiness. It is an important issue for us, as you know.

    Second of all, and especially for this committee, thanks very much for the many years of being with us in readiness. I am delighted to tell you today that all those spare parts that you helped us fund and all those flying hours you helped us fund over the last several years are paying off.

    As one anecdotal story I will tell you, the oldest B–52 that we have is at Diego Garcia now and in its last combat mission—it had exactly one write-up on it. So we are pretty proud of that. And I blame you all for a lot of that, by the way, for the help that you have given us over the years in making sure that we keep those old airplanes flying.

    I also would like to comment on something else you have been very helpful with, as my wingmen here have also done, and that is the help you have given us for recruiting, retention and quality of living. In kind of a perverted way, I will tell you that those spare parts that you helped fund us with have helped us with our retention and our quality of living. Because if you have a crew chief out there who has a gyro that can make an airplane run, he is happier, and he is more likely to stay with us, and it is almost a quality of living issue for him. So thanks for the help on that as well.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I am leading to my last part, which is the things that we have once again learned in the two lessons that we have taken away from this recent encounter, this war on terrorism we have had.

    One, it is the young men and women, our sons and daughters out there who have carried us through this up to now. It is on their backs that we have been so successful. So, as you said earlier, we are very proud of all the work they have done out there.

    And, two, same lesson we learned before, as we are all in this together. Every time we go somewhere and get in a fist fight somewhere, we always end up together.

    So we have learned those lessons once again, and I am here today to answer any questions that I can help you with.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of General Foglesong can be found in the Appendix on page ?.]

    Mr. HEFLEY. General Williams.

 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General WILLIAMS. Chairman Hefley, Mr. Ortiz, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am proud to be here today to represent the 212,000 Marines of the active and reserve total force and readiness. You have my written statement as well as the others, and I would like to make two quick points.

    First, on behalf of all of those Marines and their families, to say thank you for the continuing interest of this committee over a number of years and for your interest and support for readiness issues today.

    Second, we have today some 37,000 Marines either forward deployed, forward stationed somewhere in the world, and some are in combat. And I can assure the members of this committee that every one of those Marines and their brothers and sisters back here are ready to fight.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of General Williams can be found in the Appendix on page ?.]

    Mr. HEFLEY. As Mr. Ortiz indicated, we are as a committee very proud of what you do with what you have. And we just are—when we talk about the readiness shortfalls, it is no way to be disparaging to you, because you do a magnificent job. Obviously, when we go into combat, we go in and we win. But you do it under considerable handicaps sometimes I think. We want to narrow the level of handicaps that you have to work under in order to get your job done, and you need to help us do that.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Each year, the committee receives a list of unfunded requirements from the service chiefs, which, even with the addition of significant additional funding by Congress and the Administration, that list continues to grow. In fiscal year 2000, the unfunded requirements were $8.7 billion; in fiscal year 2001, it was $15.5 billion; and last year it went to $32.5 billion. So far this year, and we are not very far into the year, it is at $25.4 billion. I would like each of you to tell me what your three top readiness unfunded requirements are for next year.

    General KEANE. I will start off down my end of the table.

    You have our submission. In terms of readiness, the first one deals with our ammunition and missiles management and that $978 million to take care of the munitions shortfalls that we have, much of which is in war reserve. We have funded 100 percent the training ammunition accounts.

    The second deals with force modernization, and that is to recap other programs in terms of extending the life of our systems. Seventy-five percent of the Army's major systems have exceeded their half-life. We have selected 17 for full funding, but there are other programs that we cannot afford to fund, and this additional money gets us some of that.

    The other thing is that we have strategic mobility infrastructure requirements and real property or SRM maintenance requirements.

    I think I snuck in a fourth one in there, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HEFLEY. Feel free to do that.


    Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Of course, we got a lot of things in there, but far and away the number one item for us is adequately funding the additional personnel that we have in the force right now to the tune of $450 million. And if I could explain where this is coming from.

    As a result of the intense work that has been put into keeping people and putting people first and the initiatives that you have funded here in Congress, we have been the beneficiaries of this tremendous retention rate; and also our new enlistments have been very high as well. We got a two percent cap which we are authorized by law to go to over and above our authorized end strength. We are just about there. We have these extra people, and we need every single one of them because, in addition to some shortages that are out in the force in the wake of the 11th of September last year, we have had a tremendous draft on people for force protection.

    It is not just that we are deploying people around the world to stand shoulder to shoulder at gates on bases, but we are at a higher defense level right now, a world of force protection level right now that requires additional measures to be taken from what we had before 9–11 and we had to sustain this. So to enable our forces to be on a level to continue to do this, they need the extra people. So the money is primarily to pay for those additional people that are on board.

    The second category is to try and get at this business of future readiness, and that is a request to increase the number of new F–18 E and F Hornets up to the efficient order quantity of 54, which is what the manufacturers tooled up to produce right now. It is only an increase of six, but it is very important that we attempt to get a bite out of this.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I feel we are going to have to pay it sooner or later. The faster we can get this new aircraft in the inventory, the faster we are going to be able to get out the older machines that are causing us an ever-increasing amount of dollars to keep them going, which is why you see this reflected in increasing amounts every year.

    The third item I believe is also in the same area of aircraft, and that is trying to get a few more H–60 helicopters for the same purpose. We are trying to phase out some very ancient machines here and get ourselves in a position where we can truly modernize.

    Lots of other things, but probably enough.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.


    General FOGLESONG. We have been very fortunate to have been funded in a lot of priorities this year. So our top three priorities right now are first response kinds of equipment and sensors for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) responses. Our second priority is for force protection and antiterrorism measures to include personnel, sensors, those kinds of issues; and our third requirement is to pursue the equipment that will allow us to fight better at night, night-goggle type capability, night-vision sensors and those kinds of things. And those would be our top three.

    Mr. HEFLEY. General.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General WILLIAMS. My top priority would be for you to help Admiral Fallon with the aircraft problems, especially modification kits for our F–18s, the ECP–583 kit, lightening pods for our Harriers and night-vision-capable cockpits for our H–53 helicopters.

    Second would be the same kind of equipment for our ground Marines—additional night-vision capabilities, next-generation thermal sites for snipers, equipment such as that.

    Then, third, to help us continue to pay back our own infrastructure for the money that we took from it over the years to maintain our readiness. We have had a substantial increase, and we are on the road to fixing it, but if we had, obviously, more resources we could fix that infrastructure quicker, and we believe that is a readiness issue.

    Thank you, sir.

    Mr. HEFLEY. General Keane mentioned that I think it is a foregone conclusion that each of the military services will need some supplemental funding this year, so I am curious as to when you will have to start turning off the program training and other planned events if you have not received that supplemental funding.

    General KEANE. Well, where we are right now is, in March and April we are starting to move cash around right now to pay for emerging costs dealing with the war and absolutely will have to take money from other accounts that will degrade readiness if we don't get the money by 1 June. So 1 June is our drop-dead date for getting that money.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Admiral FALLON. That is the same answer for the Navy.

    I had a conversation with the Pacific fleet commander earlier this week, and he reminded me because we don't have particularly the funds to pay for this reserve activation that they are just going under the assumption that this will come sooner or later and they will have been able to bow wave it into the fourth quarter. And that is our intention until we get it, sir.

    General FOGLESONG. Mr. Chairman, we are about in the same category. The number of flying hours that we had allocated for the air defense business will essentially be executed by the end of this month, and so we will start moving money around from other accounts to ensure that we can keep the air defense posture that is appropriate for the threat level that we see over here. So about 1 June is the point where we will need some commitment before we are going to find ourselves in a pretty difficult position.

    General WILLIAMS. Our answer is the same. At the end of the third quarter is when the crunch point will come. Without the additional dollars, we will have to start moving money around from other maintenance accounts.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Ortiz.

    Mr. ORTIZ. General Keane, how do you assess the need for the success of the depot apprenticeship program that the Congress authorized in fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act and how much is in the budget request to support the depot apprenticeship program? As you well know, we have an aging workforce in the next few years that will be retiring; and maybe you can elaborate how much was expended on the program in fiscal year 2001.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General KEANE. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.

    As you well know, we have got 7,600 civilian workforce in our five depots and two arsenals; and, as you pointed out, 63 percent of them are eligible for retirement by 2005, which makes our workforce approaching 50 years. What we have done with the help of the Congress, we have funded 79 apprentice positions in the 2002, which we intend to increase 50 each year. I have got to pay some 2002 bills of about $2.95 million which I will pay to wrap that program up.

    In the 2003, in execution, what I intend to do is put about $7 million into this program during the execution year to get us over the hump on the 50 additional workers in the program. Then, next month, we sit down to plan out the next five years; and we intend to fund that program over the next five years, which will permit us to add 50 people each succeeding year into that apprenticeship program.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Do you think that is a sufficient number or a strain because of the budget?

    General KEANE. The number of people, frankly, is constrained based on affordability; and we would like to, frankly, double it.

    Mr. ORTIZ. The thing that I am hoping doesn't happen is, because of the constraints of not being able to get these apprenticeships programs, you know, then we initiate contracting out.

 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    General KEANE. We don't have any intention of doing that. We have made commitments to that workforce, as you know, Mr. Ortiz, and we are going to continue to make those kinds of commitments.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Now, for the Air Force, what has been your experience in addressing the current and future requirements for blue collar technicians in depot maintenance facilities?

    General FOGLESONG. That is a significant issue for us as you know, Mr. Congressman. We have a depot strategy that we are about to unpeel that we have been working on for about a year, and you hit the point right on the head. Our concerns are the number of counted experienced people that we are about to see retire and leave our workforce, and part of our strategy is to figure out a way to inoculate ourselves so we don't run into this situation in a couple of years.

    Our game plan right now as we announce this strategy is to talk about how we want to recruit and retain people in our depots. We are absolutely convinced now that three depots are going to be fundamental to the way we do our business for the foreseeable future. And to make sure we solve all the differential equations the right way, to make sure that those depots are doing the things in the most efficient manner, involves making sure that the people are trained and we have the right people brought on board and the right experience level at our depots. So we are spending a lot of time on that. In fact, our chief will be briefed on that in the next couple of weeks.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Admiral.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Admiral FALLON. In the business of apprenticeship, thanks to your generous funding of this, we have gone from about 150 individuals in the program to 439 last year, and we are slated to 476 this year. I can't give you the dollar amounts to match those numbers, but we have got an investment in people.

    At the other end of the spectrum up here in Washington, we are making a major effort to really look at our civilian personnel workforce in the continuum of people in the Navy; and we have often kind of from the uniform side put this off and assumed that was somebody else's problem because they were on the shore side and we went to sea and didn't have these people on ships and squadrons. But it is all one family, and we are making an effort to go after it.

    We are taking people in at the high end, trying to get interns aboard. In fact, we lost one on the attack in the Pentagon back in September. One of our young folks, who was a very bright person, was working in our command center and lost his life. So we are committed to doing this, sir.

    Mr. ORTIZ. There was a feature story in my local paper, the Corpus Christi Times, about some of those apprenticeship programs that some of the young ones that are involved, students who are some of the brightest, and they seem that, once they finish their school, to work there. I was surprised at the high grades that they have in school and for them wanting to stay there and making this a career, so we are very proud of that.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Hansen.

    Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thanks to our vice chairmen.

    I want to thank all of you for the help you gave us during the Winter Olympics. Out in my home State of Utah, Don Rumsfeld said there was more military people there than there was in Afghanistan, and we felt it was more important at the time for those 17 days to do that. Personally, it came off very well. I think people in America are very proud of that, and it was something that was good for America to see that. And America did pretty well at the games. They won 34 medals and expected to do 20, and I thought that was great.

    Another thing about it is all your people were so courteous and kind. That is all we are getting is no problems came out of that. So congratulations to you on that very fine thing that you did.

    You know myself and Chairman Hefley and Ranking Member Ortiz all sit on the Resource Committee as well as this committee. These two committees are going to have an awful lot to do this year. Top priority is you notice Mr. Hefley also has a specific hearing coming up in a week or so, I believe, regarding environmental regulations and encroachments. I just wonder how far we are going to go. I intend to fall on my sword over a few of these things, but I don't want to do it if I don't feel that you folks who wear the uniform feel it is worth doing. So what we are looking at is all kinds of encroachments that can come on it.

    Can I accept the premise that you folks firmly believe that live fire training, putting your kids down and teaching them—like in my many, many years on this committee remember we used to say, we train like we fight. Is that still one of the premises that we go on? Is there still a premise like they did in Vietnam that for almost every hour they train before they hit the thing they are going to live a little longer? And in a realistic situation, rather than say bang and everybody laughs, they really get down and seriously do it? Is that a premise all four of you agree on?
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General KEANE. If you asked any one of those soldiers that are up there in the mountains and fighting the Al Qaeda, they will tell you the most valuable training that they receive is when they get together as a unit and do live fire maneuver training that is integrated with artillery and that is integrated with air power, to coordinate all of that. And just as important to them, it would be absolutely tragic not to expose them to the dangerous elements of what warfare really is. The sights and sounds of the battlefield have to be dealt with routinely. I mean, it is challenging enough, we can't replicate the fear that is on a battlefield, but we can replicate most of the conditions, and we have got to replicate those conditions for the sake of those youngsters.

    Admiral FALLON. Short answer, of course, is, yes, sir. Absolutely essential that we do everything that we can to provide as realistic a scenario as possible before our people actually get out and have to get in a position where they are in harm's way.

    I just spoke earlier this morning with two of our Navy SEALS who are in the Army hospital in Landstuhl who were just medivaced yesterday. One of these young men worked for me a few years ago, and I wanted to check and see how he was doing. They sounded great, and they are anxious to get back to the States.

    But I can remember several years ago when I was out on deployment with these young men, and they constantly reminded me of the importance of having realistic training. I just can't state it any other way. It is really essential.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    General FOGLESONG. Absolutely essential, sir. We train the way we fight. You had that exactly right. Those ranges we have are national treasures for us, and whenever we are restricted on those ranges it means we will be less ready than we would have been before we go into combat somewhere. Those ranges allow us to wire ourselves together as human beings or with technology in the ways that we are going to fight; and when we don't have that opportunity to do that, it is a more inefficient way of going to combat.

    General WILLIAMS. Sir, absolutely. The greatest quality of life enhancement is to bring your Marines home alive; and the best way to guarantee that is with very realistic, very tough training.

    Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate hearing that from all four of you, because it comes down to the idea that we are going to have some tough battles up here regarding the encroachments that you see in these areas. As Chairman of the Resource Committee, it seems like every other day someone wants to make an encroachment on one of our ranges, whether it be one like Camp Pendleton, where I see environmental things. It is in my district. Utah testing training range, is one of those rare places we have zero to 58,000 feet of clear air space. The areas of—I look at wilderness issues coming at me. I look at endangered species being put in that area.

    We now have private fuel storage going in there; and, General Foglesong, if I was head of the 388 or the 419, I would be kind of worried to have my guys fly over that thing on a very regular basis. So it is a great concern to us, also.

    Frankly, we have introduced bills in the Resource Committee, and I applaud Chairman Hefley on doing the same thing here, coming up with legislation that possibly could go into the defense authorization bill that would take care of these things.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If it wouldn't be too inconvenient—and I am not asking this for fodder like one of those things like you know around here. One of our greatest weaknesses is to ask for a study. I am going to come over to the Pentagon, and I want you folks to show me where you put all the studies we never read. Because, if I may say so, that is kind of a pacifier in a way. We ask for a study, and we feel we have done something, and we never see it again. I don't know about my colleagues here, but—after 22 years in Congress, but that is what I have noticed. But I almost appreciate knowing because I think we could do some changes.

    What particular area that your folks train on that you feel you have some kind of encroachment. In other words, at Camp Pendleton you have those problems. And I would really like to know, name the base and what the problem is. You know, we have fought this battle before in different areas. But this is a perfect time in my opinion to nail some of these things down and get them out of our hair.

    We got a war on. We have a reason to do it. The timing is right. Politics and timing are synonyms, and I think the timing to do it is now. If that wouldn't be too inconvenient, I would sure appreciate it.

    Chairman Hefley, if I may just mention something to you, all of the old dogs on the Armed Services Committee, we all sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense sometime ago because we went back and read the Endangered Species Act in detail. And the Endangered Species Act says the Secretary of Defense can tell the God squad that they shall back off on some of this stuff. Doesn't say they may, it says they shall. He is the only guy I know of in the whole executive branch that has that right to do that.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We set that sometime ago, and I am still waiting for an answer to it. I know that is not your responsibility, but I would really be curious to see what he says on that. Because if it gives the Administration heartburn or the Secretary heartburn, we will come up with something else. But, right now, when we suffer on our ranges from various encroachments and specifically the Endangered Species Act, there should be an answer to that from somebody. Because if it is not right, it is our position to change it around.

    I intend to bring that up rather strongly with the gentlemen who come over here that are in suits and ask them that same question, because I want to know what they say regarding that particular issue. I can't see there is a reason in the world that we are trying to make it so hard for our young men and women to train because we keep putting these encroachments and these liabilities over them when we should strip those off.

    With that said, Mr. Hefley, I have to go over to the Senate and argue with our House of Lords over something called energy.

    Mr. HEFLEY. We will miss you, Mr. Hansen, but we appreciate your presence here.

    Mrs. Davis?

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and General Keane and Admiral Fallon, General Foglesong and General Williams, thank you very much for being with us today.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If I might just follow up on my colleagues' comments, and I look forward, actually, to the hearing. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have both the environmental community and armed services together, because I think we had talked about it. As someone from the San Diego area and having been on San Clemente Island and a number of other areas where we have encroachment problems, I look forward to that.

    I think one of the problems that we probably had is one of education. As I have been introduced to these issues I think that is one of the best kept secrets that we have and the work that the military is doing in being good stewards of the environment.

    But, on the other hand, we have some real issues out there. The fact that we have good people, I think biologists that have been hired by the Navy to oversee and protect a lot of those encroachment areas, speaks to the fact that there is some legitimacy to that. We need to talk about that, and we need to see where we can go from here.

    But I think part of it is education. I don't think people know and understand what you all have done. That is a story that has to be told and told a lot better.

    If I may just move to one or two other areas, I know that you talked about the fact that—I think, General Foglesong, you mentioned the fact that having spare parts contributes to the quality of life; and I wonder if you could speak—and I agree with that because I have spoken to many of our mechanics, and you know they want to do the best job they can, and they can't do it if they don't have the equipment.

 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    What other areas do you feel are the quality of life? We really, I think, impact quite negatively on the ability to have a readiness force. If you could just briefly tell us, I think, what issues particularly would you like to highlight for us?

    General WILLIAMS. Ma'am, I will start down at this end.

    Probably our two biggest are, first, the age and the lack of quality in our family housing as a quality of life issue and then our bachelor enlisted quarters. The good news is, with your help, we are able to do something about that now.

    I think probably the biggest thing that the Congress has done for family readiness in recent years is the large increase in basic allowance for housing that our men and women got. That has allowed us to enter into private/public ventures in places that we simply couldn't before because the numbers weren't right. It has allowed the quality of life for our families and our youngsters, our single men and women to go up dramatically. We are working as hard as we can on that; and that is, in my view, the biggest single area of quality of life for young Marines.

    General FOGLESONG. I got three, and actually one of them is on the verge of something that we need to manage very carefully.

    But the first one is medical care for our people. I think that is critical that when we deploy Airman Foglesong, that he knows that his spouse or his sons and daughters are going to be taken care of back in the United States. A big issue. That is a major issue.

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The second thing we have had a lot of help from this committee on is pay raises are not unimportant. It is the targeted pay raise that we had last year for our mid-level NCOs was a very significant factor to them, those middle-level NCOs and crew chiefs and avionics experts that have tended to walk away from us over the last 10 years or so, and they are the core of what we do for a living. They are the individuals that we count on to not only fix our airplanes but train the other young men and women to come in.

    The third thing has to do with OPTEMPO, and we have to manage that very carefully especially right now. Predictability and stability in our peoples' lives are very important, and we have to have some combat rhythm that each service reaches to reassure that our families—that there will be some predictability in their lives.

    Mrs. DAVIS. If I may just, on the medical issue, we are not meeting necessarily with reserve officers here, but I understand that is a real concern now as many of our reserves have to give up their own insurance or choose, and in many cases that may not be what they want to do. So it is an issue that really impacts our readiness now.

    General FOGLESONG. It is an issue, and it is something that is coming up somewhere every day and that the standard of care needs to be as close to the same as we can make it. This is a total force issue, but the standard of care is the same. When we activate you and mobilize you that you still have that same standard of care for your family.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

    Admiral FALLON. Mrs. Davis, thank you very much.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    There have been so many good things in this past year, improvements that we have been able to make and traditional quality of life things for our people and many we have already covered. But if there is one I could single out that goes to what we call quality of service in the Navy and that is our shore infrastructure, the places in which our people live and work when they are back away from their sea duty. We short-sheeted this for many years as we had to prioritize with limited resources; and, frankly, I wish we could in one fell swoop replace a lot of old, ancient hangars and supply depots and other structures around our bases and put them up to snuff in places that we would like to have people enjoy coming in and out of.

    I know we are embarked on a program to do that. The Secretary of Defense and our Navy Secretary are committed to doing something about it, and with your help are going to make some progress, but that is the single one thing that I think I would like to see done.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We are working on it.

    General KEANE. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. When you ask our soldiers they will flat tell you what that is. There are three things that concern them the most, pay, health care, and housing; we made some strides. Pay is also a demonstration of the American's support for the soldier, so as much as it is a tangible thing. There is also an intangible to that that says that this profession has worthiness to it and has credibility to it. So pay is also—will always be very high on the soldier's agenda.

    The health care issue, we made tremendous strides in health care, but it will always remain a concern because of the importance it is for everybody in our American life. And housing, I think the infrastructure problem has been a serious problem for the Army for years. We have always provided the funding for training and readiness, and we did that at the expense of two accounts during the 14 years of declining budgets that we had. One of those was our modernization account which receives a lot of notoriety, but the one that does not receive as much is the infrastructure, our facilities themselves. So we depressed those accounts for years and we are now just beginning to come out of that hole and we are very excited about an initiative we have that we refer to as Residential Communities Initiative, but what it really is is a privatization initiative to build housing for our families. And in this budget request, for example, there were 17 thousand units in it as a result of a private sector initiative; and by 2005 we will have an additional 63,000 units and by 2005 we will have taken care of 70 percent of the inadequate housing that is in the Army's inventory, and by 2009, with the help of the Congress—every year you have been helping us fund our barracks, we will buy out all the inadequate barracks that we have in the Army's inventory.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So we have a plan, and we appreciate the support, and those are the areas that we are most concerned about.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some other questions, but I can wait for the next round.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our country. I am sure it has been said before, but we are very much appreciative of it.

    I want to actually make a comment rather than a question because if I made it a question, I think it would be unfairly directed to you. I did not have the opportunity when we had the service secretaries before us in the procurement subcommittee the other day to ask this question or make this comment, but it does bear on readiness, which is that for a number of years the Department of Defense submits a budget through the President that does not adequately fund the National Guard and Reserve. I am an active member of the Guard and Reserve Caucus.

    The way that bears on readiness is that every year the Congress then has to, in effect, go back and readjust the budget to account for that omission; and the omission is pretty dramatic just in terms of helicopters alone. The omission is about $100 million a year. What I am talking about, I am talking about we have guard and reserve units that are flying helicopters that if they were automobiles they could have antique license plates on the back of them, and that is just unacceptable. Yet, DOD does not include the guard and reserve funding in the package presented to the Congress.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now I know why that occurred, and there is a long history, there is a long record behind that; but I just make the comment, I ask you guys to think about it, ask you to pass it along to the service secretaries and to the chairman and to the Secretary of Defense, that this is a practice whose time has come and gone.

    General Keane, particularly, in regard to the Army, we talk about one Army, but if we have one Army and we have a guard unit and a reserve unit and we are not in fact budgeting as if it is one Army, it cannot become one Army. So as I said, sir, I am not asking a question because it would be unfair, it is not directly on your point, but it is an opportunity to make that point and if it can be passed along, I would very much appreciate it.

    This is practice. We talk about transformation. We have to transform our budgeting if we are going to transform what happens on the ground. A budget is a plan and we have to transform our budgeting accordingly.

    Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. One of the issues with readiness, it seems to me, is the ability to get the most out of the dollars we have and that is what you have struggled to do over the years, and also to increase the coordination between the services so that we do work as one team; and I think this has gotten a lot better.

    As I understand, when we did the Grenada operation, some of our radio frequencies weren't the same, we couldn't even communicate very well. Of course, we were successful at that, but it pointed out a lot of deficiencies. Persian Gulf, we had improved it tremendously, still some deficiencies, but we want to be as efficient as we possibly can be, and I have asked this question before, and I still don't quite understand the answer. In 1949, the Army gave up its air force and we developed a United States Air Force instead of an Army Air Corps. But the Navy kept an air force and the Army, of course, had to have some air force when helicopters came along, and so now the Army has an air force, the Air Force has an air force, the Navy has an air force, and the Marine Corps has an air force.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I guess my question is do we need all those air forces? I can understand a little bit the Army having an air force. You do different things. You don't do fixed wing very much, you do helicopters and assault, and that kind of thing, but for the life of me it is hard for me to distinguish between Navy air force and Marine Corps air force. My understanding is they are both trained the same, they are carrier-qualified, put on different uniforms and call them something different. Do we need all these air forces? Would it be more efficient if we consolidated some of these?

    General Williams, do you have the ball?

    General WILLIAMS. Everybody passed it to me. I don't think the Marine Corps—I wouldn't characterize what the Marine Corps has as an air force, sir. I would characterize it as expeditionary air power, naval expeditionary air power. You are right, we train with the Navy. Right now, today, there are F–18 Marine Corps squadrons deployed on carrier air wings off the coast of Afghanistan. We provide expeditionary air because as a light expeditionary force, we come ashore with very little in the way of ground combat power. And our initial combat power ashore comes from Marine aircraft and we found over the years that Marines who go to our basic school, who learn to be platoon commanders before they go to flight school, are the best at providing that kind of close air support because they have been there and they have done that. And so over the years we have evolved this expeditionary naval aviation. It serves us and the Navy well.

    I think if you were to decide, if the country was to decide we don't want Marines to have airplanes any more, we would find that we would have to grow the Navy because we need the airplanes and so we would end up with the same number of airplanes with different people flying them. That's really the best answer I can give is I don't think of it as an air force but as naval expeditionary air power.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. HEFLEY. And you don't think we would pick up any particular efficiencies if we—if the Navy air force provided you that kind of—.

    General WILLIAMS. They do because the fact is we don't have enough aircraft in the right places to do this all for ourselves. We are never going to go anywhere by ourselves. One of the things we have learned in that learning curve that started in Grenada and is now ending up in Afghanistan is that we really and truly are a joint force. We have always said that, but it wasn't always true. It is true today. So that is why we have Marine ADA Harriers flying off amphibious ships providing support to Army in Afghanistan today. Marine Cobras left those ships to go ashore to provide rotary wing aviation support along with the Army Apaches. We mix and match, and so it is hard for me to see how we would be more efficient if we had sort of one-stop shopping because we do provide complementary capabilities. We don't do a lot of things the Air Force does and we can't do those things, but what we do in our corner of the market, we do very, very well, and when we can provide that service to another force, I think we all benefit from it.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Anybody else want to comment on this?

    Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a crack at it. Just about every platform we have in the Navy today uses some kind of an air vehicle as an essential element of its combat capability. It is just the reality of technology applications today.

    That said, we are going to great lengths to work to find ways in which to complement rather than duplicate one another's capabilities. For example, Navy electronic attack, Navy marine electronic attack aircraft provides support not only for our own machines but for air force strikeouts as well. We rely very heavily on air force tactic support to enable our missions today to get into central Afghanistan. We have commonality. We fly some of the same air platforms in the Navy as we do in the Marines. We do that for a reason, because we find it is more efficient to try and capitalize on a single airframe rather than to have separate frames, so we need some machines, obviously some helicopters, and Harriers fit the Marine concept of ops very well, and so they are different than some of our machines.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I just conclude by saying that we continuously look at this thing and; in fact, we are engaged today in a very, very intense scrub of exactly what we are doing today and what we intend to do in the future with an eye towards becoming more complementary of one another and; in fact, trying to synchronize and harmonize our assets so that we can, in fact, be more efficient in the future. I think you are going to see some result of that pretty soon.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Would you say, Admiral, that the Navy air corps and the Marine air corps are relatively seamless and interchangeable in actual practice?

    Admiral FALLON. In practice, when we go into operations, we work hard at trying to make it as seamless as possible. There are still some realities of life. For example, there are four Marine F1 squadrons, as Mike indicated, that are deployed with our air wings right now. The Marines have other F18 squadrons, but they are not what we consider compatible to the extent necessary to conduct seamless operations with the carrier-type operations; and so we are often faced with decisions. This is one of them, how much do we put in the way of resources, for example, to make all these things carrier compatible, assuming we could get the op schedule straight to use them all?

    I think the reality is we are doing a good job of it. I think we can do a better job and we are working hard to try and take a turn on this for the future.

    General KEANE. The degree of interoperability we have been able to achieve is pretty remarkable, and probably some of us at this table get a little frustrated when people still continue to poke that argument that we don't really do things jointly. Our joint integration and interoperability is second to none in the world, and it is truly remarkable what we have been able to achieve.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Just take this Afghanistan piece, for example. We had Army helicopters, both Blackhawk and CH–47s, conduct deep operations into Afghanistan over 1,000 miles and they were taking off from an aircraft carrier. Special Operations Forces were using a weapons system, which is a Viper, to help designate for the Air Force's joint direct attack munition, which was being flown on Air Force airplanes as well as Navy airplanes, and what it does is it finds the range using a laser and has a Global Positioning System (GPS) hook to it so it can tell the pilot exactly what the location of the target is, and then he puts it on the bomb itself and it flies to the target. That kind of interoperability is very significant.

    Another little known fact is that every Army division since the Air Force left and decided to change their uniforms and truly be different, we still have a piece of them with us and they are assigned to us. Every Army division has over a hundred air force officers and NCOs assigned to it with the single purpose of integrating Air Force air power and other air power with ground forces, and they are assigned normally for a three-year assignment. So today in the 10th Mountain Division and the 101st, the people that are coordinating directing the air power strikes on behalf of those forces are all Air Force officers and enlisted personnel that are right on the ground with those soldiers, having the same experience that those soldiers are having, whatever that experience may be.

    So it is a tremendous amount of interoperability there. We have moved on from the late 1980s.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I think I have seen that, too, that you have come a long, long way and I feel very good about it.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, Admiral Fallon, let me pursue it just one step further. This isn't a crusade of mine, I am just trying to find out information. Do you see any savings, if we combine the Marine air force and the Navy air force and you just had an air force and did the functions that both need to be done, would there be any savings administratively or any other way—you would need the same number of planes? I don't think we would save on number of planes but there would be savings in bureaucracy, administration, whatever.

    Admiral FALLON. Mr. Chairman, we call it naval aviation. We have, for example, the same wings. Our people go through the same training command to acquire those wings of gold. Many of—when we fly aircraft that are the same model in each service, for example, the F–18 Hornet. In fact, we have both Navy and Marine personnel that go through those training squadron regs. We call them fleet replacement squadrons. We have Marines and naval officers who are the instructors and even in maintenance troops to some extent, and so this is truly integrated. Are there other—and you know, when one looks at the total number of squadrons, there are some assets that the Marines fly that we just don't fly. Some of their helicopters, the Harriers, for example, they are just—they are separate squadrons because of the machines themselves. Those assets with which we share a common airframe, almost all of these units are integrated to some extent. We are committed to, in fact, seeing what we can do as we look at the future and at new aircraft that we buy to attempt to make these as truly complementary as possible so that we can get better benefits of integration as we go to the future.

    So with what we have—in terms of airframes, but as we look to the future, the idea is going to be to try and get as integrated as possible.

 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Mr. Ortiz.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tomorrow the subcommittee will conduct a field hearing at Fort Carson, Colorado and there our focus will be on training. Will each of you provide your assessment of the adequacy of the budget to support the training institutions and other major training activities, and how adequate is homeland defense training budgeted for in your budget request? I know that this past year, year 2002, there was $22 billion provided for homeland security; and I think we are looking at $33 billion for this year. Are you going to be able to use some of that funding or are you waiting for an appointment to be made for a Commander in Chief (CINC) to be in charge of the defense for the United States? Has that been integrated into your expenses or your training?

    General KEANE. First of all, in terms of training and training readiness in the budget, the Army is pretty comfortable with the funds allocated to do that. With respect to homeland security, those funds are partially funded in the budget. What is not completely funded is the Reserve and National Guard that are being brought and being mobilized as we speak, and we would expect to pick up some of that in the supplemental, and that is the plan for to it be in the supplemental. I think funding for our homeland defense and homeland security missions is an issue that we will resolve regardless of the establishment of a new command; and I would suspect, although we haven't worked out all the details of the implementation for that new command, I would suspect that services would still be responsible to pay for those military personnel that are participating in those kind of duties in support of that command in the future.

    The only area that truly troubles us, and it is something that two of the Members have commented on already, is the encroachment of our training areas themselves, and to give you a sense of it, for—
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Mrs. Davis, for your edification, the Army spends a billion and a half dollars, $1.5 billion a year on the environment; and we have got 4,000 people whose principal duty it is to work this issue alone and, quite frankly, I hire Ph.D.s to talk to environmental Ph.D.s because they speak the language. They give a master's degree down in North Carolina, where I commanded Fort Bragg, just on the red cockaded woodpecker, and guess what? I had to hire them to protect the installation so we would have the knowledge to deal with this.

    I think we got two huge problems. One is the Endangered Species Act which affects 94 installations; and we are maintaining those species at a manner and style that is dramatically different than the rest of the Nation, quite frankly. They are thriving on these installations where there are soldiers and Marines and sailors and airmen, but not a lot of other places.

    The second thing is we have got to come to grips with taking environmental laws whose single purpose was to deal with industrial operations and now we are extending those laws. They have just begun in the last few years, and we are extending those laws to the expenditure of munitions on our installations, and that is a reality that we are dealing with. I have got two installations that are facing that today, and what is happening is we are declaring ammunition expended as hazardous waste. If that continues, it will bring all of us to our knees in terms of training on our facilities.

    We care so much about this that we have met multiple times in the Pentagon, and the Department of Defense is preparing to make a presentation to the Administration for legislative clarification of what the intent of this law is and express our views on maybe what it could be in terms of how it facilitates our training. That is our largest problem that we are facing in training business is the encroachment of our training facilities themselves. Thank you, sir.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. And what would you like to add?

    Admiral FALLON. Yes, sir. I second what General Keane said with a resounding me-too. The business of training funds in general, it is complex because we have got money in lots of different areas, but generally I think we are doing okay. The challenges are elsewhere. If I could, let me go back to them, to the land defense thing first. I don't believe there is any hang-up at all with the new command. We don't have this grade A fiscal responsibility, as maybe some of our sister services in this area; but one area I might highlight, actually two, one is that we are working closely with the Coast Guard; and Navy responsibility by law for the Coast Guard is to provide communications as well as armaments for their vessels, and we have got some things identified as a result of the events of last September that we could use a little bit of financial help on. These have been identified for the supplemental.

    We also have another area and that is we have turned over the tactical operation of our patrol craft, PC class vessels to the Coast Guard in the wake of 9–11 and they are actually actively patrolling to help just offshore here with the interdiction of incoming merchant traffic and helping to protect the shores. We are going to need some funds to keep these ships around in the future budget, and you will probably see that.

    Back to the business of training in general, it is more of a day-to-day constant requirement to expend time, effort, and energy in doing things that are not directly what we would like our people to do. We would like the people to spend their time training, to be as combat-ready as possible; and General Keane indicated we spent an incredibly great amount of effort in taking care of the administration of these various things, having to do with encroachment.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Examples. Our battle group commanders spend far too much time, I believe, in preparing their major exercises or for their exercises in reviewing and documenting and arranging the appropriate requirements to meet the interpretation of legislation, and particularly two areas, Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. These two things alone are probably the biggest hindrance to our operations at sea, so we really second the need for some legislative help here to help with not a great change but to get the definitions understood so that when they are interpreted, they are not going to put a big hindrance to our training, which is what happens today. Thank you.

    Mr. ORTIZ. General, would you like to add to it?

    General FOGLESONG. I would. Thank you, sir. We are very fortunate. This year we funded through the next several years all of our training munitions which, like spare parts, is a retention issue for our pilots. If they had the opportunity to go out and strafe and they have the opportunity to go out and practice with bombs, then I know they are more likely to stay with us. So from that perspective we are doing well.

    The other thing that is significant for us is we have funded once again a 100 percent of our flying hour program, but the good news this year is we are likely not to have to steal from the procurement side of the house in order to continue funding or underfly. We found ourselves for a number of years underflying our flying hour program because we would have to migrate funds into some other account in O&M; and we would fly 95 percent of our flying hour program, and when you compound that over four or five years, you end up with an underexperienced fleet, you end up with an underexperienced group of young men and women that you are going to send to war. We believe that for this year and the next several years that we are going to be able to do that without having to steal money from other accounts, and so that represents goodness for us.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As far as homeland security, we are not sure we have that funded right yet because we are not sure what the steady state condition is going to be. As soon as that steady state condition is defined for what level of fidelity we are going to need for homeland security, we will have a much better sense. And I don't mean to tell you that to dodge that, but we just don't know; we in the Air Force don't have a good fix on what we are going to end up doing over the next several years.

    Mr. ORTIZ. General Williams.

    General WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Thank you. Like my colleagues, we are pretty comfortable that we have funded our training needs. In regards to homeland defense, the commandant stood up the Marine expeditionary brigade to do antiterrorism work and that brigade pulled in some existing organizations, our sea berth chemical biological group, the Marine security guard battalion, which is the group that guards the embassies around the world, and the Marine security force battalion which provides anti-terrorism teams to the Navy.

    On top of that, we put an infantry battalion that we are in the process now of training to an anti-terrorism battalion. That is going to involve additional training resources. We put some of those resources in the 2003 budget. It is not clear what the end state of that is and perhaps we haven't thought through this yet, perhaps we need to have an anti-terrorism capability embedded in all of our other infantry battalions; and if we decide to do that, then there will be some question of what does that mean in terms of training resources. But we are evolving this as we start to understand more about what force protection and anti-terrorism really mean to the Marine Corps. Thank you, sir.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ORTIZ. Do you see the necessity of maybe having to increase your end strength if this happens? Because I know that all of you train for a particular mission, and this is something that we never expected, and now we are faced with it. Do you think there is going to have to be a special component like you are stating to respond to domestic needs?

    General WILLIAMS. In our 2003, budget we have resources identified for 2,400 additional Marines, and those Marines would essentially backfill the battalion that we took in order to form our anti-terrorism battalion, and also fund the overhead and for the training that we are going to need those Marines to go through. So the answer is yes, sir, a modest, we think we need the modest increase. It is about 2,400 people and, as I said, the resources are in the 2003 budget.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you like to add anything?

    General KEANE. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. We have felt for some time and been on record that we felt the Army was too small to meet all the requirements that are being asked of it that include all three components. And, quite frankly, what we intend to do in this recruiting year that we are in right now is overrecruit for about 4,000 or 5,000, bring those extra soldiers on, which will bring the active component strength up from 480 to 485. It will still be within your two percent tolerance so we have license to do that.

    But it gets at the larger issue in terms of what should the end strength of the Army be, and certainly what has happened since September 11 has brought home to us how fortunate the Army is to have the reserve and guard and how quickly they are able to respond to the missions that have been so plentiful in this country.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In the same respect, we can wear out that commitment. We have assigned a rotation schedule for those guard and reserves who are pulling duty in the United States. For one year they will pull that duty and we think that is sufficient. But we do not have a crystal ball in terms of how long this duty will remain a requirement. It may in the near term be something indefinite for many years to come. So we have to take a hard look at the strength of the active component force in terms of its capacity to do some of these missions as well to leave some of the burden of the reserve component force, and that is something we are looking at very hard in addition to the other requirement that we knew had always existed. Thank you.

    Mr. ORTIZ. May I have just one more short question? Do you see a need now—I know that the time is running out for those that were activated after September 11—do you see a need to maybe to increase their stay more than six months or a year?

    General KEANE. In terms of the Army sir, those who we have overseas are active or reserve is a six-month rotation. However, the on-scene commander has the authority to request an extension of that based on what his requirements may be; and in certain cases, I am sure we will stay beyond the six months, depending on those requirements. We don't want to break an operation that is presently ongoing and give the command the opportunity to complete that operation before we would bring people home, and in terms of the few inside the United States that are for a year, we don't see any extensions to that at all. After they do the year duty, we will send them back to their normal place of employment.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HEFLEY. Mrs. Davis.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some time ago when I met with Admiral Tim LaFleur in San Diego, you know, Commander of the Service Forces, Pacific, he mentioned the usage rate of precision-guided munitions and the concern around that; and I know that there has been a number of attempts to manage that better. How is that going? What are the obstacles to having a system process that manages the ordnance better?

    Admiral FALLON. I will take a stab at that, ma'am. We had among many other things not resourced ammunition, in particular the precision guided munitions (PGMs) to the level that we knew we would like to have, and so we found in this past year that we have had a pretty good drain on that supply. We have done okay. We have gotten through with a lot of help from our friends in the Air Force in particular, and except for some kinds of munitions, although we have in fact shared some of our stocks with them in some cases.

    What we are doing about it is we have taken a real hard look at our supplies around the world. We have devoted some resources to making ready some assets that were not ready for issue and we fixed a lot of things that were lying around waiting for in many cases just relatively small-dollar parts and things, and the biggest step we have taken in conjunction with the Air Force is to dramatically ramp up our stocks of air-delivered PGMs.

    I can tell you that one of the sources of that supply is now just about up to full capacity. The second contractor is spinning up to come on line and we have another contractor making our other preferred munition that is also ramping up to a very high level, and we are doing that in close coordination with the Air Force, and we think this is addressing the problem, and if we continue to resource it adequately, we should be okay in the future.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you for your work on that. I know it was a big concern, and many of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the rate of shipbuilding, and I think a lot of us feel that eight to 10 ships per year is probably a good number. We are looking at budget with five.

    I am just wondering the extent to which the Navy really assesses its increased maintenance requirements when we have ships that are going to be a lot older than if we release them in a more timely fashion. How does that impact our ability to have our global presence felt?

    Admiral FALLON. Yes, ma'am. You know more than most on the details of our shipbuilding issues. Frankly, we find ourselves in this position in short. We devoted resources to the things that we felt were highest priority, taking care of people and taking care of the things that we have in the inventory right now. We know that this is in the long run not adequate, that we must resource the future by building new platforms at some point in time, and the longer we continue to sustain the old things, then we will do it to the best of our ability, that this becomes a losing proposition because the wear and tear and the age of the equipment.

    However, this year we find ourselves in a pretty interesting position. We would love to have more ships and have greater numbers because as one takes the trend lines out, we are not going to be able to continue to keep the fleet at the current size if we don't increase the number. But, frankly, as you look at the opportunities to have ships this year, we find ourselves with a couple of programs that for programmatic reasons are not in great shape.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would love to be building more LPD–17 class ships, for example, which we have a need for right now. We have the old Austin class amphibious vessels that are 35 years old and need to be replaced yesterday; but, frankly, this program is not ready to go or at least hasn't been demonstrated to be ready to go. We hope it is fixed now. It has had problems the last couple of years, and so if we had an extra billion dollars, if you were to ask if I had the power to just, okay, we will do it, I wouldn't do it because we want to see this ship under construction, we want to see it in the water, we want to see the program fixed and ready to go.

    We have a similar problem with the TKE, and so when we go back and look at other options, we could take the money and we could pay down prior year's shipbuilding bills which you know are still hanging around our necks. That is not going to get us the additional numbers.

    We could buy additional destroyers, the DD–51 class right now; but, frankly, we are looking to the future. We want to transform. We know that if we are going to make a substantial change to the way we do business, we are going to have to have vessels that are designed from the keel up to accommodate the reality of smaller cruises, which is where we would like to go, more better mechanized ships that can be better sustained and maintained, at least cost, and so we are having to build new ships so that is why we are waiting. We have the dry deck shelter (DDS) downsourcing that should be completed here within the next couple of weeks. We would like to get that program going. We have some visions for future with our LaTour combat ship craft. We envision vessels that are going to be manned at substantially less folks than we have now that can go and operate greater speeds in the LaTour. We want ships that are focused in that area, and frankly, we are just not quite ready to go with those ships yet. They are in design, they are in development. Very soon hopefully they are going to be up and running. Then we would like to be able to put the money in and get going.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think that is the best explanation of where we really are this year.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. You need to say that loud to Members who are very concerned about it, that there is a thoughtfulness about it at least from your perspective.

    Admiral FALLON. Yes, ma'am.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. General Williams, can you tell me offhand how many square miles is Pendleton? Isn't that 200 square miles or something? It is a huge base.

    General WILLIAMS. Sir, it is huge and I believe it is about 177,000 acres.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Okay.

    General WILLIAMS. But I don't know how to divide that into square miles. But you are right, it is our biggest training facility.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Well, Mrs. Davis, you probably know a lot more about it than I do. I was out there about a month ago and they showed me, we were talking about the intrusion of various things that limit the training, and we were out there, the encroachment, and we were out there about a month ago and they showed me an overlay display. You had this 177,000 acres, you know what I am talking about, General, and they laid down one overlay and you would think that is plenty of room for training Marines. But they have got one beach they can land on, I think; but don't you dare dig a foxhole on that beach because you might disturb some potential or perhaps antiquities site where some Indian camped and fished, and I suspect he did, because it is a beautiful place, they probably did.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And then they did an overlay and they said now we can't train here at certain times because of the prairie shrimp, and those are something that live in mud holes. So when it rains out there, it creates a mud hole and they hatch out.

    They did another overlay, you can't train here because of the Antiquities Act, and when they did finish the overlays, you have little channels where you can train, and if you hadn't seen that, get the general or someone out there to show you that because it is very dramatic. And as we deal with this, I would like your suggestions about how we ought to deal with it, and I would like your suggestions about how we ought to deal with it.

    Mr. Hansen expressed it well. I hope we are all environmentalists. I hope we are all concerned about it, and I tell, I think the military, you hasn't always done this, any more than the mining industry or the oil industry. I grew up in Oklahoma and I thought growing up in Oklahoma that an oil slick on rivers was the way rivers came because we didn't care there. They had slush ponds out everywhere. They would overflow. They didn't care about that. But now we have become environmentally conscious, and I think no one more so than the military. You are environmentally conscious and, therefore, you produce excellent locations for endangered species, particularly at Pendleton, General, where you have population all around you; so where do they go? To the open space that you have.

    General WILLIAMS. We collect them. Pendleton has been very aggressive in trying to find a way to describe the impact of the environmental encroachment on training; and I almost put their diagram in my statement, but it is not quite ready, but it will be very soon where we can show what percentage of the training required to take a battalion and make it combat ready, what percentage of training can now be done on this base and what percentage we have to go to 29 Palms or somewhere else to do. When we get that, we are going to have all our bases do it so we can articulate better for this committee and the others the real impact of encroachment on training.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. HEFLEY. Well, we would like your recommendations on what you would like to see us do on that. We are struggling with it and we want an answer that is environmentally sensitive but at the same time allows you to do your main mission, and that is to train young people to go fight in war. And so, anyway, that is a very important thing to us and it must be an important thing to you all, because everywhere I go, it doesn't matter whether it is Army, Navy, everywhere I go one of the main emphases is this encroachment issue.

    General KEANE. Mr. Chairman, what we find also so frustrating about this, like many of our colleagues in the corporate world and the industrial world, we were polluters at one time and we have gone through a huge education and attitude metamorphosis and appreciation for the environment; and now I think we can say we have justifiable evidence that all of our services are clearly proponents of protecting the environment, and we are doing an extraordinarily good job about it, but we are on a collision course here. There is no doubt about it, and we have got to face it. That is why we are having these meetings to bring something forward to you; but in my own mind, we will have to deal with the legislation that establishes a critical habitat in the endangered species law.

    In my own mind, speaking for myself, you probably have to remove that as it applies to installations, and in those laws that deal, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation Liability Act, we are all familiar with them, the Clean Water Act. All those laws, intended for industrial waste operations, are impacting on unexploding ordnance in our training ranges in one form or another because they are being declared as hazardous waste or pollutants emerging from that hazardous waste that could potentially endanger the drinking water.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    There is no commander in America that would ever want to endanger the drinking water of the American people and would do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening, but the degree that these laws are impacting on us is right now adversely impacting training, and what it will do to us in the future as the laws continue to get extended and apply the other installations is going to bring us to our knees, as we said before. It is a collision course I think that is avoidable if we begin to act in the next year or two.

    Mr. HEFLEY. General Keane, the Pinon Canyon training area at Fort Carson—and you have probably been there many times, but it is my impression they do a magnificent job of combining training and environmental sensitivity. You have got an environmentalist down there who is a tough son of a gun; but it is a sensitive area down there, not in term of population but in terms of the tundra, I mean the grass and so forth, and you rotate the training and everybody. I mean they have gotten all kinds of awards for what they have done. So there are ways to do it, but I agree with you we are going to have to change some of the laws, I think, to get it done.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, you asked me about Pendleton. Actually Pendleton is not in my district, but I had a chance to visit it; and I have gone over Pendleton in a helicopter to get a really good sense of it all, but I come back to my earlier statements. I think that there there are a number of people out in our communities who really don't understand and don't appreciate the job that has been done, but they are still concerned on whether or not the military, the Federal Government adheres to its own laws in those situations or not; and I think it really takes getting people around a table, and that is why I appreciate the hearing that is coming up, and I hope that it is one where we hear from all sides on it, because that really will foster the discussion. I think that there are many opportunities there, and I am really glad that the discussion is being offered. I think it is a very, very important one, but I have shared with people who I come in contact with, but there is a very active group of people who believe that perhaps over time, and maybe not now, there have been some real problems and we just need to address them and demonstrate the differences between then and now.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Ortiz.

    Mr. ORTIZ. I think one of the things we need to do is work with the cities and see what direction they grow while we are focusing on these problems because those endangered species have no place to go.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Exactly.

    Mr. ORTIZ. You encroach on the city, on the military camp, that is where they go and they have the problem; but I think it would be necessary at some point to work with the cities. I mean because by you being there it provides jobs, you know, economic boost to the community. So if we can work strongly somehow with the cities to give some directions as to how they can grow, maybe this will alleviate at least some of the problems, you know, maybe not all of the problems, but you get to the point, Mr. Chairman, if we want to keep those jobs and continue to give the boost to the economy, that the bases, the military bases give, and we have to work with the cities. Otherwise they will have to look for another place to go because there won't be any training.

    I just have one question, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to ask the Army and the Marine Corps. Of course, one of the areas that impacts significantly on maintenance of the Army and Marine Corps equipment is corrosion control; and will you provide an assessment of the corrosion control program in the Army and Marine Corps, what is being requested for use in fiscal year 2003 and maybe you can give me some information on that question.

 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    General KEANE. Well, the corrosion control program in the Army did not make the cut line, Mr. Ortiz. We had funding problems with it in the 2002 and we have got funding problems with it in the 2003, as far as it is an affordability issue. It is something we would like to do, but we haven't been able to fund it because of other priorities.

    Mr. ORTIZ. How much was the amount, do you remember?

    General KEANE. I think the amount is about 9 million, $12 million, something to that effect. Let me provide an accurate number for the record.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Okay. Thank you. General Williams.

    General WILLIAMS. Sir, in the Marine Corps we really have two programs, and one is our corrosion control program for aircraft which we do in our squadrons and which is funded. I will have to provide you for the record the level at which it is funded.

    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]

    General WILLIAMS. Our ground corrosion control program has some small dollars in it, but its record is not good because unlike our aviation units we don't provide specialists in corrosion control to do the work as well as they should. What we do, of course, we expose all of our equipment to a great deal of salt water, and when we take our equipments ashore in Hellcats, we expose it to high pressure salt water, and so we have big corrosion control problems. We think that the best way to solve those is the way we are solving them with our new truck which is to demand the same kind of a warranty that you get on your car, which is a five to 10-year rust-through warranty; and we were able to get that kind of a warranty on our new truck, and we are pursuing that because the technology is there to put the corrosion control on at the factory, and we don't have to spend resources and Marines trying to put it on after the case. Our record is a little spotty, but we think we figured out the way to do this right.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ORTIZ. Very good.

    General KEANE. Mr. Ortiz, I have gotten the numbers. We have got two aspects of the program. One is research and development, test and evaluation, and the 2003 requirement is $9 million and I have got no money in it. The 2003 armor requirement is $6.3 million and we have a funding level of $1 million in it.

    Mr. ORTIZ. I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Evans, do you have any questions?

    Mr. EVANS. No questions.

    Mr. HEFLEY. No questions. I think we have kept you long enough this afternoon. We have some additional questions, if we might submit them for your answers in writing.

    Mr. HEFLEY. I think we have kept you long enough this afternoon. We do again appreciate you being here and being so forthright with us, and with that, the Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]