Copyright 2002 Federal News Service, Inc.  
Federal News Service
March 12, 2002, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING

LENGTH: 16551 words

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
SUBJECT: SPECIAL OPERATIONS MILITARY CAPABILITIES, OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION IN REVIEW OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
 
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA)
 
LOCATION: 222 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES:
 
GENERAL CHARLES R. HOLLAND, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, COMMANDER-IN- CHIEF, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND;
 
HARRY E. SCHULTE, ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE, SPECIAL OPERATIONS ACQUISITION AND LOGISTICS CENTER, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
 


BODY:
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): Thank you, and our meeting of Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee on Special Operations Command will come to order.

Our committee meets this afternoon to receive testimony from you, General Holland, who is our commander-in-chief of our U.S. Special Operations Command, and Mr. Harry Schulte, acquisition executive at Special Operations Command.

As we sit here, I just wanted to begin by noting that, of course, our special operations forces are deployed in our war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Central Asia and in the Philippines, all over the globe in fact, supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and conducting other missions to further U.S. national security. The battles, as usual, have not been without casualties. Your forces, General Holland, fighting for a just cause to defend our citizens here and abroad, and some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice. In fact, since September 11, 25 special operators have been killed in action or in support of Enduring Freedom, and 60 have been wounded. The losses of each of these has hit us all very hard.

This committee, in fact, has been touched in a very personal way by the recent accident, the death of 10 special operations forces in the Philippines when their helicopter crashed. Our staff had just visited Echo 1 60th Aviation Company in January, and had come back to report to the senator and I how highly they impressed they were with Major Curtis Feistner and Captain Bartt Owens and Chief Warrant Officer Jody Egnor. They all perished in the crash of February 22nd.

General Holland, Senator Roberts and I want to convey to you, on behalf of our whole committee, our deep and heartfelt appreciation for the work that you do, and if you would please communicate to the men and women under your command that this committee -- all of us -- that this committee is particularly heartbroken over it but commends you for your professionalism and your dedication.

The committee has a long tradition of interest in special operations as you know. In 1986, the Nunn-Cohen amendment to the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reauthorization Act established Special Operations Command within the Department of Defense, the position of assistant secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict. The creation of the command and the assistant secretary's position reflected this committee's interest in ensuring that special operations forces and policies are integrated with conventional strategies and forces, that they are properly funded.

Unfortunately, the position of assistant secretary sits vacant at this time. Congress mandated two years in the Defense Authorization Act that the Department of Defense centralize its combating terrorism activities under one assistant secretary of Defense. The Department of Defense informed us the assistant secretary for Special Operations would be that official. However, Secretary Rumsfeld did not fill the position before September 11th, and after September 11th, he appointed the secretary as the Army as interim coordinator. Both Senator Roberts and I have expressed at different times the importance of filling that position and perhaps we can talk a bit about that today, because six months later there is still no permanent coordinator in this important position.

The purpose of today's hearing is to examine special operations capability, operational requirements and technological acquisition. Unlike conventional military forces who are charged with countering a range of military threats, special operations, which you oversee, General, organize, train and equip for narrowly focused missions. We've seen how special operations forces have utilized these special extraordinary capabilities, radioing close air support from horseback to B-52s flying over the skies of Afghanistan. And we're witnessing how the success of special operations forces are spawning new missions in the Philippines, Georgia and Yemen, just to name a few. And just yesterday President Bush declared that we would train militias everywhere.

Yet as Special Operations Command is handed more missions, it's incumbent upon those of us who fund these missions and who provide legislative oversight to the department, to explore some fundamental questions. Are special operations missions becoming more relevant and necessitating increases in the total number of special operations forces? Or should the conventional forces adopt some of the special operations forces roles and missions?

And, if so, which ones and how that integration or coordination should take place and how should it be funded in the future? Can we improve upon the integration of special operations forces into conventional military plans based on lessons learned in Afghanistan? Is funding for training, education and ongoing missions sufficient and appropriate given the increased demands and dangers, but the absolute critical mission involved? Are we taking sufficient steps to recruit and retain active and reserve special operators?

And, perhaps more importantly, how does the proposed budget address concerns that special operations families have regarding housing and other benefits so that the morale can be high, families can be happy, as well as the soldiers and combatants involved?

Finally, what can we do to improve special operations technology development and acquisition to better support the men and women in the field? Today our special operators are making use of technologies that were developed with small but significant investments in science and technology in the past, investments that have led to more precise weapons, better night vision gear, and lighter, more capable radio and communication equipment to name just a few examples.

This committee notes the budget request for special ops research and development includes, unfortunately, only a very small increase for next year, and, in fact, a decrease in the longer term research programs despite the critical role that I've just outlined. The committee would like to learn from you, General Holland and Mr. Schulte, about your current technology development activities and how they support current operations. But more importantly, we'd like to learn about any shortfalls in the budget including in areas that impact upon training, education, recruitment and retention of your fine soldiers.

We would also want to explore some other important elements that I've outlined earlier in my opening statement.

And at this time let me recognize Senator Roberts for opening remarks and then we'll hear your testimony and go into a round of questioning. Thank you.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS): Thank you, madam.

And I join you in welcoming these two very distinguished witnesses from the U.S. Special Operations Command, and I applaud your forward thinking in holding this important hearing. Some of my remarks are going to be repetitive of the distinguished chairman, but I think they bear repeating.

We've all been extremely thankful for the initial success of our armed forces in Afghanistan and around the world in this global war against terrorism. While much will be debated in the months and years ahead about the relative value of air power, sea power, ground operations in what we call Operation Enduring Freedom, one thing is very clear. The quiet warriors of special operations, the air, the sea and ground, were trained and ready. You have performed in magnificent fashion.

General Holland, you and your predecessors deserve a great deal of credit for this high level of readiness and the committee thanks you.

Before I proceed I want to acknowledge not only the tremendous contribution that special operations forces are making to this struggle, but as the chairman has indicated in very eloquent terms, the sacrifice they are making as well. From my standpoint, and as the chairman has already indicated on behalf of the full subcommittee, and I would add the full committee on Armed Services, please convey our sympathies, our condolences and our gratitude to the families and units and friends of those special operators who have lost their lives in this important global war against terrorism. Their loss, defending America and freedom, reminds us of the dangers our men and women in uniform face every day as they defend our freedom around the world. Our special operations forces are truly the tip on the spear.

As the chairman indicated, almost 15 years ago some forward thinking members of Congress recognized that our capabilities in the area of unconventional warfare, low intensity conflict and special operations were not where they should be, and convinced their colleagues to create a new Special Operations Command as part of a larger Department of Defense reorganization. The increasingly successful and sophisticated joint operations -- and I emphasize joint -- joint operations our armed forces are able to conduct, including the seamless inclusion of your special operations is a tribute to the joint war fighting concepts that were envisioned by the architects of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.

As the chairman has indicated, the world has been amazed, absolutely amazed, at the pictures of soldiers on horseback directing 21st century weapons with devastating precision. We see images of the C-130 gunships firing at ground targets identified by unmanned aerial vehicles. We see silhouettes of parachutes through night vision goggles descending on distant air fields. This is the face of special operations. This is our first line of defense that has been quietly fighting terrorism around the world for years. These are the forces on which we will increasingly depend to confront the emerging, unexpected, unconventional threats of the future.

I'm going to be brief, Madam Chairman, as it is most important that we proceed to the testimony of General Holland and his staff. I look forward hearing in regards to General Holland's assessment of the performance of special operations forces to date. More importantly, however, I am most interested in his view of the future. What do our special operations forces need to be prepared for? You highlighted any possibility of any budget shortfalls. What we the Congress can do to help him. I'm especially interested in how the special operations forces fit in into the whole field of jointness.

As we begin deliberations on the Fiscal Year 2003 budget request, SOCOM is in a unique position to provide us some insights into the future of warfare. How to rapidly and acquire the capabilities we need to deter, to detect and to defeat the emerging threats we face today.

I look forward to working with you general to ensure that our special operation forces really continue to be the very best in the world and really continue to be truly special.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

General Holland?

GEN. CHARLES R. HOLLAND: Madam Chairman, and Senator Roberts, I submitted a statement for the record but I have just a few remarks I would like to make at this time.

Thanks for this opportunity to report on the state of the quiet professionals, our nation's special operations forces. The September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on our country underscored the need for an increased emphasis on America's ability to combat terrorism. As you well know SOF had been very heavily engaged in support to the global war on terrorism. We have executed nearly every mission Congress spelled out for SOF almost 15 years ago when it passed the Nunn-Cohen Amendment. As a result of the legislation the Department of Defense has a headquarters in the United States Special Operations Command that provides SOF with the successful conduct of world wide special operations, civil affairs, psychological operations during peace and war. The command also conducts strategic planning, provides operational support and oversight, allocates resources, and manages acquisition to ensure that SOF are prepared to carry out their assigned missions.

The support of the services is critical to our ability to provide the nation with a special operation capability. The Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, work with us on matters such as service, common equipment, and personnel manning as well as other areas of neutral interest. We have a solid relationship with each service and continue to cooperate on a variety of projects.

I am pleased to report that SOF are ready and healthy due to the wisdom of the legislation that gave us the tools to do our jobs and the leadership and dedication of extraordinary Americans. I must tell you that we could not be more proud of our men and women. They have demonstrated their training skills by teaming with the best war fighters the world has seen, from the European command led campaign in Kosovo, to the pacific command support to counter insurgency in the Philippines and to combined training exercises with our allies in the Republic of Korea, to central commands combat during operations Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom, and counter narcotics programs and southern command, the range of operations we have effectively prosecuted bodes well for the future fight against trans-national terrorists.

The USOCOM stands ready to provide SOF around the world in support of theater CINCS and the American ambassadors. During this Fiscal Year special operations forces have operated in 122 countries and foreign territories. In Afghanistan, USOCOMSs, Air Force Special Tactics teams and air crews, Navy Seals, Army and Air Force SIOPS and Army Special Forces Rangers, air crews and civil affairs, are executing complex missions during limited visibility in climactic extremes and over rough, unfamiliar terrain, in support of the United States central command.

A large part of the reason that we can support our global commitments is that several SOF troops are embedded in our philosophy of how to train and deploy. The SOF troops are humans are more important than hardware. Quality is better than quantity. Special operations forces cannot be mass produced and competent special operations forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.

In addition, the establishment of Major Force Program 11, which gives special operations command service like responsibility with a budget and procurement authority, has ensured that we can get SOF peculiar equipment, to our warriors so that they have the tools needed to conduct special operations. Timeliness is important to our ability to resolve many of the challenges of transnational threats, as is mitigating the potentially catastrophic damage that can be caused by acts of terrorism to include the use of weapons of mass destruction.

We find that all the elements of national power, diplomatic, informational, military, and economic are applied at the same time to reach a fast, near term resolution of a particular crisis.

A well designed and dynamic collaborative environment allows us to properly share whatever is needed, whenever it is needed, to defeat the next foe. At U.S. SOCOM we are striving to develop collaborative structures and tools that afford timely, simple and appropriate procedures to make certain that all of us on this joint interagency team can share resources and information and still maintain the necessary protective measures to guarantee that we do not compromise operations, personnel or tactics, techniques and procedures.

In closing I want to reiterate two points. First, we provide the armed forces in our nation with a unique, one of a kind capabilities. We have been able to develop them because of the foresight of Congress in creating this command and providing it with the tools to get the job done. Secondly, we must protect our people, provide for the professional development, give them the tools they need for the job, and remember those and their families who have given the last full measure.

With continued support from Congress and key investments and quality people, readiness and modernization, we will continue to have the best special operations force in the world. One that is ready, responsive, and relevant to the challenges of the 21st century. I believe that the SOF warrior is one of nation's great assets. Superbly trained, physically tough, culturally aware, and an independent thinker, a quiet professional.

Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to tell the special operations story, and I look forward to your questions.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Thank you, General.

Mr. Schulte.

MR. HARRY E. SCHULTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

It is an honor and a privilege to report to you on the topic of special operations forces acquisition and technology. Congress, through Title 10 U.S. Code, Chapter 6, Section 167, empowered the U.S. SOCOM to develop and acquire special operations peculiar equipment, materiel and services. We have implemented streamlined and cost effective processes to provide our SOF soldiers, sailor and airmen, with the technology and equipment they need to execute their war fighting and peace keeping missions.

Our fundamental acquisition philosophy in U.S. SOCOM is to field in an expedited manner, an 80 percent solution, while working with our war fighters and industry to address the remaining 20 percent of the requirement. We leveraged the three services, the defense advance research project agency, DARPA, the Department of Energy and other agency research and development programs to look for a technology to apply to our SOF war fighter needs.

We survey industry and use a buy and try approach for government and commercial off-the-shelf items. Our war fighters perform early user evaluations of these potential systems, then we modify, test and field acceptable products. We enjoy an exceptionally close working relationship with our SOF operational users. They are willing and anxious to accept the timely increase in capability provided by an 80 percent solution and their high state of training and experience enables us to accept risk in our fielding decisions. This process enables you SOCOM, to shorten the typical acquisition cycle in rapidly and sure technology to provide our SOF critical war fighting advantages.

The acquisition organizations co-location with headquarters U.S. SOCOM, daily contact with our war fighters, our relatively small size and short decision cycles, and the support we receive from the services, the Department of Defense and Congress, are major contributing factors to our effectiveness.

I will briefly discuss the acquisition of one of our recent successes, the multiband intra/inter-team radio, which I'm holding in my hand right now. The MBITR is currently fielded with our special operations forces in Afghanistan. The MBITR acquisition program was completed in less than three years. The significant acquisition timeline compression was accomplished primarily because of the close government industry and operational user relationships, established very early in the program. Dialog between the program office and candidate developers led to definition of suitable technologies to satisfy the MBITR requirements. A competitive cost sharing development contract with production options was awarded to Tallis Communications of Clarksburg, Maryland. SOCOM accepted cost accountability for the management and the contractor assumed the risk for the function design including the software.

After the contract award the contractor, operational users and other government agencies participated at a joint integrated product team. This team ensured strict adherence to multi-service customer requirements, inter-operability standards in the joint technical architecture. SOCOM used extensive early user evaluations of prototype radios to eliminate any test instance that you would normally find later on in OT&E, operational tests and evaluation. Prototype radios were released to the joint inter-operability test center, Navy special warfare, and Marine Corps force reconnaissance units for evaluation and mission scenarios. The evaluators employed the MBITR in diving, high altitude parachute, and ground operations. During these evaluations a contractor was allowed full visibility thereby shortening the development learning curve and facilitating rapid modification of these test articles prior to formal OT&E.

The close working relationship among program stakeholders minimized the acquisition cycle time and produced a topnotch product for the war fighter. It turns out MBITR replaces six to nine other radios, that you'll see some of them sitting on the table over your left shoulder. Basically radios that are talking from ground to air, three or four different kind of radios from ground to air, and also ground to ground communications.

Over 8,000 MBITR radios have been fielded to SOC, other service users and coalition users at this time. Our war fighters in Afghanistan report that this new radio has proven to be exceptionally effective in joint operational requirements. I want to thank the committee for the support that you have provided SOCOM for the MBITR program over the last few years. And, Madam Chairman, with your consent I will conclude my remarks at this point and submit my remaining statement for the record.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Thank you, Mr. Schulte. The senator and I were just discussing since that radio has worked so well in the battlefield, perhaps we might use it to communicate better in Congress. We need all the help we can get up here. But I'm glad you raised that issue because I wanted to say before I get into my questions that I'm very proud of the action of this committee last year that plussed up your budget for those radios. And I hope that the cameras can actually get a good shot of that radio that you have in your hand and what it replaced. But it's not just the equipment that it replaces, but it's the lives it saved, the confidence it's built, the bravery that it encouraged because people could go into a battle relying on their equipment, knowing that they could operate as they've been trained.

And so, you know, it's not a lot of money, $14 million, but it was an important investment. And I think that is what Senator Roberts and I want to convey: that it's not just the amount of money, but it's the way it's directed into some -- what you would say is a relatively simple, but yet revolutionary idea that actually people on a battlefield could really communicate to each other. I think that is a good lesson for us and for our staff to see and I thank you for bringing that up.

Let me start then with my first question and we'll go through this in a rather informal way, but we do have quite a few questions we want to get on the record. General, you mentioned in your opening statement because we've given you the tools -- or the predecessors of this committee gave you the tools to do your job. What are the most useful tools in you toolbox, if you could just restate for the record again so that we can continue to give you more of those kinds of tools and not burden you with things that don't work.

GEN. HOLLAND: Madam Chairman, to really answer that question I could probably go through an exhaustive list. But just let me go back onto what we just talked about, the MBITR, because MBITR is a great example. The operational Detachment Alpha commander made a comment. It didn't matter what he wore, as long as he had a good radio he would be successful. And because of the support that we got from Congress last year, then our people have that in their hand. So this is all about equipping the man, not manning the equipment.

And so in our business what we try to make sure of is that our people that go out forward, that we ensure that they have the right equipment to be successful. And that's not only to include, you know, what they need from an intelligence perspective, but it's also the weapon and it's also their mobility platform that will take them in to that part of the battle.

And so it's a very comprehensive list of items that we need, and we would look forward very much to have you come and visit and see up close and personal the type of equipment that we talk about.

SEN. LANDRIEU: And our committee is looking forward to that and we are scheduled, as you know, in just a few weeks to get that done. But would you also argue that it is the discretion that you have within your budget, or the special designation of your budget that allows you to sort of plus up and step up and coordinate and integrate to achieve a result that you've just shown us? Is that part of the method or mechanics that helps you all to be as successful as you obviously are?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, ma'am. In fact you hit the nail on the head. It's our opportunity that when we see the mission need statement that comes in from our people that are forward, and during the war in Afghanistan, Enduring Freedom, we have had a dozen or so requirements that have come to us. And as those requirements come into our headquarters, we have a way to rapidly turn those around. And in the report for records that Mr. Schulte has provided to the committee, it gives those examples of how we can rapidly meet the requirement of our people in the field and that's what this is all about is the timeliness. It's the ability to affect the outcome.

And obviously we want to stay on the inside of the decision cycle of the enemy and because we have the monies, the major program 11, to be able to accomplish those tasks, that is what continues to steady us to keep us on the forefront in our war against terrorism.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Let me back up if I could to a broader question, and this was also addressed to some degree in your opening statement. But in SOC's Command Publication One it states that: "Special Ops must select emerging targets or threats that either cannot be engaged effectively by conventional forces, or be dealt with better by small highly specialized units. Similarly, as conventional forces add capabilities and become able to attack targets that previously belonged solely to SOC, special operation units must reorient themselves towards targets that will be vulnerable to their special capabilities."

Given this most recent experience, and we're continuing to experience it daily, what missions do you believe should now be moved to conventional forces, if any? Where do special ops need to further improve their capabilities and could you just give us a little bit more on the record about that integration? And as Senator Roberts had indicated, this is about your future vision, based and building on the experiences that we have. How is this integration between Special Ops and conventional going to work in the future do you think, General?

GEN. HOLLAND: To answer the question, I think the first statement that I would make is obviously the people are very important to this equation. And when we reflect back on Operation Enduring Freedom and we think about our people that first went forward into Afghanistan, the global scout, the ability of our people to go into a strange country, to understand the language, to understand the culture, to be able to develop a trusting confidence with someone from an opposition group. That to me is something that we continue to need to steady our focus. And that aspect of it will continue to be very key.

Now, the other aspects as we continue on into the crisis, we have got to determine where are those capabilities that exist in the services? And this was a comment that we had in our earlier discussion is that we work very closely with the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. We recently just signed a memorandum of agreement with the Marine Corp. And to establish what capabilities do we have in special operations forces and what are the capabilities that exist within each of the services and where can we build the bridge? Where can we sew the seam?

And it's those capabilities that would allow our special forces people then to then come off of that particular mission, turn that over to the conventional forces and which allows our people to come back, retool, refit, retrain, rehearse and get ready for the next operation. So not necessarily is it all about more. It's really about how we can exploit the capabilities that we have not only with SOC, but also within our services so that we can better come together on the battlefield and be mutually supportive of each other.

SEN. LANDRIEU: That's helpful. Let me get back to a question about research and development. As you know, the budget has been plussed up in a significant -- fairly significant way from last year to this year. But Special Ops still remains however -- despite the very significant budget for an increase in defense, still remains only 1.3 percent of the total. It was 1.3 percent three years ago and it's sort of maintained in that sort of explanation flat. Although the amount -- the dollar amounts have gone up, the position has remained rather constant.

And under that sort of flat 1.3 percent, our research and development effort seems to be slightly decreased. And I don't know if either one of you might want to comment about any concerns you would have about that, what sort of promising research and technology do you think that is fairly urgent, given our current experiences, and with the likely threats are that are out there. This is something our committee should know about that so we can try to help you.

GEN. HOLLAND: Well, Madam Chairman, let me take the first part of the question and then I would like to turn it over to Mr. Schulte for him to be able to talk about what those plus ups actually mean. But think about -- our '02 budget was about $4 billion and our '03 budget is $4.9 billion. Now, the personnel account and the O&M account basically has stayed about the same and, of course, we have gotten additional monies to help out on those additional deployments that were not part of the plan. However, where the big increase has been is in our modernization account and that is what is key. And that key is really what I'd like to have Mr. Schulte to explain because that's what gives these tools that we talk about, into the hands of our operators that go forward.

MR. SCHULTE: Yes, Ma'am. I'm looking at the numbers between FY 02 and FY 03 for the budget. Our R&D numbers did go up about 10 percent. Our request is about 10 percent higher than it was in '02 to about $430 million for R&D. But the big increase as the CINC said, is in procurement. We're up about $350 million in procurement and in a short term, that's where our problem is. You know, we've developed some systems over the last few years that we haven't had the procurement money to buy out the inventory objective. So this is going to help us do that kind of thing.

You know, for instance, with the help that your committee provided last year we were able to buy a lot of the MBITR radios with some of the DERF funds that just came in, quite frankly, in February I think. We've got them all on contract now. So every MBITR radio, all 10,000 of them that we require is on contract basically now, and we'll have them delivered out probably in 12 months, something like that. This procurement is going to help us buy out a lot of things that we've been buying in small quantities and handing them out to the guys as we got them. This is really going to help quite a bit.

But let me get back to your R&D question particularly. So, we're up a little bit in R&D in '03. We're happy about that. The kinds of things that we're looking at -- the kind of areas we're trying to get into in R&D a little bit more is areas of signature reduction. Not just for platforms like aircraft or even boats, but individual signature reductions for the individual soldier. High ban lift communications is important to everybody in DOD and it's just as important to U.S. SOCOM, especially if we've got somebody forward and there's an observation post or something we need high band with to bring the data back to the command center.

One of the big increases in the budget in '03 is for directed energy. The advanced tactical laser, ACTD, has been moved into the SOCOM account beginning in '03. We will be managing that advanced tactical laser, advanced concept technology demonstrator, starting next year. Basically I think because the ultimate user of that technology were to pan out, the ultimate user would be something like a future gun-ship and so they move the money -- the department moved the money over to SOCOM, starting next year, and that was some of the increase in the account too.

So we've got a number of things like remote sensing that we're looking at. More research in batteries and fuel cells which is very important to the soldier. You know, you just -- they get out there like that, the batteries are -- no matter how good your batteries are, they aren't as good as you'd like them to be. You'd like them to last longer. You'd like them to be lighter. You don't want to carry as many as you have to carry. If you're carrying batteries, you're not carrying water or food or ammunition. All of which are very important to the soldier.

So unmanned systems, we're looking at some very simple unmanned systems that are man-packable. Something you can put in a rucksack, and a guy can carry and then maybe hand launch and go over the next hill with some video and take a look at what's over the next hill. Those kinds of things. Those are the areas that we're focusing on with our R&D money. We've basically taken all the SOF requirements and boiled them down into these thrust areas.

One of the things I'd like to bring up just quickly, is there is a conference going on, actually it started today. It was cosponsored by DARPA and SOCOM, called Scientists Helping America. I spoke at the conference this morning and the idea was to go after scientists from industry and academia that maybe are non traditional R&D people, as far as the government's concerned. Many of these people have never worked with the government before and yet there are some great ideas out there. And so basically, I went down nine technology thrust areas that are needs in the command and set them up and they're going to break into nine kind of seminars, to come up with ideas on how they would solve this kind of thing and then come back to us. So we're working these nine thrust areas very hard and that's what the plus up in the R&D will help us work some of these areas.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Thank you, Mr. Schulte. I'm very happy to hear about that conference you just spoke about because there was a tremendous amount of discussion in our systems last year, in terms of trying to get better technology quicker at the Pentagon. To get it working on the battlefield by going through non conventional methods. We never could agree between the House and the Senate about how to do that, so perhaps you can give us some good ideas this year about that.

My time has expired.

Senator Roberts?

SEN. ROBERTS: One thing I wanted to do is go over again what the General has indicated or SOF truths in your testimony.

Number one, humans are more important than hardware. Number two, quality is more important than quantity. Number three, special operation forces can't be mass produced. Number four, competent special operation forces can't be created after an emergency simply occurs. And I think the message we take away from these truths agrees with that of the chairman's testimony to the Armed Services Committee here, just a short time ago.

During his recent testimony before the full committee, the commandant of the Marine Corps, Jim Jones, testified he had signed an agreement with you folks that would greatly expand the cooperation and interaction between the Marines and Special Operation Forces. You've referred to that in your testimony. In what areas do you anticipate increased cooperation?

And the second part of that is, there have been Marines assigned to headquarters elements of special operations command but there is not a Marine component of SOCOM. Should SOCOM have a Marine component? That's a question from an old Marine, but go ahead.

(Laughter.)

GEN. HOLLAND: Okay sir, can I start with the first part of your question.

SEN. ROBERTS: Certainly.

GEN. HOLLAND: I think the agreement that General Jones and I signed, the important part of that is to ensure that the Marine Corps and special operations are in fact coordinated in those areas where we really need to be coordinating. For example, the amphibious readiness group. As they depart and go to sea, then before they depart, we need to have a sharing of information, their capabilities, where they're going to be, so that we have that in our plan in case something happens. And so we understand that there could be mutual support that would be provided wherever that location would be.

The second part, is once the ARG gets into a theater, we have the special operations command, theater special operation commands. Say if it were going into the Mediterranean, then to have a SOCEUR, special operations command Europe, liaison officer interface with the commander to ensure that they each give updates on, number one, the Marine capability of what they have with the ARG and the MUSOC (ph) as it comes into location. But also to have the SOCEUR staff brief them on where they see potential hot spots in that particular area. And then also there can be a sharing of Intel on what it is that each could be expected to do.

The next piece that we discussed was acquisition. There's a lot of things that Mr. Schulte works within our office that we need to be sharing with those people that would have people in similar type circumstances.

SEN. ROBERTS: You mean that the United States Marine Corps, that bailing wire outfit that I served in, could have equal access to a radio like that?

MR. SCHULTE: They do, sir.

SEN. ROBERTS: And not haul 200 pounds of batteries around with this outfit back here?

MR. SCHULTE: The Marine Corps is buying the MBITR, sir, on our contract.

GEN. HOLLAND: And I think that --

SEN. ROBERTS: They don't have that radio now? Or do they have it now?

MR. SCHULTE: Some of them do. There are some radios in the Marine Corps now.

SEN. ROBERTS: So certain units do have that radio. What about the 10th Mountain Division in the Army?

GEN. HOLLAND: I don't think so.

SEN. ROBERTS: But that is the kind of blueprint that you're talking about under that jointness document that you're developing then?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. And then the other part that's important is we look to our future and both of us have a future as we look at tilt rudder technology. There's the CV-22 and the MV-22 come into our inventories, there's going to be a lot of areas that we'll need to be sharing. And just over in Afghanistan as we're talking about what we have been accomplishing together, they have KC-130s, they have marine helicopters and so we're also seeing that there's many areas that even when you get to the crisis --

SEN. ROBERTS: Very old helicopters, I might add.

GEN. HOLLAND: -- the joint taskforce commander is going to take a look at what resources are available and then how can he put them together in such a manner that they can be successful on the target. So what it's going to take is for a mutual understanding of what each other's capabilities are, and then see what is that next step. And I have people on our staff that are working closely with his staff and we're going to be getting together later in the year, to go over some of these initiatives that I just talked about.

SEN. ROBERTS: Now, you don't have a war fighting lab per se. I know the Marines got into that several years ago at my insistence and some others on the committee's insistence, and I suppose this is for Mr. Schulte, but the subcommittee is concerned about the Department of Defense's ability to effectively transition technology from the lab to the war front. And your statement reflects that and your response, General, also reflects that.

Special Operations Command appears to be unbelievably successful from the standpoint of a marine if timing, technological solutions and quickly applying them in the field.

My series of questions were these and you can just sum up. What lessons learned from your transaction success can be shared with other services you've already spoken about because now we're trying to share that information? How is the effectiveness of ineffectiveness of a new system basically communicated back to the Special Operations Command, what works, what doesn't? Does a similar communication mechanism exist for employing the services about any particular systems which they are also working on?

MR. SCHULTE: It's a two way street.

SEN. ROBERTS: Would you care to comment?

MR. SCHULTE: I think -- I appreciate the comment that we've been successful in transitioning some technology. I wouldn't tell anyone that we're better than the services or not on this but it's a little different. The services start with basic research and as you know basic research takes a while before it comes up with the technology and then eventually leads into a product, kind of the front end of the process. Well a little bit on the front end of the process, I have to admit we cherry pick. We're looking across the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, the Department of Energy and DARPA, anybody else we can find for promising technologies that are going to solve an incident we've got. And we'll jump in when we think there's something ready to prototype or something ready to --

SEN. ROBERTS: So you can buy off-the-shelf?

MR. SCHULTE: We can go to any of those places and we can get whatever we need. And so the front end of the process might look a little bit shorter because we kind of wait to see for the promising things that are a little bit further along. I'm not looking necessarily 10 or 12 years out. I'm looking maybe a year, two years or something where I can take something and get it into a product for the war fighter in the near term.

SEN. ROBERTS: But 10 or 12 years out you may not need it?

MR. SCHULTE: That's exactly right, sir. And the back end of the process is, so the front end is we jump in a little bit later and take advantage of what the other services have done. The back end of the process is well how do we get it to a war fighter? Well what helps in our -- and I talked a little bit about that in my statement, what helps is we have a very close relationship with the war fighter. SOCOM is relatively small, we work very closely with these units and we get them involved from at the very beginning in the acquisition process. So we'll get something prototyped, we'll get it to the guys at Fort Bragg, they'll take it out to the field, they're very candid about what they like and what they don't like about equipment and we'll get that turned around and we'll get it back so you get very rapid feedback and you can get things to the field a lot quicker.

SEN. ROBERTS: See what you can do about a new microphone while you're at it, Mr. Schulte.

SEN. LANDRIEU: That's a good idea --

MR. SCHULTE: I think the chairman has a question here.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, it's not a question. I just want to interject and I really hope that Senator Roberts and I can continue to work as a good and effective team and accomplish many things. But if there could be one thing that we could really make a contribution it would be on this point. Because we sit on a variety of subcommittees and I think you know to zero it down special ops seems to be very sort of customer focused in the sense that your customers are your war fighters. You ask them what they need, what they want and then you just do your best to get it to them. And if you can get it through traditional R&D through the department that's great, if you can go to a you know, store, and buy it off-the-shelf whatever they need.

And I wish senator, if we had more of that attitude throughout in my opinion and this senator's opinion throughout the whole department I think we would be better served. And not to be overly critical, but just to raise the point that there are better ways, and you all are really showing us a better way and I just wanted, senator, to interject that. But I don't want to take your time.

SEN. ROBERTS: Well, we don't have time here with standing attendance that we have here today -- questions that you have.

This may or may be an accurate analogy but it's my prejudice so bear with me. Staff and myself, others, attended an exercise with the Marine Corps out in Monterey as I recall called Urban Warrior based on a new doctrine that Charles Kouli (sp) gave the former commandant who could give quite a lecture on asymmetrical warfare and warfare of the future. I hope everybody paid attention. I know I did and others did as well.

I was trying to figure out as these marines were conducting an exercise and it was about what -- 85 degrees? About 85 degrees, and they were still carrying 75-80 pounds worth of gear, slugging along with their little squatty bodies in the rear just panting away, carrying batteries for this kind of a radio, and we were trying to figure out from the war fighting lab standpoint, wait a minute, if this is the cutting edge had it been 100 degrees you know what would happen. There would have been about 50 pounds of gear on the ground and I asked one of the people who was the casualty -- not a real casualty obviously, "How much gear are you wearing?"

And then I picked it up, I -- you know, bold man that I am and tried to put it on and especially the helmet which you can't sit on and you can't cook on it, and it's a little different and you probably want to get it off your head if you're in the (latoral ?) and you're fighting in an urban arena and your opponent is wearing a ball cap and Madonna t-shirt and a pair of Nike --you know -- tennis shoes. And sight vision it seems to me was extremely important and it bugged me as to why we couldn't get more off-the-shelf equipment and get a marine that was truly a modern war fighter.

Now obviously at that particular time we didn't have 9/11, we weren't in Afghanistan, we didn't have the joint, what operations we had today we weren't sharing this so that that radio can replace these batteries and this radio or at least you can communicate with them. I'm making a longwinded speech. Let me ask you, General, we were talking about the horseback cavalry. And the members of your cavalry who were not fighters adjusted as the trail riders were as they came from Texas to Abilene Kansas in regards to their skills on horseback and the gear that they were wearing. And then the difference between the Afghan that was riding next to them at full gallop.

Can you tell me sort of the difference there and what -- not that we're going to have the cavalry ride again, although you never know. But you see what I'm driving at in terms of being a highly mobile, highly flexible unit, buying off-the-shelf for a specific mission that really demands a very unique kind of weaponry for the war fighter?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes sir, that whole story is great story to hear and we would look forward to getting that particular vignette to you on one of your future visits. But as you talk to our Special Forces soldiers that were on not only the horseback but also had mules there to carry a lot of their equipment, one thing that did come from the opposition group was that they started realizing that things like radios and SOFLAM also could make the difference and so a lot of the equipment that our people carried they soon realized the importance of what that equipment could do, especially if they could call in say B- 52's closed air support or the other fighters both marine, Navy and other Air Force fighters. And so, the equipment is obviously something that we continue to look at.

We continue to look at what is the weight. I mean that's why we continue to look at how can be get smaller batteries that last longer because we got to continue to worry about what the rucksack -- what goes into the rucksack and how we can reduce that load. You talk about the temperatures. And Afghanistan look at the terrain. Most of our -- all of these operations that have currently, are going, are at 10,000 feet. So you're at 10,000 feet, heavy laden, rough terrain and how do you maneuver? And so this is something from a technology standpoint we need to continue to push on how we can lighten the load of what our people carry and they can still be able to be effective and accomplish the mission. And I have to admit at this point yes, we're not there yet. But it's making sure that that soldier, sailor, airman or marine have the right equipment will continue to be very important for all us to include our services.

SEN. ROBERTS: Well, we may not be there yet but we're singing the same hymn on the same church pew. My time has expired.

I'm assuming we're going to rotate that.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Yes we will. We'll go back and forth but it's a very excellent line of questioning and again, we look forward to helping you to achieve that goal. Let me move from research and development back to one of the central truths which I think is important that people are the most important. And General, if you could just elaborate on that essential truth in terms of how can our committee best focus our efforts in terms of strengthening those people, helping improve the quality, supporting them, their families, those quality of life issues, retention.

Could you go on the record and elaborate in some more specifics about how we could make that truth even more of a reality and support that truth?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, Madam Chairman. The quality of life, and I think that's important first. Both of you have made comments about the people that we have lost. Now the people we have lost have families. And we think about what is their quality of life.

The services have the responsibility to provide, you know, the quarters and all the different -- the support structure that we have at all the bases. And so obviously we, from Special Operations Command vigorously support the services in their endeavors to increase the quality of life for all of our people, regardless of whether located in which service. And so any time that you see a quality of life, you can see the impact that that makes on that particular individual. And it really makes an impact when that individual is deployed and he or she knows that their families are being taken care of with the right support structure, the right housing, the right pay and that list goes on. So that the quality of life piece obviously we all feel very strong about that and that's the reason we're able to retain people.

There's a comment that we have often said that we recruit the military member but we retain the family. And the people that we have on our business, these are not necessarily the people that just come in for a first term, there are people that are very well experienced. A lot of our special forces soldiers served in other units prior to coming in to special forces. And to have a seasoned special forces soldier is usually about eight to 10 years and unfortunately when you think about Nate Chapman, Nate Chapman who was our first person that was killed by the enemy during Operation Enduring Freedom, was 31 years old.

And you think about what Nate had accomplished up to that point. He had served the Just Cause, Desert Storm, Haiti and this was his fourth major operation. So the amount of investment that we make in training and the personnel cost, it's not something that you can really put a dollar figure on when these people are asked to go forward and to give that last full measure.

SEN. LANDRIEU: And, General, let me press this issue just a minute. I know that our men and women don't serve for the pay check which is obvious, but pay and compensation is important and in special ops., since they go through such rigorous training. And as you know 50 can apply and one is accepted and these are career people who have made this choice and it's really an extraordinary sacrifice and gift to the country.

In your opinion, are we compensating them? Is it different -- is there a differential, and if so, is it what you would see as appropriate in the range of quality of life issue? Is the housing, the health care, the services provided to family members? Could you be -- try to be a little bit more specific? We would like to do it all. And I'll make for the record that I think the MILCON budget is flat which is a lot of where this comes out of in terms of housing and construction at least for that part of quality of life. So I'd like to see some additional help there but can you try to give us some more of your own personal views on that?

GEN. HOLLAND: Well, one of the comments that you made was about special pays. You know, also our people because they are -- whether they are scuba or different types of qualifications, they do get additional pay. And one thing that I have requested my command master chief, Rick Rogers, who is sitting here behind me, is to get with all of the senior enlisted, whether it be our command chief master sergeant from the Air Force Special Operations Command, the command master chief from the Navy Special Warfare Command, and also the command sergeant majors from both the United States Army Special Operations Command and Joint Special Operations Command, and come together and really look at, you know, what do our people need. Because that enlisted person, that NCO, when you think about the people who are doing -- that are on point that are doing our job for us, it is our NCOs. And there are so many stories about our NCOs just doing great things and making a difference and we need to make sure that we're doing everything we can.

So he is going to be championing this cause and from there we're going to come up with what we feel are the right places where we need to go through our department to get support for our people that answer the call.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, I appreciate that. We would be very interested in that information because this committee and the leadership of this committee believes in that and wants to support you on in that effort.

Let me ask about some budget numbers regarding the estimated costs of missions in Georgia and Yemen and elsewhere. I mean, we've expanded our view now and I think the president is right and I've supported him and most of the members in both Republicans and Democrats in terms of going after terrorists wherever they are. Recognizing they're just not all in one place or one country. This is going to be a fairly long, complicated and very challenging operation. We want to make sure that the budget numbers are there to support it.

Can you give us any information about what it looks like to you in terms of the need for funding for these expanded missions that you see and I know we can't predict everything in the future but just what you can actually see that we're doing now and in the next six to eight months.

GEN. HOLLAND: The problem that I have, Madam Chairman, is that I do not have a deployment order so the details are continuing to be worked out on exactly what our involvement and to what level. So -- but what I would say is that maybe we can take that one for the record. Once these details then are worked out, then we can put together, you know, some type of estimate. And I can be talking with the two theater CINCs that are involved with that particular operation and get into their minds, you know, what do they expect?

But at this point I do not have a deployment order for our people to go forward. So the details are being worked out and once the details are worked out, we would very much look forward to provide that data to you.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Okay.

Senator Roberts?

SEN. ROBERTS: Prior to the beginning of these operations in Afghanistan, what was the average strength of special operation forces compared to the authorized strength? Where were you?

GEN. HOLLAND: Senator Roberts, what I'd like to do is give you some detail on that because by each of our units overall, we were in fairly good position. Our Seals were like around 97 percent. The special tactics though were at 80 percent. Our special forces enlisted were around the middle eighties and officers were up in the nineties percent. And so dependent upon, you know, the types of people and which ones you call upon, there's a different number. So what I'd like to do for the record is I can provide you all the data, where we were on September 11th, before we deployed, and then with that we can come up with an overall percentage of where we are for manning.

SEN. ROBERTS: I think that will be fine.

What are the challenges you face in finding and retaining, and I emphasize both, qualified personnel to fill the special operation requirements. As the chairman has pointed out, this is a rather unique set of criteria for only a chosen few.

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. It's a continual challenge. And we have a very aggressive program. Obviously we recruit from the services and not everyone wants to sign up to do what we ask them to do.

SEN. ROBERTS: But on the other side of it your culture is special, and if I'm any judge, that weighs in as to the number of people who would be willing to be recruited or to volunteer.

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. And what we're trying to do is --

SEN. ROBERTS: I mean, doing what they want to do, is what I'm saying.

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. The -- we have done some studies and especially from a psychological standpoint. What are the types of people that are successful when they come into special operations. And then taking that particular data and to go out -- and for the recruiting, and where are these types of people?

The good thing is, is when you represent only 1.3 percent, and this goes back to one of the SOF crews, quality is better than quantity. But what we want to make sure of is that we maintain the same standards that we have in the past because I think you and the American people, when you look at involving SOF in an operation, you expect it to be a success. And as long as we keep our same standards, then we'll be able to continue doing the job the way that you would expect us to do it.

SEN. ROBERTS: As we look at the future it's rather a symmetrical warfare. There are some that have suggested that we need to increase the size of the operation forces, special operation forces. Can you give me more of a -- or a estimate of an optimal size that you think would be -- I realize this sort of dovetails into the chairman's question as -- until you get your missions and we, you know, figure out where we are in this transnational war against terrorism, that's a little tough to suggest. But in terms of optimal size and role, the special operations force and our overall force structure, your 1.5 do you thin it ought to be increased?

GEN. HOLLAND: Sir, the way I'd like to take on my answer to you is, I want to make sure that those authorizations that we have and all of our forces that we fully man and equip them. And as I mentioned a lot of our forces are at the 80 percent level. And so we need to get them to their maximum levels with the proper amount of equipment.

I think we continually need this work, this initiative that I talked about earlier. Working the seams with the services on their capabilities and then seeing, you know, what are these missions, if there are any after we go through this review, that we could then convert to a conventional operations, thereby keeping our numbers stable where they are at this juncture. So these are the parts of this that we are continuing to work with. There is another study that right now that we are in the view of and that's on the SOF realignment. Where should SOF be in the world and with that, you know what is the right amount of force structure and this is a study that we are preparing for the Department of Defense.

SEN. ROBERTS: Now you haven't mentioned your reserve, special forces groups, to sustain the current operations tempo. How do you feel about their capability, their training level to fulfill these obligations?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir, they're magnificent. I would say that we probably have the best examples of the total force working together as an integrated team. As you well know, the 193rd special operations wing out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the only capability that we have in our military today to do what Commando Solo does, is with the international guard. Our reserve units right now that we have just recently deployed, the reason that they have been called up and we have strong faith and confidence in their ability to accomplish the job, and the reason we need them, is so we can give the existing active duty special forces group which was deployed in October -- to get them back, retool, refit and then get ready for the next operation. And so every place we look we see the reserves and the guard doing yeoman's work in supporting us.

The other part that I will add is a Civil Affairs piece. When you look at that particular organization, about 90 percent is made up of reserve forces. And they have answered the call and they're doing it well.

SEN. ROBERTS: You've got two major flagship programs on research development and procurement. You've got quite a few but two flagship ones, the advanced Seal delivery system and the CV-22 tilt-rotary aircraft, which I have a special interest in. Can you give me the current status of each of these flagship programs as you understand them, and are you satisfied that the safety and the maintainability and the reliability goes associated with each of these programs will be achieved?

GEN. HOLLAND: Sir, let me do that in two parts. I'll do it real quick on the front end and I'll let Mr. Schulte talk because he -- on the CV-22 he is part of the executive committee which gets into the details of the CV-22 program and also he's just been briefed recently on the advanced Seal delivery system. I will say, from the top level, that we are firmly committed within the United States Special Operations Command to bring both of those weapons systems on board. We feel very strong we need tilt rudder technology. We need the technology that comes with the CV-22 and I'm even more convinced, after seeing the operations in Afghanistan on why a CV-22 would best fit.

It's always great to have more options for a joint taskforce commander, and when you're operating above 10,000 feet -- in fact we have our Image 47s have operated at 17,000 feet. Helicopters do well low to the ground but when the terrain is as high as it is in Afghanistan, that adds an additional peril, not only to the pilots but also to the capabilities of the equipment that we're using. And so when you think about a CV-22 in that environment, it fits safe, reliable and maintainable which is the part that I have talked about, not only before this -- these committees but also in other speeches that I have given, is that we can definitely have a capability that will definitely help us as we go to other places in the world.

You know, on the advanced Seal delivery system, we owe to our Seals to be able to get them to an environment before they do the assault in a dry environment. And if any of you have never had an opportunity to be on the current Seal delivery vehicles, I know they get excited about every time I visit the Seal units, to put me in one because it's small, it's very contained, it's cold, it's wet and there is really no opportunity for the team really to get together and think about what their assault is once they get to a target or whatever the mission is that they would have at that juncture.

SEN. ROBERTS: General, I don't know about Senator Nelson, I'm sure he probably has done this. He's sort of a snake eater type.

SEN. LANDRIEU: We could send him, he's gone before.

SEN. ROBERTS: I've been there, done that and had the wet T- shirt.

(Laughter.)

They were doing me a great favor, my staff, who is amazingly still with me after this experience in saying, "we're going to go out a little ways and then we're going to take your picture." I said, "why don't we just take the picture here?" We went out a little ways and then the Seal that was in charge indicated, "sir, we only have two more miles to go and then we're going to hit a little rougher water," and I indicated, "no, I think we're heading back now."

(Laughter.)

If you've ever been in a church pew during a particular baptismal in one of the more demonstrative churches, jumping up and down, that's a lot like what it is holding on. This has nothing to do with the question, Madam Chairman.

(Laughter.)

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, I hope it would exact more brains --

If you don't have to do that -- there's a whole list of things that you know, some of us don't want to do anymore and that's one of them. So I'm all for what ever kind of delivery system. Mr. Schulte, what are you going to provide that I can ride in?

(Laughter.)

SEN. LANDRIEU: Don't feel obligated to respond.

MR. SCHULTE: Well, we'll talk about both the CV-22 and the ASDS.

SEN. ROBERTS: I've already ridden that one. And that was amazing. And that was even before the problems and I hope everybody listens to you, General, because that is something the Marine Corps and you folks must have. And I have every confidence we can do that. I'm sorry.

MR. SCHULTE: And of course I want to talk about ASDS actually, as General Holland said. Let me give you a quick status on the ASDS. That would be a good one to ride in by the way, because you get to stay dry.

But as you know we've got the first boat, it's kind of an R&D boat but it's also going to be the first operational boat, and it's got some battery difficulties. It's got probably almost beyond state of the art silver zinc batteries that we've been having some difficulty with. The Congress gave us some money this year to work on the next generation of lithium battery which is hopeful but it's not there yet. It may be ready for the second boat, it may not. We may have to go with another set of the silver zinc batteries and try to work out the shorts and things that we've had with those.

Largely the ASDS meets the mission requirements. It's got some noise difficulties, which we knew, because there's been some commercial pumps and things like that on there that we're probably going to have to change out. That's probably going to be a large item to do but we've got to do it. So the noise and the batteries are what we're working on now. We've got about another -- maybe less than a year of host ship testing that we need to do yet. And we've got some scheduling difficulties with the Greenville right now, but basically the ASDS is moving along. So those are our problems. The problems are in the noise and the problems are in the batteries.

On the CV-22, of course the airplane's been grounded now for about 14 or 15 months. The Navy and Marine Corps have been going through a very exhaustive process of what's it going to take to fix all the different recommendations that came out of all the different panels that have been reviewing the V22 program -- the blue ribbon panel and all the other ones. It's a very exhaustive review. They've gone through every one. There's 186 recommendations. They've tracked every one down. In fact, I think there's a report that has either just come into Congress or is about to come to Congress, that's required from the program.

It's going through a flight readiness review process right now. I'll go to the three star level review next Thursday. There'll be a four star level review, I think the first week of April and if all goes well -- and it appears to be going very well, it's a very disciplined, very deliberate process to return this aircraft to flight. Everybody is concerned about the same thing. It's got to be safe, it's got to be reliable before we put people on the back of it. The first flight is scheduled for the end of April for the MV-22 and if everything goes well on that, then probably the first flight for our CV-22 -- there's two test airplanes that have been modified to a CV-type of a test configuration that are out at Edwards Air Force Base -- they should fly in July.

So if we get back, it's kind of a crawl, walk, run test program, which it needs to be at this point in time, until we get it back. It'll be about two years of testing, so the program has slipped -- you talk about the year it slipped or so, because it has been grounded, it will go back into flight testing, pick up a lot of the flight testing that was never done the first time around. It will be a much more thorough process and I think by the time we get into a full rate production decision in a few years, we'll know a whole lot more and we should feel very good about making a full rate production decision down the road.

SEN. ROBERTS: Let me just say, Madam Chairman, before you turn to Senator Nelson, and I apologize, Bill. We had a full Armed Services Committee hearing following the various tragedies, in regard to this aircraft. And in the audience we had the pilots. In the audience we had the crew chiefs. In the audience we had the families of the victims. And while it was a very emotional hearing, we asked them to come up and testify, what do you think? Is this a doable technology? Is this aircraft something as you work with it you feel confident in? 110 percent yes.

And the biggest thing that they said is we will save marine lives and Special Ops lives with this aircraft. Let us do our work. They were of the opinion that they could continue to fly the aircraft as they were making the modifications. Obviously they had an attitude situation where you would expect that to some degree or maybe you wouldn't expect that.

Afterwards we went out in the audience and talked to some of the families of the victims and often to a person with tears in their eyes who said, "Keep going, keep going with this aircraft. This is what my husband really believed in and fought for." I have about that much of testimony that I sent to some in the media after they'd been very, very critical of this program. Unfortunately they didn't see fit to print that but I think it was very telling testimony, very moving testimony and I'm sorry for --

SEN. LANDRIEU: That's a very important point and we've been joined by Senator Nelson. And senator, we gave opening statements and have had a round of questions. I don't know if you have a few questions at this time.

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL): Most of my questions I'd like to save for the closed session but I would like to ask in the open session your ideas about arming the Predator with the Hellfire. And it looks like it's having some obvious success so do you need some help getting that going.

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes sir, Senator Nelson, as you well know the Predator is not a soft piece of equipment, however we have been exploiting the technology from the Predator and not only having the ability to use the Predator to then take out a target which and I'm sure that if you talk to General Franks that having that capability and be able to very readily identify and kill a target is something that's very important.

From our standpoint at Special Operations Command, is we are now taking streaming video from the Predator and providing that to the AC- I30 gunship and that is significant. And the significance is that as you come in to the target then you enter an orbit and you evaluate the target and all this is happening while you're over top of what could be an enemy's stronghold. Whereas with the Predator, we're providing the information back to the gunship as it's in route to the target, they're able to then determine where the actual target is. They're also able to determine whether or not there is enemy in the area and also what the -- if there's any AAA that they have to be concerned about.

And so the ability of all the forces to be able to exploit what Predator is bringing to the fight and then of course Global Hawk, I think speaks well for UAVs and what UAVs will add in to the fight of the future.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Okay, thank you, senator, I appreciate that. Let me get back to another issue regarding the C-130s. We had the unit conducting the Commando Solo broadcast mission, the unit had planned to modernize which entails purchasing a new C-130 every year. We're currently halfway there but the Air Force didn't include this in their budget. Can either one of you explain what ramifications this submission might have and give us, you know, your perspective on how this even will compromise or how we're going to live with this particular decision or -- Mr. Schulte?

MR. SCHULTE: Yes, let me talk about that. We've -- the unit at Harrisburg basically has six Commando Solos and two kind of straight C-130s, all of which are probably the oldest in the fleet. Today, Congress has provided five C-130Js to be cross-decked with the current mission equipment on to these C-130Js. And so we've got right now five of the eight aircraft scheduled to be replaced. Obviously eventually we'd like to see all eight aircraft replaced, six Commando Solos and two of the -- which would end up being two of the super Js (ph) that would not be Commando Solo, just be select airplanes. So that's what we would like to see. It didn't make it this budget. You know, we'd like to see it in some budget eventually where we can modernize that whole unit.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, maybe we can try to help make that happen. Now you've brought another piece of equipment. We've talked a lot about the radio. Can you share with us about these field binoculars that you brought to demonstrate and maybe talk to us about how it's used but also the research and development that played a part in developing it.

MR. SCHULTE: This is one of our, I think our success stories in process. You know, can the command respond to a soft warrior when he really has the need? And this was an example. We've got a combat mission in need in from Afghanistan. I think it was in probably mid to late October and they basically said we need a different laser range finder. Basically we have a very nice unit that was bought several years ago called a SOFLAM unit. General Holland talked about it. And it's a laser acquisition module. So basically what SOFLAM does is allow the soft operator to designate a target and hold that designation on the target for a laser guided bomb to come in and hit the target.

It works very well, got ranges out to about 10 kilometers, they love it.

As you know in Afghanistan though, while they were using laser guided bombs, they were mostly using joint direct attack munitions, JDAM, GPS guided bombs. And so putting a laser on a target doesn't help a JDAM. What you have to do with JDAM is you need a laser range finder that can do a laser ranging to the target and then compute the GPS coordinates of the target and that's what this device here is.

This is a -- like a Viper, it's a commercial -- I say commercial, it's an off-the-shelf item that's made by a company in Switzerland. We were able to get 20 of these items from the time the requirement was approved which was within two days of scheduling it, we had 20 items in Karshi/Khanabad in seven days. And they were into Afghanistan within you know, days after that.

And basically what this does -- this is like a set of binoculars, it's got a laser range on it, it's got a magnetic compass in it. It's got a cord that plugs into a normal GPS that the soldiers already have. Now what it does then is that it lasers to the target, it gives you the range, elevation and azimuth with the electronic compass and then that information goes into the GPS receiver and it computes because it knows where it is. It now knows relatively where the target is and it computes to GPS coordinates.

This is how the Navy could use the MBITR and call the coordinates up to the B-52 or F-18 or F-14 or whatever happened to be overhead at the time and then call the targets in. And so we were able to -- the process that SOCOM has to react very quickly to a combat mission needs statement. 48 hours from the time the command gets it the CINC approves or disapproves a combat mission need. 48 hours in this particular case, this was the first one that came in. Our program manager was able to -- of course, our guys know what's out there at all times, whether we own it yet or not. We know what's in the marketplace and they were able to go out and get these 20 units to the war fighter in seven days.

And then we got another -- I think we bought a total of 96 of them before the end of the year and all but 20 I think --

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well I would glean two things from what you've said and if this is too simple correct me because I am really determined to find a better process -- so to perfect the process we use because I truly believe that we'll save lives and make our nation much m ore secure, but you've identified that one thing you do which might -- that you ask the war fighter what they need.

MR. SCHULTE: Exactly.

SEN. LANDRIEU: And then you were very aggressive, you have a team of people very aggressive in knowing what's out there. And when you mean what's out there, not only what we have developed internally, not only what traditional contractors have or plan to develop but what literally is on the shelf not just in the United States but in the world in terms of technology that could be applied to that request.

That plea, it really is a plea. It's more than a request. It's please give me what we need to win this war. And that's basically the system you use and you've shown this an example of that. Is that over simplifying things?

MR. SCHULTE: I think that's very accurate. I think the war fighter in this case -- we knew about this piece of equipment but so did the war fighter. We came back and said this is what we need. And we need it right away. Laser guided bombs probably cost 50 or $100,000 a kit to put on to a bomb and a JDAM is $18,000. So it's not so cost effective from the war fighter viewpoint. But our guys said, hey, what we really need is this kind of a thing and there's a couple of them out there is this is the one we're interested in. How fast can you get it? Well we can get it pretty fast.

And one of the things we did -- when our person during printing first broke, and I give a lot of credit to my contracting people, is we wrote a blanket justification authorization for sole source procurement for urgent and compelling, for any requirement to support operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. So as soon as a requirement came in, as soon as it got approved, our program managers and contracting people could go right out and buy it. We didn't stop, you know, we didn't even stop to compete anything. If it was an urgent and compelling requiring for a soldier on the ground, then that's what it was and they were cleared to go. We got all of our priorities raised in the defense logistics system, all of -- we went to the front of every line in the priority system and did this J&A in order to speed the proceed and it worked very well.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, I think that's excellent and a very powerful testimony and I hope that we can use that.

Senator Roberts may have a few more questions. Senator Nelson may have a few more questions. I don't know if it's necessary to go into closed session, so if the senators would focus their -- any of their comments, now if they do require a closed session we've provided the opportunity for one and you all could let me know, through the staff.

But, Senator Roberts, there are a few more that you might have.

SEN. ROBERTS: SOCOM mission, to provide special operation forces to the national command authorities, regional combatant commanders and American ambassadors and their country teams for successful conduct of worldwide special operations and civil affairs. State the civil affairs piece. Anybody -- there has been a lot of commentary and I think anybody involved in this knows, that if we're going to be successful in a worldwide war against terrorism, that we're going to have to assess the needs of the local populations and assist in regards to the infrastructure and provide stability. And there's been quite a bit of emphasis and news coverage about this. Civil affairs units following the Vietnam War for you folks that were places in the Reserve components and my question to you is, do you have a civil affairs expertise available to meet these current requirements? Where are we?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. We are improving. We're definitely getting better. Just probably when I first came on as the commander- in-chief, when I looked at the qualification of our people in civil affairs, it was about 58 percent. And we have done much to go to the next step.

The first thing that the United States Army Special Operations Command has done is to make sure that they have the right equipment. We went through a period of time where our civil affairs people would get that equipment that was left over after we took care of all the active duty force. And if you've noticed, what we call it is a BOIP, it's a basic of information issue -- basis of issue plan, BOIP, that we've now expanded that to include our civil affairs people. So it's --

SEN. ROBERTS: Shared isn't it -- B-O-I-P, BOIP?

(Laughter.)

GEN. HOLLAND: -- yes, sir. To ensure that they have the right type of equipment that they need to do the job. We've also doubled the training opportunities there at Fort Bragg. And the last word I had is we were about up to 85 percent on our mission qualifications. And so over this past year we have put in an increased emphasis because just as you said, senator, we need to have that capability and as you start in on the front end of war fight, as you transition to have people that understand democracies and infrastructure and how we can work with the international community to go to the next step, the expertise that they bring to that is very important.

SEN. ROBERTS: Is that unique to special operations? I mean that's one heck of a broad challenge. Some people even think it can't be done. I mean, you know you have to make the effort but is that unique to you, in terms of the other services?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. The civil affairs is located within United States Special Operations Command. However, the Marines do have a small capability that's embedded within the Marine Unit as well. But --

SEN. ROBERTS: But it happens anyway?

GEN. HOLLAND: -- but it happens, yes, sir. And it would seem to me that we're going to have to really focus on that if over the long term you're going to be successful.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Could I interject with one thing here? It occurs to me that while we're thinking about that, that we could maybe apply the same methods we used to get the best technology, the war fighter to get sort of the best human potential to our civil affairs, by thinking a little creatively outside of the box, a new paradigm about getting the right kind of people with the right kind of skill sets. You know, since we've had so much success in the sort of new technology the battlefield, because I believe the civil affairs is going to be a growing important part of special operations, not only to win the war, but secure the peace so the war was worth fighting for, first.

And secondly, to get civil affairs involved perhaps to prevent the destruction that happens on a battlefield if your civil affairs is successful. Which is another very important way of looking at why that investment is done correctly, you know, could be so crucial to the saving of lives and winning the wars before they start. But, general, I don't know if you or Mr. Schulte want to comment about that general thought? And then the senator has another question, I believe, on another subject.

GEN. HOLLAND: Let me just say a few comments, when you talk about civil affairs. A lot of the times that we had operated as a joint task force and after we engaged the target then we would call in civil affairs. And what we find is that we need to have -- civil affairs needs to be involved at the beginning because how do they know what needs to be the end gain. And so they need to be involved up front. We also realized that we had a shortfall on the active duty side because we cannot continue to come back and keep engaging our reserve civil affairs people and so we have now plussed up the active duty. And we also have an initiative right now with General Shinseki on the Army, to see what the next step would be.

But the amount of inquiries is about 1,100 more civil affairs people on the reserve side and also other active duty people, there's about I think -- it's three or 400 people because we understand exactly what you just said. We also see probably an increased role of civil affairs. We also need to make sure that they have the right equipment so that they can do their job.

SEN. ROBERTS: Is that on the budget or is that on an unfunded list?

GEN. HOLLAND: No, sir. That was -- we did this last year. This was something that we had worked and we were able to cross walk those over.

SEN. ROBERTS: We've got a, finally, we have a joint forces command first major joint field experiment. It's called Millennium Challenge 2002, short MC-O2 as of this summer. Are you going to -- taking it for granted, that you're going to be a part of that, what role will you play in that and what role do you envision for special forces in future joint experiments?

GEN. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. I see a very active role on our part and we're working very closely with General Buck Kernan because the -- a lot of this has to do with getting the information to the war fighter. And it's also how do we operate better in a joint environment, and what we -- how we can share joint capabilities better than what we have in the past.

And a lot of the experimentations that we're putting into it and I had let Mr. Schulte, you know, took to that part of it, but as I talked to all of our commanders, I want to ensure that we're there as we go through the actual Millennium Challenge '02, because for our future it's going to be very important we understand how this joint war fight is going to work even better, especially when you've talked about the interagency, the collaboration and how can we break down stove pipes. And to be able to use all the information that's available to be able to then focus that information to where it needs to be once we get into the crisis.

SEN. ROBERTS: You know, Madam Chairman, pardon me, Mr. Schulte, we have tried to get this funded and found opposition not only in this body but more especially in the house, to any joint forces command exercises thinking that they were not needed. Well, not needed, they didn't -- they were -- didn't rate top priority as opposed to a service oriented exercise which I understand is more traditional. And it's like when heals dragging, to finally get this done in terms of joint forces command and it took a war, and the realization that everything will be joint, that I can possibly imagine and any exercise in the future. So I certainly applaud your statement.

I think I've reached the end of the questions that I would like to ask.

GEN. HOLLAND: Senator Roberts, I think Mr. Schulte would like to continue on --

(Cross talk.)

MR. SCHULTE: One of the -- we are participating in the Millennium Challenge and there's a pathfinder ACTD Events Concept Technology done as direction, that's going to work with robotics and remote sensors and things like that that we're very interested as part of pathfinder and we're working with the Marines on that too. The Marines are also very interested in the robotics and remote sensors kind of things. So that's what we hope -- one of the things specifically we hope to gather Millennium Challenge for us.

That's all I have.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Thank you very much.

Senator Nelson?

SEN. NELSON: Our troops performed very well on this most recent battle but there were some surprises. The enemy troop strength. Their willingness to fight. The amount of ammunition that they had and the fact that we relied on a lot of the Afghan fighters to take the initiative and we had to compensate for a lot of the surprises and we did it exceptionally well. And are still doing it very well, which certainly speaks well of all of our operation there.

My question to you is, what do we need to do so that we don't have those surprises?

GEN. HOLLAND: Senator Nelson, I'd like to say that we will never have any surprises, but as you well know I think there's always going to be surprises on the battlefield and obviously we can never underestimate what the enemy -- and especially this enemy because this enemy is very well committed. But I think as we continue to look -- this goes back to the experimentation, the things we're doing with Joint Forces Command, how do we get better intelligence? It always come down to an operation, is do you have the actual intelligence to go to the next step? So this is one of those issues on intelligence and having the right intelligence at the right place at the right time. And if we have that intelligence to ensure that the people that need it, that are forward, that have that so that they can either adjust their course of action or that they might end up realizing that there's probably a better way to accomplish the mission.

But as far as our people in that particular operation, I do agree with you. They've performed superior in the eyes of what happened. And we appreciate your comments and I know that your General Franks feels good about the way that they operated.

SEN. NELSON: They certainly did. They performed superbly, and my question for closed session, Madam Chairman, is why didn't we have the intelligence? And as I understand it, you're not going into closed session, so we'll submit that in writing.

SEN. ROBERTS: Can I have a follow up on that without the closed session, but part of what we do on the intelligence committee is we overlook 9/11 in a joint effort with the house, is to go back several years, all of the warnings that we had from all of the commissions -- the Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the CSIS study and all those folks who gave us the warnings and that I repeated and that other members of the subcommittee repeated. And as we went through Khyber Towers and the embassy bombings and the USS Cole and the bombing of the Khartoum Chemical Plant -- what I describe as the oh, my god hearings. You know, how did this happen?

It seemed to me that our collection capability was simply outstanding. Leap ahead technology that we are now using which perhaps we did not before, but there was some hurdles there and I think we've overcome those hurdles. But the analysis, the productive analysis, thinking out of the box, avoiding risk aversion, seems to me to be the area where, if we were deficient, that's the area where it took place. An example being the India Pakistan nuclear testing. The new party that took control of the government there, had that as their number one campaign promise.

And yet when we asked the people who allegedly were experts at this field, why on earth didn't you think they would do that? Well, we just didn't think they would do that.

That, and as you well know, with this kind of an enemy we could list 100 different things, Madam Chairman, on what we think would happen next, and they'd do 101. And so, what is your opinion in regards to where we are now, special forces wise, with the productive analytical ability of the intelligence we have. Not so much the collection but the analysis part of it.

GEN. HOLLAND: This is one area, senator, I think we need to continue to keep a focus. We have established a special operations joint inter-agency collaboration center. And this is really about collaboration where everyone shares the information above the table in exactly what everyone is seeing in a particular location. And then having the operators involved with that to be able to make the assessments that you talk about.

Now are we -- I think we're better than we have been in the past. I see more collaboration going on today, than what I certainly saw either four or five years ago when there's those other operations that we were involved with. So we're getting better. Are we as good as we need to be? No, but I think this goes back to experimentation. Joint forces command, because this is one area that will also be highlighted during the Millennium Challenge '02.

SEN. ROBERTS: I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Let me follow up. There's just two questions. The hearing has been very, very good and I thank you for your time but along that same line. Some of these joint training programs, this particular combined exchange program called JACETS (ph). Something that has to be vetted through the State Department, only working with countries that we approve of their human rights records. My question for the record is, can you comment on the quality of cooperation and responsiveness the State Department is giving you, in terms of vetting the training programs or these requests -- your requests being properly expedited in your opinion?

GEN. HOLLAND: Madam Chairman, I think the way I would like to answer that is when we originally had the restrictions, it was pretty much what were the procedures and how did we come up with the procedures to meet the compliance of the law. Since we have been in the business of the joint combined exercise trainings under that new system, and I know that since I have been in command, we have not had one that has been disapproved because of the human vetting problem. But it's an area that we're going to continue to work. It's an area that we're going to continue to make sure if there's some countries that maybe we need to be involved with and then work a plan through the Secretary of Defense to make sure that we are at the right places.

As I made the comment earlier, we are in 122 countries. Have we been in the right 122 countries over the last year? And that's a question that I think each of us need to pose. And it goes back to what Senator Roberts had talked about, when you talk about, maybe there's 100 things that we see that they're doing and they do the 101, how many of us ever predicted that we were going to be in Afghanistan? How many ever predicted when we went into Iraq? How many predicted that we went into the Balkans and Kosovo? And so it appears that every time that we get together and we think about, well this is a place we need to be prepared next, we end up going to another location.

And so it's an area that we need to continue to put emphasis on. The joint combined exercise training is a wealth of experience for our people. Not only in the cultural awareness, the language capabilities, the opportunity to operate with another nation in developing the trust and confidence that they would need to be able to do what we did in Afghanistan. So it's the same process, and they learn that process in another country. Yes, they applied it well as they went into Afghanistan. But it's those types of programs that are going to continue to be very important for us as well as the regional commanders in chiefs. Because each of those combined exercise training scenarios come from the theater CINCs, and they want us to be involved and then we work that back through the theater CINC to -- on our security cooperation and those areas.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, let me follow up. You said you had not yet been denied but my question was, are requests properly expedited, in your opinion? Are your requests expedited or are you losing time through the process that we've established, or should we be concerned at all about that?

GEN. HOLLAND: I think there has been some that maybe have slowed but it's not something that I think that at this point, that I want you to worry about until we look into it. Because I think we're better in the process than we were. We understand what is needed and we're complying with that. And then if that becomes an issue then we will certainly get back to you and the committee.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Thank you. And my final question is, because the chairman of our committee is very interested in these stand off explosive detection systems which have shown some promise, Mr. Schulte and could protect our soldiers in the battlefield, but as well as protect our homeland and protect our civilians here. Can you just give us a brief update of the efforts? How is it proceeding, what kind of potential do you see for such technology?

MR. SCHULTE: Actually, we're working a combat mission need statement for a stand off explosive system right now. It came out of Karshi/Khanabad very early on, probably in early November, and what we've been trying to do is -- and we're just about finished with this now -- what we've been trying to do is marry up a robotic kind of a system with a sensor that you could send this out for like a truck that might be coming onto the post or something. In this case it was Karshi/Khanabad, but it could be anyplace.

And we're pulling that together now. We should have that pretty much ready to go here in the next month or so. So we are working those kind of systems. A war fighter is saying, "Hey, I need this for force protection to try to do that." But we can always use, and will always continue to work on better sensors. You know, how close do you have to get in order to be able to sense that there's an explosive there or any of that kind of that stuff. So it's been something that we've been working on and we'll be delivering a system here in the next couple of months.

SEN. ROBERTS: How many agencies are involved in this?

MR. SCHULTE: I don't think I can answer that, sir. I think --

SEN. ROBERTS: It's six.

MR. SCHULTE: Okay.

(Laughter.)

SEN. ROBERTS: Six agencies. And one of the things that I think the chairman and I will be interested in is what happens with the GAO report when we try to take a look at early detection and sensors in regards to how many agencies are involved, and where, and how, and at what cost. But you're pretty confident in regards to your specific needs or your missions?

MR. SCHULTE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHULTE: For this limited capability that's been requested by the war fighter.

SEN. ROBERTS: I see. Thank you.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Thank you.

That finishes our round of questions, but again it's been a great hearing. We've learned a lot of important truths.

I should repeat for the record, humans are more important than hardware; quality is better than quantity; special operations forces cannot be mass produced; and competent special operations forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.

We've also learned that we need batteries, long life and reliable and we're looking for some.

Thank you all, we've had a good hearing.

SEN. ROBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR. SCHULTE: Thank you.

END

LOAD-DATE: March 14, 2002