BODY: SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): Good morning,
everybody.
The committee meets this morning to receive
testimony from the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of
the Air Force on the Fiscal Year 2003 budget request and on management and
organizational issues facing the military departments. Secretary White,
Secretary England, Secretary Roche, we welcome you back to the committee and
look forward to your testimony.
As we meet today, the
new administration has been in office for just over a year and our three service
secretaries have been in office for slightly less time than that. Much of then
tenure in office has necessarily been taken up by the pressing issues of the war
in Afghanistan and the effort to respond to terrorism here at home. The
performance of our men and women in uniform has been exemplary and is a tribute
to the entire leadership of the Department of Defense, including our three
witnesses here today.
The three service secretaries
have played a central role in the formulation of the administration's budget
request for Fiscal Year 2003, which includes the largest proposed increase in
military spending in two decades. This increase comes without a comprehensive
strategy or a detailed plan to guide that spending. A year into office, the
administration has not yet issued a national security strategy, a national
military strategy or detailed plans for the size, structure, shape or
transformation of our military.
And as Secretary
Rumsfeld testified last week, few of the investments that this administration
will ask the Congress for will benefit our national defense during this
presidential term. These are long-term investments. The investments that we make
today are needed to ensure that our military is as prepared for future wars as
it has proven to be for Operation Enduring Freedom. So we're going to be
particularly interested in the trade offs that our witnesses have made between
investments in our legacy forces and investments in the military transformation,
and the basis upon which they have made these trade offs.
Last summer Secretary Rumsfeld designated the three service secretaries
to serve on two new committees: a senior executive council and a business
initiative council, with broad responsibility for planning and implementing
improved management practices across the entire Department of Defense. The
secretary has set a goal of achieving savings of 5 percent or more by bringing
improved management practices from the private sector to the Department of
Defense.
Long standing problems in areas such as
financial management, acquisition management, management of information
technology and personnel management have not disappeared just because we're
fighting a war. If anything, heightened concerns about national security and
increased levels of defense spending give us an even greater obligation to
ensure that the taxpayer's money is well spent. And for this reason the
committee will be interested in hearing what steps our three service secretaries
have taken to improve the management of the Pentagon, and how much progress they
have made towards achieving the 5 percent savings goal.
America's armed forces are performing superbly in their fight against
terrorism. This committee will do all in its power to ensure that our forces
have the resources, tools and technologies to prevail in this fight. We are
determined to preserve a high quality of life for our forces, for their
families, to sustain their readiness and to transform the armed forces to meet
the threats and challenges of tomorrow. And we will continue to work with our
service secretaries in seeking to achieve those goals.
Senator Warner.
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R-VA): Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome our witnesses this
morning. I always look forward to this particular hearing with service
secretaries. I think you've got the best jobs that anybody can possibly have in
this administration and any other.
As the chairman
said, the president's budget request for fiscal 2003 represents the largest
increase, $48 billion for the Department of Defense, in two decades. And in
light of the attacks our nation suffered on September 11th this increase is
urgently needed. These attacks were a defining moment for our nation. They
endangered -- engendered, that is, a new sense of unity and purpose in the
country.
Speaking for myself, I cannot recall, and I've
had an opportunity to observe this nation, I cannot recall a period in our
history when the nation is more united behind the president and the men and
women of the armed forces since World War II.
The
president has brilliantly rallied this nation, and indeed the world, to fight
this global war against terrorists and those who harbor them. It is a war unlike
any we have ever fought before. And as Senator Levin and I visited our service
men and women in the Afghan region in November I was indeed struck by a
recurring thought. They, and we, are writing a new chapter in military history
with this operation, and we've got to learn from it and plan for the future.
The war has truly been a joint operation, all services
operating together as one. Many coalition nations are operating with our U.S.
forces. Soldiers on horseback and afoot are directing 21st century weapons with
extraordinary precision. Maritime forces are operating hundreds of miles inland
in a landlocked country. Old bombers are delivering new weapons with devastating
accuracy. Decisions made in Washington, down at DARPA, the headquarters, are
received and executed instantly 7,000 miles away. Agility, precision, lethality
and interoperability are the measures of success for our systems and our
organizations.
Last Tuesday Secretary Rumsfeld and
General Myers appeared before this committee to outline the budget question in
broad terms. The overriding themes of winning the war against terrorism,
defending our homeland, improving quality of life for our service personnel, and
transforming our forces to better countering new threats, are right on
target.
We now look to you to fill in the details about
how you will prepare your respective departments, not only to defend America and
win this war against terrorism, but also to be ready for what lies ahead.
I am supported in this budget request, but I do have some
concerns. Although the operation in Afghanistan highlighted the critical role of
Navy platforms and aircraft, the budget request before us cuts both ship
building and naval aircraft. This is a matter you and I have discussed
privately, extensively here in the last 30 days, Mr. Secretary. And we will
discuss it in open here today in some detail.
At the
current rate of ship building we will be well below our 300 ship Navy if we do
not begin to take steps to reverse this decline. I wrote you to that effect
about three weeks ago. And Mr. Secretary of the Army, Army plans to transform to
a lighter, more deployable, more lethal force, but complicated by the need to
maintain costly and aging legacy forces, that poses quite a challenge to you.
The Air Force investment in new tactical aircraft is, I regret to say, somewhat
overdue. But recent experiences demand increased investment in long range,
unmanned and space capabilities.
As we discuss and
debate this budget request in the days and the weeks ahead, as is the duty of
this committee and the Congress, on one thing we can all agree: To commitment,
to dedication, and the performance of the soldiers, sailors and airmen, and
their families, and of course the Marines, in service to their nation has been
remarkable.
We are mindful of how well they have served
and the spirit of generations have rallied to their nation's call before them.
We are forever grateful for the willingness and readiness to serve and to accept
the risk and the sacrifices. They exemplify the spirit of service that the
president has called for as he reminded us recently. The cost of freedom and
security is high, but never too high.
The nation is
united in purpose, united in determination as seldom before in our history,
united behind our president, united behind these selfless men and women and
their families who proudly serve our nation. We in the Congress will do
everything we can to provide the resources and the capabilities they need to
succeed.
Thank you.
SEN.
LEVIN: Thank you Senator Warner very much.
Senator
Inhofe has requested that he be --
SEN. JAMES M. INHOFE
(R-OK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have a special
introduction to make this morning. Yesterday, I had the honor of seeing someone
I've gotten to know over the past three years quite well, in my office. She is a
state senator, Puerto Rican state Senator Miriam Ramirez. We've worked together
for quite some time. She's always been a supporter of the Navy. And she brought
two perspectives that I think that, certainly Secretary England I would hope
that you'd have a chance to visit with her and get directly from her.
One is that since September 11th, the tide has changed in
terms of the attitude towards our Navy on the island of Puerto Rico.
And, secondly, an awareness that if something should
happen to the presence of the Navy by Puerto Rico it wouldn't happen in a
vacuum, that things would happen that are written into the law. Roosevelt Roads
would close, Fort Buchanan would have closed. Other benefits enjoyed
historically by Puerto Rican -- Puerto Rico would cease to be.
And the other is a recognition that those people who are still
anti-Navy on the island of Puerto Rico, many of those are terrorists. Here we
are in a war on terrorism. One of the leaders is respected in the anti-Navy
movement is left there, a minority movement, is Lolita Lebron who is a
terrorist, who led a group of terrorists into the House of Representatives here
in Capitol Hill, and opened fire wounding five of our congressmen. So that's the
type of thing, the changes that are taking place there.
And I would like to ask that Senator Ramirez, who is here with us
today, would stand and be recognized. Thank you.
SEN.
LEVIN: We welcome you, senator.
(Applause)
SEN. LEVIN: Okay, Secretary White, let's start with
you.
SEC. THOMAS E. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Warner, members of the committee.
There are
moments in history when events suddenly allow us to see the challenges ahead
with a degree of clarity previously unimaginable. The events of 11th September
created one of those rare moments. Now we see clearly the challenges facing our
nation, and we are confronting them.
To succeed, the
Army must accomplish three critical tasks at the same time. First, we must help
win the global war on terrorism.
Second, we must
transform to meet the challenges of future conflicts.
And, third, we must secure the resources needed to pursue both the war
on terror, and Army transformation.
Our first task is
to help win the war on terrorism. We've seen remarkable progress in Afghanistan
where Army special forces have led the way followed by elements of the 10th
Mounted Division, 101st Airborne Division and other Army units. Today, more than
14,000 soldiers are deployed in the U.S. Central Command's area of
responsibility supporting operation and during freedom, from Egypt to Pakistan,
from Kenya to Kazakhstan.
Together with our joint and
coalition partners, we've defeated the Taliban, significantly disrupted the
al-Qaeda terrorist network, liberated the people of Afghanistan and installed an
interim government in Kabul. All within a few short months in lousy terrain, in
the dead of winter, over 7,000 miles away in the graveyard of empires. I know
that Secretary Roche and Secretary England join me in saying that our servicemen
and women are nothing short of inspirational. They are accomplishing a complex
and dangerous mission with extraordinary courage, skill and determination. Some
have been injured, others have given their lives. Our nation is forever indebted
to them and their families for their sacrifice.
As the
war evolves, requirements for army forces are growing. From ensuring regional
stability in Central Asia to stability and support operations in Afghanistan to
securing detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to training counter-terrorism forces
in the Philippines. At the same time, the Army continues to deter potential
adversaries in Southwest Asia and Korea while upholding U.S. security
commitments in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, the Sinai and elsewhere. In fact, the
Army Active, Reserve and National Guard has over 179,000 soldiers and 38,000
civilians deployed in forward stations in over 120 different countries.
At home, the Army continues its long tradition of support
to homeland security. We've mobilized over 24,000 Army National Guard and
Reserve soldiers, the rough equivalent of two army divisions, for federal
service here and overseas. Another 11,000 Army National Guard soldiers are
deployed on state control missions, securing critical infrastructure such as
airports, seaports, reservoirs and power plants. We've also deployed 5,000
soldiers to help ensure the security of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt
Lake City, Utah.
Our soldiers are answering the call of
duty but we must ensure that the force remains appropriately manned for the
challenges ahead. As Secretary Rumsfeld testified last week, it is clear now, in
the midst of the war on terror, the final dimensions of which are unknown, that
it's not the time to cut manpower.
Our second task is
to transform to meet the challenges of the next conflict. Although Army
transformation was well under way before the 11th of September, the attacks on
our homeland and subsequent operations validated the Army's strategic direction
and provided new urgency to our efforts. Consequently, we are accelerating
development of the Objective Force: a capabilities-based, full spectrum force
that will extend our advantage in dominant maneuver well into the future.
Next month, we will designate a lead systems integrator
for the future combat systems or FCS. FCS is designed to be the system of
systems that harnesses a variety of technologies to produce a new ground combat
system of unparalleled power and mobility.
While the
actual form of FCS is still being defined, it will undoubtedly combine the best
elements of existing manned systems with the promise of a new generation of
unmanned and robotic combat capabilities. We anticipate equipping our first
Objective Force unit with FCS in 2008 and attempt to achieve an IOC by 2010.
We are presently fielding an interim force to close the
capabilities gap between our heavy and light forces. Organized into interim
brigade combat teams, it will train, alert, deploy as a self- contained combined
arms force, optimized for combat upon arrival in theatre. The interim force will
also provide a bridge to the Objective Force through leader development and
experimentation. For example, digital concepts tested and provided with a legacy
force are being refined in the interim force and will be applied to the
Objective Force.
We are on schedule to fully equip the
first interim brigade with the NM (ph) armored vehicle by February, 2003. That
brigade will achieve its initial operational capability by May 2003 and we
intend to field five more interim brigades by '07. As our hedge against
near-term risk, we are selectively modernizing and re-capitalizing the Legacy
Force to guarantee war-fighting readiness and to support the Objective Force as
we transform. The challenge, of course, is to effectively manage risk without
sacrificing readiness.
Our third task is to secure the
resources needed to pursue both the war on terrorism and Army transformation.
This requires the continued support of the Congress and the administration's
commitment to sustained investment over many years to offset the shortfalls of
the past. The Army's 2003 budget request is fully consistent with our 2002
budget. It goes a long way towards funding the Army vision, taking care of
people, ensuring war-fighting readiness and sustaining the momentum of
transformation to the Objective Force. However, we are still assuming risk in
the Legacy Force and long-standing shortfalls remain in installation
sustainment, restoration and modernization. As good stewards, we are
doing our part to free up resources for re-investment in high priority programs.
We have made tough trade-offs, terminated 29 programs in the last three years,
restructured 12 more, reduced capitalization from 21 to 17 systems and we will
accelerate the retirement of 1,000 Vietnam era helicopters.
We've also expedited our efforts for managing Army more efficiently.
Starting at the top, by restructuring the Army Secretariat and Army staff into a
more integrated headquarters that will streamline the flow of information and
speed decision making. The next phase of our headquarters realignment includes
our field operating agencies and major commands. These initiatives will allow us
to exceed the congressionally mandated 15 percent reduction in headquarters
staff and re-invest manpower saved into other priorities. We'll need your
support similar efficiencies in the future. Let me conclude by assuring the
members of this committee that the Army is trained and ready to serve in its
indispensable role as the decisive land component of America's joint
war-fighting team.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to the committee's questions.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank
you, Secretary White. Secretary England.
SEC. GORDON R.
ENGLAND: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner and other members of this
distinguished committee.
Thank you for the opportunity
to be with you today and thank you especially for this committee's continued
strong support for our sailors and Marines and their families. Recognizing that
you are all anxious to move on to the questions, I will keep my remarks brief
and ask that my statement be entered into the record.
SEN. LEVIN: All the statements will be made part of the record.
SEC. ENGLAND: Thank you. It is indeed a privilege to
appear before this committee, representing the finest Navy Marine Corps the
world has ever known. All of you have witnessed, either first hand or in
compelling news reports, the superb performance of America's naval forces in the
global war on terrorism. Never in my adult life have I seen a time in which the
combat capabilities and mobility of the Navy Marine Corps team have been more
important to our joint war-fighting effort. In my view, not since World War II
has the inherent mobility of combat power at sea been so central to our ability
to take the fight to the enemy and sustain that effort over time.
Naval forces of the 21st century would continue to offer
secure sea bases from which our sailors and marines will be able to operate both
in peace time and war time alike. Such bases will offset the restrictions caused
by sovereignty issues which increasingly limit or impede our national
strategies, especially during crises. Naval carrier battle groups were on
station in the Arabian Sea when our nation was viciously attacked on September
11th. These ships, manned by truly great sailors and marines who have
volunteered to serve their country, were ready when the order was given to
strike back at the terrorists and those that harbor them and they remain on
station today, in support of our troops on the ground in Afghanistan and
elsewhere in the region and in the world.
This is not
to say the Navy will do it alone. Not by a long shot. All of us here before you
today can be justifiably proud not only of how well our individual services have
performed, but more importantly how seamlessly the operational capabilities of
all the great branches of our military have been woven together with great
effect on the battlefield. We also know that this would not have been possible
without the wisdom and the support of this committee over prior years. So I
thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee for all your prior
efforts in supporting our forces.
I can also say
without hesitation, that the president's budget for fiscal year 2003, accurately
reflects the priorities set by the Navy leadership. The chief of Naval
Operations, the commandant of the Marine Corp and I, all agree that we must
continue to keep faith with our people by providing them the pay and benefits
they so richly deserve and must also ensure that our forces remain trained and
ready to carry out missions in a war on terrorism.
To
this end, we have prioritized spending on critical readiness elements such as
adequate flying hours and steaming days, spare parts, preventative maintenance
and replenishing our inadequate stock piles of precision munitions. We've added
more than $3 billion to our operations and maintenance account and an additional
$1 billion to buy munitions. On the personnel side of the equation, we increased
the military personnel account by a little over $4 billion. Now that is real
money and we've put the emphasis where we believe it will do the most good.
There have been many reports recently that the Navy is
under funding the shipbuilding and aviation procurement accounts. I'm here to
tell you, those reports are accurate. We do need to increase funding in these
accounts and we are increasing them across the fit- up. The good news is that we
did fund the conversion of the first two of four Trident submarines to cruise
missile shooters, or SSGNs. That was about $1 billion, and we added another $1
billion to pay off old debts in the prior year shipbuilding account and to fund
more realistic costs estimates to reduce such bills in the future.
And although we increased spending on aviation procurement
by more than $300 million, we will actually build fewer new planes because of
the types of aircraft being procured. The bad news is, as this committee is well
aware, we need to build eight to ten ships every year on a long term basis and
nearly 200 aircraft on a long term basis if we are to re-capitalize the force
and ensure my successors will inherit the ready Navy and Marine Corp that I am
proud to lead.
Mr. Chairman, these have been difficult
choices to make but I firmly believe that the CNO, the commandant and myself
made the right choices for FY03. We cannot fix every problem in one year so we
prioritized our funding. We can never afford to break faith with our people on
adequate pay and benefits and frankly it makes no sense to short change current
readiness and munitions at a time when the nation is at war.
The CNO, commandant and I also agree that efficiency in our business
practices is now more important than ever before and we are dedicated to that
objective. I look forward to the opportunity to elaborate in response to your
questions.
Thank you, very much.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Secretary England.
Secretary Roche?
SEC. JAMES G. ROCHE: Mr.
Chairman, Senator Warner, members of this committee, it's an honor to come
before you today representing the Air Force team in the company of my esteemed
colleagues in the Army and the Navy.
We are committed
to succeed together in our task to provide for this nation's security now and in
the foreseeable future. You have our full attention and we're ready to get down
to the important business in hand. Like my colleagues, and with your permission,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a short opening statement and request that my
written statement, the Air Force 2002 posture statement be included in the
record. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, America's Air
Force has recently been afforded numerous opportunities to implement and
validate significant changes in the concepts of military operations, and indeed,
the conduct of war. With the support of the Secretary of Defense, we have
encouraged and exploited the rapid advancement and employment of innovative
technologies. We have already begun to reorganize and find efficiencies
throughout the Air Force and we have taken significant action to implement the
findings of the space commission in our new role as Department of Defense's
executive agent for space. And I am especially grateful to have on board now,
Mr. Peter Teets, our under secretary and director of national recognizance
office, whose experience, wisdom and leadership will be invaluable as we take
this mission on.
We have proceeded however, hungry
rather than complacent, recognizing that much work and many opportunities to
improve await us. Despite our dedication to demanding, critical and global
operations, we have not faulted in our steps to continue the task of
transforming our force to match the demands of this new century.
Operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch, Mr. Chairman, have
quietly amassed a total of almost 200,000 sorties in combat missions that have
continued now for over a decade. Operation Enduring Freedom has demanded over
14,000 sorties, some of which have broken records in mission range, hours flown
and combat recognizance. Tanker support to join operations close to 6,000 tanker
sorties to date just in operation Enduring Freedom, plus another 4,200 in
Operation Noble Eagle. Mobility demands and humanitarian tonnage deliveries have
all been unprecedented.
For the first time in the
history of warfare, the entire ground operation in land locked Afghanistan,
infiltration, exfiltration, sustainment of supplies and support equipment has
been accomplished by air. In operation Noble Eagle over the skies of America,
over 11,000 airmen, 265 aircraft and 350 crews from the International Guard, Air
Force Reserve and active Air Force, have flown over 13,000 tanker, fighter and
airborne early warning sorties. And as you know, Mr. Chairman, we have NATO
AWACS over the United States at this time. Five aircraft and we expect possibly
two more and I'll be going down to Tinker Air Force Base to personally thank
them, in a week and a half.
As we work to complete our
transformation, Mr. Chairman, to support our people and inspire the military
industrial base and become an even more efficient team, our vision remains a
total air and space force providing global recognizance and strike, including
troops and their support across the full spectrum of operations. Our more
pressing and significant challenges include providing persistent intelligence
surveillance and recognizance across a critical section of a distant country, in
all weather scenarios, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for up to a year.
Developing the ability to provide near instantaneous
ground attack from the air, precisely and with a large variety of strike systems
including naval, marine as well as Air Force, while working closely with troops
on the ground equipped with powerful sensors and communication links as well as
with a portfolio of off-board sensors and platforms, including UAVs.
Mr. Chairman, it was Secretary White and myself, in the
company of Secretary Wolfowitz, who worked hard on the idea of linking sergeants
on the ground by virtue of GPS computer and certain types of binoculars with
laser range fighters -- finders, to our aircraft in the air that has proven so
dramatically successful. It is an example of our Air Force working with the Army
as the Army develops an objective force to be able to provide instant power to
those troops on the ground.
We need to define and
pursue the optimum space architectures to fully integrate space assets into
global strike operations from the air, land and sea. And we are developing our
role in homeland defense and trying to arrive at a steady state of roles and
responsibilities among our active Air Force, International Guard and Air Force
Reserve. Our question is, how long do we have to maintain the operation Noble
Eagle status as is now, what is the steady state of those circumstances?
We must complete and implement our long term strategy for
our air logistic centers and we must modernize the tanker and intelligence
surveillance recognizance capabilities we will need in the years ahead. And
here, I am particularly concerned that we have been demanding so much for so
long, of our aging 707 airframes, that we are soon to find ourselves in the same
predicament as the proverbial king of mediaeval England, for want of a horse
lost a shoe, lost the horse, lost the king, lost the --
I note, sir, that 55 percent of our tankings in the area of operations
-- the area of responsibility, have been for our Navy brethren, and the KC-10,
which was purchased a number of years ago, has been just a stalwart of being
able to support our Navy brethren.
We are also
developing concepts and strategies to seamlessly integrate our manned an
unmanned systems, something brand new for us. And we remain particularly focused
on retaining our people, especially those in mid career who will benefit from
the provisions of this budget for improved family housing, pay and facilities
and the wish to pass on the thanks of many of the troops I met overseas, who
wanted to say thank you to this committee for its leadership in their pay
circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, America's Air Force is
able to perform the extraordinary feats asked of us because we are blessed with
the full support of the American people, the Congress and the President of the
United States, all of whom have been graciously supportive of our efforts and
missions. We sincerely appreciate the confidence in our commitment and our
capabilities, as well as the wisdom, vigilance and patriotic sense of duty that
join us in our journey to provide our great nation with superiority in air and
space throughout the century.
As you go to the area of
responsibility as I have, you'll be proud of the airmen you meet and the Air
Force you and your colleagues in the Congress have raised and maintained. Thank
you very much, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
We'll have a six minute round on an early
bird basis. I think we're going to be interrupted by perhaps a series of votes.
We'll have to figure out what to do when that information comes to us.
Let me ask this of each of you. Eight months ago there was
an announcement made that two new committees were going to be formed, a senior
executive committee and a broad -- and, excuse me, a business initiative council
at the Department of Defense and both of those committees would have
responsibility for planning and implementing improved management practices
across the entire Department of Defense. This was an effort made to improve
business practices of the department, to roll those savings into the war
fighting end of the department.
Can you each tell us
very briefly what specific reforms have been initiated through these two
entities? Secretary White, let me start with you.
SEC.
WHITE: On the BIC (ph) side we are accelerating and pushing hard utilities
privatization, which was a program that actually started before this
administration, and we are realigning headquarters to meet the goals that the
secretary has established for us. And I've talked about the reductions that
we've made as we've realigned the secretariat and the Army staff.
On the SEC side we're looking at all the defense agencies
and the roles that they play within the department and streamlining their
operations as well.
SEN. LEVIN: Are these
department-wide, what you've just announced?
SEC.
WHITE: Yes, they are generally being followed by all of the services.
SEN. LEVIN: Do you have anything to add to that, Secretary
England?
SEC. ENGLAND: I was only going to comment
about the SEC and BIC, that the three of us serve together on those committees,
along with the Under Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, occasionally with Secretary
Rumsfeld. So we all work this jointly. I was going to add that in addition to
the things that the Secretary of the Army commented on, we're also looking at
supply change -- supply chain management throughout the whole department,
because that's where a lot of the money is in this department, is in the whole
support infrastructure. So we're looking at that and how we might do that
better.
We've also, with Peter Aldridge who's the --
Mr. Aldridge, who is the -- responsible for AT&L, the under secretary for
procurement. There is also a wide range of initiatives in that area and some of
those have been implemented. So we have been implementing changes. Some of those
have already taken place and there is a whole agenda of issues we're working
on.
SEN. LEVIN: Will you identify for us the specific
changes which have occurred and the savings which have resulted?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, sir. We have done a number of issues dealing with
personnel, I guess what I would call low-hanging fruit. We identified in the
very first series of meetings we had, as I recall the number was like $250
million. We had 11 issues brought before the board and we approved 10 of those,
one is still being studied and those 10 saved -- I believe the number was $250
million, Senator, but I have to get back with you on that.
SEN. LEVIN: Would you -- each of you provide for the record the
specific savings which have resulted from these initiatives, and would you tell
us where in the budget we can find those savings? Will you each do that for
us?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, we will.
SEC. : We'll do that.
SEC. ENGLAND:
Absolutely, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Secretary Roche, do you
have anything to add on that?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, sir. I
just wanted to make a point that a number of these are cost avoidance. In other
words, it's not taking something that's now in place and doing away with it, but
avoiding a cost in the future. So it's a combination of savings and cost
avoidance. The two groups are very different. In terms of the SEC it's -- with
Secretary Aldridge -- Under Secretary Aldridge is part of it -- we've been able
to move very, very quickly over things. We've been able to support price based
acquisition instead of the more torturous forms. We've been able to work with
Mr. Aldridge in getting a lot of savings out of DLA, DFAS, et cetera. Conscious
goals for those agencies to lower their cost to us.
One
of the -- and then with the BIC we've done such things as -- simple things, sir.
Asking the Treasury to not charge us a tax on our vehicles that we use off road
that don't ever get on the highway; why are we paying a highway tax? We're
looking at how long it takes for something to happen because so much money is
involved in just people reviewing and reviewing and reviewing, and we're trying
to streamline some processes. Probably over the period of the fit up (ph)
between what we have and we've done and what we'd like to do, we're looking at
something like a billion dollars so far. But they're very different. And the
reason it's been working, Mr. Chairman, is that the secretary has allowed us to
take any savings and plough it back into the services into personnel accounts or
to other accounts.
SEN. LEVIN: All right. We'll expect
then from each of you for the record the list of those savings, how much for
each one and where in the budget we can find them. Secretary Rumsfeld
established a goal of investing three percent of the department's budget in the
science and technology programs, which would help drive the transformation of
our services. But the budget request contains no measurable increase in science
and technology funding over last year's appropriated levels, despite the large
increase in the budget request.
Last week the
department's deputy director of defense, research and engineering was quoted as
saying the following: "Science and technology makes up less than two percent of
each of the military departments' budgets. They really didn't care about the
technology. It's all about this budget. The only thing I can say to them is you
can't solve your problems with that amount of money." Would you react to that
quote? We'll start with you, Secretary Roche.
SEC.
ROCHE: Yes, sir. I think the Air Force came out around 2.6 to 2.7 and part of it
is our denominator moved up on us gratefully. We also have to include the monies
that are in DARPA associated with Air Force programs and the number of programs
we transferred over to what was BMDO, now the Missile Defense Agency. Science
and technology is at the front end. You can throw money at it. We would rather
work this up to three percent and take a year or two to get there so we can
tailor what we're investing in. Clearly, we are heavily dependent on science and
technology investments for long-term results and we're trying to make sure each
of those investments has some prospect of paying off, although we're interested
in some wildcatting.
SEN. LEVIN: Either of the two of
you have a reaction to that quote? Secretary White?
SEC. WHITE: Our principal investment in S&T is a future combat
system associated with the objective force. About 98 percent of it is focused on
that and I think we're spending about as much money as can be productively used
in S&T at this stage of maturity of SES and DARPA is kicking in an extra
$122 million on their own front. So my opinion is the S&T of the Army is in
good order, compared to the other priorities that we have.
SEN. LEVIN: What percentage are you at?
SEC.
WHITE: We're probably a little over two percent.
SEN.
LEVIN: Despite Secretary Rumsfeld's statement that DoD had a goal of investing
three percent?
SEC. WHITE: Right. We agonized over the
three percent level and whether it was appropriate in each service.
SEN. LEVIN: Gotcha. Secretary England, do you want to just
finish this question?
SEC. ENGLAND: First of all, the
three percent, I would suggest that absolute numbers are more meaningful because
as we increase pay and benefits, et cetera, you know the denominator gets very,
very large and yet -- so you would have to dramatically raise S&T as a whole
budget group, particularly in the personnel accounts. Our S&T is down
somewhat this year from last year, but our --
SEN.
LEVIN: An absolute or a percentage?
SEC. ENGLAND: No,
absolute it's down. We are down absolute. But our R&D is up about $1.1
billion. So we made the conscious decision that there were R&D accounts we
needed to fund and we funded those accounts, because at some point you do need
to bring the S&T to realization otherwise you just have an interesting
S&T program. So we decided that we would instead emphasize the R&D this
year. Now if you go across the fitter barrier (ph) S&T does definitely go
up.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Senator Warner?
SEN. WARNER: Thank you.
Gentlemen, the '03 DoD Budget includes a substantial
increase in combating terrorism funding. Nearly all the proposed increase is for
these purposes. Would each of you outline what your respective departments are
doing to augment our effort to deter first, if necessary, to combat terrorism.
Secretary White.
SEC. WHITE: Senator, we have first of
all an enormous man power commitment as I talked about in my opening statement,
supporting homeland security and a variety of ways. Everything from the Salt
Lake City games to airport security with the National Guard to enhanced force
protection on our installations, both here in the United States and overseas. So
we have a large chunk of our operating budget that right now is focusing on
homeland security. And enhanced force protection against counter-terrorism.
SEN. WARNER: What's the status of the programs that were
initiated some several years ago and received very strong support in this
Committee. We used to refer to them as the raid teams. Those are the groups that
went out to work with the local communities should they be hit by a problem.
This Committee repeatedly in the last three or four years has increased a number
authorized increases in the number of those teams because of our firm belief
they would directly help the citizenry if they were faced with a problem of a
weapon of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological or other.
SEC. WHITE: Senator, we push that hard that we call those weapons of
mass destruction cell support teams. There are 22 of them fully up and
certified. They are manned by national guard full time people. We will have 32
total by the end of 02, which is what's currently authorized. And those 32 will
give us coverage of about 96 percent of the population in the United States in a
three hour period. So they're very impressive teams and we pushed it as a matter
of great urgency.
SEN. WARNER: Secretary England, the
question to you is how you're redirecting portions of your budget to combat
terrorism.
SEC. ENGLAND: Well, Senator, as you know we
have two carrier battle groups right now in the Arabian Sea actively engaged in
the war against terrorism. As part of those battle groups there's also our
amphibious ready groups with our marines on board. And of course they have just
now left Afghanistan, some still in country but back -- we also, of course have
four deployed forces around the world --
SEN. WARNER:
We're aware of those. That's pretty much standard operations. But for example,
the SEALS have had a remarkable role in this conflict. Are you looking to
increasing the size of the SEAL force? Newer or more modern equipment?
SEC. ENGLAND: At this point we don't have -- I don't
believe we have active interest in increasing the size of the SEAL force. We're
actually undermanned in our SEAL force so we would like very much to increase
the manning to its authorized level. We do by the way have 12 PC boats that we
are manning for the Coast Guard, for example outside of our traditional role
that we are providing to the Coast Guard for sea and harbor security. So we have
taken a number of measures with the Coast Guard and of course with the military
around the world, our intel, et cetera all being directed on the war on
terrorism. I mean frankly the entire force is directed against this war on
terrorism around the world.
SEN. WARNER: Secretary
Roche?
SEC. ROCHE: Senator Warner, obviously in
Operation Noble Eagle we've put a huge number of forces in place as I described.
Also to complement Secretary White's teams we have 35 C-130s that are on alert
everyday and back-up airplanes to move the emergency action teams so they can
get where they are. And that's over and above all of the CAP and everything else
we fly and we have tankers ready for them as well.
Our
force protection has been a major investment. We've called up all the reserves,
all the guard folks in force protection and we're still shy of people. We never
planned to be able to defend our forces overseas because we have to do a lot of
force protection there, and our home bases at the same time. And that's been a
heck of a strain on us. And we've had to invest more and part of our new
recruits, we're trying to direct more of them in that direction.
In operation OEF -- Enduring Freedom -- the things that you will see
are this persistent ISR. Looking at something for a period of up to a year. Also
our use of -- which employs UAVs and the fusion -- fusing of intelligence from
very many sources.
And then lastly this equipment that
the young troopers have been using on the ground to work with the aircraft, we
now know what the next generation of those should look like and we've started to
design what -- to get those different pieces in something that's a smaller
package. When they break off to get on their horses they have to take apart
about four different things and tell the horses to go to the next spot.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you.
Secretary
England, just looking through the morning traffic here's nine pages of stories
on the ship building program. And it goes from the extreme that the yard for
example, Newport News ship building which is building a carrier, can't hire
enough people to do the work that they've got in place, to some individuals that
are saying we're going to be faced with an imminent lay-offs of large
numbers.
Now this is all very unsettling and it is
clear from this conflict in the Afghan operating area that the Navy was
integral, that those platforms to which you referred earlier were sort of the
foundation that so many of the strikes were launched. And I think that it is
incumbent upon you and working with the Congress to try and put to rest this
problem.
I asked the Secretary of Defense the other day
about specifically the carrier program and he said that the slippage of one year
was not in any way to be construed as a lessening of the importance of that
program to our overall defense. Nevertheless we've got a lot of instability.
We've got a new contractor that's taken over the management of that shipyard
down there and works on both the carriers as well as the Virginia-class
submarines.
So I would hope this morning that you could
refer to some of the conversations that we've had and which you've given me the
reassurance that you feel that this thing will be worked out, that the slippage
of one year in the carrier program was predicated on clear justifications for
technology. One of these articles quotes a naval person in great detail -- how
this slippage will help the new carrier get -- here it is:
"Napps (ph) said last week that the next year funding adds to the
program would be delivered," and so forth, "will help the Navy develop systems
such as a new launching gear more fully before they are plugged into the massive
ship. It also may enable the service to pull some systems being designed for the
next ship -- CVN-X2, install them in CVN-X1 (ph)."
This
reads to me as a substantial justification for your decision. And that this
slippage was not just to create a cash bill payer for other ship programs. Would
you kindly clarify some of this, this morning for us?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, I'd be pleased -- thanks for the opportunity to
discuss this.
First, we did move the carrier out. We
actually have moved out 07 and 08, that is half the funding in each year in 07
and 08. We did that partially to free up some dollars in 07 because you know
when a ship is appropriated that's a very large amount in one year and it crowds
out everything else. So it was more prudent from our point of view to spread
this over two years.
But the other side of this is, as
you know, we have had a continuing problem of prior ship building bills. Last
year in the 02 budget we had $800 million of prior year bills. In the '03 budget
we have $645 million. We still have $1.2 billion of prior year ship building
bills that we still have to pay. So out of last year and this year that's $1.4
billion, $1.2 billion to go. I mean we basically spend a lot of money each year
we're not buying ships with that money because of prior year bills.
So we are trying very hard to bring this to a stop and
have some better business practices applied so this year we have increased the
funding for our current ship building, our current ships, by another $400
million. So we've increased the funding on current ships in hopes that that is a
meaningful step, so we will not have this continual over running of prior year
ship building.
Now that also -- part of this is the
maturity of the technology.
It was certainly my concern
with all the technology going in that ship that if we had more --
SEN. WARNER: You're talking about the CVN-X1 now?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, sir.
SEN.
WARNER: The first new carrier?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes,
that's correct. We would certainly like to make sure those technologies as much
as possible, so we can predict the cost and know the costs and not have this
problem on future ships when we do this the next time. So this decision was
based on partially financial, but in my mind more so the technology so we would
be able to bring to an end this practice of always having bills flowing into the
out years. And that's what's been happening for the last several years.
SEN. WARNER: Would you want the Congress to take it upon
itself to try and re-allocate the funding in these ship building budgets such as
to restore the carrier to its previous schedule? Do you think that would be a
prudent action?
SEC. ENGLAND: No sir, I don't. Frankly
I believe we made the right decisions. I think we went through a lot of work on
this and decided that was the best decision that we could make, was to move this
out one year, split the funding, mature the technologies. I will also comment
while I have an opportunity, Senator, that in the past whenever we had ship
building in the future years, it never came to pass. That is, if we have a large
number of ships in the out years, that didn't come to pass. It didn't come to
pass because we had prior year ship building accounts to pay or we had other
aspects in the Navy that had been under-funded and we used that money to fund
other accounts.
This year we took a very straight
forward approach. That is, we funded all the accounts that were needed to be
funded. We robustly funded everything we could across the Navy in terms of
spares, flying hours, training, et cetera. So we have, quote, "filled those
buckets." So as we go forward we now have a solid foundation. We have also fully
founded our accounts, so therefore there is high confidence in the future that
those moneys that are allocated to shipbuilding and the aviation will indeed be
spent for those purposes.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you.
SEC. ENGLAND: So I feel like we've put the foundation in
place.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Nelson.
SEN. BILL NELSON
(D-FL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretaries England,
White and Roche, certainly I want to thank you for being here to address the
concerns that we have about the defense of our nation. Obviously it's very
important to critically focus on what these expenditures in the budget
represent, both as to the present situation and as to the future. The critics
will do their work on the budget, already have, and they'll right the 10 stories
that Senator Warner had reference to, and others will challenge whether it's on
ship building or will challenge that much of the expenditure request deals with
current assets and replacing the assets that have been used. Obviously
replacement is part of what needs to be done.
The
criticism of the military always seems to be that we'll fight -- we're ready to
fight the last war. The fact we were able to react as quickly as we did to this
operation enduring freedom is some indication that we were prepared to deal with
the current situation far more than people might have suggested and some of the
partisan attacks might have also suggested.
What I'd
like to have you do is tell me in this budget, not simply what we're replacing,
obviously that's part of it, but what are the priorities in this budget for
fighting phase 2 as the technology increase -- knowledge increases during our
expansion of these activities of war, but also what's in this budget for the
next war? In other words, what are the preparations that are reflected in this
budget for the future? Is it the predator or are there other activities that you
see force development as well as assets that really represent the future, not
just simply the present or the past?
I guess I'd start
with you, Secretary Roche, and move down the other way for a change. Change your
luck just a little bit.
SEC. ROCHE: Well, thank you,
senator. I probably can't give you line item by line item, but I can give you a
full overview.
SEN. NELSON: No, I -- just generally.
SEC. ROCHE: Overview would be that as we look to the
future we clearly need to keep our bomber force modernized, and we're putting
the equipment in place to do that, modernization of D2, et cetera, by
reducing the B1 fleet. We're plowing the money back to make the B-1s quite
useful, and, in fact, that by giving them standoff weapons they can fly at an
economical altitude and get much more range. So the bomber force we've worried
about the weapons and the weapons being so accurate, and standoff that that
force should be good over a period of time. It's been years since we've
introduced a new fighter-bomber. And in fact, we've done two classes of bombers,
the 1-17, the C-17, the F-1 -- C-130J joint stars a whole
bunch of aircraft and we still have the F-16s, et cetera. Those wings are about
as loaded as they're going to get.
And so the F-22
program, which is now fully funded, and the starting of the Joint Strike Fighter
program will give us the fighter- bomber aircraft that we need, although we're
reorienting part of the F-22 to be -- it used to be more air-to-air than
air-to-ground. Now it will be roughly half air-to-air, air-to-ground, developing
special weapons for it. So the fighter force is in good shape. The lift with the
C-17, and I request to you for C-130Js, taking and fixing up
the old C-130s in avionics, and then taking a look at C-5s, find which one of
those can be overhauled and kept that I see lifting good shape.
Where we still have a still problem is the reliance in the old 707s. In
the intelligence surveillance reconnaissance area. There we are trying to
augment besides moving forward potentially to a new platform with UAVs and also
space-based things like space-based radar. But the UAVs are still experimental.
There are still issues that we have to work through with those. So the RSI field
we're trying to do some new things plus change the platforms. In the case of
things like helicopters for the special forces or for our combat search and
rescue, they're old. When I find colleagues from Vietnam in helicopters still
being used they're old. And in the case of tankers, we find ourselves just with
tankers that are aging 43 years, and we have to worry about those.
SEC. ENGLAND: Greeting.
Senator,
a few of the things we're doing investing in the future, first of all we started
work on an EA-6B replacement. That is the only jamming airplane we have in the
U.S. military. It's getting long in the tooth, we've started a replace program.
We've started a multi- mission airplane. We put money in to start looking at
that airplane. That's a replacement for our P-3 and also our E-P3, our
electronic airplanes.
We have a new program, DDX, which
is a new family of ships for the Navy, Joint Strike Fighter, as Secretary Roche
mentioned. We're also now buying the advanced fleers (ph) that we do not have
yet on our F-18 Es and Fs, so we've invested more this year to bring those into
inventory. We're invested in unmanned vehicles.
Networking, a lot of the money in networking because networking gives
us the leverage to maximize the total forces that we have, rather than to add
just a platform but to get real leverage, so we're investing more in that. Our
E-2, we're upgrading our electronics in our E-2 airplanes, our surveillance
airplanes. New munitions, new dramatically upgraded. We have, as you know, some
magnificent precision weapons, but there is a next generation now that's being
developed that gives us better capability in terms of targeting, and we're
invested in those. So we are investing in a wide, wide area. In addition, by the
way, we're doing things like SSGN, ride to conversion of the two boomer stubs.
So we have a lot of investments going forward for our Navy and our Marines.
SEN. NELSON: What percentage would you estimate that this
is of your budget? Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? Is it some significant percent
above that?
SEC. ENGLAND: Well, it's certainly -- all
of our R&D is in these areas --
SEN. NELSON: Well,
it's more than research and development, that's out there in the cutting edge.
But you're also now applying some of that, I would assume, to new weaponry, new
--
SEC. ENGLAND: Absolutely. Like SSGNs, this year
we're putting a billion dollars alone just in that account. So I don't know just
-- I'll be happy to get back with it, but we're well -- we're way into the
billions. I mean, these are a lot of programs we're funding, senator.
SEC. ROCHE: I think, senator, across the board we had a
goal of two percent to transformational things. We're well above that, plus
supporting transformation is another 11 or 12 percent. It's much larger than
people realize. In many cases it's using some old things, but in very new
ways.
SEN. NELSON: We don't have to be absolutely
creative, we can -- our new projects, we can take old material and make it
better, and I commend you for doing that. I think my time may have expired, but
would it be okay for Secretary White to respond?
SEN.
LEVIN: Sure, just finish the question afterwards.
SEC.
WHITE: Thank you. As I said in my opening statement, we are taking a near-term
risk by limiting the degree of modernization and re-capitalization we're
doing on the existing legacy force in order to bring along what we consider to
be transformational systems, and that includes Crusader, Comanche, which will
revitalize our helicopter fleet, the information and technology that we're
working on at Fort Hood, the Interim Brigade Combat Teams, one of which is
funded in the '03 budget; and then finally, as I talked about earlier, the
Future Combat System.
In the Future Combat System, what
we are looking for is something that's more lethal than Abrams, more survivable
than Abrams, two man crew, 10 percent of the logistic tail fits in a C-130. That will truly be a transformational capability, and we
have put our money very definitely in the mid and long-term to achieve this
transformation.
Thank you.
SEN. NELSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Inhofe?
SEN. INHOFE: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Let me first comment to Secretary White and
Secretary Roche.
The comments you made about our troops
that were there are certainly appropriate. I had occasion to be at the hospital
at Lansdua (ph) last week and talking to some of the troops that had been
injured, all of them that were there, as a matter of fact, who were injured. And
with that exception they said they, number one, wanted to get back to their
unit. Number two, they wanted to make a career out of it. And they -- you know,
these were the ones that were hurt, so I just -- you know, we can't say enough
good things about these guys.
Secretary England, let me
just take my entire six minutes to ask two questions that I hope will clear up
the most misunderstood issue that's out there and will also provide for a
dramatic increase in our readiness of our deployed troops.
First of all, I thank you for your letter on the 6th of February when
you tried to clear up a couple or articles published in the newspaper that
suggest you denied every question by the CNO, Admiral Clark and the marine
commandant, General Jones, the use of Vieques for live-fire training. However,
your letter did not address live fire training at all, it merely said that that
is a decision that the military would make and that's a statement that you made
in my office and that you've made several times.
Now
what I'm really confused about that can be cleared up, today, once and for all
is this. I, two weeks ago, went to the ships that were involved in training for
the east coast deployment, that was the JFK, the USS Whitney, the USS Wasp. I
talked with Admiral Natter, the Atlantic Fleet commander, Admiral Dawson the
second fleet commander. I also spoke to the commander of the marine
expeditionary unit, the commander of the Wasp, as well as the commander of the
JFK battle group and they echoed that your response that because of an
accelerated deployment schedule, they did not use Vieques during their final
exercise but that it had been used before, for naval gun fire qualification in
the forward. In other words, they got the naval qualification taken care of up
there but they all said that it would have been better if they could have had
this in the final exercises, you know, right before deploying. This is where the
football team gets together and scrimmages and says this is how we work
together. And they believe that their orders were not to use their range for
live fire and they commented -- all of them commented about a presidential
directive that would have forbidden them to do that.
Now, I looked up and I checked with the Navy and as well as the council
of the committee and found that the presidential directive that they're talking
about was one that was directed by President Clinton in -- January 31st of 2000.
However, that particular directive was one that referred to the referendum that
was going to be taking place and when they cancelled the referendum that
automatically cancelled the presidential directive. In addition to this we
actually put language in the law that is there, today, that says it can't do
that anyway because we would continue to use that range until certification came
from both the CNO and the commandant that it wasn't needed.
Well I relearned three things on this trip. Number one, that Vieques is
the only range on the East Coast where naval gun fire qualification can take
place. Number two, Vieques is the only location where the entire amphibious
assault team can train together. And number three, the commanders believe that
live fire training is better than inert training and as one commander put it and
I asked him this question, "if live fire training is a 10, my unit would be at a
5."
Now the president in his State of the Union message
he talked about our military men and women, they deserve the best training. He
wasn't talking about five out of 10. He was talking about the best. Now
Secretary Rumsfeld said in his testimony before this committee just last week,
that our men and women should train as if they are going to fight. In my recent
conversation with both Admiral Clark and General Jones they find -- I find their
desire to train at Vieques both life and inert as not wavering.
So I have these two questions. They're 'yes' or 'no' questions and the
first one, believe me there's not a person up here at this table who hasn't been
misquoted in the press, we've all -- this has happened to everyone at your table
too, I'm sure, but I want to read something that was a press release from the
Puerto Rican governor's office and ask you if this is accurate or inaccurate. Is
it true or is it not true? Secretary of Navy, Gordon England ordered a
cancellation of the exercises and he overruled two high military officers the
Chief of Naval Operations, Vernon Clark and the Commandant of the Marine Corps,
James Jones, who had asked to train in the island with real ammunition. Is that
true or false?
SEC. ENGLAND: False.
SEN. INHOFE: Thank you very much. I do appreciate that. The second
question. Last week when we had both Myers and Secretary Rumsfeld at that table,
I asked them the question about the training and they were all very interested
in the training but they said, "This is a Navy decision. This is not a decision
so that's going to be you. That's a Navy decision." You have said in a letter
that I have here as well as in my office that you will let the military make
that decision. The military has made that decision in a letter that came signed
by both Clark and Jones. I'll read out of this letter.
"The shift of wartime operations following 11th September's tragic
events has led your uniformed leadership to review the current prohibition on
live ordinance training at Vieques with an eye toward accomplishing vital naval
training while continuing to limit our impact upon the island and the people of
Vieques. We respectfully request support of a wartime modification of current
practice to sanction the use of live ordinance during combined arms training
exercises prior to deployment."
So the second question
is, will you make Vieques available for live fire training by making it clear to
the commanders of the Navy that they may train there with live ordinance if they
desire?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, the request was really
overcome by events because the fleet commander decided not to do live fire. I
understand and I believe he discussed that with you. It was also decided not to
do it with the --
SEN. INHOFE: Okay. Let me interrupt
your response because I'm running out of time and tell you, yes, I talked to the
fleet commander. I talked to the second fleet commander. They said they were
under the understanding that they could not have live fire training. Now, my
question is this. Will you make Vieques available for live fire training by
making it clear to the commanders of the Navy that they may train there, with
live ordinance, if they desire?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator,
I don't believe the decision is quite that simple because there's other factors
in this in terms of our ability to do live fire. We haven't had any live fire
training on Vieques for some time as you know. The last time we did it was very
traumatic. That's how we got into all the security issues and all the problems
on Vieques. I mean that's what led to the presidential directive. So this is the
situation it's not he's clear he's just deciding what I'd like to do. I mean the
people in Vieques actually have a say about this and there are security issues
associated with this. So I don't believe it's quite that easy to just decide.
There are environmental issues, a lot of other issues that we have to deal
with.
SEN. INHOFE: Well we're aware of all those
issues. We're also aware that the judiciary can get in there and start talking
about restraining orders and all these things. Yes, we understand that can
happen. But the question is, the military wants to use live fire and train these
guys so that they're able to go into battle with the very best training that
they could have which they cannot yet, today. And my question is, would you
allow your military to make that decision and to train with live fire?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, the military has not made that
decision. I told you before I did not overall and they decided not to do that
for Kennedy and they decided not to do it for George Washington. So they've
already made that decision.
SEN. INHOFE: Mr. Secretary,
you know, I can't relinquish this line of questioning without rereading what
they said. Now you remember what they said. They said, "that we respectfully
request support of a wartime modification of current practice to sanction the
use of life ordinance in training." This is what they're asking for. These are
the top guys. These are the bosses. They're the bosses of the fleet commanders
as you well know.
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, the fleet
commander makes that decision. The fleet commander made the decision not to do
it. He makes the decision. The fleet commander makes that decision.
SEN. INHOFE: The fleet commander only made the decision
not to do live ordinance in the final analysis because of the rapid schedule
that they're under, which -- I understood that. But they also said, the fleet
commander as well as the second fleet commander, that they would have had better
training if they'd been able to have in the final training, a unified live fire
training. And they so requested this.
SEC. ENGLAND:
Senator, they do -- we do live fire lots of venues, in lots of places we do live
fire. And we train our people very effectively as evidenced by the magnificent
performance we've had over in the Gulf --
SEN. INHOFE:
So is the answer to the question, 'no' then --
SEC.
ENGLAND: -- they did not go by -- they did not do live fire.
SEN. INHOFE: Is the answer to the question 'no?'
SEC. ENGLAND: I've lost track of the question. Sorry.
SEN. LEVIN: I'm afraid that you're --
SEN.
INHOFE: Well, no, I've -- he's lost track of it and I haven't lost track of
it.
SEN. LEVIN: Excuse me, excuse me though, I'm afraid
you're way over time on this. Just try it one more time.
SEN. INHOFE: All right. One more time.
SEN.
LEVIN: Try to --
(Cross talk and laughter.)
SEN. INHOFE: I think we need it. It's a very, very serious
question.
SEN. LEVIN: I agree and I -- but
SEN. INHOFE: Well let me just ask it one more time. Will
you make Vieques available for live fire training by making it clear to the
commanders within the Navy that they may train there with live ordinance, if
they desire?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, I'm telling you
again, Senator, that's not solely my decision. It's the events that you have to
think about in this decision. I mean if you do that without considering the
people in Vieques and without considering the environmental issues, we could end
up with a worst situation --
SEN. INHOFE: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
We have already considered all those
things for two years now. And this comes down to your decision, and I think
you've answered the question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for going
over.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Senator Landrieu.
SEN. MARY L. LANDRIEU
(D-LA):
Moving on from Vieques, Mr. Secretaries, I do
have two specific questions on, Mr. Chairman, but I'd first like to just read
briefly from the president's State of the Union speech because it leads me into
the first point I'd like to make about the job before us.
He said in the State of the Union,
"Our
discoveries in Afghanistan confirm our worst fears and showed us the true scope
of our task ahead. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants,
public water facilities, detailed instructions from making chemical weapons,
surveillance maps of American cities and thorough descriptions of landmarks in
America and throughout the world. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in
the methods of murder often supported by outlaw regimes are now spread
throughout the world like ticking time bombs said to go off without warning.
"Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and
coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested, yet tens of
thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the
entire world as a battle field. We must pursue them wherever they are."
He goes on to say, "First, we will shut down terrorist
camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice.
"Second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.
Yet camps still exist in dozens in of countries, a terrorist underworld,
including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, operate in remote jungles
and deserts and hide in the centers of very large cities.
"Our second goal," he says, "is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror
from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass
destruction.
"Finally, we will work closely with our
coalition partners to deny terrorists and their state sponsors, and I insert,
when they have such sponsors, the materials, technology and expertise to make
and deliver weapons of mass destruction."
My point this
morning would be, and my question will continue to be, what is it in this $375
billion budget for defense are we doing to answer our president and our
country's call to focus on this exact threat. It's very different than the
threats we've focused on in the past, finding thousands of terrorists, not
necessarily like the ones we've just destroyed, identified in caves but hiding
in the center of jungles and cities and large cities, in deserts, scattered
throughout the world. And what in this budget is helping us to prevent an attack
of a weapon of mass destruction?
While I support
missile defense, I would admit as a proponent of missile defense it is unlikely
that that weapon will be delivered by a missile launcher but much more likely
that that weapon will be delivered by a crop duster, a ship cruising in to one
of our hundreds of ports, a briefcase carried through any number of 100 entry
points to the United States or an aerosol can in one of the thousands of malls
in the United States.
Now I think it's very serious as
we talk about this budget to keep focused on the president's words about what
the new threat is and what is in this budget that is going to help protect
Americans who are depending on us to do that kind of protection. My question is
this. More specifically, we are standing up these new interim brigades and Mr.
Secretary White, you said and I agree with you, the urgency of doing this and I
couldn't agree with you more. These new brigades that can move more quickly,
better intelligence, move where the terrorists may be or where the conflicts may
be which is uncertain as to where they will be in the future.
What have we invested in their training and preparation, particularly
in the two premium training centers in the United States, one in California, one
in Louisiana, what have we invested in the standing up of these training
facilities for these specific brigades?
SEC. WHITE: We
have changed the -- first of all, we have changed the scenarios and the way we
run the training facilities to move away from what I would describe as Cold War
scenarios. And two, the more complicated counter-terrorist scenarios that you're
talking about, so that the method of training in both of the national training
centers is significantly different.
Second of all, as
you point out, we're standing up the interim brigades. As we go along, we'll
have one finished by the end of this year and there's one funded in every year
out to its completion in 2007. But you -- I think we also have to realize that
the military contribution is a part of a broad national effort as Secretary
Rumsfeld and Governor Ridge have talked about. It includes intelligence,
economic initiatives, political initiatives and it's the sum total of that that
will enhance the security of the country and we're certainly making our
contribution to it in the Army budget.
SEN. LANDRIEU:
Well, I would just like to --
SEN. LEVIN: If you'd
yield just for 10 seconds, Senator Landrieu, beginning -- the first of three
votes has begun and this is going to be a little more complicated than usual. If
a few of us will go vote early in this first vote, come back and then vote at
the end of the second vote, we will be able to continue here without
interruption. The next four senators, if they're here, would be Allard, Dayton,
Sessions, Lieberman.
Sorry for the interruption.
SEN. LANDRIEU: Just to follow up, and I'm sure there's
excellent training that's conducted throughout the United States, and perhaps
because of these new battles that we're going to fight more offensive than
defensive, finding the terrorists before they find us and routing them out and
finding them, I know the training that goes on in Louisiana because I've
participated in these exercises. And the generals on the battle fields have
called this training invaluable to carrying out the task that's before us my
time is just about expired, but any investments that we can make in the training
on these bases and creating additional training opportunities, I think, is
crucial.
And finally, I'm just going to ask for the
record but not have you answer because my time is up. But on the ISR, the
Intelligence, Surveillance and Recognizance, the role of the J-STAR, the new
platforms that are necessary, I want to say, Mr. Secretary, I will always
remember your quote "We lost the horse, we lost the king and then we lost the
kingdom," so let's not lose the horse when we're talking about our intelligence
assets.
Thank you.
SEC. WHITE:
Thank you, Senator, for your support.
SEN. LEVIN:
Senator Sessions.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Thank
you.
Secretary England, we have spent a lot of time in
this committee on the Vieques live fire question. It's not an itty-bitty matter.
It's a matter that needs to be decided and I think the United States needs to be
able to have a live fire range. This apparently is the only appropriate one at
issue. I agree with Senator Inhofe, it needs to be decided by you, and it needs
to be decided in favor of the best possible training for the ships that we're
deploying. We're already reducing the number of those ships and need the very
best training possible, and I don't think this issue is going away. So I -- if
you want to comment again on that --
SEC. ENGLAND: No.
Sir, look --
SEN. SESSIONS: -- I just want to share my
view about it.
SEC. ENGLAND: Look, let me comment on
this, senator. First of all, we do have a study -- I mean one reason last year
we decided to leave Vieques in 2003, was to get the emotion out so we could stay
there and do inert. I mean, the whole objective last year was to be able to stay
and do inert.
And by the way, we spent $11 million in
security in all that last year to be able to use the island of Vieques, even for
inert type of activity, so we authorized last a study by to CNA to see what the
best kind of training we could do for our men and women in uniform and in my
mind, this is not an issue of Vieques, never has been. The issue is: How do we
best train our men and women in uniform? And while Vieques has some attributes,
it has a lot of attributes that are missing. I mean, so we don't do a
comprehensive training venue at Vieques. So we do have a study underway to look
at that, and that will be about in about the April time period.
In the meantime, however, again I will tell you that fleet commanders
have decided not to do this in Vieques. Not the secretary of the Navy, but the
fleet commanders have decided not to do the live fire there for various reasons.
Along the path that we set out to be on, we have the studies underway and I'm
convinced we'll end up with the best answer to train our men and women in
uniform and that's what this is all about.
SEN.
SESSIONS: Well, that's been looked at for some time. I wish you good luck if you
find an alternative.
We've had testimony here from the
best mans on this subject, there are no alternatives available.
Secretary Roche, I know you and Secretary White were proud of the
coordination between soldiers on the ground and pilots in the air. Maybe,
Secretary White, would you tell us what it was like for the soldiers on the
ground to have the kind of air power that became available during this
Afghanistan war?
SEC. WHITE: Well, I think it made all
the difference in the world.
There have been some
well-documented cases of special operating force people on horseback who are
tied in with space age technology to air assets who could immediately bring
precision munitions to bear in support of Northern Alliance forces that really
swung the battle in favor of our allies. It's something that all of us that have
been around the business for a long time have always sought. We have the
technology today to do it. We have the people that are capable of doing it, and
it made all the different in the world in Afghanistan.
SEN. SESSIONS: Secretary Roche, this was a ground positioning system.
Tell me how that worked and precisely how your people were able to meet the
needs of the soldier on the ground.
SEC. ROCHE:
Senator, we have had a goal as we looked at the future to try to return to an
era of Joe Arnold of the Army Air Corps supporting General Patton in the
breakthrough after Normandy. This was one of the first things, in fact, inspired
by Secretary Wolfowitz, chiding both Secretary White and myself to do better in
this area. What we were able to do is these young people will use various and
sundry things and basically a GPS system, commercial GPS system, a set of
binoculars that will give them a laser beam where they can get a range, some
have had to use paper maps, others have been able to just use a computer,
convert these into GPS coordinates of the target and then relay those by voice
to the airplane.
Now, you can see how we can make a
bunch of improvements in that over time, and we're quite proud that our pilots
can work for sergeants. It's perfectly fine and it's worked very, very well. And
GPS has allowed this. In other cases, it's been a matter of putting a laser beam
on a target, and then certain systems, both in the Navy, the AT Flare (ph), and
in the Air Force, the lightning two part have laser spot trackers, can pick up
those spots, convert them to their own lasers, and bring down laser-guided
weapons on them. But it's this very close coordination and the dedication to
doing that, gives us a sense that we can transform how we work together.
SEN. SESSIONS: I think it is cutting edge stuff, and I
hope that you can keep that up and be able to broaden the capabilities there.
The main weapon that was called down on the enemy was the JDAM, the GPS
weapon.
SEC. ROCHE: JDAMs were used extensively.
They're also laser- guided weapons as well.
SEN.
SESSIONS: Can you --
SEC. ROCHE: I can tell you that,
interestingly enough, this was not just Air Force planes. They would also work
with naval aircraft that had JDAMs. We, for the first time, had marine aircraft,
naval aircraft, Air Force, coalition all being centrally coordinated. And so
whoever had the weapon and was nearby was able to serve the sergeants.
SEN. SESSIONS: It strikes me that this is a major
breakthrough in warfare, or at least a major transformation point in our
warfare, and that if we were in a war that has more targets even than
Afghanistan, and most enemies would have more targets than Afghanistan, we'll
need large supplies of that, these kind of weaponry. Can you tell us what this
budget does in terms of increasing funding for JDAMs and whether it's
sufficient?
SEC. ROCHE: Sir, I get a little confused
between supplementals and other budgets, but the accumulation of what you have
done for us will allow us to basically double the JDAM production and we'll do
it in stages. It's roughly 1,500 a month now. We'll get up in the first stage to
the early 2000s, but we'll have the facilities in place that we're investing in
that if we need to we can move to the 3000. Plus we've been working on a 1000
pound weapon, we'll now move to a 500 pound weapon for the targets where that's
more appropriate.
SEN. SESSIONS: You say you could move
up even faster providing some sort of --
SEC. ROCHE:
Sir, I think for a while there I was tracking the number of JDAMs used per day
as compared to the number we were producing per day and we got a little worried.
At this stage of this particular conflict we're not using very many, and in fact
we're able to build inventories up again.
SEN.
SESSIONS: It just strikes me that we ought not to have just a sufficiency of
these weapons, we want a surplus of these weapons.
SEC.
ROCHE: Good reason.
SEN. SESSIONS: You seem confident
that the budget, as outlined, will provide as the sufficient surplus, extra
numbers that we need to provide potential military capability in other areas
other than the one just in conflict.
SEC. ROCHE: We
believe that's correct, sir, because the Navy is also investing money in
increasing production, so both services are putting money in their budgets to
increase JDAM production.
SEN. SESSIONS: We'll be
looking at that closely. I don't think we ought to make a mistake on this
issue.
SEC. ROCHE: Precisely.
SEN. SESSIONS: I think if the mistake is made it ought to be more
rather than too few.
SEC. ROCHE: Senator, we increased
ours from 1,400 in our '02 budget to 9,880 in the '03 budget, so we had a
dramatic increase in JDAMs in the Navy budget.
SEN.
SESSIONS: I'd like to apologize and I have only got a few minutes because
there's only a couple of minutes left in the vote, I may have to come back and
get in the queue again. Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss the -- Secretary Roche,
I want to discuss the 767 tankers issue with you.
When
you wrote the letters to Congressmen Dicks and Senator Murray and others, did
you consult with the Secretary of Defense as your position on the lease purchase
of these aircraft?
SEC. ROCHE: Sorry, I did not consult
with the Secretary of Defense personally but with members of his staff, sir.
SEN. SESSIONS: But which ones?
SEC. ROCHE: I believe we've worked both with the controller and with
the undersecretary for acquisition.
SEN. SESSIONS: So
that was sufficient authority for you to proceed?
SEC.
ROCHE: Well, sufficient authority, we believe, for us to ask for permission to
go and negotiate, recognizing that if we ever had a financial lease we would
bring it back to the secretary.
SEN. SESSIONS: Putting
those words in legislation is what you were seeking? Legislation through the
appropriations process which would authorize you. Is that correct?
SEC. ROCHE: We were seeking permission to attempt to
negotiate a lease.
SEN. SESSIONS: Through the
appropriations bill? Did you consult with Senator Levin?
SEC. ROCHE: No, sir, I did not.
SEN. SESSIONS:
Or Senator Warner.
SEC. ROCHE: No, sir, I did not.
SEN. SESSIONS: No member of the authorizing committee.
SEC. ROCHE: No, sir, I did not.
SEN. SESSIONS: Why are you wasting your time here? Mr. Secretary, do
you believe in competition?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, sir, I
do.
SEN. SESSIONS: Are you discussing this lease with,
say, Airbus?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, sir. Back as far as
October I made the point that if Airbus could come in and do something we would
be delighted to have that happen.
SEN. SESSIONS: Are
you discussing this with Airbus?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, I
have met with Philippe Camus and have opened up the door for him if he wish to
do something.
SEN. SESSIONS: But doesn't the
legislation say the loan can only be Boeing 767s?
SEC.
ROCHE: Yes, sir. But if Airbus did something that was particularly good I would
come back to the Congress, sir.
SEN. SESSIONS: You
would come back to get the legislation changed again on an appropriations bill?
Mr. Secretary, you do believe in competition you said. In your letters, both to
Secretary Dicks and to Senator -- Representative Dicks and to Senator Murray,
which you didn't share with any of the members of the Authorizing Committee,
both of them you said:
Beginning in FY -- be in the
best interest of the Air Force to implement this transition. We intend to work
with USD, AT&L and the OSD Comptroller to amend the physical year '03 budget
currently being vetted through the department. In other words, for -- this
leased approach will allow more rapid retirement and replacement. The Congress
determines this approach is not advisable, completing the upgrade through the
purchase of new 767 aircraft, beginning in fiscal year '03 will be in the best
interests of the Air Force.
Is there anything in the
Air Force budget that calls for acquisition of 767s?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, sir, they're for a new tanker. But it wouldn't show up
until 2008.
SEN. SESSIONS: No, I'm talking about in the
fiscal '03 budget --
SEC. ROCHE: No, sir --
SEN. SESSIONS: -- which was just submitted to Congress. Is
there any request for a new tanker?
SEC. ROCHE: In the
palm we have it, not in the '03 budget because --
SEN.
SESSIONS: But you said in your letter that you would be -- intend to work with
the USA, AT&L and the OSD Comptroller to mend the fiscal year '03 budget
currently being vetted through the department because --
SEC. ROCHE: If we could start the lease earlier, sir, we would need
some O&M (ph) moneys to go for the initial part of the lease.
SEN. SESSIONS: So you did not seek authorization or
appropriation for -- in the fiscal '03 budget?
SEC.
ROCHE: So we did seek authorization or appropriation for any money. For any
money.
SEN. SESSIONS: Which is in direct contradiction
-- yeah, which is direct contradiction to your letter to Congressman Dicks and
Senator Murray.
SEC. ROCHE: No, sir, if I may. If I
may, senator. It was a matter that plan A right now is to have a stream of money
that builds to a KC-10 that's -- excuse me, a KC-X that would be available in
2008. If, in fact, a lease were available we could do things sooner. We would
not be spending money on certain of the old planes and we would ask for
reprogram or redirection of moneys. That's what that meant, sir.
SEN. SESSIONS: Well, you know, it's plain English. We intend to work
with the USD, AT&L and the OSD Comptroller to amend the fiscal year '03
budget currently being vetted through the -- I mean, words have meaning --
different meaning, obviously, to you and me, but I think that the casual
observer would say when you worked in the '03 budget -- amend the '03 budget,
and the money's not in the budget, then you didn't amend the '03 budget, which
is what was stated in your letter. So you are now seeking some relief from
regulations concerning leasing arrangements.
I just
want to quote to you from Mr. Daniels, the head of OMB. Daniels was so cool to
the Boeing proposal that many Capitol Hill staffers believed the leasing deal
would never be made. During last years debate Daniels not only warned against
scrapping the rules designed to curb leasing abuses, but wrote to Senator Kent
Conrad, quote:
The Budget Enforcement Act scoring rules
were specifically designed to encourage the use of financing mechanism that
minimized taxpayers cost by eliminating the unfair advantage provided to lease
purchases by the previous scoring rules. Prior to the BEA, agencies only needed
budget authority for the first year's lease or payment, even though the
agreement was a legally enforceable commitment. In the late 1980s the GSA used
this loophole to enter into 11 lease purchase agreements for a total long term
cost of 1.7.
Et cetera. He is opposed to changes
according to Mr. Daniels' letter.
SEC. ROCHE: I am
sorry -- and by the time the bill was finished, the changes we had asked for
were denied and we have to -- if we can do a lease it has to be under the
conditions as specified in the bill. And this happened in the past, sir, where
we've been asked to try and lease 737s, were not able to come to a good deal and
not bring something back to the Congress. It would be the same way in this case,
senator. If we could not get a lease that we could feel proud to show you, we
will not do it.
SEN. SESSIONS: Well, I have to go and
vote -- I may miss it and I intend to pursue this line of questioning. You never
consulted the chairman of the authorizing committee, or the ranking member or
any member of the committee. You didn't get, or consult, directly with the
Secretary of Defense over a $26 billion deal. This is one of the -- I've only
been around here since 1983. This is one of the more remarkable things that I
have seen in the time that I have been a member of this committee and I intend
to do everything I can to see the taxpayers of America are taken care of in this
situation, which clearly is a serious, serious issue here. I have to go, my time
has expired.
SEN. LEVIN Thank you.
SEC. : May I answer that later, sir, when you come back? Thank you.
SEN. INHOFE: Thank you, senator.
I want to go ahead and start a second round here and I want to pursue,
just a couple more minutes on the previous subject, Secretary England.
Anticipating that there might be an effort, this is some time ago, to close this
range -- oh, Mr. Chairman, is it alright if I go ahead and pursue my second
round? There's no-one else here.
SEN. LEVIN: I was
going to go and do my round first, but if you --
SEN.
INHOFE: Oh, go ahead.
SEN. LEVIN: -- have you voted
yet?
SEN. INHOFE: No, no, it's fine.
SEN. LEVIN: No, have you voted yet?
SEN.
INHOFE: I have.
SEN. LEVIN: You just go ahead. You
started, you go ahead.
SEN. INHOFE: All right.
Anticipating that there could be a problem, Mr. Secretary,
I read -- just read the law that we passed, or a paragraph of it. It says, "the
secretary" -- this is last years Defense Authorization Bill -- "the secretary of
the Navy may close the Vieques Naval Training Range on the island of Vieques in
Puerto Rico and discontinue training at that range, only if the secretary
certifies to the president and Congress, that both of the following conditions"
-- you're very familiar with this law.
I guess what I'm
saying here is that you've brought up a lot of concerns of the people there, of
what their reaction's going to be. These are things that are never brought up in
consideration at other ranges. So it gets down to a very serious thing and I
just only wanted to see if you would have thought it over and might have a
different answer to the last question. I do appreciate your very straight
forward first response. But on this, in that the law is very clear that they
should be able to do it if the military wants to do it. If the military want to
continue to train, would you preclude them from doing so?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, I'm always going to obey the law. The law says
that if I have an alternative, before I leave I have to identify that
alternative, and do that in consultation with CNO and the commandant, and I'll
certainly do that. So, I'm definitely going to do with the law says. That was
passed last year. I thought it was excellent. I have no issue with the law and
I'll proceed according to the law.
SEN. INHOFE: Would
you preclude them from doing so, if they wanted to continue live fire
training?
SEC. ENGLAND: Law doesn't address live fire
training, senator, it addresses training on Vieques, and at the moment we're not
doing live fire training on Vieques. We're doing inert training. We've been
doing that since, I believe, sometime in the year 2000.
SEN. INHOFE: That's not the issue though. The issue is live fire
training. I don't think we're going to get --
SEC.
ENGLAND: I don't think that is the issue, senator.
SEN.
INHOFE: -- in this hearing but I have tried. I want to get everything in the
record to give you the opportunity to tell us whether or not you're going to
allow it, should the military request it. The law is specific when it says that
we will continue to train there until such time as the CNO and the commandant
certify that there is an alternative that meets their -- that they are satisfied
with.
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, at this point, I have not
had a request, in terms of a specific. The earlier request was overcome by
events. We'll look at the situation at the time it occurs. It's hard to go put
yourself in a situation you don't know what that environment is. So I mean --
this is a -- I'm not going to answer that question, as you well know. I'm not
going to answer that question because I'm not going to put myself in a
hypothetical situation.
SEN. INHOFE: I realize you
haven't answered the question. You haven't answered the question.
SEC. ENGLAND: Right, and I'm not about to put myself in a
hypothetical situation.
SEN. INHOFE: Secretary, thank
you very much.
Secretary Roche and Secretary White, let
me ask both of you a question. In May of 2001, Sea Power Magazine interviewed
Admiral Amerault, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Fleet Readiness and
Logistics, whose statement suggests that this may not be an achievable goal.
Encroachment is a serious problem and they go on to talk about the problems.
There is the potential to lose the ranges in Vieques in Puerto Rico and that
could have a very serious readiness impact. It's the bell ringer for us. It
concludes, "Vieques is just the beginning, we could lose any number of ranges
based on encroachment."
Have you seen encroachment as
an issue on the ranges in the Air Force and in the Army, both Secretaries?
SEC. : Yes, we have.
SEC. : Yes,
we have and you've been very helpful in the case of one of them, sir, as have a
number of your colleagues.
SEN. INHOFE: Yes, thank you
very much. This is a serious problem and I see -- I agree with Admiral Amerault
that this could have that effect on all other ranges that are out there. I'd
like to just real quickly, in the remainder of my time, talk about two things
that were left out of the budget. And I recognize that everything can't be in
the budget, but in my opinion, the two things we needed the most that were left
out or are -- are MILCON and force structure. And on force structure, I've been
disturbed for quite some time with our force structure, with the new deployments
that we've had over the last few years. Places like the Balkans. I just got back
from the Balkans last week. It seems like we're going to be there for a long
period of time.
We're able to do some of these things
because of the Guard and Reserve. But we have strained our Guard and Reserve --
as you and I talked about, Secretary Roche, when we were going down to Oklahoma
at that time and you and I also have talked about it, Secretary White -- to the
point where a lot of the critical MOS are not there. What do you see -- when are
we going to have to try to address the force structure, if you agree that that's
a problem?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, sir. We are, among other
things -- I went down and met with the recruiters for the Guard and Reserve and
we are trying to do things like, if someone leaves the active force and they can
fit a Guard position on, giving it a waiver, allowing them to do it. We are
also, as you know, trying to expand the roles of the Guard in things like Joint
STARS which is going very, very successfully in Georgia and we'll probably do
more of that, of bringing the Guard into more of the information technology
sorts of things. So we have seen a Guard that, right now, is -- performed
magnificently, is carrying an awful lot of the burden and that's part of why we
need to have a sense of what are the long term steady state requirements of
operation Noble Eagle as well as Enduring Force, in order to get some of these
folks back to their jobs.
SEN. INHOFE: Do you see
though, in addition to that, in the years out -- two or three years out, we're
going to have to re-look at our force structure in terms of the regular
services?
SEC. ROCHE: Our sense is that right now we
have -- the services are working with the Under Secretary for Personnel
Readiness, Dr. Chao(ph) to see what ought to be expanded in the Guard, Reserve
or active force in order to maintain the capabilities we currently have
deployed, if we need to keep those deployed.
SEN.
INHOFE: Secretary White.
SEC. WHITE: I think there is a
general realization, with 35,000 Guard and Reservists mobilized right now, and
the Guard picking up rotations in Bosnia, rotations in the Sinai and so forth,
that if we stay at this level of mobilization for an extended period of time,
we're all quite concerned about retention. Right now, we're at full strength
basically, in the Guard and the Federal Reserve.
That's
one of the reasons why the secretary brought up in homeland security, the
business of making sure, when we take these extra obligations on, that there are
end dates to those obligations. Like the commitment of 6,000 Guardsmen in the
airports of the country. But it is a challenge, as Jim Roche suggests, we're
looking at very, very seriously because the current level of deployment is
stressing the force, clearly.
SEN. INHOFE: Thank you,
and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very
much, Senator Inhofe.
Secretary White, the National
Guard personnel, while they are in a state status, as you know, are permitted
under the law to perform domestic law enforcement functions such as airport
security, protecting the U.S. Capitol. However, under the doctrine of posse
comitatus, they may not, in a federal status, perform such function nor may
active duty personnel perform such functions.
Last
week, Secretary Rumsfeld testified that the department opposes efforts to revise
the posse comitatus law at this time. At the same time, I understand that the
department is preparing to detail National Guard troops to other federal
agencies to perform law enforcement functions and in the past, the department
has opposed such efforts to get around the posse comitatus law. Do you believe
that such change should be made and that our troops active duty or reserves
should be assigned to federal agencies to perform domestic law enforcement
functions?
SEC. WHITE: I think in general no. The
doctrine of posse comitatus has served the country very well and it's culturally
a part of our heritage. We have, however, agreed on a short term basis of
limited duration because of the significant challenge of border security to our
overall homeland security posture, agreed to detail federalized national
guardsmen under Title X to the three border agencies, Customs, INS and the
Border Patrol, for a limited duration and we were very, very careful in this
process to ensure it was of limited duration, and only under that basis did we
agree to do it.
SEN. LEVIN: There's been a great deal
of concern and debate about the status of detainees that have been captured, as
to whether or not they are prisoners or war or not. You are, as the Secretary of
the Army, the executive agent for the Department of Defense for administration
of the Enemy Prisoners of War Detainees Program.
As the
executive agent you have a number of responsibilities including providing
appropriate reports to the Office of Secretary of Defense, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, and to the Congress, relative to that program. I don't believe we've
gotten any reports from you, have we?
SEC. WHITE:
No.
SEN. LEVIN: We should, under the law, and I hope
you'll attend to that. But I want to specifically ask you about Army regulation
numbered 190-8 which implements that directive, and I want to read it to you.
If any doubt arises as to whether a person having
committed a belligerent act who has been taken into custody by U.S. Armed Forces
belongs to any of the categories enumerated in article 4 of the Geneva
Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war:
Such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until
such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal and that
competent tribunal under your Army regulation, is a three officer tribunal that
is to determine the status of those people. I'm not talking here now about a
tribunal that is going to look at war crimes.
SEC.
WHITE: Right, it's not a commission --
SEN. LEVIN: This
is three officer tribunal which under our law, under our regulations is both to
determine the status of persons who have been taken into custody by the Armed
Forces who've committed belligerent acts against us. And, I'm wondering whether
or not those tribunals have been appointed and if not, why not?
SEC. WHITE: Well I know that you had a discussion with the secretary on
this very subject the other day in his hearing, and the view is that the Geneva
Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, not to the Al Qaeda detainees. But
in neither case do they enjoy POW status and we have not -- or it has not been
directed of me to conduct the tribunals to be more definitive in terms of
sorting out their status, so that's where it stands today.
SEN. LEVIN: No, but you -- that doesn't quite answer the question. The
question is, since there obviously was doubt, I think in any reasonable judgment
there was doubt as to whether or not those persons should be treated as
prisoners of war, whether or not you were then not required as executive agency
to appoint the tribunal to determine their status. Isn't that your obligation
under your own regulation? It's not the president's determination, it's your
determination under your regulations. It's not the White House counsel
determination, it's your determination and I want to know why it was -- well
first of all, did you participate in the decision that was made.
SEC. WHITE: No, I did not.
SEN. LEVIN: I think
that the Army regulation reading as clearly as it does, that where there is any
doubt, any doubt about the status of a person who is taken into custody who has
committed a belligerent act is a prisoner of war and should be treated that way.
And since you are responsible for that, I think that you should give the
committee, at least for the record, an analysis with your own counsel, and I
would advise that the Army counsel be advised of this as to why your regulation
was not implemented.
SEC. WHITE: I will do that.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Senator
Dayton?
SEN. MARK DAYTON (D-MN): Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I'm sorry I had to depart to meet with the
group of Minnesotans -- so if I am redundant I apologize, gentlemen.
One of the realities of round of questioning is that it
also -- for those of us at the far end of the table it constitutes an
opportunity to make an opening statement, so bear with my preamble, please. And
I want to do something. I think that the deliberations this committee is going
to be making this year, Mr. Chairman, are really among the very most important
that Congress faces this year.
The president's request,
$48 billion for '03 and $451 billion for five years is an enormous increase in
military spending, so much so that for that other reasons, OMB dropped the
customary practices, extending the figures for 10 years.
Last week, Chairman Myers and General Franks made clear to all of us
that those increases are not enough to do everything that they believe needs to
be done. They talked about the desire to have a procurement budget for '03 of
$100 to $110 billion, which would be more than $40 billion beyond what the
president has proposed, which is itself is a sizeable increase.
I believe in the House hearing last week, one of the Congressman opined
that the request falls 40,000 troops short of what the Army says it needs, that
their aircraft procurement is only 100 versus the 400 that the three --
coughing) -- would like and that the Navy shipbuilding is seriously inadequate
to meet that and so the military leadership, it seems to me, has done what they
should properly do which is to inform us, civilians, yourselves, the secretary,
the president, the Congress, this is what it would cost to do what you've
outlined you want and believe we need to do.
And yet,
if you look at the consequences of that spending apparent over the next decade,
the paradox seems to me is, that while it would significantly strengthen our
national security, our national defense, our military strength, it also
seriously weakens our financial security of this country. And that's where I
think, unfortunately -- out of that context it's going to be very difficult to
assess your budget proposals, and frankly to deny any of it.
FY 1999 and 2000 were the first two fiscal years in the last 30 years
in this country, where the federal government's operating budget, the budget
that excludes social security and Medicare expenditures was unbalanced.
That fall I promised to my campaign, the president
promised to his campaign -- I think just about everybody who was running for
office that year -- federal office -- promised that they would preserve that
balance and put the social security and Medicare trust fund surpluses in what we
call lock boxes. That the money would not be used for the operating funds, it
would be used for paying off the national debts of the 10 to 12 years when
members of retirees increased so we'd have the ability to do so. So we could use
some of the Medicare surplus some of us envisioned for prescription drug
coverage. (Coughing.)
Now, rather than keeping that
balance for the next 10 years, the budget has proposed would run a 10 year
combined deficit of almost of $1.5 trillion.
That
deficit would have to be paid for by wiping out all of the Medicare Fund
surpluses for those 10 years and 60 percent of the social security trust fund
surpluses for those 10 years, which means that every additional dollar that we
spend on our military preparedness is a dollar that comes out of the Medicare
trust fund or the social security trust fund. And at the conclusion of those 10
years, we are still in seriously high in national debt and we have, I believe,
seriously weakened this country's ability to meet its then current and future
needs for this society. So in that light, I think your budget proposals are
deficient in two respects.
One is, I think that the
administration has failed to redefine what are the threats that we face in the
world and are expecting to face over the next 10 years, because as the chairman
said, these are long term, long range commitments, investments that we're
making. I understand that Secretary Rumsfeld has modified the two war measure
for preparedness. But as I understand it, those are essentially two wars of the
-- against the former Soviet Union or against the former Germany, Japan. Where
are those threats in the world today? Where are the nations that have that --
anything approaching the equivalent military strength of the United States would
be able to conduct or engage in that kind of protracted and highly costly war
when our defense budget now equals the defense budgets of the next nine
countries in the world combined, where it is even the emerging possibility, the
prospect of somebody who could engage us at that level.
Secondly, and I think these are entirely proper, that the president has
said we must include, as part of the national defense homeland defense. I
believe your budgets combined include $12 billion of the $37 billion the
president has proposed for that, $25 billion is being spent on other categories,
really in my view should be considered part of our national defense spending.
And then thirdly, the president believes and you believe
that we need to commit about $8 billion -- $8.5 billion in '03 and assuming
increasing amounts thereafter to build a national missile defense system so that
we're protected as a rogue nation as defined, shoots missiles at us so if -- but
that it seems to me is implicitly the totality of threats that we are preparing
to contend with over the next 10 years. And I'm not sure -- first of all, I
don't know that that's even appropriate. And secondly, I know that it's not
affordable.
So in that context as well, I think the
other deficiency in these presentations in any real reduction in any of the
ongoing expenditures to meet these new commitments. And the ones that are
referenced here, the program, the adjustment for FY03 that total $9.3 billion, I
think as others have asked and I -- you know, I would be interested in further
elaboration too, are really minimal compared to what was stated by the secretary
a year ago of the need to seriously shift from older systems which are either
outdated or not necessary for these -- that -- threats of the future. And so
that we -- so this budget basically is one that I'd be - viewed -- avoid any of
the really tough decisions. What do you not do in order to be able to do
additionally what it is that everybody wants to do. And I guess I'd ask if you
would respond to that.
SEC ROCHE: I would just make the
following points, senator. One that I think that the secretary is reiterated
that we're trying in this new -- in our programs, to not worry about specific
threats and try and predict them. But in fact to have a portfolio of
capabilities that can adapt when we're surprised. That was the logic during the
summer as we were preparing the budget and as it turns out in September, it was
really brought home. By having a portfolio of forces really did things.
A good example is those who thought big deck aircraft air
carriers were not useful. They were very useful this time. They were very useful
also because there was long range Air Force tankers, so the notion of
capabilities as compared to trying to predict a particular threat.
Secondly, I think in terms of the amount of monies we
need, I understand how the services can say there's a gap. My own point of view,
if we just had steadiness. If we could have steady budgets and steady growth we
can manage better, we can do better and we can get well, we'll take a little
risk on not having everything fixed at once, but we don't have to go and fix
everything now. And then at some other point create another situation where
everything obsolesces at the same time. So steadiness is probably more important
to us than anything else, sir.
And third, when trying
to get cost savings as we were really working on early in the summer before the
Congress was able to help us, I can tell you when you try and do something like
adjust the size of the B1 Force, it's a very, very painful experience,
senator.
SEN. DAYTON: And you've made that effort, and
--
SEC. ROCHE: In a very bruised fashion, we were
reducing the B1 Force from 93 down to 60, plowing the money back to remain 60s,
realigning a number of bases, doing a number of other things. It's working now,
but it was sure a tough thing to do -- an enormous consumption of my time and
time of the members who had to explain to their communities what this all
meant.
SEN. DAYTON: I thank you for pointing it out and
I recognize that and I think caused the secretary last week to make the analogy
to Gulliver who has been tied down by 2001 earmarks and the like.
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, a comment about our national
missile defense. You mentioned $8.5 billion. I notice Senator Landrieu mentioned
also -- the fact of the matter is there's people out there developing systems
that will hit the United States. It's hard to ignore that fact. If they develop
them you have to think they're probably doing it for a reason and therefore sir,
in my mind, it's very prudent for this administration and for the American
people to defend themselves against a threat that's being developed.
SEN. DAYTON: I don't disagree with you, Mr. Secretary, and
I guess my point is that that, in addition to the homeland defense, the
terrorist attacks in addition to this prevailing measure of preparedness to
fight two major wars, two theatres simultaneously, that is as Secretary Roche
said, if that is the portfolio that we believe that we need to address, I guess
then we just need to recognize that as a nation that our present structure for
financing our government expenditures were seriously in arrears.
SEC. ENGLAND: Well, I mean we are spending this year, I believe, like
3.3 percent of our gross national product on defense. The other day we
mentioned, when the secretary was here the last time it was 10 percent. So we're
at the lowest the nation's ever been, I believe. At 3.3 percent the question is
what percent of the nation's wealth is the nation willing to invest in defense
of the people. And it's really a pretty low number for that insurance policy.
SEN. DAYTON: And that may well be the case, sir. I'm just
saying that I'm not talking percent. I'm talking dollars and I'm talking real
dollars based on the economic projections that OMB is making and the numbers,
and I think again, this is not your problem so much as it is ours but the fact
is that if you add up --
I need to go vote and I'm
going to call in Senator Allard. I just want to leave also, just one query,
maybe you could respond in writing or subsequently. We spent a lot of time last
year -- all your time was well on BRAC-- domestic BRAC. What considerations have
been given to an overseas brack, closing down or consolidating these myriad
bases. Ninety have been pulling out of the countries -- last year we had 52
bases in Korea, different sites in Korea and Japan and the like. Is there some
way we can achieve some real savings in the years ahead just by consolidating
some of those operations?
(Cross-talk)
SEN. DAYTON: We don't have any Congressional members representing any
of those --
SEC. ROCHE: No sir, but we -- but it's
happened. We've dramatically reduced the number of air bases in Europe, I can
assure you, dramatically.
SEC. ENGLAND: I'm working on
one, senator.
SEN. LEVIN: All right, thank you. Senator
Allard?
SEN. WAYNE ALLARD (R-CO): Thank you, very
much.
I'm going to address my first couple, three
questions to you Secretary Roche, and they have to do with the space based
radar.
As you know, this is a high priority for me, and
I believe it's a key to transformation, and I have been encouraged to see the
strong support for space based radar and your support in accelerating that
program. What I'm curious about is can you talk about what aspects of the
program you'll be focusing on with the increased funding which you have in the
budget.
SEC. ROCHE: Yes sir. The issue I have with the
space based radar is to make sure that this is done right and I don't have to
come back and discuss a situation as I do on Sibers High (ph) where the program
is having difficulty.
So first and foremost, is to
understand what is the concept of operations that we want the space based radar
for.
Now we believe in the Air Force, especially the
PTs (ph) and General Jumper and I, that what we're talking about is something
that can do ground target moving indicators first and foremost, and therefore
the issues for technology are how few in number, how slow are they moving and
how persistent can this system be? So we're trying first and foremost to develop
an architecture that will answer the question as to why we want this and
therefore limit people adding on to it additional requirements which may cause
its cost to go up very precipitously, or causes the situation where we're trying
to solve something that's too difficult to solve. This system has to work and
has to serve commanders and then have an ancillary role in terms of
intelligence, surveillance recognizance for other people.
Unto this end, the three of us are devoting our own time. We are the
initial configuration control board. We'll be going up to Lincoln Labs and
Hanscom in a -- golly, I think a week -- or within the next two weeks to spend
time on the concept of operations of what needs to be there so as to start this
program correctly, before we get into a feeding frenzy as to who's going to
build it, what are the appropriate sensors and how are those sensors are going
to integrate with other systems, to what degree should this satellite system
serve as the only or should it be part of a portfolio. Think that through so
that we have a success on our hands and not something that just gets an appetite
far ahead of our ability to satisfy.
SEN. ALLARD: You
mentioned some of the problems with Sibers High. You know, we did some
restruction (ph) on Sibers Low, and, like you mentioned, I understand there's
some problems with Sibers High now. And I understand that in the acquisition
processes and could you go onto a little bit of an explanation of what kind of
changes need to be happening with that acquisition process and what -- or maybe
what you're doing to try and improve the acquisition process.
SEC. ROCHE: The first order of business, Senator is to understand why
we're of a sudden having difficulties in a couple of space programs. Space
acquisition programs. Is it a matter that we have allowed requirements to build
without discipline? Is it a matter that there's an expertise in industrial base
that has retired or retiring and has not passed on the knowledge? Is it a matter
that we relied I think foolishly on total systems procurement responsibility
where everything was devolved down to a contractor in the past years? And I
think that was a mistake. A very big mistake. Is it because we can only get 56
percent of our scientists and engineers billets in the space acquisition
community filled? That we're missing the other -- the remainders?
We're trying to study that now. We're using the
Sibers-High as the most immediate case in point. What's there? What's wrong? And
in each case, Senator, what we come upon is not the magic of the system it's the
basic management things. It's the basic technology things that aren't working.
And it's sort of well why not? What's wrong here?
So
we've challenged the entire space acquisition community to the point of saying
that we're worried about continuing confidence in them in terms of making sure
these things start right and they stay on track, that we get early indications
of difficulties rather than allowing something to go to such a point where it
will cost an enormous amount of money to fix it.
And
then we have to discipline ourselves back in Washington to not add capabilities
in the middle of the program, not change things, to be able to have something
that's more steady. So this field, besides having more attention to it in terms
of trying to get some of our brighter people, trying to re-recruit scientists,
engineers, we are taking a look at the fundamentals. Because it appears that
it's in the fundamentals we've had difficulty.
SEN.
ALLARD: Now, Mr. Secretary, I'm also pleased that you are moving forward in your
recent efforts to implement some of the recommendations on the space commission
report and also to see that the organization changes you've made is trying to
integrate better between military space and the NRO. And I compliment you on
that. Are you planning to follow up on some of the other recommendations from
the space committees such as recommendations to develop a cadre of professionals
(background noise) the need to reduce our space system's vulnerability to
attack?
SEC. ROCHE: Sorry, I missed part of the
question but that --
SEN. ALLARD: Well part of the
question is are you -- I appreciate what you've done so far as far as following
through with the space commission report. There's other areas specifically that
was in the report and I want to know whether you're going to follow up with. One
of them is to develop a cadre of space professionals --
SEC. ROCHE: Oh yes --
SEN. ALLARD: -- training
and everything. And the other one, if you'd address the second area I wonder if
you'd address is the need to reduce our space system's vulnerability to
attack.
SEC. ROCHE: Yes. In both cases we're going to
spend the time -- by the way one helps the other. If you have a professional
cadre who really worries about this business they will worry about how the red
team -- red team it as well.
I think you will find that
we will be spending a good bit of time on making this an equal to our pilot
community in our Air Force. We believe in global reconnaissance and strike and
that reconnaissance is key. Our space trinity is key to what we do. In terms of
our vision it's global vigilance and reach and power. And again space -- I think
you'll find the commanders of the space units will start to come from the space
community more. We'll worry about their education.
We'll worry about their roles in command and how they feel about
command. So we're taking it very seriously by elevating things up to the
undersecretary, by making both General Jumper (ph), myself and PT's (ph) as well
as the vice, you know, focus on -- focus responsible as the executive agents for
space. This community is probably going to get more attention than it may want
for a while.
SEN. ALLARD: I'd like to wrap up with just
one question to all of you and if you'd respond please.
The present budget reflects a savings of about $200 million by
decreasing headquarters staff. And I'm interested in how you're planning to
accomplish this reduction in each of your areas. And the question is will the
reductions be in military, or government-civilian or will --or both? Or will
those reductions be in contract? If you can kind of give the Committee some feel
about how these reductions are going to occur at that particular level, I'd
appreciate it.
Thank you.
SEC.
WHITE: We're looking at a reduction of both civilian spaces and military spaces.
We've already completed the review of the Army headquarters. As I said in my
opening statement we're at the field operating agency level now and we will
achieve our 15 percent reduction. We should exceed it as a matter of fact.
SEN. ALLARD: Secretary England?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, we're not at the 15 percent yet. I believe we're
about eleven-and-a-half-percent. Frankly, we'd like to hold that for just a
while because of our -- the intensity of our conflict at the moment. However we
are working this whole issue of headquarters. We're really working beyond that
because the real savings are not just the headquarters, it's across the entire
enterprise.
So we're looking at every single thing we
do. We get together regularly to look at this and we hope that we're going to
save far more than $200 million. Now we're talking billions of dollars as our
objective. So we've really set our sights well beyond just the headquarters
staff.
SEN. ALLARD: Well, Mr. Secretary, one of the
concerns I have is they make cuts they always go down to the lower guys in the
totem pole and you have to be perhaps looking at the higher level. And they
protect their own jobs. So I just would hope that that doesn't happen.
SEC. ENGLAND: No. As a matter of fact that's really what
happened the last time. A lot of these many years whenever the work force was
cut it was all cut at the low end. As a result we have no young people in the
business at the moment. We're very top heavy and in fact it's very expensive
because you know, it costs more to have longer term employees than younger ones.
You really like to have a mix. It's good for the health of the organization. So
you're absolutely right. We do have to be smart in terms of how we do this.
SEN. ALLARD: Secretary Roche?
SEC. ROCHE: Sir, you know that in the past the Air Force has combined
operating commands. In fact it's done it at the top -- SAC and TAC became the
ACC and in terms of our acquisition it blended units together. We've probably
made in the headquarters about seven- and-a-half-percent, about
seven-and-a-half-percent to go.
We have a definitional
problem that technology is causing us that we're trying to work out. The folks
who are overseas who are in fact coordinating all of this air attack over
Afghanistan are considered staff. Whereas in the Navy they're on board an
aircraft carrier and they're not considered staff. So we're working with OSD to
say can you -- we don't mind the Pentagon part, that's not a problem. It's down
in our component commands where the people who are really manning these combined
air-operative centers and directing all of this are considered staff, even
though they're performing in an absolute war fighting role.
Technology is causing us difficulties that we can do things as a
distance rather than having to be there. And yet we tend to think that that's a
staff function. So we're trying to work through these definitions.
SEN. ALLARD: Thank you.
I see
that my time's expired. I think Senator Lieberman, you're to resume.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Thanks, Senator Allard.
Thanks gentlemen for your service and for your very
interesting testimony. The theme of my questions has in some ways been echoed
earlier which is that though the $48 billion increase in the president's
proposed budget for the Pentagon is obviously substantial and the highest in a
number of years, we're faced with a multitude of demands that require
choices.
And my concern is whether we've made enough of
the choices to really drive transformation or whether we're still supporting
with too much of the budget the programs that are serving us well but whose
utility is going to begin to run out. And obviously, not withstanding the $48
billion which is a very substantial sum, the actual buying power only rises
modestly because of inflation, because of the increases in pay and benefits
which we all support, and because of current operations.
And so, with that preface let me ask just a few questions, beginning
with you, Secretary Roche, for the Air Force. The budget shows a large increase
in F-22 procurement but I would only a modest increase. And in fact some drop in
funding for so called low density programs. Which I always want to say high
demand, low supply programs.
For example, C-17
production drops from 15 to 12 this year, next year as compared to this year,
despite General Franks telling us that we need more strategic air lift, the
JSTARS acquisition stays at one per year despite what seems to be very
substantial interest from CINCs who think that we've got an -- well we do have
an inadequate number of JSTARS to provide for full-time coverage.
And although bombers have increasingly their importance,
certainly over Afghanistan, I don't see that reflected in this budget. Though I
did note with some interest, Mr. Secretary that the F-22 is now described as a
fighter-bomber, whereas --
SEC. ROCHE: Maybe he always
says FNA, and we were saying "F." But these things have been fighter-bombers for
some time like the F- 16. Just think of the attack on Iraq. It was all done by
fighter- bombers. Thrilling.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: All right.
So let me ask that question which is: why has the Air Force chosen to place such
a priority on procuring the short range TAC here, which, one could argue, we
have a lot of rather than placing more emphasis on the other high demand load
density capabilities that I've talked about. But forget me, it seems to me that
the CINCs are telling us they want more of these.
SEC.
ROCHE: We are in violent agreement. If I can, the C-17, because it's multi-year,
a lot of what would normally go in the beginning is being put in for long lead.
It is to have an equal 15 a year come out of the line. In fact, it exceeds 15
for a couple of years and then at the very end, it's 13. So you can't just look
at the monies funded in this particular thing for numbers of airplanes. It's an
accumulative effect. So the C-17 is not going down. In fact, it's a 15 a year,
which is a steady economic rate to be able to do this at the Boeing line. We
probably will be -- no, we will be looking at whether we need more of the C-17s
given how we've worked them to death in this situation over and above the normal
war planning.
This is the kind of example the real
world that Secretary Rumsfeld has pointed out. That is a surprise. You have to
be able to do things. The C-17 is one of those high demand load density things
that's getting addressed. The others, including GMTI, we're pressing on trying
to put GMTI on drones and so the MPRT will be doing that. In case of Joint
STARS, we're moving unfortunately one more 707. We want to then go beyond to
make a GMTI specific version of a different aircraft which is larger but can
still take the Radar gondola but make the back end for battle management. This
is an area we are addressing dramatically and it's a problem that we've been
hooked to the old 707, which is just getting older and older and older as we go
on. So, in fact, we're doing that.
With respect to the
F-22, the program is 20 years old this year, Senator. This is the first time
that we are finally going into production. But since the introduction of the
last fighter-bomber, we've introduced the B-1, the B-2, the F-117, the C-17, the
C-130J, Joint STARS, et cetera, et cetera. This is an area
that has to get addressed.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Let me ask
you --
SEC. ROCHE: We are doing it and its time has
come.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Let me ask you one more
question -- we don't want to turn the same focus to Secretary England -- which
is, what about the bomber force? What about the upgrading of the bomber force,
in particular, considering the remarkable performance in the last couple of
conflicts we've been involved in with the B-2?
SEC.
ROCHE: The B-2, we are putting all the mods in that we ought to put in. What's
changed in this over history is that each weapon has got such an effectiveness
because of precision that in fact, you don't have the situation which created
bombers, which is you had to drop 1100 weapons to get a .9 probability of
hitting a certain part of a factory in Europe. Each of these is so precise that
you don't have that problem. So they perform beautifully but we've used 18
bombers. For the most part, we had four of the B-2s that we used initially, when
we weren't sure about the air defenses. Post knowing about the air defenses, ten
B-52s and eight B-1s have just done a remarkable job. A very, very small
proportion of the overall force, because the effectiveness of each weapon has
changed.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: So you don't think we need to
be thinking about procuring more bombers?
SEC. ROCHE:
That's right.
I think procuring more of the weapons
that make the bombers effective and upgrading the systems on the bombers is the
appropriate thing. That's why JSM will take the 60 B-1s and make them
dramatically useful.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Secretary England,
let me just ask you briefly -- my time is running out -- if I'm not mistaken, at
the current rate of acquisition, as you've suggested, in the next -- what? --
couple of years, we're going to go to the 300-ship navy?
SEC. ENGLAND: No. No, sir. We don't go under 300 ships. Even with our
retirements, I believe the lowest we'd drop to is about 304 ships, sir. So we
maintain our level --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Even though we've
got to do the 8-10 a year -- that's the number we've heard and we're about five
now.
SEC. ENGLAND: That also includes our submarines,
sir. We're adding two of those this year.
SEN.
LIEBERMAN: Okay. I don't actually want to argue the numbers. I want to give you
a chance to make the case for why we need a 300-ship navy. In other words, it
was not so long ago that folks were arguing for 600-ship navy and I believe in
the standard, but I want to take you back to the fundamentals because some might
say -- somebody just -- might be Secretary Roche -- just said -- high technology
is allowing us to get so much more out of every platform that we can do with
less than 300. So tell us why we need to keep that standard.
SEC. ENGLAND: The last study, which was last fall, conducted by OSD
concluded we need about 340 ships. That's because, here in Missile Defense and
also another class of ship called the Littorals, and that's one reason we went
to DDX instead. We put a new program in this year's DDX, dealing with inter
missile defense also ship-to-shore in terms of fire support and also for the
Littorals. The Navy has a recent study. It concludes we need about 375 ships.
Now, I'm not sure what that answer is. But the answer is more than where we are
today, which is about 310 ships. And over a long period of time, we do have to
capitalize at about 8-10 ships a year.
Ships last about
30 years. It turns out the average age of our ships today is 16 years. Optimum
would be 15 years. So we do not have an old fleet today. We do have some older
ships, some of them very old that we do desperately have to get rid of. What we
need to do, frankly, I believe, this year, we have built the base and with DDX
and with our other ships now in development -- finished in design -- it turns
out at this period in time, most of our ships are still in some form of design.
We need to get through this point so we can actually get some real production
and move into DDX and the FYDP represents that. I mean, that is the way that we
have the structures as we go into our out years. So this is still building a
base so we can build more into the future.
I believe it
is the right decision at this point, Senator. But we do have to accelerate
shipbuilding. No question about that.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I
agree. My time is up. Thank you.
SEC. ENGLAND: You're
welcome, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Warner?
SEN. WARNER: Yes. Thank you very much.
Service and strengths. With the exception of the Marine Corps, the
president's budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 includes no increases in
end-strength. Secretary Roche, I understand you've been quoted as urging an
increase of 7,000-10,000 airmen. It's also my understanding the Army feels it
might need upwards of 40,000 troops.
Now, to what
extent, in the course of the budget deliberations, did this subject come up and
how do you gentlemen feel about the decisions that were given by the Secretary
of Defense that this year we not try it?
SEC. ROCHE:
Senator, I think the Secretary has asked the right question, which any
businessman would do, which is we know we need certain skills to increase. Are
there other skills that we don't need as much? Or, are there things we can move
to the Reserve or move to the Guard or contract out? And so, I think the first
order of business --and we are engaged in this -- is its parallel track. One is
to try to coordinate together in the services: what are end- strength
situations? And to do that, we're going to have some answers like the degree to
which we have to maintain capital in the United States.
Secondly, at the same time, he's asked us, quite rightly, I believe, to
take a look at what things can we do without? What skills do we have a very deep
bench we don't have as many of? And so, you would do both of those in parallel
and that's being looked at at this time.
SEN. WARNER:
Good. Before we move on to you, while we have Secretary Roche, I understand
while I was voting, you talked, Secretary White, about the important role of the
National Guard and where there are some stress points, particularly with regard
to employers, the ancient problem that we've always had, did you have a piece of
that equation that you wanted to put in this record about the Air Guard, because
the Air Guard has performed brilliantly. I mean, way back in the early days of
the campaign in the Balkans, I took Air Guard planes into Sarajevo in '91, as
far back as that, I've always been impressed with the way they responded.
SEC. ROCHE: They responded magnificently, sir, and in this
case, we would be using them to help rotate forces in Operation Enduring
Freedom, but we're tying up an enormous number of them here over the skies of
the United States. There is a strain on them. The Guard has been quite
imaginative in almost having just in time guardsmen. If they need to have
someone back to a job for a day or two, they substitute someone for that person.
They've been very, very imaginative in doing this. But in the very long run, we
have to understand what it is we're asking of them, what ought to be done by
active forces as compared to the Guard and Reserve forces.
SEN. WARNER: So, their senior officers have got a strong voice in these
decision makings, in your judgment?
SEC. ROCHE: Oh yes.
They're very close to the -- in the case of the Air Force, both of them are very
much involved in my deliberations.
SEN. WARNER: Now
let's go back to the original question, Secretary White, talking about your
answer.
SEC. WHITE: Well the Secretary of Defense's
position has been that the way we ought to unburden our structure is to start
cutting back on deployments. That some of these deployments we've been in for
years and years, the Sinai for example, and at least in that particular
commitment, he's come forward to say we ought to terminate it.
So, one way to do this is to cut back on the deployments that haven't
such a high operating tempo and I think his direction is that we start at that
point, rather than immediately looking at plus ups and end strength.
SEN. WARNER: So you feel you could survive this period
without any consequences on family structure, which in turn would affect your
retention?
SEC. WHITE: Well, I think we're hard pressed
right now, senator. We talked about being hard pressed before 9/11, a year ago.
There are 35,000 Guard and Reservists mobilized right now. It's a fairly
unpredictable mobilization as to a rotation in Bosnia with the 29th Division
from your home state, and that is causing a rising concern with employers and
with families. The question is -- the number one question is, how long do we
have to sustain this?
SEN. WARNER: Thank you. On the
question of unmanned systems, this committee several years ago set a goal that,
by 2010, one-third of the U.S. military operational D-strike aircraft will be
unmanned and by 2015, one-third of all U.S. military ground combat vehicles
would be unmanned. Do we feel that this budget enables sufficient funding to
keep on track those goals? Secretary White.
SEC. WHITE:
Well yes, for the unmanned activities that we support and our interim brigades
going forward, we think we put the money to resource that, from our perspective.
Our commitment obviously, is much smaller than the Air Force and the Navy in
this regard.
SEN. WARNER: One of the great chapters in
this conflict in Afghanistan has been the unmanned aircraft. Senator Roche.
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, sir. I don't know about meeting those
specific goals. I can tell you that we've used these enough for Secretary
Rumsfeld to point out, to see how efficacious they can be. But also, to
understand the difficulties of operating with them. There's only so much
bandwidth in the world and you can't take the bandwidth of the brain and bring
it back to a ground station. So exactly how to use them, not to use them, is one
of the conditions that we're trying to work on. The judgment of a pilot is still
something that can be very important. Although we have pilots who are manning
these, we are looking at the world with a very small dart.
The new tactics and doctrine we're developing from them has been very
important but there are issues of when something goes wrong, how to fix it in
the air, how to change to a different system. So the issues of working with them
aren't being understood.
SEN. WARNER: I've got to catch
this last vote. Did you have anything to add to this question, Secretary
England?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, I don't think we're
going to hit those percentages by 2010 but I can tell you we have active
programs both in the air and underwater -- very active underwater, working with
the Air Force on the U-cabs. So we are working, it's in our budget this year,
sir.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Carnahan.
SEN. JEAN CARNAHAN (D-MO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to direct my comments to Secretary Roche. I'd like to discuss
one particular provision of the 2002 Defense Authorization Act. According to the
2002 conference report, the Defense Department has been directed to report on
how it intends to encourage teaming arrangements between Boeing and Lockheed on
the joint strike fighter. This report was due when the 2003 defense budget was
submitted to Congress.
I recently wrote a letter to
Secretary Rumsfeld requesting his cooperation in developing this report, but to
date I have not seen any sign of the report. I would like, Secretary Roche, if
you would consult with Secretaries Rumsfeld and Aldridge and get back to me
sometime this week with a date certain when this report would be completed and
ready for our committee review.
SEC. ROCHE: Senator,
I'd be glad to, except the way the joint strike fighter works, I have now
shifted the helm to the Secretary of the Navy. So if you could substitute his
name for mine, he currently has the lead.
SEN.
CARNAHAN: Very good. Well I thank you and would appreciate your help in this
matter.
SEC. ENGLAND: I have it.
SEN. CARNAHAN: I have one more question I would like to direct to
Secretaries Roche and England. Recent operations in Iraq and Kosovo have shown
that we cannot simply rely on stealth technology to avoid detection from enemy
radar. Future air campaigns will bear little resemblance to the war in
Afghanistan. Countries that President Bush identified as the axis of evil, have
far more advanced anti-aircraft capabilities. Unfortunately our only electronic
jamming aircraft, the Navy's EA-6B is over a decade old. Would you please
explain the importance of honing our electronic warfare capabilities?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes, senator. Electronic warfare, or in fact
trying to provide for the survivability of aircraft in the air is a combination
of things. Stealth is one area, electronic warfare is another. With some of the
new modern electronically scanned -- active electronically scanned antenna
radars, you have the notion of electronic attack. You can reverse the radar in
jam. So all of these have to be put together in a portfolio. There have been a
number of programs to upgrade the types of pods and also the jammers on things
like the F-15s.
Secretary England has talked about a
follow on aircraft to the EA-6B or follow on program to the EA-6B, we look to it
as well. But it's a combination of things. It's not just electronic jammers. But
the jammers have been looked at, both in terms of off-board jammers, code
decoys, upgrades to internal systems, electronic attack, stealth. There's more
to it than just jamming.
SEC. CARNAHAN: Could you
discuss also, any plans you might have to develop new electronic attack
technologies such as the EA-18?
SEC. ROCHE: Do you want
Navy?
SEC. CARNAHAN: Yes. If you would.
SEC. ENGLAND: If I could answer that, senator. First of all, the
Prowler EA-6B, we've had both cracking problems with the airplane and recently
we had engine problems because of oil contamination. So we've had a difficult
time here with the EA-6Bs. As you observed, it's the only jammer we have left in
the inventory. It performs it for all missions, so that is of concern, although
we do have sufficient numbers today, even with those problems. But we are
looking at a replacement. One of the possibilities is what's called a growler,
which would be an F-18/E&F version. We have a -- what's called an AOA -- an
analysis of alternatives underway at the present time.
That will be completed here in several months, and at that time we will
have a preferred configuration to replace the EA-6B. So in a few months we'll be
able to give you a definitive answer in terms of what's the best approach to do
that. One of the considerations is a YE-6B version. It would keep us from having
another unique airplane, but like I said, that analysis is still in work.
SEN. CARNAHAN: Thank you very much.
SEN. MCCAIN: Senator Bunning.
SEN. JIM BUNNING
(R-KY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to talk to
the Secretary of the Navy for just a few minutes. In listening to your responses
to Senator Inhofe about Vieques, Mr. Secretary, if you would have testified
before this committee as you have testified in response to Senator Inhofe,
during your confirmation hearings, you would have not received my vote at
least.
I thought when we confirmed Secretaries of the
Army, Navy and Air Force, they were supposed to be forthright in their answers
and not try to evade questions. And sir, today, you have done just that. So I'm
embarrassed for Senator Inhofe and I'm also embarrassed for you.
I'd also like to ask you about the V22 Osprey. Have we made any
progress in making that airworthy?
SEN. ENGLAND:
Senator, I believe we have. We will know very shortly. In April we start the
flight test program so we have incorporated, into the airplanes for flight test,
a lot of the fixes that came out of all the studies and analysis on the airplane
that led up to the crash the last time, and it stopped the program. We have a
much better organization I believe, both in our facility and also in our
contractor facility, in terms of how these problems are being worked. My
judgment at this point is that it is now up to the airplane to prove itself.
The flight test will start in April. It will run until
some time later in '03, and there will be different configurations. Frankly, I
believe that program will demonstrate that it can perform the mission for the
United States Marines and also the Special Forces. But that's what the flight
test program is set to prove. In the meantime, we are buying a minimum
sustaining rate of airplanes, 11 airplanes this year.
SEN. BUNNING: But at $1.5 billion in cost.
SEC. ENGLAND: I believe it's -- I believe my number is 1.32, plus $600
million that we're putting in R&D in the program.
SEN. BUNNING: Okay. You requested $1.5 billion for 11 of the aircraft
in 2003, two more in the current year. Or is that incorrect?
SEC. ENGLAND: Sir, I believe it's 11 this year and -- the number I
recall is 1.32, but there may be spares or something with that, so we're in the
same --
SEN. BUNNING: So we're continuing to maintain
the line --
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, sir.
SEN. BUNNING: On an aircraft that we're not sure we can make
airworthy?
SEC. ENGLAND: Well, I believe it will prove
its worth, senator, so that's --
SEN. BUNNING: Well, it
may do just that.
SEC. ENGLAND: The issue we have if we
don't maintain the line and we prove the airplane, then it would be extremely
expensive to get the program back on the track. So we took the most
cost-effective approach.
SEN. BUNNING: I can get to the
DD 21 destroyer if we want to talk about start up again. Because we've got an
additional $961 million to do that again for the Navy. Start up from scratch
after --
SEC. ENGLAND: No, we didn't start up from
scratch, senator. We took the DD 21 program and we continue all the R&D that
was going on. We didn't stop --
SEN. BUNNING: All the
R&D. But the --
SEC. ENGLAND: We didn't stop the
program.
SEN. BUNNING: Okay.
SEC. ENGLAND: We didn't have a line. We continued a program with all
the development, but we expanded a program from just one version to three
versions.
SEN. BUNNING: An additional $961 thousand --
million dollars?
SEC. ENGLAND: We had -- I believe that
was what was programmed for DD 21, and we continued that for DD(X), and that's a
whole range of technologies, it's all in the R&D.
SEN. BUNNING: R&D.
SEC. ENGLAND: It's
R&D, yes, sir.
SEN. BUNNING: But you think that the
-- your testimony today is that the V-22 is going to succeed and be
airworthy.
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, sir, that's my
judgment.
SEN. BUNNING: Okay. Question on the EA-6B
Navy reconnaissance and radar jamming aircraft. Is it true or is it not true
that that was a joint decision with the Army to discontinue the EF-111 that did
the same program that the EA-6B does now?
SEC. ENGLAND:
That was an Air Force airplane, the EF-111 --
SEN.
BUNNING: Yes, I'm familiar with --
SEN. BUNNING: Yes.
Some years ago, I can't remember the exact time, the decision was to have one
jamming airplane, it would be the EA-6B.
SEN. BUNNING:
And now you're having problems with it?
SEC. ENGLAND:
Well, we're having cracks with it. We just had an engine problem where we had
contaminated oil that we lost some engines, so they're recoverable. But the
airplane is just getting older and we've had some problems with it. We are
looking to a replacement downstream.
SEN. BUNNING:
Would that be an upgrade of that aircraft or would that be a new aircraft?
SEC. ENGLAND: There's an analysis of alternatives being
conducted right now, senator, and I believe in a few months we will have the
recommendations to how to proceed.
SEN. BUNNING: When
you finally make that decision will you inform this committee?
SEC. ENGLAND: Absolutely.
SEN. BUNNING: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you.
Secretary Roche, you wanted to respond to my comments and
please proceed.
SEC. ROCHE: Thank you very much,
Senator, I appreciate it.
The point I would hope to
make, sir, is that at this stage no moneys have been asked for. We don't know
what the price of a lease would be.
Second point is I
am required to come back to the authorizing and appropriating committees once an
amount of money and the conditions of a lease are put together. Therefore, based
on the historic precedent of the 737 leases that the Air Force was asked to do a
few years ago, we were following that procedure.
I
think the basic point, sir, that I would hope that I would get an agreement with
you on is that the 707s are old airplanes. Granted their age means that we
probably aren't going to find a class problem, but we might find a class
problem, and we are heavily reliant on those almost exclusively in our tanker
force. Therefore, introducing a new plane is one that is of great concern to me
after I went to Tinker and saw catalytic corrosion, saw delaminating aluminum,
and then checked on what happened when we refurbished the planes for Joint
Stars, which takes them back to class A condition.
Do
these come in the Forces as brand new airplanes or do they behave for repairs
like 10-year-old airplanes? And it turns out our data shows that they act like
planes that are 15 to 20 years old. There's only so much you can redo when you
take them back. So therefore the concern to replace tankers has been most on my
mind. Trying to do that more quickly and save some money was also a point,
sir.
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, I guess we could continue this
discussion for quite a while but I've got to tell you, I work in the Russell --
I live -- my offices are in Russell Senate Office Building. Former chairman of
the Armed Services Committee I was privileged to serve when Senator Stennis was
chairman. My great hero and mentor, Senator Tower, chairman of the Armed
Services Committee. And here you orchestrated a deal without a hearing, without
even informing the chairman and ranking member of the authorizing committee.
I think I know where Senator Tower is today. He wouldn't
stand for it. He wouldn't stand for it. It's not only an indictment of your
behavior, but it's an indictment of the system we have here, where the
appropriators have basically taken over the process.
The authorizing committees are now very pleasant debating
organizations. But we all know that the authorizing bill comes at the very end
and all the money -- and in a case like yours, authorizing is put into an
appropriations bill. And now we've reached the point where the secretary of the
Air Force, with 100 plane deal, a 100 plus 26-plane deal doesn't go directly to
the secretary of the Air Force who might be interested -- I mean, excuse me,
doesn't go directly to the Secretary of Defense who might be interested. When I
talked to him and said something about that, I thought it was outrageous -- he
didn't know anything about it.
And corresponds with
members of the appropriations committees and lobbyists with the Boeing lobbyists
to get a deal which, quote, "authorizes $26 billion in a deal that is
non-competitive because it names Boeing.
" It doesn't
name "Airbus," it doesn't name "United Airlines," who has a lot of excess
airplanes. It names Boeing.
You know, campaign finance
reform is on the floor of the House today. Maybe this will cure some of this.
Because I know that Boeing has contributed millions in campaign contributions to
both parties. And so here we have a situation that is really kind of the
ultimate of a process we've been on for a long time. In a way I don't blame you
for playing the game, Mr. Secretary.
SEC. ROCHE:
Senator, I --
SEN. MCCAIN: But the fact is that the
chairman of this committee and the ranking member were not consulted by -- you
didn't even pick up the phone and say, "Hey, you know, we'd like to lease these
-- we'd like to get put into an appropriations bill where there's no place for
it because appropriations are to give money for previously authorized programs.
We're going to put into the -- we're going to try to get into the appropriations
bill, an authorization which will then allow, eventually, the purchase of $26
billion worth of airplanes."
Now, my other question to
you is, and you're free to respond, have you solicited any other offers? Have
you solicited? Have you said, "Hey, anybody else want to offer up airplanes that
we could use for Air Force tankers?" Have you solicited anybody?
SEC. ROCHE: Again, senator, if I can go back. And I'm sorry if I'm not
communicating well to you, sir. No moneys were asked for. It was just the
authority.
SEN. MCCAIN: Then why did you go to the
appropriators and ask for it to be authorized?
SEC.
ROCHE: Based, senator, on what I understood, and it could be my mistake, what
has happened in the past when the Senate asked the Air Force to try to lease
737s, this happened a number of years ago, it happened the same way. The Air
Force could not come to a good deal for a lease and therefore it did not do it.
So we're asking for the authority to try to do something which then has to come
back to the authorizing committees and to the appropriation committees in order
to go into effect. But no moneys were involved.
The
second point --
SEN. MCCAIN: But it authorized the use
of moneys, Mr. Roche. It authorized the use of moneys.
SEC. ROCHE: As best as I can read the language, sir, it authorized --
gives me authority to attempt to negotiate a lease. I can't do anything unless
-- or the Air Force can't do anything unless we come back to the defense
committees. It cannot move unless the defense committees approve. So effectively
you have to then -- once there's a dollar amount and once there are terms and
conditions it must come to the authorizing committees and the appropriating
committees as I understand, sir. But I could be mistaken.
SEN. MCCAIN: Why did you go to the appropriations committee, Mr.
Roche?
SEC. ROCHE: Again, sir, it was based on the
historic precedent set by the 737s. And there's, again, four 737s in the current
bill, to ask me to go and try to release on 737s for VIP travel.
SEN. MCCAIN: Wow. That's remarkable. 100 airplanes based on the
precedent that some VIP aircraft were requested. Would you answer my question I
asked, soliciting --
SEC. ROCHE: The second part, about
two or three others. We did it in --
SEN. MCCAIN: Have
you solicited any offers from any entities besides Boeing? And does the language
that you orchestrated to be put into the bill allow for you to solicit any other
company or corporation to make an offer since it specifically states only Boeing
aircraft?
SEC. ROCHE: Senator, first of all, I don't
believe I orchestrated the language.
SEN. MCCAIN: Well,
I got your letters.
SEC. ROCHE: You have the letters
that were specific language --
SEN. MCCAIN: I would ask
that they be made part of the record.
SEC. ROCHE: I
didn't -- I don't believe I orchestrated this. I asked for something because I
feel --
SEN. MCCAIN: You okayed it.
SEC. ROCHE: I have okayed, yes sir, because I feel that the --
SEN. MCCAIN: Have you changed --
SEC. ROCHE: -- tanker situation is sufficiently worrisome to me that
the sooner we can fix it the better, which is one of the reasons you do leases,
like Her Majesty's Air Force is leasing C-17s to get a capability much, much
more quickly. With regard to asking others, at the time there had been
competitions both in Italy and Japan, and in both cases the Airbus Canada is
lost. But I was open to, and I stated publicly, open to --
SEN. MCCAIN: Yes, sir, let's -- I ask my question again.
SEC. ROCHE: -- new lines --
SEN.
MCCAIN: Have you solicited any other offers from any other entity --
SEC. ROCHE: Yes.
SEN. MCCAIN: --
that may be able to compete, number one, and like we do usually, to compete for
bids and things like that. And number two is, does the language prohibit any
other, since it says only Boeing aircraft.
SEC. ROCHE:
The language as it currently stands would prohibit it. But if I were to come
back and say that X has got a much better deal for the country, can in fact help
Navy and Air Force planes be tanked, and it requires some change, I would assume
that that language could be changed.
SEN. MCCAIN: Which
is why your letters ask specifically for Boeing aircraft.
SEC. ROCHE: That's -- and if I can on that point, sir, if I may. At
11th September, after the attack, there was a drop in commercial airlines. There
were a number of cancelled orders. Very much like the situation of a processor
of mine a number of years ago faced when he found a number of DC-10s that were
not usable, brought them into the Air Force, converted them into KC-10s, I
looked to see could there be a deal that would be good for the American people,
good for the Air Force, by picking up excess aircraft that were made excess
because of cancelled orders to Boeing. And that's what started it, sir.
SEN. MCCAIN: I would again like an answer to the question:
Have you solicited any group or organization or entity to make a proposal for
--
SEC. ROCHE: Sir, I said I've spoken with Philippe
Camus --
SEN. MCCAIN: Have you solicited -- I'd like an
answer. Have you solicited --
SEC. ROCHE: I said yes
--
SEN. MCCAIN: -- anyone to propose -- to make a
proposal to -- have you, in writing, said, "We need -- we'd like to have
proposals," is it published anywhere, "we'd like to have proposals by different
corporations, companies, anybody who thinks that they can fulfill this
requirement"?
SEC. ROCHE: In writing, no sir. But I
don't think I've solicited -- at least I have not solicited Boeing in writing
either. And I ask --
SEN. MCCAIN: Boeing's in the law -
Boeing's in the law -- (laughing) --Mr. Secretary.
Why
would you have to solicit them?
SEC. ROCHE: I've spoken
to Philippe Camus, who is the chief executive of --
SEN. MCCAIN: But you have not solicited any? Not in this past December,
and here we are in February.
SEC. ROCHE: If he has a
proposal I'd be more than willing to look at it.
SEN.
MCCAIN: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I strongly urge that we
have a full committee hearing on this issue. It's $26 billion which is on track
to go to Boeing aircraft in violation of what the head of the office of
management and budget deems inappropriate ways of lease purchase contracts. I
strongly urge a hearing. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Collins.
SEN. SUSAN M.
COLLINS (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary
England, as you well know from our numerous conversations, I'm very concerned
about the low current procurement rates of ships and aircraft. The Navy has,
over and over, stated that its goals are to procure eight to 10 ships per year,
and 180 to 210 aircraft per year. Year the Navy's budget does not reach these
goals until very late in the future year defense program. And that is also of
great concern to me, because I've seen too often the pattern where the Navy or
the other services sincerely intend in those out years to reach the goals, but
then events intervene or budget constraints interfere, and we never get to where
we need to go.
The fact is that we're seeing a
continual increase in the operational tempo. We're seeing increases in the
average age per platform, ship depot maintenance availabilities are, more often
than not, exceeding the notational cost. Aircraft are requiring more maintenance
per hour, and are experiencing increasing failure rates on major components
resulting in significantly increased costs per flight hour.
My concern is that we need to start rectifying these deficiencies now,
and that we're fast sliding down a procurement hole that's going to be very
difficult for us to climb out of, and to meet our goals and current
requirements.
I was struck in my visit to the -- to
central Asia, and talking to the service men and women, the sailors and the
admirals on the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. The operational tempo is incredible.
I don't know what we would have done if we didn't have our aircraft carriers and
our carrier battle groups in this war, since so many of the strikes have
originated from our aircraft carriers. I think it's in the neighborhood of 75
percent according to your testimony.
So what are your
thoughts on our current force structure, and our budget plans, and whether or
not we have a match here for our mission requirement?
SEC. ENGLAND: Well, first of all, as Secretary Roche just said, I
violently agree with you. I'll use the same expression. Obviously, we do need
more ships, we need more airplanes. We made some hard decisions this year, and I
believe we made the right decisions in '03.
Just like
the Kennedy that had trouble getting out to sea because the maintenance hadn't
been, you know, done in the past, right, and we had a lot of delays. It's of no
value to our Navy to have assets that don't operate. So this year we put a lot
of money, we put $3 billion into ONM (ph) accounts. So $3 billion went into ONM
accounts. By the way, the Navy had an increase this year of $9.5 billion. $4
billion went to personnel accounts, $3 billion went to ONM accounts, a little
over $1 billion went into R&D, and a billion dollars went into
procurement.
But the billion dollars that went into
procurement went into munitions, because in the past years it had been way
underfunded, and we had to fund the munitions. So we put a lot of money into
munitions this year, $1 billion over last year.
Now,
also, we are doing two SSGNs, that's another billion dollars we invested. And
they count. I mean, they're real assets to the United States Navy. We had prior
year ship building accounts. Last year it was $800 million, this year it's $645
million. That is money that we spend for prior year contracts. We don't get
anything for that. I mean, that's for bills from prior years, prior year
accounts. And we still have, by the way, $1.2 billion to work off on that
account. So we'll be back here every year working that off.
We put $400 million into our current ship building accounts so we would
forestall these problems in the future. So just our prior year ship building,
and our $400 million where we increased our funding level, that's another whole
ship, frankly. But it's just paid -- it was -- help protect our future and pay
bills, you know, that we had run up in the past.
Now,
what we did this year, what I call, we filled all the buckets that -- at least
to my knowledge, we filled all the buckets across the Navy and Marines. So in
the out years we shouldn't have to take money out of ship building or airplanes.
We should actually see the benefits of that money to buy airplanes and ships.
But I'd certainly like to buy more this year. But we made
priority decisions, and I believe they were the right decisions, Senator.
SEN. COLLINS: I don't dispute the need for more funding in
each of these accounts. I guess maybe the question for this committee is whether
the Navy's share of the $48 billion increase overall is sufficient, given the
shortfall in procurement accounts.
One other quick
question before I go on to a question for Secretary Roche, and for you as well.
Is the down select for the DDX still on track for April?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, it is.
SEN. COLLINS: Thank
you. Secretary Roche, as you're well aware, the mobility requirement study 2005
identified a sea and airlift shortfall, and this obviously applies, I guess,
across the board. Could both you and Secretary England tell us more,
specifically have the current operations of Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle
have acerbated the lift short-fall?
SEC. ROCHE: Yes,
Senator. A couple of things come to mind. One, the older aircraft like the
C-141s and a number of the C-5s are breaking. They're old. They're just old.
C-141s have to be retired. We're using them now until we get enough C-17s in
place.
Secondly, we're using the C-17 more than we ever
intended to and I'm concerned that its maintenance is not getting the attention
because it's not being pulled off the line enough. We are looking for the future
to say there was a study having to do with expected scenarios of conflict, but
then there's the realities of what we're doing in long term war on terrorism and
mobility is key since Afghanistan is totally land locked. Everything that goes
in, everything that comes out has to go in by air, including the water our
troops drink.
Therefore we will look over the next
couple of years at the C-17 situation to see if we should extend that line. At
the same time we're in this year's budget requesting permission of the committee
to have a multi-year funding for the C-130J which is a longer
haul, more retailing airplane as compared to C-17 which is wholesaling.
SEN. COLLINS: Secretary England, would you like to add any
comments?
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, I really don't have
much to add here. I believe we've been able to deal with the requirements for
Operation Enduring Freedom. As you know our deployed forces have 30 days of
supply with them. So our Marines when they go into Afghanistan they have 30 days
of everything with them.
So to the best of my knowledge
we have not had an issue during Enduring Freedom. We've been able to supply our
ships and our people. Fortunately we have two countries that are very important
to us -- Bahrain and United Arab Emirates. And they've been very helpful to us.
So my judgment is we've done quite well in that regard.
SEN. COLLINS: My time's expired.
Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Senator
Collins.
Senator Sessions?
SEN. SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary England, you were talking about this prior year funding that
you had to pay -- obligated money that's fallen to you to pay. That you don't
get to spend. Is that what Secretary Rumsfeld has felt is bad management and
said he's going to try to end? Or is that something we have to live with year
after year?
SEC. ENGLAND: Well, I certainly hope we
don't have to live with it. Like I say, this year we've added the funding of
current contracts by about $400 million. That is, we've brought the S-Men (ph)
up to completion by $400 million to hopefully forestall this problem in the
future. When we look at this issue it's for lots of reasons. You know, rates
have gone up, perhaps changes that we imposed -- now keep in mind these ships
are over a long period of time so obviously we introduce technology et
cetera.
There's some costs associated with that and
that really is a valid cost because it improves our product. But a lot of this
frankly has to do with, I guess if I were to say, they impose inefficiency of
the yards. That is we buy at very, very low rates. So we buy very low rates and
we pay top dollars. Therefore it is important for us to get the rate up so that
we get the cost down and get better control of our ship cost.
I hope this is -- I certainly hope that this is not something that we
have to live with. We are working very, very hard to end these prior ship
building accounts. The assistant secretary, John Young and myself work this
regularly and I believe we will be successful at this, Senator.
SEN. SESSIONS: Well, it's important -- I think for us it's difficult
enough to manage and try to oversee a budget and approve a budget that has got
numbers shifting from one year to the next and I appreciate you working on that.
Let me just make a point and ask a couple of questions. Today's navy, I
understand includes about 315 ships although I saw an article the other day that
said 310. You got a hard number on that, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yeah, I believe -- let me see if I have an exact number
here. I believe the number of ships today is 310.
SEN.
SESSIONS: Which is lower than we've been complaining about at 315. And we do
have escalating operations and maintenance and personnel costs have gone up and
we want to pay our sailors and personnel more. And it has kept us from
re-capitalizing the Navy at the rate we'd like to. It's kept us below the 2001
QDR quadrennial defense review statement of what's necessary.
In the fiscal year 2003 budget accompanying future years defense
program does not allocate sufficient investment to build the number of ships
required to re-capitalize the fleet. The request for years 2003 through 2007 as
I read it is 18 ships less than was required by the QDR plans. So this is a
result of retiring ships earlier than their projected service life, not building
the required Virginia class submarines called for by the joint-chiefs attack
submarine study and low procurement rates for other ships.
So I am not criticizing you. It's not your fault that we're in this
predicament. But -- and I salute you for making some tough calls. And you had to
make some tough decisions looking at the numbers you were allocated. Let me ask
you about some potential way that we could improve our ship effectiveness. The
actual number deployed in a war time environment. And see if you've thought
about these and what ideas you might have about it.
Four areas that I think the Navy should examine and Senator Kennedy's
chairman of the Sea-powered Sub-Committee and I'm the ranking member and I will
be seeking information on this issue this year in some hearings. One, we could
assign additional ships and submarines to home ports closer to their area of
operation. This is sometimes referred to as forward home porting. We could
assign a ship to remain in a permanent forward area of operations and rotate
crews back and forth which isn't historic naval policy, but we do it on
submarines. And that has some real potential, I think.
We could retain ships to the end of their full service life rather than
retiring them early. And we're doing that. I was on the O'Brien Spruance class
destroyer a few weeks ago in Japan. It performed well in Afghanistan and is now
set to be de-commissioned rapidly.
And we could
pre-position additional ships in forward operating areas that would be
maintained by various small crews during normal circumstances and they could be
beefed up in times of emergency. This would be analogous to the manner in which
the ready reserve force ships are being kept ready to begin operations in a few
days.
Are those some ideas that you are considering and
if we did those is it possible to get more ships in fighting areas where we need
them, recognizing, Mr. Chairman, that most Americans may not know that it takes
three ships to maintain one ship in forward deployment, the way we operate
today.
SEC. ENGLAND: Senator, I believe you're right on
and I think the fact is I think the CNO would also agree with you. We have
initiated across the Navy and with the CNO in a leadership role to look at a
wide range of options as to how do we get greater deployment out of our existing
fleet.
Also by the way, the faster we get them through
the depots, the faster we get them through maintenance cycles, that effectively
increases the size of our navy. So you're right, anything that effectively
increases the size of the Navy is certainly worth looking at and we're looking
at all those ideas and other ones also.
SEN. SESSIONS:
Even if the number of ships were low if you could maintain more ships in
war-fighting areas the impact wouldn't be as great.
SEC. ENGLAND: You're absolutely right. It effectively increases the
size of the Navy if we can do that. And like I say we're looking at all those
alternatives. It's the most efficient way to go, it's the most effective way to
go and we will be --we'll be happy to come brief your committee on all these
initiatives, Senator.
SEN. SESSIONS: We'll be
submitting some follow up questions on that subject --
SEC. ENGLAND: Okay.
SEN. SESSIONS: -- and know
that we're still going need some new ships --
SEC.
ENGLAND: Absolutely.
SEN. SESSIONS: -- but if we could
maximize those older ones I think that would be helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. ENGLAND: Thank
you, Senator.
(Cross talk.)
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Sessions.
I
want to go back to the tanker leasing question and ask you, Secretary Roche, a
few questions on this point. You were quoted in the press as saying that the
language implementing any such lease would need to be changed. In other words
legislative language would be necessary in order for you to enter into such a
lease and I'm wondering if that is accurate.
SEN.
ROCHE: No, sir. And I don't know of the contents of that. What I'm saying is
that we are now -- well, the facts are as follows. We are now taking the
language from the bill and seeing what are the conditions and can a lease be
done under those circumstances. If we can, then we would move forward and we
would try to put one together. But it's a function of cost of money, it's a
function of residual values. There are no dollars involved. I have to come back
to you once there's something that involves dollars.
But it is the constraints, the guidelines.
Originally, I had asked if there was a chance to waive the provisions
of the capital, at least for scoring purposes, in order to have these aircraft
get here sooner. But that's not my position. It would have to have a change.
We're trying to work with it as it is.
SEN. LEVIN: So
you're saying there's no legislative changes or guidelines that would have to be
amended in order for you to enter into such a lease?
SEC. ENGLAND: Only if somebody like Airbus came along and made a deal
that was so good, an offer that was so good that we felt that we would prefer
it, then we would come forward, yes sir.
SEN. LEVIN:
Other than that?
SEC. ENGLAND: Other than that --
SEN. LEVIN: Changes in guidelines?
SEC. ENGLAND: As best as we can tell now, sir. As I say, we're
examining, because there's also colloquies on the floor that were done to
explain what some of these provisions meant. Like, what is a new aircraft? Is it
one with a tanker boom, or one without the tanker boom?
SEN. LEVIN: Right. Now, will there be -- is there any funding in the
'03 budget request to begin these leases if you decided to go forward?
SEC. ENGLAND: No, sir, there is not. Because I was trying
to see if I had permission to go forward. In fact, there is no money at all in
the budget for leasing. It was a plan B. If we could do something faster, fine.
But we would stay on track with plan A, which was to develop the KC-X. And in
fact --
SEN. LEVIN: Is it possible you could enter into
a lease without funding?
SEC. ENGLAND: No sir. I'd have
to come back and either amend the budget. As I understand it, senator, I'd have
to amend a request, or reprogram money to pay the first payment, or not make the
first payment until next year and get permission to do so.
So as far as I know, I cannot do anything unless I come back to an
authorizing committee, and appropriations committee, with the thing in hand, as
compared to the authority to try and get the thing. And I faced the same
problems, senator, on the four 737s that are there. And that --
SEN. LEVIN: Just so that we're real clear, for one of two reasons --
either of two reasons, you could not proceed without coming back to the
authorizing committees?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, sir. I've
--
SEN. LEVIN: Excuse me -- and the appropriations
committees.
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, sir. As I read the bill,
which I always thought was the case, once I got the money I'd have to have the
money authorized, and the money appropriated. It was a matter of --
SEN. LEVIN: Once you got the --
SEC. ENGLAND: Once I got the money, the deal. Once I had a construct,
so I had the IT (ph), to bring the IT forward, that I would require
authorization for the IT, and I'd require appropriation for the IT. But I could
not do anything with the companies if it was totally out of the question, which
is the reason I was asking could we go forward.
SEN.
LEVIN: Could not do something with the companies if --
SEC. ENGLAND: Could not negotiate --
SEN.
LEVIN: Let me just finish -- if it's totally out of the question. I asked you a
very direct question.
SEC. ENGLAND: Sure.
SEN. LEVIN: Can you enter -- is there any potential lease
agreement that you believe you could enter into without coming back to the
authorizing and appropriating committees?
SEC. ENGLAND:
No, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Okay. Let's leave it at that. You
can qualify it if you want. I don't want to cut you off. But I --
SEC. ENGLAND: No, sir. No, you're absolutely -- the only
reason I'm pausing is -- the language says I must go back before the defense
committees which is exactly what I would have thought in the first place.
SEN. LEVIN: Okay.
SEC. ENGLAND:
But, again, the only qualifier was to start negotiations if something would
never even have a chance, would not have been sensible. And also I was truly
seeing to what degree could the scoring rules be amended giving the situation of
the old tankers. They cannot be amended. And, as Mr. Daniels has said, some
leases are good leases, some leases are bad leases. And I think they're bringing
back a bad lease -- a bad lease proposal.
SEN. LEVIN:
Okay. Both civilian and military witnesses from the Defense Department and the
Services have stressed the importance of quality of life and the impact that
substandard living and working facilities have on the ability to accomplish the
mission. Last year the readiness subcommittee received testimony that 69 percent
of the department's facilities rated -- have serious deficiencies, C3, or do not
support mission requirements, C4. And it was stated that the administration is
committed to restoring the installations and facilities. That was just last
year.
This year, despite a $48 billion increase in the
overall defense budget, the administration is proposing to reduce funding for
military construction by a billion dollars below what the department requested
last year, and a billion and a half dollars below the level that was
appropriated for 2002.
How do you explain this? I must
tell you, I'm a little bit at sea, I guess, maybe also I should say also in the
air and underground. But, anyway, I'm at sea as to try to figure out what was
meant last year. The Army was said to have underfunded long term facilities.
This is your testimony this year, actually, Mr. Secretary. For too many years,
the Army has underfunded long term facilities maintenance.
And so you come in with a budget request a billion dollars below last
year's request, and a billion and a half dollars below what we appropriated. So
I don't get it. What's going on?
SEC. WHITE: Well,
senator, in the MILCON area, if you add the normal MILCON with what we are
putting into Army family housing, and then you add the private capital that we
are attracting to support RCI, the residents of communities initiative, if you
put all those pieces together, we're basically flat between the two years. They
total up to about $3.9 billion in each year.
SEN.
LEVIN: Okay. If you want to put the three pieces together, what is the Navy's
position?
SEC. ENGLAND: It's similar. We're slightly
down in the budget. We did increase the housing allowance, however, by $225
million. And we improve our housing construction accounts. And in this year, in
FY03 we will have public private venture, that is private money supporting the
military to the tune of $700 million. I'm not aware what it was last year, but
we worked very hard this year to bring private money into the mechanism. So, I
don't know how that compares at the end of the day, senator, but --
SEN. LEVIN: Well, let's try to compare them. Let's compare
apples and apples.
When you gave us your three pieces,
Secretary White, did you include the same three pieces last year for your
comparison?
SEC. WHITE: I don't know whether we
included the RCI private capital, but I -- in fact, I don't think there was any
RCI private capital in last year. The two that we had --
SEN. LEVIN: What about the third piece?
SEC.
WHITE: Well, we have the normal military construction. We have the Army family
housing. There are small amounts of money for base realignment and closure. And
then there's the private capital, which is the third piece.
SEN. LEVIN: I just want to make sure you're adding all the same pieces
for both years.
SEC. WHITE: Right.
SEN. LEVIN: And do you know whether you are or not?
SEC. WHITE: I think so, yes. I think it's a --
SEN. LEVIN: On that basis you thinks it's level funding?
SEC. WHITE: Yes.
SEN. LEVIN: Now,
Navy, you don't know?
SEC. ENGLAND: I don't know,
senator. I don't know what we had last year in terms of private venture
funding.
SEN. LEVIN: Is your MILCON lower this year
than last year?
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes. MILCON has decreased
somewhat from 02. But I don't know what the total amount of investment dollars
are, senator. I -- we'll get back with you on this.
SEN. LEVIN: And the reason for the reduction?
SEC. ENGLAND: Just hard choices we made. And we had, you know, again,
private companies investing, so that obviated the need somewhat for MILCON. We
would obviously rather have private companies investing along with us. As the
DOW goes up, you can attract more and more private venture capital.
SEN. LEVIN: Get us the figures, if you would, for the
record.
SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, I will.
SEC. : Sir, I'm prepared. We had three categories of investment, family
housing, military construction and sustainment. We, if you take all three, we
are $45 million less this year than we were the year before, and I think that's
through us, we'd advise, could be a little bit lower.
We specifically made a decision to increase money for family housing,
and to fix things, to fix runways, fix hangars, put new roofs on, refurbish et
cetera, which comes out of the sustainment account, which we plussed-up by $362
million. The military construction of brand new buildings, we focused on only
that which would be needed for new systems that are coming in. So, for instance,
construction at Langley Air Force Base to accompany the F22 teams that are
starting to form. But in total we are very close to what was in the 02
budget.
SEN. LEVIN: What do we do then with last year's
testimony that the administration is committed to restoring installations and
facilities, if 69 percent of the department's facilities have serious
deficiencies? Where does that get fixed, in this year's budget?
SEC. ROCHE: I believe in the sustainment, we do a good bit of that sir.
We made a big dent in that to the sustainment, which is to fix things. MILCON is
to build brand new.
SEN. LEVIN: Yes, and that, you're
down?
SEC. ROCHE: No, sir, in sustainment we're way
up.
SEN. LEVIN: On MILCON you're down.
SEC. ROCHE: On brand new buildings, we're down because we're
restricting it to new systems. But in sustainment we're trying to fix things as
much as we can. And in family housing we're moving up. That's -- our money is
for family housing, not including privatization.
SEN.
LEVIN: Well, in the materials that were given to us, briefing materials, the
controller said that the reduction was a conscious decision to defer military
construction projects to reflect the delay in additional round of base closures
in 2005. I'm glad to hear none of you use that as an excuse.
SEC. : Sir, what --
SEN. LEVIN: Because there
was no delay. For the first time, we've got a round of base closing. It wasn't a
delay. We finally got one. I thought that was a pretty feeble excuse when I read
it, and I'm happy to hear you fellows, you secretaries, have not used it today.
What we'll need to do is review the reasons you did give, however. So we're
going to need to see those figures for the record and Secretary White, if you
would also provide those for the record.
SEC. WHITE:
Yes, we will.
SEN. LEVIN: On the question of Army
transformation, the budget request includes -- in the budget request, the Army
terminates 18 existing programs, including some that were restored by Congress
at the Army's request over the last couple of years. I'm wondering whether or
not the 18 programs that were terminated by the Army were your initiative or was
that a direction of the Office of the Secretary of Defense?
SEC. WHITE: It was not a direction of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Senator. It was our initiative. We had some tough choices and those
were the programs we chose to kill.
SEN. LEVIN: Now,
I'm going to ask each of you for a list of unfunded requirements. You have such
requirements that are unfunded? I'm not going to ask you for them right now.
I'll ask you those for the record. But before we get them on the record, are
there unfunded requirements in the Army?
SEC. WHITE:
Yes, there are. Again, what we try to build in this budget was a budget that
would sustain us through an expected level of effort with the current war, where
a supplemental would not be required. But there are areas of the budget that we
did not fully fund against requirements because we had to make tough choices.
SEN. LEVIN: Would you provide for the record --
SEC. WHITE: Yes, I will.
SEN.
LEVIN: -- immediate promptly that and Secretary, would you do that as well?
SEC. ENGLAND: Ships and airplanes, Senator. Obviously we
need funding for those two re-capitalization accounts.
SEN. LEVIN: Even though you have them in the FYDP?
SEN. ENGLAND: We do build up to 10 ships at the end of the FYDP, that's
correct.
SEN. LEVIN: But you have unfunded requirements
this year?
SEN. ENGLAND: Correct. We're not at the
level we'd like to be this year. That's correct.
SEN.
LEVIN: You'll give us a list of those?
SEN. ENGLAND:
Yes, sir.
SEN. ROCHE: Yes, we are the same. But if I
could make the point that the steadiness of this budget with some steady
increases will take care of things in time and we have unfunded requirements
which will be met years later. It's really an issue of bringing them into the
near-term.
SEN. LEVIN: So, as of this year, you have
unfunded requirements?
SEN. ROCHE: Sir, we've had to
make trade, sure.
SEN. LEVIN: Will you give us a
list?
SEN. ROCHE: I would have liked to have bought
tankers. For instance, I'd like to have purchased tankers and not gone through
the grief I'm going through.
SEN. LEVIN: I can
understand why, actually. But you'll give us the list, will you, of unfunded
requirements? Senator Sessions has a question.
SEN.
SESSIONS: Just briefly. Secretary White, we had a nice tour in Korea the first
week of January and the reports I heard about inadequate housing, the inadequate
compensations for family split-ups for tours there are really causing some
problems in getting people to accept an assignment that they enjoy when they're
doing the work but they don't enjoy the matters that go with it. Does this
budget provide any relief and improvement in housing? We simply, in my view,
need to do some consolidation of bases and improvement of housing in Korea.
SEC. WHITE: We have allocated resources to Korea but I
will have to get back to you for the record with the specifics of where the
money'll be spent.
SEN. SESSIONS: I would just repeat
that I don't believe that that is an exaggerated problem. I know you hear
problems everywhere you go --
SEC. WHITE: I don't think
it is either.
SEN. SESSIONS: I think we have a real
problem there that's undermining some of the good things that are happening in
Army and if we could fix it, it would be great.
SEC.
WHITE: We've been there 50 years. One year at a time.
SEN. SESSIONS: Exactly right. The facilities are 50 years old, many of
them and are just not adequate. And this, to get the numbers down at JDAM, I
believe, Secretary England, you indicate the Navy has 18,000 in for 2003.
SEC. ENGLAND: No, sir. Over 9800, I believe the number is
for '03.
SEN. SESSIONS: For '03 it'll be 9800 and what
about the Air Force?
SEC. ROCHE: Sorry, you don't have
to get the exact numbers. I was worried more about the production capacity. We
are producing 1500 a month right now for both services. I wanted to get that to
3,000 a month, we'll be facilitating for 3,000 a month --
SEN. SESSIONS: When do you think you will be getting the 3,000 a
month?
SEC. ROCHE: That we can get to about 2000 at the
end of '03 and I think by the end of '04, we'll be able to go to 3,000 a month.
That's roughly, sir. We'll get the exact details to you.
SEN. SESSIONS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that's probably not enough
to meet our needs and maybe we ought to think about bringing on more production
lines. Is that possible?
SEC. ROCHE: Sir, the way
things are going now as we're building up inventories, we're still producing
JDAMs. We're starting to catch up very quickly because we're not using that
many. We were using about 80 a day and that's now dropped down to -- a number of
days none are used, so we're building up the inventory again. It's the capacity
to be able to do it which is effectively like opening up a second line.
SEN. SESSIONS: But you wouldn't want to be in a position
I'm having to tell the president that we're not prepared to undertake a military
operation because we've got to wait six more months to get our munitions re
--
SEC. ROCHE: No, sir. We feel very good this is not a
big risk. When you get to the point you can do 3,000 a month, you're talking
36,000 a year. That's a heck of a lot of weapons.
SEN.
SESSIONS: But that's two years away. Or we can do 15 now, within a year it will
be about 2,000.
SEC. ROCHE: Plus there are other
precise weapons. It's not just that JDAM is the only weapon.
SEN. SESSIONS: It turned out to be the weapon of choice right now.
SEC. ROCHE: Absolutely.
SEN.
SESSIONS: It was a magnificent thing. I'll probably ask some more questions in
writing and we'll talk about that maybe in a confidential hearing. But I do
believe we've got to confront that question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Sessions, just one more question from
me. And that relates to your active duty strengths. Did any of you propose
increases in your services' active duty strengths in this year's budget?
SEC. WHITE: No, we did not, Senator.
SEC. ROCHE: We have 2,400 Marines' increase this year.
SEN. LEVIN: And the Navy?
SEC. ENGLAND: No,
sir.
SEN. LEVIN: But did you request?
SEC. ENGLAND: No, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Secretary
Roche?
SEC. ROCHE: I don't think so. Although we're
talking about an end-strength increase, I can't figure -- remember which we've
hooked it to, sir. And we talked about an increase of roughly 7,000. The
secretary has asked a reasonable question to go back to see if there are
offsets, if there are some -- what skill areas are really needed? Are there
other skill areas that we can put in the Guard, Reserve, et cetera?
And before he makes decisions on those. So that's probably
now part of the '04 process. I lose track of: Are we in the executing --
SEN. LEVIN: I lose track of your answer.
SEC. ROCHE: The answer is --
SEN. LEVIN: Let
me ask the question --
SEC. ROCHE: I answered the
question, yes. The answer is yes, we asked for 7,000. I don't know whether we
did it in the '03 process or we're doing it as part of the '04 process. That's
what I can't remember.
SEN. LEVIN: Let us know for the
record which one it was. Recent press reports indicated that the Army had asked
for 40,000 additional troops, the Air Force for 8,000 airmen, the Navy for 3,000
more and apparently, this is not accurate. Is that what you're telling us?
SEC. WHITE: I think the 40,000 came from a hearing last
year in the House Armed Services Committee, where we discussed with Congressman
Skelton whether the 480 was adequate or not and if it was not adequate, what the
plus-up should look like.
SEN. LEVIN: Anyway, the press
report that indicates that you requested them is not accurate?
SEC. WHITE: No. It's not accurate.
SEN. LEVIN:
Is that correct also for the Navy?
SEC. ENGLAND:
Correct.
SEC. ROCHE: And I did ask for the seven and I
can't remember which part of it was, part of the '03 or the '04.
SEN. LEVIN: At least, you will let us know that for the record. Thank
you very, very much.
I think we've concluded our
hearing. We appreciate your presence, your answers, and we'll stand
adjourned.
Document 56 of 112. 