[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-122]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 28, 2008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-097 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Tenth Congress
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
ADAM SMITH, Washington California
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam ROB BISHOP, Utah
MARK E. UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director
Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff Member
Stephanie Sanok, Professional Staff Member
Caterina Dutto, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2008
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, February 28, 2008, Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense
Authorization Act--Budget Request from the Department of the
Army........................................................... 1
Appendix:
Thursday, February 28, 2008...................................... 47
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008
FISCAL YEAR 2009 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 3
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Casey, Gen. George W., Jr., USA, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army....... 9
Geren, Hon. Pete, Secretary of the Army.......................... 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Geren, Hon. Pete, joint with Gen. George W. Casey, Jr........ 51
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Abercrombie.............................................. 79
Mrs. Boyda................................................... 81
Mr. Hayes.................................................... 79
Mr. Miller................................................... 80
Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 81
FISCAL YEAR 2009 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, February 28, 2008.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. Welcome to today's hearing, which is the Army
posture hearing. We welcome our witnesses today.
I might announce that on occasion we begin the questioning
in reverse order. And unless there is an objection, I will say
that the questioners will begin in the low seniority coming
back to the high on the 12th of next month.
So we welcome the witnesses today, Secretary Pete Geren,
the 20th secretary of the Department of the Army, and what is
even more impressive, former member of our committee; General
George Casey, chief of staff of the United States Army. And we
thank you for coming and for your extraordinary service. We are
proud of both of you.
Most of all, thank you to the valiant and dedicated
soldiers and civilians that you represent. They have the deep
gratitude of our nation as well as this committee.
Today's hearing is arguably the most important we will hold
this year. We are a nation at war. The Army is faced with an
avalanche of demands for ground forces, demands from multiple
armed conflicts, from security commitments made to defend our
allies and overseas interests, from a requirement to deter
potential enemies around the world, and from a mandate to
defend the homeland. Collectively this list of missions
constitutes the national military strategy.
Today, the Army, along with the rest of the Department of
Defense, is at risk of not being able to answer the demands of
that strategy without suffering losses that this nation has
previously deemed unacceptable. General Casey has described the
Army as being out of balance. I would add that we appear to be
out of balance and walking on a tightrope. The consequences of
falling are unpredictable, but likely grave, and certainly are
a gamble we can ill afford.
Normally we would judge the Army budget on two standards.
First, does it provide sufficient resources for this year's
operations? Second, does it support the long-term health of the
Army?
The bad news is that the budget does not fully fund the
Army's operations during 2009 and is short in excess of $100
billion. The Secretary of Defense has pledged to send us a full
budget request within a few months, which may or may not arrive
in time to be considered as part of this regular budget. So on
question one, the grade is incomplete.
Congress also has responsibilities that are incomplete. We
have authorized but not yet appropriated money to fully fund
Army operations in 2008. However, I am confident that Congress
will do so in the very near future.
So let us consider whether the budget properly addresses
the future health and readiness of the Army. Readiness is
defined as the ability to execute the national military
strategy. Readiness today is not good, and it is a particular
challenge for the Army.
The requirement to man, train, and equip brigades for Iraq
is consuming the Army's personnel, materiel, and budget
resources. Other missions required by the national military
strategy have taken a back seat. The Army is certainly capable.
In many ways, today's Army is the most capable we have ever
had, with battle-hardened soldiers and experienced leaders, new
technology, and evolving and increasingly effective doctrine
for the counter-insurgency fight.
In other equally important ways, however, the Army's
capability is not where it was even 5 years ago. The Army is
clearly under-prepared for missions that were once seen as
central to the mission, and it lacks the robust reserve
capacity that has been our traditional hedge against
uncertainty.
General Casey in his statement describes the current time
as one of persistent conflict. In my 31 years in Congress, we
have been involved in 12 significant military conflicts, none
of which was predicted beforehand. A hedge against uncertainty
is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
So I turn now to the fiscal year 2009 budget, which does
include some encouraging steps in the right direction. You
continue to grow the Army, a step I have encouraged for 13
years.
We understand that the Army is also likely to accelerate
this process when the rest of the budget arrives. This step
will go a long ways toward returning depth and flexibility to
the force. You have increased funding for training, both tank
miles and flying hours, though still short of the requirement.
At the same time, this schedule for replenishing Army
prepositioned stocks has slipped 2 years, and the schedule for
completing the conversion of the Army to modular brigade combat
teams has slipped even longer. These schedule delays are a
cause of concern.
The Congress and the department have been working to fill
what General Schoomaker used to refer to as the holes in the
yard, but they appear to be getting deeper instead. The
Congress has authorized and appropriated more than $67 billion
for equipment reset since 2002, and yet the Army's shortages of
equipment have progressively worsened over the last several
years. Today we must understand what it takes to reverse this
trend.
Last, let me say a few words about roles and missions. The
Army and our nation learned a hard lesson in Iraq. The enemy
that we crushed on the traditional battlefield found new
asymmetrical ways to attack us for which we were not well
prepared. Future enemies will do the same, and their strategies
will be even more varied.
We must prepare now for those fights by clarifying the
roles and missions of the armed forces in emerging areas of
warfare such as cyber warfare. Congress mandated in law that
the Department review roles and missions. And we are very, very
serious about this review.
Critics have argued that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines
will simply use this process to advance narrow agendas and
bicker over budgets and systems. Our direction from this
committee and this Congress to you is to prove them wrong and
instead take a clear-eyed and creative approach to clarifying
roles and missions for future warfare. I know that you will do
it right.
I now turn to my friend the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from California, Duncan Hunter.
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding
this very critical hearing.
And to our great friend, Pete Geren, Secretary Geren, great
to have you back. And as a former member of the committee,
wonderful to see you in your continuing leadership role in this
very, very critical position.
Secretary Geren. It looks different from down here, I am
sure, Congressman.
Mr. Hunter. And, General Casey, thank you, sir, for all
your great service to our country.
Gentlemen, this is a critical time in our history. And it
is a critical time particularly for the Army because I think we
have got a couple of things to prove. One thing is that we have
got the agility to field systems that are needed on the
battlefield and at the same time, be able to respond to what I
call the horizon.
That is to look to challenges and conflicts that are not
immediately manifest in Afghanistan and Iraq, but are
nonetheless going to be with us shortly and to be able to
prepare for that horizon by making the right changes in the
Army today.
Before I briefly lay out my own concerns about the Fiscal
Year 2009 Budget Request, I would like to just briefly comment
on the Army's current readiness, which I think is of concern to
all members of the committee. It is very clear that the war
that we are fighting is wearing on the Army and on our forces.
However, I think we have to ask are we supposed to only
fight the wars that improve military readiness. And by
definition the only way to make sure that your bandoleer of
ammunition remains full up is never to take a round out and
fire it. Because once you do that, by definition you are taking
down the readiness count and the readiness capability.
Nobody will argue that the readiness of our military is
absolutely crucial to the national security strategy. However,
should declining readiness trends spur us to throw up our hands
and give up, or should these trends be a warning to all of us
and compel us to identify, fund, and fix the shortfalls?
Not too long ago you were both in front of the committee
talking about the Army's strategic initiatives. And both of you
expressed concerns about the Army being out of balance. You
stated that balance is a state of continual readiness that
provides strategic flexibility and depth while sustaining the
all-volunteer force and simultaneously meeting the current and
future demands of the national security strategy in an era of
persistent conflict.
So I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for
that testimony and to say I agree with you. In fact, I believe
that not only is the Army out of balance, but the entire
Department of Defense is out of balance.
What leads me to my first concern about this budget
request, the President's Fiscal Year 2009 Base Budget request
for the Department of Defense amounts to $515.4 billion, which
is $36 billion more than last year's enacted base
appropriation. Specifically for the Army, the President's
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request is $140.7 billion, an $11.8
billion increase over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
However, I am disappointed that while seemingly robust, the
top line request does not meet a minimal threshold of four
percent of gross domestic product, a threshold that several
defense and military experts insist is required to meet future
and current needs of our military. In fact, Admiral Mullen,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent public
statements has been generally supportive of that approach.
So I would like to ask both of our witnesses to explain
what types of security risks the Administration is implicitly
accepting as a result. Our servicemembers who bravely defend
the American people--for national security interest deserve all
the materiel and moral support that we can provide.
We can't afford to continue to separate investments in the
Army from the current conversation about the state of the
military's readiness. I believe that investments in future
capabilities and the readiness of the current force are
interdependent.
Finally, I would like to bring up an issue that I brought
up at last year's posture hearing regarding the funding for the
National Guard and Reserve. I note that in 2000, the National
Guard received approximately $600 million in procurement
funding and that today they are getting approximately $5
billion to $7 billion in procurement funding, roughly 10 times
as much.
So things are getting better, but it is still going to take
a long time to get it exactly right. So my issue is that we
need to get a handle on all the light, medium, and heavy
tactical wheeled vehicles that the Army has in its inventory.
National Guard units don't need armored Humvees or armored
trucks to accomplish their homeland security missions.
So let us find out where all the unarmored wheeled vehicles
are, bounce that against Guard requirements, and help the Guard
and Reserve. And, gentlemen, that has been an issue that we
have talked about at some length.
And I know, General Casey, you have been trying to make
sure we get a good response in the committee on that. But my
instincts are that there is lots and lots of inventory over
there that has been brought over by Guard units, left in-
country, and as we have up-armored and we have upgraded the
armor capability on vehicles and brought in new types of
vehicles and we have substituted out, we should have some
fairly large inventories of platforms right now in the Iraq
theater. And I think that is something that we don't have a
good handle on.
We need to have that. If we have got vehicles that are--for
example, the 1800 MAC-kitted marine vehicles that we found, I
believe, at Takatum that were parked there when they
substituted out for the up-armored 114s. If we find large
inventories of vehicles that are available, I think we ought to
bring those back on these dead end RoRo hauls coming back to
the states.
Let us match them up with Guard units that need those
vehicles right now and see how many of them we can bring up to
a fairly high state of equipment readiness before we see those
things being sold off in foreign military sales for pennies on
the dollar. So I think that is an important endeavor that we
should embark on right now to make sure that we use all of the
investment that we have put into the Army modernization.
So I know you are working, General, on getting that
information to us. I hope we can get that fairly shortly.
So again, thank you, gentlemen. You have got a major
challenge, this challenge of trying to balance the war-fighting
theaters and the Army's role in those theaters against the
challenges that are on the horizon. And they are many. And so,
I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We now call on our former colleague and our friend,
Secretary of the Army, Secretary Geren.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE GEREN, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Secretary Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, Congressman Hunter.
And thank all members of the committee for giving General
Casey and me the opportunity to appear before you to talk about
our nation's Army, an Army that has been built by partnership
between the Army and this Congress. It is a partnership that is
older than our nation.
It was affirmed in our Constitution. And you remind every
witness that comes before with Article 1, Section 8 right here
in front of us in case we ever forget. But thank you for that
partnership.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I would like to
recognize there are four members of this committee, it is their
last Army posture statement. Ranking Member Hunter, Jim Saxton,
Terry Everett, and Congressman Udall this will be their last
Army posture statement. I did a little arithmetic.
Seventy-eight years of service on this committee. And 78
years of great support for the United States Army. So I want to
thank you all for your service.
Mr. Hunter. And, Mr. Geren, you have got another fine
gentleman to thank, too. The gentleman to my left here, Mr.
Saxton--did you get--I am sorry.
Secretary Geren. I believe I mentioned Congressman Saxton.
Mr. Hunter. Okay.
Secretary Geren. Congressman Saxton. I did. Mr. Everett
isn't here, but I wanted to acknowledge him as well. But you
all have put in a lot of time in those chairs and want to thank
you for all you have done for the Army.
Mr. Chairman, the President's budget for 2009 is before the
Congress, $141 billion for the Army. As is always the case, the
Army's budget is mostly about people and operations and
maintenance to support people. Our personnel budget, our O&M
budget make up a full two-thirds of that $141 billion. And as
Craton Abrams reminded us often, people are not in the Army,
people are the Army. And this budget reflects that reality.
Today we are an Army long at war. We are on our seventh
year in Afghanistan. And next month we will be five years in
Iraq.
This is the third longest war in American history behind
the Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War. It is the longest
war we have ever fought with an all-volunteer force.
And our Army is stretched by the demands of this long war,
but it remains an extraordinary Army. It is the best led and
best-trained and best equipped Army we have ever put in the
field. But Army families stand with their soldiers as those
soldiers serve and as those soldiers reenlist. Our Army is an
Army of volunteers, volunteer soldiers, and volunteer families.
We currently have 250,000 soldiers deployed somewhere
around the world in 80 countries. And we have over 140,000
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our 140,000 in harm's way are
our top priority. We will never take our eye off that ball. And
this budget and the supplementals and your support make sure
that we give those soldiers what they need and when they need
it.
And today and over the last 6 years our Reserve component,
Guard and Reserves continue to carry a very heavy load for our
nation. Since 9/11 we have activated 184,000 reservists and
268,000 National Guardsmen in support of the global war on
terror.
And not only have they stood up for us overseas, as we all
know so well, they have answered crises on the home front,
whether it was Katrina or Rita or forest fires or brush fires.
They have been there. And we have asked a great deal of them
over this last decade.
And we are one Army. The active component cannot go to war
without the Guard and Reserve. And the challenge before us is
to continue the transformation of the Reserve component to an
operational Reserve, match the organizing, training, and
equipping with the reality of what we are asking of our Guard
and reservists.
This budget continues the steady investment in new
equipment in our Reserve component. And although we will not
complete the recapitalization in this program objective
memorandum (POM), it is important to recognize, as Congressman
Hunter did in his statement, we are not where we were, either.
We have made progress.
Just looking at a few pacer items. In the Guard in 2001,
there were 290 family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
trucks. Today there are over 9,000. Single-Channel Ground-Air
Radio System (SINGAR) radios--there were 41,000 in 2001. Today
there are over 82,000. M4 rifles--2001, less than 6,000. Today,
over 120,000.
We are not where we need to be, but we have made progress.
And this budget includes $5.6 billion for Guard equipping and
$1.4 billion for the Reserve. And over the next 24 months, $17
billion worth of new equipment will flow into the Guard. The
last several years of investment it takes a while to work it
through the system.
But over the next 24 months, $17 billion worth of equipment
and 400,000 pieces of equipment are bought with that. In the
meantime, state compacts and active duty support ensure that
our governors have the resources they need to respond to
domestic crises.
And the strength of our Army, active, Guard, and Reserve
comes from the strength of their families. And our Army
families are standing tall with their soldier loved ones. But
this long war is taking a heavy toll. We owe our families a
quality of life that equals the quality of their service.
Today over half of our soldiers are married. Yesterday
Senator Inouye reminded us that when he was in the Army, 4
percent of the soldiers he served with were married. Ninety-six
percent were single. This is a major change in the Army of
today.
And nearly half of the soldiers who deploy today have
children under 2 years of age. When a married soldier deploys,
he or she leaves behind a single-parent household and all the
challenges of that family dynamic. And when a single parent
deploys, he or she leaves behind a child in the care of others.
In the 2009 budget, we are doubling funding for family
programs, adding 26 new child development centers to the 35
that Congress funded for us last year. And over the past year
with your strong support we have expanded the availability of
and reduced the cost of childcare for all of our Army families.
We have asked much of the volunteer spouses who carry the
burden of family support programs, a burden that has grown
heavier with every year of this war. And they need help.
Our 2008 and this 2009 budget provides much-needed support.
We are hiring over 1,000 family readiness support assistants
and nearly 500 additional Army community service staff to
provide help to those hard-working spouses.
To meet the needs of geographically displaced families, a
great challenge for our Guardsmen and Reservists, we are
fielding the Army integrated family support network, which is
an Internet portal to bring together many services in one spot
so we can help meet the needs of those soldiers and their
families. And the yellow ribbon program that you authorized
last year will provide much-needed support to our Reserve
component.
In the 1990's, the Congress launched the privatized housing
initiative for the military. And that initiative has been a
great success and has made a huge difference in the lives of
our families. That initiative replaced Army housing with homes
and neighborhoods and vibrant communities. And this budget
builds on that great success.
And for single soldiers we are modernizing existing
barracks and completing new ones. Today 75 percent of our
barracks meet the one plus one standard. And with your support,
over the 2009 to 2015 period, we will reach our target of
150,000 soldiers in modernized barracks.
The budget continues the programs that the Congress and the
Army have developed together in meeting the needs of our
wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. In your 2008 authorization
bill, you gave us additional authorities to help meet the needs
of those soldiers. And we thank you for that. And we are
implementing those new initiatives. And it has made a
difference.
We have stood up 35 warrior transition units across the
country to help wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. And each
one of those soldiers today is supported by a triad of care, a
platoon leader, a nurse case manager, and a primary care
physician assigned to every single one of those soldiers. And
this budget continues to advance those initiatives, continues
to address personnel shortages, improve facilities, and work to
accomplish the seamless transition from the Department of
Defense (DOD) to Veterans Affairs (V.A.) for our soldiers.
In 2008 and 2009, we will continue to transform Army
contracting, pushing ahead with the reforms offered by the
Gansler commission and our task force. And in this budget we do
look to the future. We never want to send our soldiers into a
fair fight.
This budget continues our investment in the programs of
tomorrow, our highest modernization priority, future combat
systems, which not only will shape the future of our Army, but
it is spinning out technologies that help in today's fight.
The armed reconnaissance helicopter, unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), and the light utility helicopter, and joint
cargo aircraft are part of that future. And we thank you for
your support of that.
We are the best equipped Army in the world today. And with
your support, we will be able to say that 10 years from now.
And this budget makes a major step forward ensuring the
long-term strength and health of our Army by moving the cost of
43,000 of our new end strength into the budget, out of the
supplemental into this budget, $15 billion. And we have
accelerated the 64,000 growth in the active duty from 2012 to
2010.
We are a nation long at war facing an era of persistent
conflict. And we are consuming our readiness as fast as we
build it. But our Army remains strong. It is stretched. It is
out of balance, but it remains strong.
And those who seek parallels with the hollow Army of the
late 1970's will not find it in this Army. One hundred and
twenty thousand soldiers proudly reenlist every year. One
hundred and seventy thousand join our Army every year. They are
proud of what they do, and they are proud of who they are.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, thank you for your
support of our Army. Thank you for being partners in building
this Army. And let me also thank all of you personally for
traveling around the world and meeting with soldiers, whether
here at home or places all over the globe. You all spend your
holidays with them. That means a great deal to them.
The morale is strong, and you are a great contributor to
that strong morale by being out there on the front lines with
those soldiers. I know how hard it is to work that into the
demands of your schedule, but thank you for doing that, and
thank you for being partners in building the great Army we
have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Geren and
General Casey can be found in the Appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your
testimony and for your examination of where the Army is today.
General Casey, please.
STATEMENT OF GEN. GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. ARMY
General Casey. Thank you very much, Chairman, Congressman
Hunter, members of the committee. Not much has changed since
the Secretary and I were here in September, but I would like to
reemphasize some of the themes that we talked about then, but
this time do it in the context of the fiscal year 2009 budget
that we are presenting today.
Our country, as has been said, is in our 7th year of war.
And your Army remains fully engaged on the front lines, both
abroad and at home. I testified in September that I believed
the next decades would be ones of persistent conflict. And I
defined that as a period of protracted confrontation among
state, non-state, and individual actors who are increasingly
willing to use violence to accomplish their strategic or their
political and ideological objectives.
I also described some global trends that I see going in the
wrong direction that I believe will exacerbate and prolong this
period of persistent conflict: the double-edged swords of
technology and globalization, doubling of populations in
developing countries, terrorist organizations seeking weapons
of mass destruction, terrorist safe havens in ungoverned
spaces.
I said that because of that, our Army must be versatile
enough to adapt rapidly to the unexpected circumstances we will
surely face. And your 12 instances, Mr. Chairman, are exactly
what we must be prepared for. And we have been building that
agile, campaign-quality expeditionary force that we believe the
Nation needs for this future.
I also said that the cumulative effects of the six plus
years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the
current fight and unable to do the things we know we do to
sustain the all-volunteer force and to build strategic
flexibility for other things. I wrestled hard to find the right
words to describe the Army, because, as has been said several
times already, it is not broken, it is not hollow. I lived
through hollow in the early 1970's.
It is a very resilient, competent, professional, and
combat-seasoned force, as you said. But as we all recognize, we
are not where we need to be.
I have said that we have a plan to help restore that
balance. And with your help, we believe that there are four
imperatives that we must accomplish here in the next several
years: sustain, prepare, reset, and transform. And let me just
say a few words about each of those.
First and foremost, we must sustain our soldiers, families,
and civilians. They are the heart and soul of this Army and
must be sustained in a way that recognizes the quality of their
service. The Secretary mentioned several initiatives here, and
they will continue, with your support.
Second, prepare--we need to continue to prepare our
soldiers for success in the current conflict. And we cannot
flinch from our obligations to ensure that they are properly
organized, trained, and equipped to have a decisive advantage
over any enemy that they face.
Third, reset--reset is about returning our soldiers and
their equipment to appropriate condition for future deployments
and contingencies. In fiscal year 2007, you gave us resources
to properly reset the force. And as a result, we made
significant strides in restoring systems and capabilities.
Resources for reset, I believe, are the difference between a
hollow force and a versatile, flexible force for the future.
Last, transformed--and, Mr. Chairman, even as we work to
put this Army in balance, we must continue to transform to give
it the capabilities it needs in the 21st century. For us
transformation is a holistic effort. We want to adapt how we
train, how we fight, how we modernize, how we sustain our
soldiers, families, and civilians, and how we station our
forces.
When I was here in September, I showed you some of the
equipment that is part of our future combat system. Future
combat system is the core of our modernization efforts. And it
will provide us the full spectrum capabilities we know we need
for the 21st century security environment.
We are seeing the value of some of the systems today in
Iraq and Afghanistan and at Fort Bliss, Texas where a brigade
of our soldiers is actually testing some of those systems. At
its peak, future combat systems amounts to a third of our
investment accounts, which I think, as you know, represent
about a quarter of our overall budget. So a third of a quarter.
And we believe that the future combat system is both essential
and affordable.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as you have said many times, the
intellectual has to proceed the physical. And later this week
we will be releasing a new version of our operations manual.
This is field manual three, operations. And it describes the
future security environment and prescribes a framework for Army
forces to be successful in that environment.
Let me just talk about five significant elements that you
will find in this manual. First of all, it describes the
complex, multi-dimensional security environment of the 21st
century where we believe war will be increasingly fought among
the people.
Second and probably most importantly, it elevates stability
operations to the level of offense, defense and prescribes an
operational concept called full spectrum operations where Army
forces simultaneously apply offense and defense and stability
operations to seize the initiative and achieve decisive
results.
Third, it emphasizes the commander's role in battle command
and describes an intellectual process for developing solutions
to the very complex challenges and problems we will face in the
future.
Fourth, it emphasizes the importance of information
superiority in modern conflict.
And last, it recognizes that our soldiers remain the
centerpiece of our Army.
We believe this doctrine will provide us a great start
point from which to build on our experience of the past 7 years
and shape our Army for the future. So that is our plan,
Chairman: sustain, prepare, reset, and transform.
And over the last two years, you have given us the funding
to begin the process of putting the Army back in balance. This
budget, the war on terror supplemental that will accompany it,
and the balance of the 2008 war on terror supplemental will
allow us to continue the process of putting the Army back in
balance.
We appreciate your support, and we have worked very hard to
put the resources that you have given us to good use. And I
would just like to highlight a few.
First, we have made great strides through our Army medical
action plan in improving our care to wounded soldiers. And we
are absolutely committed to continuing to improve that.
Second, we have initiated an Army soldier and family action
plan to improve the quality of support to our soldiers and
families.
Third, we are over 60 percent of the way through our
transition to modular organizations. And this is the largest
organizational transformation of the Army since World War II.
And I have seen the power of these units in Iraq. And they are
the types of formations we need in the 21st century.
We are also over 60 percent through our reconversion of
120,000 soldiers to skill sets from Cold War skill sets to ones
that are more relevant in the 21st century. We have reset with
your support over 123,000 pieces of equipment. We have
privatized over 4,000 homes just in the last year, bringing the
total to 80,000, which is a significant enhancement to the
quality of life to our soldiers and families. And your depots
of the Army Materiel Command have won 12 industry awards for
efficiency.
So, Mr. Chairman, as you can see, we are not sitting still,
and we are actively working to put ourselves back in balance
and to give the Nation the Army that it needs in the 21st
century.
Now, let me just close, Mr. Chairman, by relating an
experience I had right before Christmas. I went up to Alaska,
and I was asked to pin a distinguished service cross on a young
sergeant, Sergeant Greg Williams. He was on a patrol in Baghdad
in October 2006.
His patrol was ambushed from three different directions,
and the ambush was initiated by an attack by four explosively
formed penetrators. And I think you know those are the very
lethal, anti-armor improvised explosive devices.
He was knocked out. He awoke to find himself on fire, to
find his vehicle on fire. His eardrum was burst. He put himself
out. His first instinct was to grab the aid bag and begin
treating his soldiers under fire.
He recognized the lieutenant was still back on the track.
He went back on the burning vehicle, dragged the lieutenant to
safety and continued to place fire on the enemy.
Recognizing that no one was manning the 50-caliber machine
gun on the striker, he went again back into the burning
vehicle, which contained over 30 pounds of TNT and detonating
cord. He got on the 50-caliber, brought the 50-caliber to bear
on the enemy and broke the ambush. That is the kind of men and
women that we have in the armed forces today. You can be
rightfully proud of what they are doing for this country.
But it will require more than the courage and valor of our
soldiers to ensure our Army can continue to fight and win the
nation's wars in an era of persistent conflict. It will require
recognition of national leaders like yourselves of the threats
and challenges that America faces in the years ahead. And it
will also require full, timely, and predictable funding to
ensure that our armed forces are prepared to deal with those
threats and can preserve our way of life.
So, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very
much for your attention.
The Chairman. General, thank you for your testimony and for
your many years of service in uniform. After examining your
testimony and listening to you today as well as having the
advantage of other briefings and hearings, I think we are led
to several conclusions.
The first is that the Army is too small. The second is that
the Army must significantly change its organization doctrine to
fight today's and tomorrow's wars. Third, the Army lacks a
strategic reserve to fall back on. And fourth, the soldiers in
the Army are operating under tremendous, tremendous strain as a
result of all these conclusions.
And these issues are basically the same as we have had for
the last three years. And I don't see them getting any better.
Would you address us as to how this budget, this new budget
that you recommend will solve the problems of the size of the
Army, the organization and doctrine, the lack of strategic
reserve, and the unbearable strain that the soldiers are
feeling?
Mr. Secretary, you are first.
Secretary Geren. All right. Mr. Chairman, this doesn't
solve all those problems, but it moves us in the right
direction. The Army is too small. And we are, with this budget
and with the supplemental, we are increasing the rate at which
we are growing the Army.
We are moving the increase in end strength, the 74,000
increase in end strength, which is active, Guard, and Reserve,
for the active and the Guard, we are moving that from--excuse
me, active and Reserve, we are moving that from 2012 to 2010.
So we are growing the Army.
And we are too small for the commitments that we have. And
we recognize that. And that impacts the Army in so many ways.
The demand that we have from theater right now--in order to
meet that demand, we have this 12-month dwell time, which is
not enough time for the soldier to get home and get recharged,
but it is not enough to train for full spectrum readiness.
And as we grow the Army, as the demand from theater is
reduced, we will see that dwell time increase. And that will
help us improve the readiness of the Army because we will be
able to train across the full spectrum once we are able to keep
the soldiers home long enough.
No strategic Reserve--over the last several years, we have
worked to try to transform the Reserve component from a
strategic Reserve to an operational Reserve. And that
transformation is well underway. It has got years to go, but we
have continued to invest in the organizing, training, and
equipping of the Reserve component so that we can expand their
capabilities. And big changes in that regard, not only in
numbers of pieces of equipment that are in the Reserve
component, but the type of equipment.
They are getting the same type of equipment that the active
component gets. They are not getting hand-me-downs. They are
not getting old stuff. They are getting new stuff, new
helicopters, new airplanes, trucks. And so, that is expanding
their capability.
And all three services, all three components are
transforming. The Reserves are only getting 1,000 new soldiers.
But through their transformation they are going to move 17,000
soldiers into their operating force through transformation,
moving folks into high-demand Military Occupational Specialties
(MOS). All three components are doing that as well.
Operating under tremendous strain? Absolutely. This budget
helps in a number of ways. One is address the strain on the
families by doubling the investment we are making in family
programs from $700 to $1.4 billion and a wide range of
initiatives to try to help families, both to help communities
help the families, but help spouses, help children. And so,
those are several initiatives that I think help us move in the
direction we want to go.
We are not where we want to be. We are in the midst of a
war. And we are always going to be straining to meet the needs
of the present and build for the future at the same time. But I
believe this budget--and I think the budget of the future years
defense plan that we will submit later this summer will show
greater progress. But not where we need to be, but we are
moving in the right direction.
The Chairman. So far, before I call on General Casey,
Secretary Geren, you used the phrase ``until demand in the
theater is reduced''. Do you know something we don't about the
demand in theater, which I assume would be in the Middle East?
Secretary Geren. Sir, I don't know anything that you don't
know. And General Petraeus will be here in April and help us
have a better sense of what the future holds. But our job, as
you know, we are the force provider. And we can't control what
goes on in the theater. And we work with the combatant
commanders to meet their needs.
But right now with the force that we have and with the
demand in theater, we have been forced into this 12-month to
15-month ratio. And this dwell time does not give us adequate
time to reset our Army, to train for the full spectrum of
operations. And as we are able to expand that dwell time, we
will be able to address some of these readiness challenges that
we have today.
The Chairman. General Casey, would you answer my first
question?
General Casey. I will, Chairman. And I mentioned in my
opening statement that this budget and the accompanying
supplementals will allow us to continue the process of putting
the Army back in balance. And I prefer to think about it by the
four imperatives.
In this budget, as the secretary mentioned, is money for
soldiers and families. There are money for recruiting
incentives, which we need to grow the force. And as the
secretary mentioned and I mentioned, the quality of the
soldiers is a key element that we want to sustain as we go
forward.
Prepare--in this budget, as you mentioned, are increased op
tempo and flying hour miles so that we can begin training
returning soldiers for the full spectrum of operations. And we
should expect to see that in fiscal year 2009. It also contains
about $20 billion to fill some of those equipment holes that
you mentioned earlier in your statement.
Transform--probably the biggest element of this budget is
the $15.5 billion that has been put in here for the growth of
the Army. And we are increasing the end strength 43,000 in this
budget for the active force and I think 1,400 for the Guard.
And so, you are seeing things that were paid for in
supplemental funding now moving into the base budget, which I
believe is a good thing.
You will also see money in here for the future combat
system, $3.6 billion, about 3 percent of our budget, but
essential, an essential investment in the future. There is also
a total of about $11 billion in here for Army family housing
and military construction and base realignment and closure
construction to base that increase in the force.
And there is also, most importantly, $1 billion in here for
leader training. And you mentioned the intellectual piece of
this, the doctrine. And I believe this doctrine, as I said, is
going to help us shape our way to the future.
I think we have a good direction to put us back in balance,
Congressman. And I think with your help we can continue to make
progress.
The Chairman. Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, a year and-a-half ago, having looked at the QDR
and looking at the recommendations that they made, we
determined on the committee to do our own committee defense
review not constrained by what we thought we were going to get
in terms of resources, but derived rather from what we thought
were the requirements for all the services, including the Army.
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommended 70 brigade
combat teams. We did our own set of hearings, analyses,
briefings with our excellent members on this committee, and we
produced a committee defense review that recommended 78 brigade
combat teams.
As I understand now, the Army's position has adjusted from
the QDR. It has come up from 70 to 76. My first question is
that in your personal opinion, with the QDR saying 70, the
committee defense review saying 78, you are now at 76, do you
think that that is enough, in your personal opinion? Do you
think that is the right peg, 76 brigade combat teams?
General Casey. Senator, I think the question is, enough for
what? It is not enough to continue what we are doing in Iraq
and Afghanistan right now at the level that we are doing it at.
As we get down to the 15 brigade combat teams in Iraq that
General Petraeus announced last year, I believe that is a
sustainable level for some period of time. If you look at 76
brigade combat teams and you look at a one increment out, three
increments back for the active component and one increment out,
five increments back for the Reserve, that allows us to
generate about 15 brigade combat teams in a sustainable
fashion.
And we have said all along that those deployment ratios are
sustainable for us. So I do believe that 76 brigade combat
teams will allow us to meet what I think is a pretty acceptable
level of effort.
Now, at a lesser deployment ratio you can surge for a short
period of time and get more than that. And that is what we are
working toward.
But if I might, the last thing I would say is lots of
discussion about when we get to 547,000, is that going to be
big enough. And I think that is a question for discussion. But
I am leery of building a bigger Army that is not resourced to
be the quality of this one. And I came into hollow, and I don't
want to go out to hollow. And that is something that we need to
have a conversation on nationally, I believe.
Mr. Hunter. Okay. If you recall the discussions that
General Schoomaker used to have with us on what he called the
rain barrel, and it was particularly with respect to the Guard
and Reserve. And he would draw a picture of a barrel, and he
would put the spigot about a third of the way up.
And he would point out--he would say that like that barrel,
there were folks in, particularly the Guard and Reserve, who
would deploy in this high-deployment era all the time. And yet
there were skilled mixes that never deployed.
And part of his efforts were to be directed toward trying
to rebalance that skill mix to ensure that you had more people
from that non-deployable part of the rain barrel, in fact,
deploying. Now, against that backdrop, you also have the
problem that I see that this is an unusual war that we fought
in Iraq, a rare war in which you have massive resources
dedicated to occupation, which is something we don't do a lot
of.
And that there are capabilities in the Army, especially in
artillery and heavy armor that didn't deploy as much and were
not as heavily utilized in this occupation-driven situation.
One worry I have had is going out of balance the wrong way.
That is shaping an Army that will lend itself well to
occupations, which, in fact, is the situation with respect to
the present war, but which might not be in a future war in
which you need the heavy stuff.
And I haven't looked at the units of artillery and armor
that have been stood down, but my question is a general
question and for the general and for our good friend, Secretary
Geren. Do you think we are at the right balance? Are we
achieving the right balance? Or have we taken down too much in
terms of heavy capability in the U.S. Army? What do you think?
Secretary Geren. Our goal is full spectrum readiness. And
right now we are not able to claim that. Every unit that we
send to theater is prepared for counterinsurgency warfare. They
are organized, trained, and equipped for that mission. And they
don't go unless they are.
But we are not able to properly organize, train, and equip
for the rest of the spectrum of operations. And we aren't where
we need to be right now. And some of it is a question of
organizing. But part of it is just a question of dwell time,
having the soldiers home long enough where they can do the coin
mission, but also stay fully qualified in their MOS.
Now, we have moved soldiers, folks out of artillery and
taught them to be military police (M.P.s) and have reorganized
across all three components to meet this demand and try to give
more soldiers the opportunity to deploy. But our goal is full
spectrum readiness, both in the training and in the equipping
and to be organized to offer that for our nation.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, General, what do you think?
General Casey. Just to reinforce what the Secretary said, I
mean, we talked offense, defense, and stability operations. We
have to be able to do all those across the spectrum from major
conventional operations to peacetime engagement.
I mentioned in my opening statement that we were 60 percent
through the rebalancing of about 120,000 people from Cold War
skills to more relevant skills. That is exactly what you are
talking about here. So we are in the process of doing that.
Some of the skills that we are moving--there is about
30,000 artillery and air defense. That gets back to some of the
Chairman's issues here on roles and missions because I am quite
comfortable relying on the United States Air Force to provide
additional fire power and air defense support to us on the
modern battlefield.
And so, that joint interdependence is a key part of our
capability to fight conventional wars. The last thing is the
future combat system is a full spectrum combat system.
Mr. Hunter. Good advertisement. Thank you, General.
General Casey. We will----
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, General.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you. And again, thanks for your
service to our country. I think we have got a great team
working what is really a very, very difficult balancing act
here over the next couple of years. So appreciate your
testimony today.
Secretary Geren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter.
Now, Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much for joining us today. And we
certainly appreciate your service to our country. You know, I
am concerned. Now, to meet the current demands, the Army has
significantly drawn from prepositioned stocks around the world.
And as we know, these stocks are an integral part of the Army's
ability to rapidly deploy and equip troops around the world for
combat operations.
Decreased repositioned stocks and the declining readiness
of non-deployment forces has significantly increased the
strategic risk to the United States. This concerns me on many
levels. I am afraid the Army may not be able to respond to
another contingency at home or abroad.
How does the fiscal year 2009 budget request support the
Army's long-range replenishment of prepositioned stocks and
reset of the force? Another question that bothers me now is why
has the date to replenish prepositioned stocks slipped from
2013 to 2015.
And the statement you made, Chief, was that we don't want
to grow the Army without being able to give the forces what
they need. And this is the problem that we had in the past
where they didn't have the training equipment to train before
they went to Iraq. So maybe you can touch on my concerns about
the prepositioned stock and how this long-range budget will fix
some of these problems that we are very concerned with.
Secretary Geren. Real quickly--and both of us will answer.
But our prepositioned stock costs--we estimate it is around $9
billion. We have in the supplemental in 2007 we put a little
over $2 billion in the reset for the prepositioned stocks. And
you are right. We have moved it from 2013 to 2015. And it is
just a question of competing priorities.
We are directing more of the resources to the immediate
needs of the deploying forces and accepting some risk in the
prepositioned stocks by moving it back 2 years. In a classified
setting we would like to discuss with you the plan that we
have. We feel that we are refilling them in a way that does
minimize the risk associated with the length of time that it
will take to refill them.
But it is about a $9 billion bill, and we do plan to have
it done by 2015. Much of it is coming out of the supplementals
rather than out of the base budget.
General Casey. Congressman, in the 2009 budget on
prepositioned and reset, I think as the Secretary mentioned,
most of the money for reset and prepo will be in the war on
terror supplementals because there are things that have been
consumed in the war effort.
The issue of strategic risk--what I have said is we are
stretched by the current pace of deployments and we couldn't
react as quickly as we had liked. But as I have also said, this
is a hugely competent and combat-seasoned force. And we could
change directions in an emergency if we had to. It would just
take us longer.
Over time, we will gradually rebuild that capability so
that we can both meet the current demands and have strategic
flexibility to do other things. But that is going to take us
another couple of years.
Mr. Ortiz. Is one of the reasons why you have to expand the
timeframe from, what was it, 2011 to 2015--is it because you
are working with a budget-driven budget that you don't have the
money to buy the equipment that is necessary? Or is it because
it takes time to build the equipment to----
Secretary Geren. It is a little bit of both. And the third
element is we want to get the equipment into the units that
need it as quickly as we can. So it is a combination of those
three things.
Mr. Ortiz. And this is my concern. Chief, you and I have
talked about this. And we hope that we can do enough to help
you, you know. And sometimes I wonder whether we are doing
enough by utilizing the depots. I know that at one time we made
sure that they had surge room to expand so that they could work
on some of the equipment at reset. Are we looking at the
facilities where we might be able to be able to reset and rush
this equipment so that they can be used by our military?
General Casey. Mr. Secretary might want to add something to
this. But, I mean, I visited some of the depots. I visited
particularly Red River relatively recently. And while they are
not at operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they are
operating at a very increased capacity and operating very
efficiently.
Secretary Geren. And when we have all the equipment coming
back from the surge, we are going to see the demand on the
depots is going to go up significantly this year.
Mr. Ortiz. [OFF MIKE]
The Chairman. Mr. McHugh, please.
Mr. McHugh. [OFF MIKE]
The Chairman. Mr. Akin.
Mr. Akin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a couple of
questions on widely differing topics. The first one was I had a
chance to go on a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) that was led
by the gentlelady from California, the Tauscher district. And
it was very interesting and informative.
One of the stops we made was to South Korea. And I met a
gentle and retiring soul by the name of General Bell. And he
had a few thoughts about the importance of South Korea and the
strategic importance of our presence there.
One of the points he made was that the facilities there
were very, very temporary, that we had a lot of families there,
women that are pregnant, and there is no doctor. They have got
to go a long way or a long trip to try to get to either Seoul
or to get an OBGYN or something if they are pregnant. He was
making the case that we needed to invest in a little bit more
permanent sense in South Korea for many strategic reasons. What
was your thinking on that? And is that included in your budget?
Secretary Geren. I can't speak to the----
Mr. Akin. Do you know what I am talking about, generally
the concept of, you know, one, we look at it, the Korean War
isn't quite done yet and when we finish, it will leave? The
other concept is the idea of partnering with different nations.
South Korea has been a very good partner. And maintaining that
partnership may be very much in our strategic interest in terms
of the overall Asian picture.
Secretary Geren. Well, as you noted, General Bell is not
shy about expressing his opinions. And he has been a very
strong advocate for very assertive efforts in Korea to meet the
needs of families, not only on the medical level, but housing
and other issues. And I would have to get back to you for the
record on the details of what we have in the budget for Korea.
But it obviously remains a high priority. The housing issue
over there is one that we have spent a great deal of time
working over the last six to eight months to try to address
those issues. And General Bell has been back several times and
met with us as we have tried to work through those issues.
Because I can assure you that his concerns have been well-
considered. And I would just have to get back with you as far
as the specifics of what is in the budget on that front.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Akin. Thank you very much. Because he seemed to make a
very compelling case from a strategic point of view totally
aside from missile defense and the other things we were talking
about.
The second question was what I am thinking----
General Casey. I am sorry. If I could just add, I think he
is executing a multi-billion dollar move to get us out of Seoul
and below the Han River down to Camp Humphreys. And the Koreans
are paying, I want to say, $8 billion of that money.
Mr. Akin. I think the Koreans are putting a lot of skin in
the----
General Casey. They really are.
Mr. Akin. Yes.
General Casey. And that will greatly improve the quality of
life for our soldiers and families.
Mr. Akin. Super. The second I had was what I am thinking of
as the new Army, the network-equipped Army. You know, I sort of
get tired of future combat systems and all.
The Secretary of Defense seemed to say I am wondering
whether we can continue to afford that. I guess my sense was it
is the main modernization program. And the thing that I have
been encouraged by is that the money that we put in it before
is really boring money. It is writing millions of lines of code
and all this stuff that seems very esoteric.
Now this year we have gotten to the point we are actually
going to have hardware that you can drive around and test, the
soldiers can work with it. I just was encouraged to hear that
you are open-minded to keeping that development side of what
the Army is doing in making it the new Army.
So I certainly hope that we don't short-change that in
terms of trying to meet all these other priorities. But I know
there is huge tension. If you would like to comment further.
Secretary Geren. Future combat systems--and as you noted,
it is not the future really. It is the present. We have got
technologies that are spinning out into the force today to help
soldiers on the field. And many of the requests we get from
theater for capabilities that ride into what future combat
systems offers today and the spin-outs and certainly going to
offer in the future.
As the chief emphasized in his earlier answer, the future
combat systems is about full spectrum readiness for our Army.
And it is our number one modernization priority.
Mr. Akin. It is encouraging to hear you continue to support
that.
General.
General Casey. And I would just add we have both spoken
personally to the Secretary of Defense about his comments. And
he supports the future combat system program.
Mr. Akin. Okay. I have got a few questions from the press.
I just wanted to make sure we are still all on the same page.
Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Secretary and General.
Mr. Secretary, I hope we will be hearing from you in the
near future that you are going to favorably respond to making
wounded warriors available for all the military academies for
instructors and coaches. I also want to ask two quick questions
for the record.
Since we train as we fight, what is your target date for
having IED jammers available for stateside training for every
soldier before they deploy to Iraq, Guard and Reserve? What is
your target date for having mine resistant ambush protected
vehicles (MRAPs) available for stateside training for every
soldier, Guardsmen, and reservist before they deploy overseas?
I would ask that for the record. And I will yield the remainder
of my time to Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
The Chairman. You are yielding your time to----
Mr. Taylor. I have asked my questions for the record.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Taylor. I will certainly stick around. I yield the
remainder to Mr. Murphy.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy. Gentlemen. Mr. Secretary and General, thank you
for your continued service to our country. As you know, we
appreciate it.
General Casey, you have always been a straight shooter to
us, and we appreciate your candor. I am trying to read the
teeniest little bit from your comments about when you say that
the Army is out of balance and the fact that, you know, you
said you wrestled hard to find the right words and that our
Army is not hollow and it is not broken. And it is an Army I
was part of for many years, and I am proud about my service and
the armed forces. They are doing a great job.
And, Secretary Geren, you know, when your comments today,
the fact that you said we are going to be stressed until the
demand in the theater decreases and also that our Army is
forced into these 12 and 15-month deployments and how through
all time it is critical.
Gentlemen, my question is how could we get to where we need
with our armed forces and especially our military if we are
still bogged down refereeing a religious civil war in Iraq? And
at the same time, when we talk about Al Qaeda and Osama bin
Laden, who was responsible for killing 3,000 innocent Americans
on 9/11 6 and-a-half years ago and we are begging, begging NATO
for more troops, how could we accommodate that? How could we
really find and put our Army back in the right balance when we
are still--the majority of our forces, an overwhelming majority
of our deployed forces are in Iraq?
General Casey. Congressman, that is a great question. And I
think it is an opportune time for me to address what I see
happening here in the summer and in the spring. I think you
know General Petraeus is returning in April to give his
assessment of where to go beyond the 15 brigades he is already
moving to draw down to in Iraq.
Mr. Murphy. Can I just ask? But what happens if he comes
back and says we need a pause and not draw down?
General Casey. I understand. I think the important thing is
first that he is on the way to 15 brigade combat teams in Iraq.
And everything I have heard is he intends to get there.
If that happens, and I have every reason to expect that it
will, then we will have the opportunity to reduce the
deployments from 15 months to 12 months. And everything that we
hear back from our soldiers and families tells us 15 months is
too long. And we know that.
If he has to sustain 15 brigade combat teams for another
period of time, a brief pause, as you say, that will not impact
our ability to come off of 15 months. So the most important
thing for us right now is to return to 12-month deployments.
And our goal is to do that after we see what General Petraeus
says here in April.
Our second goal then--and this is progressive--is to get
back to increasing the amount of time that the soldiers spend
at home, one, so that they can recover from the multiple
deployments; and two, as it has been said, so they can begin
training for other things. With just one year at home, they
have to focus all their efforts on counterinsurgency training.
When they get to about 18 months at home, they can begin
training for full spectrum operations.
And so, you will see over time, over the next 3 or 4 years,
assuming that a man stays at about 15 active brigades, the time
they spend at home is going to gradually increase until by the
end of 2011 we should be at about a 1 year out, 2 years back
level.
Mr. Murphy. And as a quick follow up, because we are
begging for about 7,000 more troops in Afghanistan from our
NATO allies to go after the people who hurt Americans, if we
don't have that dwell time, which we don't have right now,
should we mandate from the Congress some type of amendment
where if you deploy for 12 months, you are home for 12 months
or deploy for 15 months, you are home for 15 months or if you
are a Marine, 7 and 7?
General Casey. Congressman, as you just heard me say, it is
our absolute goal, not only to get back to one to one, but to
go beyond it. And I would just tell you that any additional
requirements on us just makes our job of managing the force
that much more complicated. And I would ask you that you not do
that.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Let me reiterate an announcement earlier. I intend to call
on members in reverse order on the day of the U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM) hearing, which will be the 12th of next month.
We are now experiencing three votes right now. And these are
supposed to be the last votes of the day. We will continue for
a few moments, and then we will adjourn briefly while we get
those three votes. And we will return for the Secretary and
General Casey.
Mr. Forbes of Virginia.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary and General, for being here
and for your tremendous service to our country. Words do
matter, and we hear a lot of the words that talk about balance,
words that talk about broken.
Different people spin them in different directions. But I
know that we have had testimony before this committee as
recently as the last several weeks that kind of bring it down
to a picture so average Americans can at least understand the
state of where our Army is now.
And one of our witnesses phrased it this way. And I am just
asking you if she was correct. But she said that she had just
gotten back from Iraq and having spent time with the forces
there and that in her assessment our force today was the most
``experienced, adaptive, professional, capable force that we
had ever fielded.'' Do you concur with that assessment that she
rendered in this hearing room a few weeks ago?
Secretary Geren. I certainly concur. But General Casey has
60 years of experience, almost 60 years as a member of the
United States Army, either as a soldier or as a family member.
And I think he can really put it in a historical perspective
for us.
Mr. Forbes. General.
General Casey. In my 37 years in active duty I have never
seen a better force. And those words are exactly how I would
characterize it.
Mr. Forbes. And, General, we obviously know the experienced
part of it. But I just want to focus on the words the adaptive,
professional, and capable. You would also concur that the force
that we have now, the Army that we have today--it would be
accurate to say it is the most adaptive, professional, and
capable Army that we have ever fielded. Is that not accurate?
General Casey. That I have seen in 37 years. And I think I
would say you are accurate.
Mr. Forbes. Okay.
General Casey. Let me just, if I could. I was up in Alaska
talking to a group of sergeants and specialists last week. And
they asked me, you know, was I concerned about our ability to
change and do something else. And so, I turned the question
around and I asked them.
I said how long do you think it would take you if your unit
was told today to get ready for major combat operations. And
they kind of looked at each other and said a couple of weeks.
And that is the kind of force that it is.
Mr. Forbes. I think that is important that we need to know
because this is a force--and we went through, and I asked her
the specific questions I just asked you. And then I said then
that means more adaptive, more professional, more capable than
last year, than the year before that, than the year before
that, than the year before that.
And we moved back to 2000 and then 1999 and every single
answer was the same one, yes, it is more adaptive, more
professional, more capable than ever before in history. And if
it is the most adaptive, professional, and capable that we have
ever fielded, it is the most adaptive, professional, and
capable the world has ever fielded.
And I want to shift just a moment and, Mr. Secretary, ask
you a quick question on base realignment and closure (BRAC)
because I know that you have faced some delays and shortfalls
in the execution of funding for BRAC 2005 and the most recent
of which occurred when we had cuts of about $1.1 billion from
the level we authorized in our committee in the fiscal year
2008 omnibus. And my question for you is your perspective on
what impact in terms of cost and delays, the reductions in
fiscal year 2008 funds have on your execution of the BRAC
round.
And is it going to impact any of our first moved projects
if that funding hasn't come through? And then when do you need
the remaining fiscal year 2008 funding we have discussed to be
comfortable that you can complete BRAC by September of 2011?
Secretary Geren. At the present time, we are still capable
of meeting the legal requirements, September of 2011. But the
over $1 billion was not appropriated last year for all the
military. Our piece of that was about $560 million, $570
million, by our estimate. And if we don't get that money soon,
it is going to be a real problem for us.
Since BRAC 2005 we have been able to manage all of the
delays and some of the changes in scope. But this latest delay
of this $560 million is posing a real problem for us. It is a
very synchronized effort or needs to be synchronized with the
military construction, the BRAC construction, moving families
around. It is just an extraordinarily complex effort. And over
300,000 people will end up having moved at the end of all this.
And this latest delay causes us great concern. You all
authorized the level that we needed, but it was not
appropriated. And we need this $560 million soon. We do. It is
causing a problem.
Mr. Forbes. Good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will ask Mr. Reyes to
make his inquiry, and then after that, we will break for the
three votes. And we will return promptly after the three votes.
Mr. Reyes.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and General, welcome and thank you for being
here. And I also want to thank you for coming to Fort Bliss and
taking time to thank our troops. In fact, just yesterday we had
a community parade for the 401 Cavalry that just returned from
Iraq to thank them.
Secretary Geren. Great.
Mr. Reyes. It was a very emotional start to the parade to
have 31 horses, riderless horses to commemorate the 31 that
they lost on their deployment.
But before I ask the question, I wanted to first say that I
am very concerned and disappointed that the Army is proposing a
cut to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.
I know I have discussed it with you previously because field
commanders are telling us this is a capability that they need
and they need now. I am concerned because we shouldn't be
cutting back on a system that is so important and vital in the
threats that they face today. We are working to restore that
funding in Congress, but I just wanted to again express my
concern.
On the plus side, I am glad that the Army has reversed
course on the land warrior program for striker combat vehicles.
And I hope the Army will give the same second look to other
combat weapons programs like the attack ums program. You know,
some of these programs have been eliminated solely to balance
the books. And I know the Army is stressed and looking for
funds. But these are weapons that are being used in Iraq and
Afghanistan. And I don't think we can afford to cut them.
What I did want to ask you in particular, General Casey--
since you and I were out with the troops last week looking at
the future combat systems, and I know there are a number of
questions on the capabilities, number one; number two, what is
ready to be rolled out and be deployed, particularly in places
like Iraq and Afghanistan, I wanted to get your perspective of
your visit to Fort Bliss and actually talking to the combat
veterans as you and I listened to them as they demonstrated
some of the capabilities of the future combat systems. And I
wanted to get your perspective on the record of what you think
are the most important aspects of the future combat systems
that can be transferred today to the efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
General Casey. Thank you very much, Congressman. You know,
as I told some of the soldiers there, the thing that I was most
impressed with was the effect of putting this new equipment in
the hands of soldiers, as you say, combat veterans. And so, we
are getting a very good look at it.
And I had the opportunity as a colonel to test the M-1A2
tank. And we did the same thing. About a year early we put the
system in the hands of soldiers. And it was a better system as
a result of that.
And I think what we are going to see is these elements of
the future combat system--this is just the first increment--but
will be better and will get them into the field faster as a
result of putting them in the hands of these soldiers. Now, you
know what was out there. But beyond that small, unmanned aerial
vehicle--that is already in Iraq. And I think that is something
that will be very, very useful to get into Iraq.
The unattended ground censors are already in Iraq. And that
is also a good thing. The robot that we saw going into that
building is also already in Iraq. And as the more we test, the
more the soldiers use them, the more we learn and the better
the next generations will be. And so, those are, I think, the
three main things that I think are pretty close to being ready.
Mr. Reyes. The only other comment that I will make is that
as we continue on the road with future combat systems, I hope
that we also focus on force protection equipment for soldiers
because we know that the enemy is very adaptive. And as
technology changes and they adapt to it, one of the things that
has been brought to my attention has been the armored vests.
We want to be careful not to sole source that because that
prevents competition. And that is a concern that was raised to
me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will break now for
the three votes. When we return, I have Mr. Miller and Dr.
Snyder up.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. Our hearing will resume. The three votes
interrupted the hearing. And some of our members will be
returning shortly. So we will proceed and call on the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes, to continue the questioning of
our witnesses, Secretary Geren and General Casey.
Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, there is a memo--I think you have a copy of
it--that clearly outlines the relationship between the Army and
the Air Force on joint cargo aircraft. The Air Force has had
some memory loss here lately. Would you re-outline for the
public the understanding that we do have the aircraft and that
is the right thing to do?
General Casey. I will, Senator. And, Chairman, we sent a
copy of this to you, I think, yesterday. I don't know if you
have seen it yet. But General Moseley and I have both signed
this letter. And the first sentence is the U.S. Air Force and
the U.S. Army----
The Chairman. Just a minute. Just a minute. We have a
provision in last year's bill for roles and missions. That is
where this ought to be. That is where this discussion ought to
take place. We would love to have it here, but that was one of
the purposes of our having a roles and missions review within
the Pentagon. That is where this ought to be, General. And
please proceed.
General Casey. I agree. I will just read that first
sentence. The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army stand together
in support of the joint cargo aircraft.
General Moseley and I have met twice already on roles and
missions, once with just myself, General Moseley, his Air
Combat Command Commander, and my Training and Doctrine Command
Commander. We spent about four hours down at Fort Monroe
talking about these kind of issues about unmanned aerial
vehicle issues, the kinds of things I think you would expect us
to be getting into.
We then had the first Army and Air Force staff talks in
five years where we put the Army staff and the Air Force staff
together, again hitting this same issue.
The Chairman. Excuse me for interrupting you. But what you
and the Air Force wanted us to do in last year's bill was to do
roles and missions within this Congress. And I don't think we
should be doing it. You should be doing it. I applaud you on
your efforts. But don't forget the Marines and the Navy when
you have your discussions. Go ahead.
General Casey. And I couldn't agree more. And we actually
already had the first Marine Corps staff talks in four years.
And we are on tap for the Navy.
But exactly your point. This is stuff that we should be
working. And my only point to you is that we are working it. We
are in full support of the joint cargo aircraft. It is
something both of us feel is necessary. And we just need to get
on with the program.
Mr. Hayes. The agreement has already been made. Let us get
on with it.
Secretary Geren, thank you both for being here. Impact
aid--vitally important going forward with BRAC. And please keep
that on your radar screen, particularly at the epicenter of the
universe, Fort Bragg and wherever else it is relevant. Again,
thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Geren and General Casey, thank you very much
for your extraordinary service.
I wanted to just thank you again for the focus, I think, in
your initial remarks on family. We need to do that. I don't
think we are there yet, quite frankly, and we hear repeatedly
the needs of childcare, a focus on that and certainly family
services, particularly health care, major, major issues for the
men and women who are serving.
And that is going to make a difference, we know, in terms
of retention. I just wanted to say that we need to keep working
on that, I think, in a very concerted way.
But I wanted to follow up briefly on supplemental funding
for recruiting. We touched on that in the personnel hearing
this week. The Army has already planned an additional $938
million in emergency supplemental funding during fiscal year
2008 to support the active duty recruiting program. And that is
about a 70 percent increase in the amount budgeted for
recruiting during fiscal year 2008.
It seems that of all the programs that could be defended as
war-related, why would the Army select recruiting programs to
be funded from supplementals? It seems certainly short-sighted
because of the planning needed to execute that in a reasonable
fashion. Why not pick another account, additional equipment or
supplies that would be a better option for supplemental
funding? Why do we focus on recruiting?
I know in the hearing they mentioned perhaps by 2010 we
will be bringing recruiting out of the supplemental into the
base budget. And it was suggested that we were deferring that
to the next administration. Why can't we move that in earlier?
Isn't that a high priority?
Secretary Geren. Well, it is a high priority. And we have
seen the cost of recruiting go up a great deal over the last
several years. And the argument for putting it in the
supplemental or at least the increased costs--we have never had
to sustain an all-volunteer force with volunteer recruits
through a long war as we have now.
Many of the changes you can attribute to the war. But we
have seen the propensity to enlist has gone down significantly.
The influencers, parents, teachers, coaches--their propensity
to encourage a young person to enlist has gone down as well.
And the costs of recruiting in the midst of this war are higher
than they would be were it not for the war.
But recruiting will be one of several issues that are
obviously enduring that we are going to have to work and start
working them back into the base budget. I do think, though,
that there is a surplus there that you could attribute to
sustaining a successful recruiting effort in the middle of this
war. And the polling suggests that we do have a bigger
challenge in the middle of this war than we do at other times.
Mrs. Davis of California. I don't think anybody would
question the challenge. I think our concern is that it is an
ongoing concern, not likely to change. We have a greater end
strength, so certainly, recruitment is going to have to go up
under any circumstances. And I think we would just like to say
once again that we would like to see that more realistically
and in some ways, more honestly put into the base budget
because it better reflects where we are today.
If I could just go on and mention one other area. And I was
actually very pleased to see in the field manual the focus that
would elevate mobility and civil support operations.
And I think that we have been talking about interagency
coordination, how critical it is for men and women who serve
our country to be prepared in that way, but that it is not just
a military function, that we need to pick up that effort across
other jurisdictions. And that reflects that. But I am also
wondering whether you believe that your budget reflects the
needs that we have in that regard.
Another question really is whether we are planning to
capture the skills and the experience of the men and women who
have served in those civil support capacities. Are we going to
be able to retain them. Can we use them as instructors? Can
they teach others? How are we going to do this?
Because it is great to say that, but if we are not planning
for that future, I am afraid that we are going to lose really
the capabilities that have been established and well that we
have had to learn, you know, in a really tough way for how we
are going to win future wars and future conflicts.
General Casey. And I think as has been said earlier, this
is a combat-seasoned, experienced force. And you are absolutely
right. One of the things that makes it the magnificent Army
that it is are non-commissioned officers and our captains and
our majors who have had the experience in these environments.
And we are working very hard as they come back from these
experiences to put them into schools, recruiting command, those
other places where they can begin sharing that experience with
others. And as we talked about the recruiting and retention
initiatives, it is critical to keep those folks with us. And I
think you know that we have just done some things with
captains' bonuses.
Mrs. Davis of California. Are you confident that the budget
reflects that, that it shows that priority that we have to do
that? Are you going to be able to do what is really required to
bring them into those areas?
General Casey. I believe between the base budget, which has
about, I believe, about $2.5 billion for recruiting and
retention is in it. So, I mean, they are not all, by any
stretch of the imagination, in the supplemental. It is actually
the first priority for us to work.
The other thing I would tell you--you mentioned the manual,
but it mentions families in here, I think which is also a
first.
Mrs. Davis of California. Great. Thank you very much.
General Casey. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Franks, to be followed by Dr. Snyder.
Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And once again, thank all of you here for being here.
General Casey and Secretary Geren, I know that you folks have
given so much of your life to this cause of human freedom. And
it is because of you that people like me get to sit back here
and ask questions. And I appreciate it.
I heard General Casey on a number of occasions. And
ironically today I think both from you--certainly, from you,
Secretary Geren, that you want to avoid any appearance of a
hollow force or certainly, any reality of a hollow force. And I
couldn't agree with you more.
Oftentimes, our opponents study our system that is so
transparent, you know, we can sometimes be victims of our own
openness. And they study our system, and if they get the sense
that our force is not what it can be, I think that that is a
potential weakness that is provocative.
And with that said, I want to echo the sentiments of the
ranking member related to the 4 percent of GDP for defense
spending. I think if our opponents across the world knew that
this was a commitment on the part of the American people that
they would take that into their calculus and that it would be
something that would actually, not only stabilize the military,
but perhaps stabilize the geopolitical dynamics in the world to
a degree and give you guys a chance to plan.
And when this war is over, as I hope and pray it will be,
that the people don't come and say, well, now is the time to
cut the force. At that point, you may be needing to do resets.
And it is important, I believe, for you to have a foundational
something that you can count on to plan and to build this
military into, again, all that it can and should be.
I don't want to be a commentator here. Let me just ask you
specifically. You indicated in your written statement, General
Casey, that the future combat systems are the core of your
modernization effort. And looking down the road, future combat
system spin-outs will require communications on the move
capability for brigade combat teams.
And this com on the move capability is a feature of the Air
Force's planned transformational satellite communications
constellation. And as I am sure you know, in fiscal year 2007,
transformational satellite (TSAT) experienced major
congressional funding cuts that deferred its planned
deployment. And the fiscal year 2009 budget requests a $4
billion reduction by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
from the future year's defense plan.
And I guess my question is are you going to be forced to
make unfavorable changes to the future combat systems program
to defer deployment of spin-outs of TSAT if TSAT continues to
suffer schedule slips. How is it going to affect you? Is it
going to make you change your program?
General Casey. Right now I don't see the slips impacting
us. However, the future combat system is not just reliant on
that one system. We have terrestrial systems, unmanned
repeaters, and helicopter repeaters as well as the satellite
part of it. So we are not wholly reliant on that.
And we are very carefully monitoring the risk associated
with all of the communications architecture, particularly
jitters and Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
because, as you suggest, those are very important to our
ability to establish this network to support the soldiers.
Mr. Franks. I am sure the Air Force has some ability to
supplant or at least complement any holes there might be
because of a slow-down in the TSATs. Are you set up to work for
the Air Force in that regard if that comes to a necessity?
General Casey. Absolutely. In fact, as I mentioned to the
chairman, General Moseley and I have already had several
sessions talking about the full range of Army and Air Force
interaction and initiatives. And so, there is good cooperation
between both services right now on the whole range of issues.
Mr. Franks. Well, let me just throw one last quick one at
both of you here. My time is about gone. But if there was one
thing that you could ask this committee to do that we are not
already doing, that is not already in the process, one priority
that you feel is important that we are missing somehow, what
would that be? And I will direct that to the Secretary first
and then perhaps General Casey can take it up.
Secretary Geren. Well, we are here to ask you to support
this budget obviously. But just in line with what you said at
the beginning of your remarks, I was here, I was in the
Congress from 1989 to 1997. And it was during a period of time
where we in some ways, I guess, let hope triumph experience.
And we saw a major drawdown in our military and significant
cutbacks in procurement.
One of the most important things for the military is to
have a predictable, sustainable level of funding. And rapid
changes up and down are very hard for an organization like
this. Programs like the future combat system--those are multi-
decade programs. And as I anticipate the future and look at how
hard it is to bring new weapon systems on and how many years it
takes, one of the biggest challenges for the military is to be
able to accommodate the ebbs and flows of funding.
And we need to do a better job as a country of having a
sustainable level of funding for the military through peace
times and through war times. And I think that will be one of
our biggest challenges.
The Chairman. Ditto. Thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
General Casey, I think I will direct my three quick
questions to you. This whole issue of funding has been all
through this discussion today. But on page 19 of you all's
written statement you talk about timely and full funding of the
Army's fiscal year 2009 request of $140.7 billion will ensure
the Army is ready to meet the needs of the Nation and continue
the process of putting us back in balance.
Then you go on to say, however, it is important to note
that over the last six years, the Army has received an
increasing proportion of its funding through supplemental and
GWOT appropriations. And that is the end of that quote.
My question is, as Secretary Geren just said, you all are
here to support the budget. I assume that you would not turn
money away if, in fact, this committee and this Congress were
to say instead of $140.7 billion we think that we ought to do a
higher number. Is that a fair statement?
General Casey. Congressman, you know, depending what for. I
mean, if you are talking about moving some things that are in
the supplemental already into the base program.
Dr. Snyder. I am talking about increasing the baseline
budget, which I think is the point of that paragraph there,
that you--I assume that your preference is that, in fact, that
your baseline budget number for this coming fiscal year be
higher than the one in the budget that is being proposed. Is
that a fair statement?
General Casey. I don't think there is any question,
Senator, there are things in the supplemental that have to
migrate back into our base program if we are to sustain the
levels of readiness and to put ourselves back in balance.
Dr. Snyder. Right, right. Then my second question is,
General Casey, I assume, given that you have given us this list
of things--and there are certainly a lot of needs out there--
that you will not be opposed and will not refuse congressional
adds, inserts, earmarks if they are consistent with the things
that you need.
General Casey. Congressman----
Dr. Snyder. I mean, because this is going to be the game
that is going to be played, you know.
General Casey. Yes.
Dr. Snyder. We will add things to this budget because a lot
of us think it is unsatisfactory and we are going to get beat
up on it from now until election day because we are the party
of earmarks. That is what is going to happen.
General Casey. Yes, yes.
Dr. Snyder. So I just need you to say will you be
supportive of those earmarks that are consistent with what you
think the Army needs.
General Casey. Congressman, we are here to support this
budget and ask for your support on the 2008 g-wide GY request
and on the 2009 GY request that will accompany this.
The Chairman. Excuse me, General.
Dr. Snyder. So you don't want any additional----
The Chairman. Just a minute, Vic.
Dr. Snyder. Yes.
The Chairman. You are not answering his question.
General Casey. Yes, I am----
The Chairman. Please why don't you restate your question?
This is really important. This is what we do in Congress.
Dr. Snyder. If I were to submit a letter to this committee
taking your unfunded requirements list and--I don't know how
many things you have on there, 20 or 30--and submit each letter
saying please add, Mr. Skelton, to this year's budget, these
following items as requested by General Casey, that is going to
be labeled as an earmark in the public discussion.
So my question is are you going to defend those of us who
will add, who will take the heat for adding earmarks when we
start getting bashed by the President and others that somehow
we are the Congress of earmarks? It is a pretty straightforward
question. Are you going to stand up for those of us who will
ask for some of these items?
General Casey. And, Congressman, I certainly--I think we
all--appreciate the support that this Congress and this
committee have provided us.
Dr. Snyder. Well----
General Casey. And again, we have given our requirements
through the Department to Congress in the form of the base
program and the supplementals. And if you are to move things
around within those programs, you know, there is not much we
can do about it. We think about these programs long and hard.
Dr. Snyder. Well, I assume you do. That is why some of us
will be willing to support things on your unfunded requirements
list. But the tone right now is that you really don't want us
to do that this year. That is an unfortunate comment because I
don't think that is what we really ought to be about.
General Casey. As I said----
Dr. Snyder. I wanted to ask----
General Casey. I am not about declining support, obviously.
But we have stated our requirements. They are in the program
request. And how you distribute those monies, I think, is
something for the committee to decide.
Dr. Snyder. Let me ask another quick question. As you and
the Air Force are moving ahead on the joint cargo aircraft, I
had assumed that because the capacity of this plane for
carrying cargo was substantially less than a short version of
the C-130J that there would be a substantial savings. Now, I
know that we apparently have made the decision to move ahead
but don't yet know exactly what the cost is going to be.
If it comes back that that cost is getting awfully close to
the short version of the J model, are you going to be--you and
the Air Force going to open up this discussion in terms of
whether that is the best route to go, given that you can carry
a lot more with a short version of the J model than you can
with the joint cargo aircraft, as the post?
General Casey. I certainly think that both of us will look
at that if that occurs.
Dr. Snyder. Yes. Thank you.
The Chairman. General, I had an earmark last year for a
brand new chapel at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. And I would
hope that a comparable earmark in the days ahead would be
supported by the Army because it was much needed. And you folks
never put it on the list, although it was on the someday list,
which never came to pass, and so I did it.
And that is the type of thing of which Dr. Snyder refers.
We would like and expect support from the Army on these items
such as that and some, of course, far more training or
operational-oriented.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being
here today. I particularly am enjoying looking out and seeing
the green. I served 31 years in the Guard and Reserve. I am
very grateful I had three sons who serve in the Army Guard.
A preliminary question I have--Congressman Forbes has
already brought this up. But that we have the best military in
the history of the world. And you verified that. As a parent,
we also need verification that we have the best-equipped
military in the world. Is that your opinion?
Secretary Geren. Certainly.
General Casey. I fully agree.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
General Casey. And it is constantly updated with input from
the theater.
Mr. Wilson. And I know firsthand. In summer of 2007, our
brigade went to Fort Irwin for desert warfare training. I would
say this respectfully that all of the equipment that we had at
that time is now in a museum. And it has been superceded by
multiple generations of the best equipment that is conceivable
and the best technology. And I really have been proud of the
military.
I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for pointing out about
visiting with the troops. The highest honor I have had serving
in Congress is to visit with our troops. I visited in Iraq
eight times. I have had two sons serve in Iraq.
I particularly want to thank General Casey. One of my sons
served under you. And I knew that we just had the best
personnel there to watch out for our troops and lead our
troops.
Additionally, I have been to Afghanistan five times. And I
want to report that my National Guard unit is there, the 218th
Brigade, led by General Bob Livingston. They are training the
Afghan Police and Army. I visited with them three times. Soon I
will be visiting again.
And each time I go, the people of South Carolina are so
proud to have the largest deployment since World War II, 1,600
troops. And it is because of your leadership and the efforts
that they are making protecting our country.
As pleased as I am, I am concerned, though, on the National
Guard Operation and Maintenance (O&M) budget, $5.88 billion
that it is actually because of costs and price changes a
decrease of $19 million. Our state is vitally interested. The
Guard has been so effective and so helpful in preparing for
hurricanes and recovery. Is the budget sufficient for our
Guards to be able to perform their stateside mission?
Secretary Geren. Budgets are choices. And it is set
authorities. And a lot of hard choices have to go into
assembling a budget. But when you look at the resources that we
have dedicated to the Guard as an Army, we believe that this
budget represents the right levels of funding.
You look at the Guard equipping. Over the next 24 months,
you are going to see $17 billion worth of equipment flow to the
Guard. We started with a deep hole when it came to the Guard.
It had been underfunded for a very long time. And over the last
few years we have made progress in digging out of that hole.
But we aren't where we want to be.
On the issues such as hurricanes, the type of domestic
crises that we certainly have to be able to anticipate in
addition to the funding that goes directly into the Guard, we
have got state compacts, as you know, where we try to bring
the--marshal the resources of the region to meet those needs.
And anticipating this hurricane season, all the hurricane
states, as does yours, participate in an effort to identify
resources. And where there are equipment shortages, the active
component generates those equipment shortages to try to meet
those needs.
But we aren't where we want to be. But we are moving
further along. And this budget moves us in the right direction.
And I am pleased that we have been able to make progress in
better funding all three components to meet all of their needs.
But it is a work in progress.
General Casey. I don't have anything to add on the budget.
But I will just say I visited a Guard brigade down in Camp
Shelby, Mississippi last week, 39th Brigade Combat Team. And
the combat seasoning--you can see it in the Guard forces that I
visited. And when I say the Army is better, the best I have
seen, it is the whole Army. It is not just the active force. It
is the guard and reserve as well.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you indeed. I had training many years
ago at Camp Shelby. And our 218th was trained at Shelby prior
to leaving for Afghanistan. And the training is just
unparalleled. And I just want to assure parents and family
members that we have the best-equipped troops in the world, the
availability of equipment, the best technology, extraordinary
UAV capability. But that is not necessarily the message people
hear. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Sestak.
Mr. Sestak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, you probably know we don't have problems with
earmarks for chapels in the Navy. We just don't put chapels on
ships. But if you don't mind, my question, if I could take
another bite at the apple that Mr. Murphy and the congressman
have done, I have no question--and when someone said over here,
the gentleman here said weakness could be provocative. I don't
think there is any questions in anybody's mind that we have the
best military in the world, best equipment.
I think the question we are really asking is but can they
do what is required. Pacific commander last year before the
surge began said when asked that there is no Army unit that can
deploy like our plan 5027 to defend South Korea, no Army unit.
You even said here in your testimony or it has been reported
that Army units that go to Iraq receive their equipment just
before they go, a lot of it.
So they can't do what is required. And so, the Pacific
commander says the Navy and the Air Force we are relying upon
to back them up. And why did we need those divisions in 5027
all this time if it is no longer required?
We are short 2,800 troops to what the International
Security Assistant Force has asked us to train U.S. troops,
U.S. troops to train in Afghanistan the police and the army
there, not just what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) is short, us. So we can't do what is required there.
Our prepo that we want to rely upon for Korea and other
places is not there. It is used elsewhere. And the training--we
don't even train them for Korea or other places anymore.
So my issue here is not that they are not the best, but can
they meet the timelines as of four years and five years ago of
all our op plans.
General Casey. And the answer, Congressman, as I said in my
opening statement is we can't do things as rapidly as we know
we need to do this.
Mr. Sestak. And that is the question that is being asked.
The concern with Iraq is when do we make the judgment that our
overall security is harmed by continuing the present strategy.
Now we are in another suspension. What if South Korea happens
and 27,000 troops have no Army backup nor the prepo to go?
So if I could, that is the real question I think people
should be asking more. It is not about Iraq security. It is
about America's security. So my second question is, if I could,
because I only have five minutes, General. I don't mind if I
could come back. I have only got five. And sometimes he takes
an extra minute away from freshmen.
But my second question is last year we had more Army
procurement in the emergency supplemental bill than we did in
the regular bill, the base bill. Would you agree we are doing
counterinsurgency pretty well in Iraq?
General Casey. I would.
Mr. Sestak. And General Curdy says we are the best
counterinsurgency in the world. I agree we need Future Combat
Systems (FCS). We are replacing armor to protect our
individuals with a network and self-protection like the Armored
Gun System (AGS) to protect our troops.
But if we are doing counterinsurgency well and that is what
you are transforming to do more of on the core mission, why do
we need FCS if we are doing it so well and it is becoming the
core mission? I understand that we probably would have done the
Battle of Peach Orchard a lot differently and not been
surprised by those three Iraqi brigades at the beginning of the
war if we had it for force on force.
We are only doing 15 brigade combat teams now or 15 heavy
ones. What about the other 22 heavy ones? And we are not going
to have the first 15 for 15 years.
I don't see anything in your budget to upgrade all those
other ones for their strikers, their Abrams, et cetera, which
gets to the communications question over here, jitters for FCS
for those 15. And all the other technology in FCS will demand
more band width than is used by the entire ground Army today.
So my question is what are we doing here. We are changing
our mission. We are doing it fine with equipment we have.
I understand FCS is good for heavy brigades, and we are
only doing 15 out of the 22. We are about to have an Army where
we have more procurement in the emergency supplemental bill.
The war should end at some time. Are we expected then to double
our procurement to only do 15 brigades for FCS? Have we really
thought this issue through, General?
General Casey. Well, I don't know exactly where to start
here, Congressman.
Mr. Sestak. [OFF MIKE]
General Casey. Let me go back to----
Mr. Sestak. I am complexed by these different things.
General Casey. Yes. Well, let me go back to the 5027
issues. First of all, there is a 600,000 man South Korean Army
that is very, very competent. And when you talk to General
Bell, he will tell you that.
And they are backed up by a reserve of about the same size.
And they are also backed up by elements of the United States
Air Force and the United States Navy, as you mentioned.
Our prepositioned stocks in Korea are still in place. We
have not used those.
Mr. Sestak. I am talking about the Army Prepositioned Stock
(APS).
General Casey. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. Sestak. The float ones.
General Casey. For Korea.
Mr. Sestak. The float ones are not the Korean----
General Casey. And I don't want to get in beyond----
Mr. Sestak. But would you agree with me that all the
equipment for Korea is not there in the prepo, wherever it
comes from?
General Casey. It is pretty close. It is pretty close for
that particular mission. And I can talk to you offline here
about the specifics.
Mr. Sestak. May I ask one more question? If we are okay
with those 600,000, once Iraq is over, is there no longer a
requirement for the Army to deploy there as a backup force?
General Casey. I mean, that is a discussion that is a
policy discussion. And whether----
Mr. Sestak. I mean, if it is okay today----
General Casey [continuing]. It is suitable for the country
to have a force on the Asian mainland is something to be
discussed at the policy level.
Mr. Sestak. But we don't need anything to deploy to back
them up if we are okay today?
General Casey. No, no, that is not the case at all. I mean,
there are, as you know, in the plans there are other
requirements to deploy, forces. But they are not nearly as
significant as they were in the past because of this competent
South Korean force that is there.
On your questions about the counterinsurgency and the
future combat system, this talks about full spectrum
operations. And we need a capability that can be successful at
major conventional war as well as counterinsurgency. And future
combat system allows us better than any other system that we
have in the Army to meet those requirements.
And it is indeed a full spectrum system that is as capable
in major conventional operations as it is in supporting
counterinsurgency operations. And we don't have all the tools
of that system in Iraq and Afghanistan now. And the more we get
them there, the better we will become, even if we are doing
fairly well now.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Jones from North Carolina.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And, General Casey and Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to
see you both. And you have my utmost respect for the jobs that
you are doing.
General Casey, last night driving home--I guess I am
addicted to Congress and all the hearings--I was listening to
your presentation on the Senate side. And it brought to mind my
question. And I am going to make a few comments and then get to
the question.
Secretary Geren was talking about the ebb and flow. Well,
you know, our nation is in deep financial trouble. We are
borrowing money from China like it is going out of style. They
say we owe China $440 billion. I verified that with the U.S.
Treasury recently.
We have spent probably $600 billion to $700 billion in
Iraq. That is not your decision. You are following your
Commander in Chief. And I mean that sincerely, and I respect
that.
The cost now is running at about $8 billion to $9 billion a
month, 4,000 killed, 28,000 to 30,000 wounded, victory after
victory by the military. Saddam has been deposed and is
deceased. Iraqis have a government. They had elections. The
military is giving and won so many victories that we should
have parade after parade for them, quite frankly.
Yet we know we are in a situation in Afghanistan that now
we have got to call on the Marine Corps and the Army to step it
up. And most of these people have done three, four, and five
tours, both Army and Marine Corps.
Because of the statement I heard you, last night, when you
were saying that, you know, victory in Iraq, I think we have
already had victory. My question is will you give me your
definition of victory for Iraq.
What would you say to the American people that when this
happens, then we have won, it is over, it is time to draw down
the military? Would you give me your definition as to what you
would explain to the American people that when this happens,
the game is over, we have won?
General Casey. Yes, I mean, that is more a question for
General Petraeus than it is for me. He is the one that is going
to decide what that looks like.
Mr. Jones. All right. Well, since the cameras are not here
and the press is not here, General Casey to Congressman Jones
and nobody is going to quote you, but, General, there has got
to be your opinion. And again, I am very sincere about this.
Because you know what? Quite frankly, all the questions you
have had about the budget and Mr. Geren has spoken to it as
well, you cannot continue to bleed the country, not you
personally, not the military. They have done everything they
can do.
But we are in such a financial state that Uncle China is
lending Uncle Sam money to fight the wars. This is not going to
last very long. So please, if you would, give me an idea of
what you think I could look for as a taxpayer to feel like we
have won in Iraq, it is time now to significantly downsize the
number of American troops, and we have won, we can declare
victory.
I think we could have declared victory four years ago,
quite frankly. But that didn't happen. Please give me your
opinion.
General Casey. I will give you my opinion, and it is not
something you probably haven't heard before. But I believe that
we are working toward and need to get our presence down to a
level that is acceptable both to us and to the Iraqis.
Mr. Jones. Would you tell me what that level is? Sorry.
General Casey. And to do that, Iraqi Security Forces have
to develop to the point where they can maintain domestic order
and deny Iraq as a safe haven for terror. Now, when that will
be is a subject for the commanders on the ground. And that is
what we have been working toward, certainly, since I was there
and I think probably before that.
Now, when that will be I think is a subject for General
Petraeus when he returns here in April. But that is what you
asked my opinion of what success will look like. That is what I
believe it looks like.
Mr. Jones. I appreciate that. And I know, again, you are
following the orders of the Commander in Chief. The problem is
I knew this four or five years ago, that I would get the true
answer, which you gave me the true answer. But the problem is
it is the same thing year after year, year after year. And this
country cannot continue to wait 10 and 15 years and 100 years
for the Iraqis to take on this responsibility.
I had General Zinni to tell me--I respect him as I respect
you. General Zinni told me that it is time for the Iraqis to
walk the streets of Baghdad, not the American soldier or the
American Marine. I hope that it happens sooner rather than
later because this country is going to be financially broke.
Thank you.
General Casey. Thank you, Congressman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and General, thank you very much for sticking
around this long. And I regret that so many of our colleagues
had to do other things.
If you have had time to think about my previous question as
to when do you--have you set a target date for trying to get
improvised explosive device (IED) jammers to stateside training
so that the troops see them stateside, they train with them
stateside before they ever go to the theater. Have you set a
target date?
And again, I realize we are living hand-to-mouth on
delivering these devices to the field. Have you set a date when
you have a target date when the troops will train with MRAPs
stateside before they get to the theater?
Secretary Geren, you and I go back a long ways. And so, I
think it is fair to say for 18 years we have been told by the
military experts that we train as we fight. These are two key
ingredients to the fight in Iraq. And yet for most troops, they
never see them until that equipment shows up in Iraq. So that
is obviously we are not training as we fight.
And I think one of the ways that I as a Member of Congress
who helps come up with the money for these things--one of the
ways I am going to know that we are there as far as supplying
these things is when the military has enough of them to train
stateside with them. If you could answer that for me.
Secretary Geren. Well, our goal is to train as we fight.
But with the demands in theater, we are moving----
Mr. Taylor. I understand.
Secretary Geren [continuing]. The equipment into theater to
meet the needs there. And MRAP--as we do our long-term
planning, and the Army plans for what our needs long-term are
for MRAP, it includes enough MRAPs so that we can train on
those MRAPs. It certainly is less than optimal to send our
soldiers into Iraq and to Afghanistan without having trained on
the MRAPs here. And they train there for a short period of
time.
But it certainly doesn't match what they would get if we
had the MRAPs here. So I can't give you a firm date because we
don't know at this point how many MRAPs we think is the right
number in theater. We are still working on that.
By the end of the year, we will have 10,000 plus. We are
just trying to fine tune working with the theater to figure out
exactly what that number is. But those will be filled first.
And then we will continue to fill to make sure that we have
them to train. But that is what we have, a situation, as you
know, where the----
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Secretary----
The Chairman. Just let me interrupt.
Mr. Taylor. Sure.
The Chairman. In other words, you are not training as you
fight.
Secretary Geren. With a number of different pieces of
equipment we do not have them in theater, and they train when
they get to theater. On MRAPs we do not have MRAPs all across
the training base in the United States.
General Casey. I do think that is an important point, that
the training takes place here in the United States, in Kuwait
as they are coming through, and during the transition period
that they have in Iraq. Now, as you suggest, we would like to
have most of the training done here in the United States. And
as the Secretary said and as you know, we don't have a full
complement of equipment here in the States.
Mr. Taylor. General.
General Casey. To have the opportunity to train,
Congressman, before they have to use them.
Mr. Taylor. But if we never set a target date, we never get
there.
General Casey. Your point is taken. Your point is taken.
Mr. Taylor. And that is the point I am trying to make. And
that target date is going to come better from you, Mr.
Secretary and you, General, than from me.
General Casey. Right.
Mr. Taylor. And we need to set a target date. And we need
to be able to measure ourselves whether or not we are living up
to that. I mean, we are now the 5th year into this conflict,
National Guardsmen and reservists are cycling through Camp
Shelby, and they are literally walking around with something
that looks like a cigar box that has got IED jammer written on
it.
That is the closest they are going to come to the real
thing until they get to theater. That is not correct training
on something that is going to save their lives. We know that
MRAPs are going to save their lives. And again, I don't mean to
beat you over head, but I think it is very important that it
starts with you.
We have a target date, and then let us try to stick to it.
And then ask us, the Congress, to come up with the funds to
make that happen. So I will leave it at that.
The second thing--and this is a repeat from my question
yesterday. I posed it to the Air Force. It is going to involve
your air assets in Iraq and Afghanistan now.
I just got to that portion of Charlie Wilson's War where in
the span of five minutes, three hind helicopters were shot down
by the first introduction of the stingers. And although things
had been trending well for the Afghans prior to that, that
obviously was a moment that Russian pilots wished had never
happened.
And it was a weapon that they did not expect to see. But
the Russians had to know it was out there. They just didn't
expect to see it in Afghanistan.
Knowing that there are a world of weapons out there,
knowing that the borders in Iraq and Afghanistan are extremely
porous and that a lot of the same players that were helping the
Afghans get weapons against the Soviets might well be helping
the Afghans and the Iraqis get weapons now, are you confident
that our nation doesn't experience a similar moment when a
weapon that we know is out there, somewhere, in the world but
we don't think is going to make their way to the insurgents in
Afghanistan or the insurgents in Iraq? Are you confident that
we are taking every precaution and are in a position to counter
every possible scenario so that we don't face a moment like
that as a Nation with our helicopters or in our air assets in
Iraq or Afghanistan?
General Casey. Congressman, I am confident that we are
doing everything in our power to anticipate what the enemy
might do and how he might do it and what new technologies he
might bring to bear. And as you suggest, this is a constant
struggle because war is action, reaction, and counteraction.
And we work very hard to try to stay ahead of the threat.
Now, I am comfortable that our systems in theater are well-
protected against the threats that you describe. And whether or
not something can show up that we didn't anticipate, again, we
constantly work at trying to anticipate that. But there are no
guarantees in war.
Mr. Taylor. What are the trends as far as casualties to
your air assets? I am sitting, what, 7,000 miles away. I
can't----
General Casey. Yes. The trends, I think, are actually quite
stable. There is a relatively low level of surface-to-air
attacks. And I am just going back to my own experience, and it
is not current. But you have some peak periods. But, I mean,
knock on wood, our aviators do very well. And it is a
combination, not just of the protective equipment, but the
tactics and techniques that they use as they move about.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I hope you would get back to me with those
dates as far as setting a target date. And I realize it is a
target. But as far as where every stateside unit has the
training to go to Iraq and Afghanistan will be training with
the actual equipment they are going to be using in theater.
Secretary Geren. Well, MRAPs as an example, it is going to
be hard to give a set date because we don't, at this point,
know how many we believe we need in theater. Our goal, though,
is once we meet the demand in theater then we will fill into
the training requirements. But the soldiers that when we send
MRAPs to theater, we don't immediately send them out with a
unit.
They train with those MRAPs before they go out. It is not
as optimal as if they had them previously, but they do train on
the MRAPs there before they drive them and actually put them
into use. So they are fielded, soldiers train with them, and
then they are employed in the units.
But we will do our best to come up with goals. But in the
case of MRAP, we are still developing what the requirement is
in theater, trying to figure out what the right mix is.
At one point we thought it was going to be one to one, swap
out all the up-armored Humvees. But understanding now of the
situation is that it is going to be a mix, that it will
continue to be a role for the up-armored Humvees in theater. So
we will work to come up with timelines. But until we get a firm
idea on exactly how many we need in theater, it is going to be
hard to predict when we will be able to fill at home because
our first priority is getting them into theater.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Secretary, I very much appreciate that. But
I would also tell you that I have already received in my
capacity a phone call from the commandant of the Marine Corps
where he says you know what, I may have ordered too many MRAPs.
And he was seriously considering trying to work with the vendor
to lower the number that he would acquire.
I think that gives you an excellent opportunity to buy the
difference, to make them available for stateside training.
Again, all I am asking is for a target date.
Secretary Geren. I appreciate that.
Mr. Taylor. We all live by target dates.
Secretary Geren. Yes, thank you. Certainly, we will do
that.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Speaking about target dates and timelines, is
it not true that the American Army began seriously training the
Iraqi forces in late 2004?
General Casey. You know, there was always an effort going
on. But if you look at when we stood up the multi-national
security and transition command, I think it was the April, May
timeframe of 2004.
The Chairman. Of 2004? So we have had 2005, 2006, 2007, and
now we are well into 2008. In your personal and professional
opinion, General, since you were there, could you give us a
target date as to when the Iraqi forces can be fully trained to
take over their own security?
General Casey. You know, when you say fully trained to a
soldier, that means, you know, almost to the capability of the
U.S. Army.
The Chairman. Take it over, take it over, and the United
States Army can come home.
General Casey. Yes. I mean, my personal view, Senator, is
the Iraqis----
The Chairman. I am not a senator. I was a state senator
once upon a time.
General Casey. Pardon me.
The Chairman. But I am not now. I am a member of the House.
General Casey. Pardon me. I have been on the other side of
the Hill here for the last couple of days.
The Chairman. Okay. But this is more fun, isn't it?
General Casey. Now, there is a good one. They are going to
need our help for some period of time.
The Chairman. Well, we understand that.
General Casey. But certainly, not at the same level that we
are.
The Chairman. But----
General Casey. I don't find it useful to talk about when
will they be absolutely fully independent of us.
The Chairman. Well, you know, it is interesting, though.
Let me interrupt. Excuse me just a second.
It is interesting, though. Folks at home say hey, how long
have we been there, how much longer do we have to be there to
train up these forces. So we have 2005, 2006, 2007. We are in
2008, and we started in April, May of 2004. Somewhere along the
line we ought to say it is your baby.
General Casey. I mean, I think you know my feelings and
what I tried to do when I was there to get them to build their
capability as rapidly as we can.
The Chairman. I know that. And I compliment you on it.
General Casey. And I think you will also agree----
The Chairman. And that is a tough job, tough job.
General Casey. Yes. I think you will also agree, though,
that you don't build an army overnight, and you especially
don't do it while it is fighting every day. You know the old
joke about the heart surgeon and the motorcycle mechanic and
they are arguing whose job is harder? And the heart surgeon
says I do mine with the motor running. I mean, that is what
they are doing.
You are building an army from scratch while the motor is
running, while they are fighting counterinsurgency operations
every day. Leaders are getting killed, having to be re-stood
up. I mean, it is a difficult proposition. I think they are
doing a magnificent job. And I couldn't begin to give you a--to
answer your first question.
The Chairman. I had an excellent discussion with Lieutenant
General Caldwell not long ago regarding what is now FM3-0. And
you had a copy of it on the desk there a few moments ago. Could
you tell our committee in just as few words as possible what
this new field manual purports to do, please?
General Casey. Yes, Congressman. It begins to move us as an
Army to deal with full spectrum operations. And we believe
offense, defense, and stability operations simultaneously
applied are what we are going to need in the 21st century to be
successful.
The Chairman. Thank you. Timelines--I have in front of me
the timelines for fiscal year 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015 regarding
the future combat systems. Let me direct your attention--and I
hope your good staff behind you would take some good notes on
this.
For fiscal year 2009--there are five items--number one,
five early prototypes of non-line of sight cannon vehicles;
number two, prototype unattended ground censors; number three,
prototype non-line of sight missile launcher; number four,
prototype FCS vehicle computers for M-1, M-2, and Humvees; and
number five, prototypes of small UAV and small robot. And I
hope someone on your staff got all five of those. I can repeat
them if you want me to.
General Casey. No. I have got them and am very familiar
with them.
The Chairman. Okay. The fiscal year is one-half through at
the end of March. Am I correct? The fiscal year 2009 is over,
the half of it is----
Secretary Geren. 2008.
The Chairman. 2008----
Secretary Geren. Right.
The Chairman [continuing]. Is over. So fiscal year 2009
will be--the mid-year will be March of next year. Am I correct?
General Casey. I thought you were trying to trick me,
Congressman.
The Chairman. No. There is no way to trick you, General.
Can you give us on that day the status of each of those five
items that were mentioned as of that day, mid-2009 fiscal year?
That is a way off, but I would put it into the back of your
mind so you might do that. And I would certainly appreciate
that for the committee next year would be very, very helpful
for us next year.
General Casey. If I might, I guess you are asking how far
along will those five systems be.
The Chairman. That is correct.
General Casey. Okay.
The Chairman. See, they are all supposed to be done by the
end of 2009, according to what I have in front of me.
General Casey. Yes.
The Chairman. And I ask that half-way point of 2009 would
you tell us where each of those five items are as toward their
finishing date, allegedly, at the end of 2009.
General Casey. We will do that. And just so you know, all
five of those systems are out at Fort Bliss in the hands of
soldiers right now.
The Chairman. I understand. But we look forward to it.
A couple more items, General. You were good enough in your
opening statement to speak about a very courageous sergeant I
know you and all Americans are very proud of the sergeant who
was awarded the Army's distinguished service cross.
And all would agree from your description that his actions
went above and beyond the call to duty. Not only did he save
lives of his fellow soldiers at great personal risk, but he
went back to the burning striker with the ammo and explosives
to man a 50-caliber machine gun to save his fellow soldiers and
take the fight to the enemy.
This is pretty parallel to what Audie Murphy, the most
decorated soldier in World War II, did to receive the medal of
honor. And there have been no soldiers, no one to receive the
medal of honor in any conflicts that are ongoing, whether it be
Iraq or Afghanistan. And I wonder if the bar has been moved as
to what it takes for someone to receive a medal of honor.
None have been awarded since Vietnam. And from your
description, this fits the Audie Murphy actions to a T where he
went back to man the machine gun. And Audi Murphy did the same
thing to a burning tank. And I think the only difference was he
was manning a 30-caliber machine gun. And he received the medal
of honor. Is there some reason that no one such as this
sergeant has received that high honor?
General Casey. Congressman, there have been two medals of
honor awarded in this current conflict.
The Chairman. Both of them were posthumous. Am I correct?
General Casey. That is correct. One great sergeant first
class, Sergeant Paul Ray Smith, Army and a Marine whose name I
do not know. But both are posthumous.
The Chairman. Is that a criteria that they be----
General Casey. No, it is not.
The Chairman. Well, is there some reason why others have
not been awarded to those that have survived?
General Casey. I cannot think of a specific reason. There
certainly is no bar that has--or the bar has not been elevated.
There is a process that is a very meticulous process to
determine the level of these awards. But there is no bar to--
the bar hasn't been raised.
The Chairman. Well, you should know that other Members of
the Congress have asked me that question. And I can't answer
it. So I pass it on to you for your consideration.
Last September our committee held a hearing on the Army's
contracting problems in Iraq and Kuwait and Afghanistan. And
the Army, to your credit, uncovered more than $15 million in
bribes. The Department of Defense Inspector General continues
to review $6 billion in contracts for potential fraud.
And since our hearing we have received the report of the
Gansler Commission, which you established, Mr. Secretary, in a
call for wholesale organizational changes in the way the Army
performs its contracting duties. What are your current plans to
implement that commission's recommendations?
Secretary Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have already
implemented many of the recommendations. In fact, we didn't
really wait until the Gansler Commission was finished in its
work.
Last summer we stood up a contracting task force under
General Ross Thompson and Kathy Condon. And they began work
immediately. And they worked hand in glove with Gansler. So as
we moved along, we could incorporate some of the lessons that
we learned from Dr. Gansler into our decision-making so we
could implement as quickly as we could.
As recommended by Gansler, we have set up a two-star Army
contracting command. We have already set it up. He calls for
obviously a uniformed military person to hold that position,
two-star. Unfortunately, we don't have the bench in the
contracting field in the Army to fill that at the present time.
We have an Senior Executive Service (SES) equivalent of two-
star.
We have also set up, according to his recommendation, a
one-star expeditionary contracting command and an installation
contracting command, one-star. And we have established seven
brigade contracting teams.
Where we found ourself with over the last several years--I
would say maybe the last decade, a little bit plus--we saw our
personnel in contracting really atrid and wasn't replaced, both
in civilian and in military. And one of the most important
things that we are going to do and it is something that we have
underway, it is something strongly endorsed by Gansler, is we
have got to rebuild that bench.
We have got to develop civilians. We have got to develop
soldiers that have those skills. And you don't do it overnight.
But we have now built positions so that these soldiers can
look up and see I have got a place to grow into, there is room
to be promoted. We have put instructions in promotion boards to
make sure that they recognize and acknowledge those contracting
roles.
We have a contracting task force, which I have asked the
undersecretary to chair. And he has got a two-star that is
supporting him to continue to push forward with the Gansler
recommendations. We have changed a great deal. We have already
added about 400 personnel to contracting, as recommended by
Gansler. We have got another 700 that we are seeking approval
to transfer into contracting.
But just big picture--the future of the Army requires
expertise in contracting. Over the last couple of decades we
did not cultivate that expertise. And we saw contracting needs
ramp up. We saw the number of contracts, the dollar volume of
contracts ramp up. And we did not develop contracting
professionals to meet that demand.
So it is going to be a multi-year process. It is going to
be a decade-long process. But we have begun. We have built the
structure that he called for. And now it is going to be a
question of attracting young people into that field, civilians
and military, growing them into those 05s and 06s, growing them
into general officers and filling these billets that right now
we are filling with civilians with the uniformed contracting
officers.
He did an outstanding job for us. He gave us a blueprint,
and we are embracing it completely. There are very few things
in his report that we have not embraced. And we are moving out
on them.
The Chairman. Probably one of the worst days of your life
was when you came over and gave us an early briefing on that
situation. And thank you for it, not just your candor then, but
your attention to it now.
Secretary Geren. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are doing the right thing. We compliment
you----
Mr. Courtney [continuing]. Testified before our committee
regarding the status of the joint cargo aircraft program. He
indicated that there has been discussions between the two of
you regarding the memorandum of agreement, which Connecticut
and many other Air National Guard are watching very closely.
And I just wonder if you could give your perspective in terms
of, you know, whether the existing memorandum is still the rule
of the road and that these Air Guard units are still going to
see the joint cargo aircraft arriving on schedule.
General Casey. The memorandum was dated yesterday. Both of
us signed it. And the first line says that the United States
Air Force and Army stand together in support of the joint cargo
aircraft. So we are committed to it, and we are both moving
out.
The Chairman. I suppose this is pursuant to the roles and
missions requirement in our bill last year. Am I correct?
General Casey. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Good. Well, carry on. That is good. Now all
you have to do is get the Navy and Marine Corps to sign that
memorandum, and you are home free.
Well, gentlemen, thank you so very, very much for appearing
before us today. You are blessed in so many ways. You are the
Secretary and the military head of the finest Army in the
world. The sons and daughters of Americans all across our
country are in your keeping.
And we appreciate your sincerity, your knowledge, your hard
work, most of all, your vision. Our job is to make an inquiry.
Our job under the Constitution is to maintain and provide so
that you can carry out your duties under our Constitution.
So continue to do well. Know that you are appreciated. I
like to make reference often to the great Roman Orator, Cicero,
who said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues. So with
that, we will close this hearing with knowing that you have the
gratitude of this committee and that those in uniform have the
gratitude of our Nation. Thank you. That is it.
Secretary Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 28, 2008
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 28, 2008
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44097.025
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 28, 2008
=======================================================================
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ABERCROMBIE
Mr. Abercrombie. In December 2007 the M4 carbine had the poorest
performance during an extreme dust test that replicated the desert
environments of Iraq and Afghanistan. Reports of the test state that
the M4 malfunctioned seven times more than the leading rifle tested. In
light of the M4s poor performance during recent testing, what plans
does the Army have to address the deficiencies of the M4 and is it
planning to procure a follow-on weapon with a stronger performance
record?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The weapons were tested in a lab
environment and pushed beyond their technical limits to ensure that the
M4 remains one of the most capable weapons in all environments. All
weapons in the test performed well: stoppages in all carbines were
roughly 1.4 percent or less of the total rounds fired by each, meaning
that all weapons had more than a 98% reliability rate under the test's
extreme and minimal maintenance conditions. The M4 is the most tested
(in the laboratory and battlefield) individual weapon employed by our
forces today. Our Soldiers and combat leaders are resolute in their
support of the M4 and the job it is doing for our Soldiers in combat.
In some aspects, the M4 performed better than the other weapons, for
example it has less round dispersion (greater accuracy) and fewer
ruptured cartridges (better safety).
Nevertheless, the Army is analyzing the results of the extreme dust
tests for potential improvements to the M4. There have been 68
substantive engineering changes since fielding the weapon. Recently,
the Army improved the magazines on the M4 and M16 and will begin
fielding the weapons with improved magazines to Soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan this summer. We also have an ongoing engineering study to
determine if the extractor mechanism can be improved.
Our combat developers have completed a capabilities based
assessment (CBA) of small arms and identified those capability gaps
that must be addressed through materiel solutions. However, the CBA did
not support the need for a new carbine/rifle individual weapon.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. HAYES
Mr. Hayes. Is there a valid requirement within the Army for the
Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA)? Is this a critical requirement? It is very
important for this Committee to hear from you what a high priority JCA
is for the Army and our soldiers.
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The JCA is a critical
requirement for the Army and our Soldiers. JCA enables he Army to meet
its inherent core logistics functions of transporting Army time-
sensitive mission-critical (TSMC) cargo and personnel to forward
deployed units, often in remote and austere locations. Because the
critical nature of this cargo contributes to the success of the
tactical ground commander's mission and the usually less than 24 hours
notice of its need, lift assets must be in a direct support
relationship to provide the necessary responsiveness.
To meet this requirement, the Army maintains a worldwide
operational support airlift capability of aging C-23 aircraft for the
Combatant Commanders. For sustainment operations, Army fixed wing
aviation performs those missions which lie between the strategic and
intratheater missions performed by the USAF and the tactical maneuver
and movement performed by Army rotary wing or ground assets. Once cargo
has reached the Army distribution system, it becomes an Army
responsibility to distribute supplies from the logistical hub to the
foxhole--the last tactical mile.
The JCA is procured to meet this requirement while transforming
Army Aviation, specifically the Army National Guard and the Army
Reserve fixed wing fleets, to a more modern, capable force. Without
transformation of the Army's legacy fixed wing fleet, the Army will
continue to pour funding into antiquated aircraft that provide limited
value on the battlefield and fly the CH-47 helicopters on costly re-
supply missions, thus limiting the flexibility of the Joint force
ground component commander.
The JCA is an Army led, Joint program between the Army and the Air
Force. As an example of joint teaming between the Services, JCA roles,
missions, and concept of operations were validated by the Joint
Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS) process, approved
by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), managed by a Joint
Program Office (JPO), and produced a Memorandum of Agreement, cosigned
by the Vice Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force.
For the Department of Defense, JCA offers greater efficiency by
utilizing a single platform to meet both the Air Force and the Army
missions and improves effectiveness in managing the gray area where
operational and tactical missions overlap. Effectiveness for the
services results from each service having a joint platform that meets
its unique individual mission requirements better than current
alternatives do.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER
Mr. Miller. You have said in the past that the Army is ``out of
balance.'' I am particularly concerned about the Reserve Components. We
continue to involuntarily call up men and women from the Individual
Ready Reserve (IRR). Some of these men and women have not had formal
military training in years and they are being placed in direct combat
after a short period of refresher training. What is the current status
of involuntary IRR activations? How much longer do you expect to
continue involuntary IRR activations?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. Most of those called up
involuntarily from the IRR are junior enlisted and officer Soldiers who
have been out of the regular Army less than three years and in many
cases have been previously deployed. Since 9/11, over 12,000 IRR
Soldiers have been involuntarily mobilized, of which approximately
6,000 are serving on active duty today.
All IRR Soldiers report to a mobilization station (Fort Jackson,
South Carolina or Fort Benning, Georgia) and undergo a medical
screening and complete Soldier Readiness Processing (SRP) before
commencing training activities. Soldiers receive up to two weeks of
training (basic rifle marksmanship, first aid, urban operations and
convoy operations) at the mobilization station and then receive three
to four weeks of skills refresher training prior to joining their
assigned unit. Soldiers normally join their unit prior to deploying to
theater and receive an additional three to four weeks of collective
training.
The Army provides Soliders based on requests for forces from the
combatant commanders. The Army will continue to utilize IRR Soldiers to
fill GWOT manning shortages within the active component, Army National
Guard, and the Army Reserve until directed to do otherwise.
Mr. Miller. I am told that an alarming number of those called
involuntarily out of the Individual Ready Reserve do not report for
duty. As I have been advised, in a recent wave of involuntary IRR call
ups, 160 letters were sent out and only 61 reported for duty. What
actions does the Army take when IRR members do not report for duty upon
being involuntarily recalled?
General Casey. The two most common reasons a Soldier fails to
mobilize are orders being delivered to incorrect addresses or a
mobilizing Soldier requests a delay or exemption (D&E). Over half of
the IRR Soldiers involuntarily recalled request a D&E for various
hardship reasons. Soldiers are authorized to submit D&E requests up
until the day they are required to report which escalates the number of
no shows at the mobilization station. More than half of the D&E
requests are approved.
The U.S. Army Human Resource Command's Mobilization Accountability
Assurance Team (MAAT) is responsible for locating IRR Soldiers who fail
to report as ordered, whether voluntarily or involuntarily to the
mobilization station. The MAAT can spend up to two years resolving such
cases. Once determined, Soldiers who intentionally refused to report
are processed for administrative separation and discharged. Soldiers
are notified of their pending separation/discharge and have 30-days to
respond or submit an appeal. In most cases these Soldiers do not
respond and the separation action is complete within four to seven
months.
Mr. Miller. I am concerned about that the Army is losing many of
its best and brightest junior officers. Other than bonus money,
graduate school, and posting preference what other incentives have you
thought about to retain top junior officers in our Army?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The average United States
Military Academy (USMA) graduate loss rate for year groups 1991-2002 is
29% at 60 months of service (5 years), and 41% at 66 months of service
(5.5 years). Attrition rates for year groups 2000-2002 are
approximately 5% higher than the average at 60 months and 2% higher
than at 66 months of service. Overall, there is no statistical
significance in the loss rate differences from USMA year groups 1991-
2002.
The increased loss rates, regardless of statistical significance,
are still of concern to the Army. We have, therefore, begun a thorough
review of officer accession and retention policies, and are assessing
the overall health of the officer corps. We have instituted two
initiatives to boost officer retention. First, we provide the highest-
performing cadet officers from West Point and our ROTC scholarship
programs the opportunity to select either their branch of choice,
initial post of choice, or a fully-funded graduate degree program. This
incentive has garnered over 9,000 additional man-years of obligated
service among year groups 2006 and 2007 officers. We expect this
incentive will raise the number of high-performance officers electing
to serve eight years by more than a third. Second, our unprecedented
captain retention program offers a number of incentives, including
graduate school or a cash bonus, to encourage our best and brightest
officers to remain on active duty. Analysis of the results of our first
several months of this program indicate a slight reduction in the loss
rates of captains in the 2000 and 2001 year groups graduating from West
Point.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. BOYDA
Mrs. Boyda. Have there been any integration problems with ``In Lieu
of'' personnel embedding with Army units?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. In Lieu Of personnel (ILO)
include personnel from other Services and Army personnel who have been
trained to perform missions/tasks outside of their core competency/
military occupational speciality. The Army integrates ILO personnel
into units as early in the pre-deployment process as possible.
Coordination for the integration of ILO personnel to Secretary of
Defense-approved missions begins in the sourcing process and continues
through training and subsequent mission preparation phases leading to
deployment. The Army coordinates all necessary ``In Lieu of'' training
with the Joint Staff and other services. Key players include the Joint
Staff, Joint Forces Command, Central Command, the Services, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, and, as appropriate, Forces Command and
1st Army. There have been no systemic integration problems with ``In
Lieu Of'' personnel embedding with Army units.
Mrs. Boyda. How much longer will ``In Lieu Of'' personnel from
other services be required to augment Army personnel?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. Today's global demands for
forces require the Army and other Services to augment each other's
capabilities in order to fulfill Combatant Commander requirements. The
length of this augmentation is dependent on the current and future
requirements from Combatant Commanders in support of the global war on
terror. As requirements change, the Army, in coordination with Joint
Staff and the other Services, will reassess the need for capability
augmentation.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS
Ms. Tsongas. While patrolling crowded and noisy urban settings in
Iraq, U.S. troops have a difficult time identifying where enemy fire is
coming from. Hostile fire has claimed the lives of more than 1,200
American soldiers in Iraq since combat began there in March of 2003.
Indeed, it is my understanding hostile fire has become the second
leading cause of American fatalities after IEDs. Mr. Secretary and
General Casey, could you please discuss the Army's intentions for
funding sniper detection and protection systems? Does the Army's budget
include additional funding for sniper defeat systems? What is the
status of the $1.2 billion of sniper defeat technology and systems
contained within the September 2007 supplemental? What is the long term
strategy regarding sniper defeat technology? I would appreciate any
detailed budgetary information.
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The Army received $400 million
in other procurement, Army funding for Rapid Equipping Soldier support
systems in the FY08 bridge supplemental. The funds were allocated to
procuring counter sniper items. The funding is less than the total FY08
counter sniper requirement of $451 million, which is a reduction from
the original request of $1.2 billion and was based on a continuing
refinement of the counter sniper requirements by the Army staff Counter
sniper systems being procured with current funding include:
Boomerang gunshot detection system
DoubleShot shot detection system
Vanguard (which integrates a remote weapons station
with Boomerang and DoubleShot for vehicle based Counter Sniper
capability)
handheld thermals, stabilized and ruggedized
binoculars, security veils and vehicle nets, magnifiers and mannequins.
The remaining portion of the FY08 supplemental request includes the
requirement for counter sniper procurement. The Army approved the
transition of two sniper defeat capabilities into acquisition programs:
vehicle/fixed site-based gunshot detection and Soldier-based gunshot
detection. The third capability, a remote weapons station with a
vehicle based gunshot detection system (similar to Vanguard) has been
assessed to support an acquisition program decision. Funding requests
have been incorporated into the Army's FY10-15 Program Objective
Memorandum submission. If approved, a requirement for the Vanguard-like
system would be submitted and expected to be a program of record in
FY12.