Answer. The Land Warrior initial capability system was originally designed to meet the Block I ORD requirements such as increased command and control through situational awareness and understanding, enhanced soldier survivability with improved body armor, increased mobility with use of global positioning system, and other enhancements in soldier equipment. Key requirements for the Block I system were to provide increased functionality without increasing the soldier's current load and provide a 12-hour power requirement to power the Land Warrior system in any operational environment. Program focus has shifted to design, development, and fielding of the Land Warrior Stryker-Interoperable system. Land Warrior Stryker-Interoperable is scheduled for full production in fiscal year 2006 with the first unit equipped in fiscal year 2006. The Land Warrior Stryker-Interoperable system will meet all Block I and II ORD requirements.

Question. What is the fielding plan for Land Warrior?

Answer. The Land Warrior Stryker-Interoperable system will be fielded to the 75th Ranger Regiment and six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams starting in fiscal year 2006 and ending in fiscal year 2008. The Army then plans to begin fielding an upgraded version of Land Warrior to the Special Forces Groups and the Objective Force units of action beginning in fiscal year 2009.

Question. Weight has always been a technical problem for the Land Warrior system. Initial versions of the hardware weighed as much as 92 pounds. Describe the units that the Army proposes to buy in fiscal year 2004 and how the Army has addressed weight issues for this system.

Answer. The Land Warrior ORD reflects a 40-pound objective and 50-pound threshold weight requirement for the advanced capability/Block III system. The Land Warrior program is chartered with integrating currently fielded and proposed government-furnished and contractor-designed equipment into a system that provides overmatch capability to the infantryman and those who fight with infantrymen. The Army looks at reducing the soldier's load by pursuing technologies that can produce high-payoff weight savings, advanced battery technologies, the XM8 advanced combat rifle, and science and technology programs such as the Objective Force Warrior advanced technology demonstration and lightweight Squad Automatic Weapon.

Question. The Army budget request indicates that the Land Warrior sets planned for procurement in 2004 represent a mix of commercial and military specific items. Please indicate which components are commercial and which are military specific. Answer. The Land Warrior program intends to take advantage of state-of-the-art commercially developed items such as local area network technology and antennae, audio headset, and microphone that meet specific Land Warrior requirements. Other commercial products that meet or exceed Land Warrior objective requirements will be integrated as pre-planned product improvements. These components will be integrated into military items such as the Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment, Advanced Combat Helmet, Integrated Body Armor, and uniform enhancements to provide the soldier with an optimum fighting system tailored to his specific mission requirements.

Question. Has the mix of commercial and military specific components changed over the course of the Land Warrior system's development?

Answer. Yes. As commercially developed technologies mature, we continue to add improvements to the Land Warrior system design to improve functionality and reduce weight. We will continue to explore areas in order to meet the weight and power objectives of the ORD in a spiral development of the Objective Force Warrior to continue to provide emerging technologies, particularly in the area of power management. As we integrate commercial and military specific components, we have two main concerns relating to security issues and environmental concerns. Security concerns include soldiers operating in various networks while being protected from radio frequency jamming or interception from the enemy. Commercially developed hardware must also be ruggedized to be able to withstand the rigor of a battlefield environment and still be able to operate in austere environments without missionaffecting failures.

Question. Please describe the relationship between Land Warrior and the Objective Force Warrior system that is presently in research and development.

Answer. Objective Force Warrior is a science and technology advanced technology demonstration program that will demonstrate the technologies and prototype design of an integrated soldier system of systems at Technology Readiness Level 6 providing a revolutionary increase in the operational effectiveness of soldiers and small teams, with a 50-pound fighting load and 24-hour sustained operations without resupply. The demonstration will include squad level (with platoon headquarters and lateral squad leaders) iterative limited objective experiments and capstone demonstration with 20 to 25 prototype systems during fiscal year 2006. The Objective

Force Warrior advanced technology demonstration will transition the technology and system design to Program Executive Office (PEO)-Soldier for the acquisition and fielding of the Land Warrior advanced capability (Block III) that will support the Objective Force unit of action.

Question. When does the Army plan to begin the transition to fielding Objective Force Warrior?

Answer. The Objective Force Warrior advanced technology demonstration will conclude in fiscal year 2006 with the transition of a soldier system of systems to PEOSoldier for system development and demonstration of Land Warrior-advanced capability. The transition strategy also includes early insertion of mature component technologies to the initial versions of Land Warrior. PEO-Soldier is involved with the planning and conduct of the Objective Force Warrior advanced technology demonstration, particularly program oversight and the capstone demonstration. The Objective Force Warrior advanced technology demonstration contractual mechanism includes an option to move directly into system development and design.

VENTURE CAPITAL FUND

Question. In the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, the Congress provided $25 million for the Army to establish a Venture Capital Fund to identify and develop novel commercial sector technologies for military application. In the fiscal year 2003 DoD Appropriations Act, Section 8105 provided the Army with the authority to transfer up to $20 million in unobligated research and development balances to continue this fund for fiscal years 2003-2005.

What measures has the Army taken to establish and operate the Venture Capital Fund over the past two years?

Answer. In September 2002, the Army issued a Broad Agency Announcement to solicit proposals to manage the venture capital initiative provided for by the Section 8150 of the 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Army received 20 proposals in response to the BAA and has selected a winning proposal. The Army is required by the 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to use an "Other Transaction" (OT) as the basis of the agreement between itself and the entity managing the venture capital initiative. The OT is currently being negotiated between the Army and winning company. The negotiations are expected to be completed and the OT signed by the end of April 2003.

Question. How much of the funding provided in the FY 2002 Appropriations bill has been obligated to date?

Answer. At this time, none of the $25 million provided by Section 8150 of the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act has been obligated for the Venture Capital Investment Corporation. The Army will obligate the entire $25 million at execution of the OT agreement between the Army and the not-for-profit corporation that will manage the venture capital. The Army expects this will occur at the end of April 2003.

Question. What technologies has the Army focused on with the funding provided through the Venture Capital fund?

Answer. The Army is using the opportunity of the venture capital initiative to focus on technology associated with power and energy for the soldier. Technologies of interest include, but are not limited to, devices, systems and software that generate, store, control, and manage the power and energy required by the individual soldier for communications, computing, sensing, weapons functioning, mobility, and comfort. Parameters of interest for these technologies include low weight and volume, safety, reliability, cost effectiveness, longevity, reduced system power requirements, and minimal logistics impact.

Question. Please describe the measures the Army uses to conduct oversight and management of the Fund's activities.

Answer. The Army plans on requiring periodic reporting by the not-for-profit corporation that will manage its venture capital initiative. Additionally, the OT agreement will include incentive structures to encourage the attainment of Army goals for the initiative. Finally, the Army also anticipates that the not-for-profit corporation that will manage the venture fund will notify the Army through the Army agreements officer when it plans on taking significant investment actions.

Question. Would you recommend establishing permanent authority for the Venture Capital Fund?

Answer. While this initiative is still early in its development, it does appear to hold considerable promise. The initial response to the Broad Agency Announcement, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency's success with In-Q-Tel, is encouraging. Section 8105 of the fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Act allows funding the Army venture capital initiative for an additional three years. This

provision will provide the Army the flexibility and authority it needs in the near term to maximize the opportunities for making its venture capital initiative a success and for determining whether to recommend that Congress provide permanent authority for the initiative.

PATRIOT PAC-3 MISSILE

Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes $561.6 million to procure 108 Patriot PAC-3 missiles. Including the acceleration of this program funded in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act, $592.2 million is available for this program in fiscal year 2003. The Omnibus added $104 million to the program and increased the procurement quantity to 100 missiles. The fiscal year 2004 budget also proposes transferring funding and management of this program from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army.

Please explain results of the Patriot PAC-3 acceleration funded in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Answer. Fiscal year 2003 acceleration funding provided for an accelerated delivery schedule for low-rate initial production (LRIP)-2 and LRIP-3 missiles. LRIP-2 (40 missiles) will be delivered three months ahead of the contracted schedule and LRIP3 (72 missiles), 10 months ahead of schedule. Fiscal year 2003 acceleration funding also provided for the procurement of 12 additional missiles in fiscal year 2003 bringing the fiscal year 2003 contract total to 100.

Question. Does the quantity proposed in the fiscal year 2004 budget rely on the acceleration funded in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act?

Answer. No, the fiscal year 2004 schedule is based on the accelerated program but the quantity is independent.

Question. What quantity of Patriot PAC-3 missiles is proposed in fiscal year 2004? Through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

Answer. A total buy of 108 PAC-3 missiles is proposed in fiscal year 2004, and the fiscal year 2004 President's budget presents a total buy through the FYDP of 1,159.

Question. Please explain how accelerating the Patriot PAC-3 program fits into the Administration's plan to deploy a national missile defense system in 2004-2005? Answer. Patriot is the only fielded system capable of defeating tactical ballistic missiles. Patriot is an element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Question. Over the past two years, the Department of Defense proposed funding both research and development for the Patriot PAC-3 system as well as procurement within the Army. In both instances, the Congress transferred both management and funding to the Missile Defense Agency. The fiscal year 2004 budget again proposes funding Patriot PAC-3 in the Army. Why? What criteria were used to determine whether the Army or Missile Defense Agency should fund and manage this program?

Answer. Subsection 224(b) of title 10, United States Code, requires the establishment of criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a ballistic missile defense program from the Director, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to the Secretary of a military department. On December 30, 2002, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) established the following criteria to carry out production plans: technical maturity; availability of facilities for production; and funds programmed in the Future Years Defense Program.

In accordance with subsection 224(c), the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) certified that PAC-3 met the established criteria and notified Congress of his intent to transfer the PAC-3 program to the Army, including the responsibility for research, development, test, and evaluation related to Army requirements. Additionally, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) informed Congress that, in conjunction with the transfer of responsibility for PAC-3 program, the Medium Extended Air Defense System would be realigned from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army.

CHEMICAL AGENTS DEMILITARIZATION

Question. In fiscal year 2003, the Army received nearly $1.49 billion for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction. This amount included funding to assemble equipment for the plants used to destroy chemical agents and munitions. The fiscal year 2004 request totals $1.65 billion, and includes $119.8 million for military construction that the Administration proposes transferring from the Military Construction budget request to the Department of Defense request.

Please explain the reasoning behind the transfer of funds from Military Construction to the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction account.

Answer. Section 141(b) of the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act requires, beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall submit an annual certification to Congress that the budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1986. The 1986 Authorization Act requires that chemical demilitarization funds be set forth in the budget in a separate account and not included in the budget accounts for any military department. In order to comply with the fiscal year 2003 Authorization Act language, funding for the chemical demilitarization program, including construction, is consolidated into a single account. The Army will maintain executive agent responsibility for this program.

Question. How does the transfer of this funding help the effectiveness of the program?

Answer. The inclusion of construction funding in the single Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army account is not expected to change the effectiveness of the program.

[CLERK'S NOTE.- End of questions submitted by Mr. Lewis. The Fiscal Year 2004 Army Posture Statement, as referred to on page 4 follows:]