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 Section8150 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:] A Statement on the Posture of the United States Army 2003 By The Honorable Thomas E. White And General Eric K. Shinseki Presented to The Committees and Subcommittees UNITED STATES SENATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIRST SESSION, 108TH CONGRESS The annual Army Posture Statement is an unclassified summary of Army roles, missions, accomplishments, plans, and programs. Designed to reinforce the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff, Army, posture and budget testimony before Congress, The Army Posture Statement serves a broad audience as a basic reference on the state of The Army. This document is available on The Army Homepage at www.army.mil Email: LaVon.Purnell@us.army.mil, Frank.E.Wheeler@us.army.mil, or |