support for equipment by greatly improving the reliability, availability, and maintainability of ground tactical equipment.

Enterprise Integration. Achieving the emerging warfighting capabilities envisioned by future concepts require dynamic shifts in our logistics processes and organizations. Leading this effort toward logistics modernization is true enterprise integration consisting of GCSS-MC, process reengineering, and organizational reform.

The major challenges confronting the Marine Corps today center on organizing, training, and equipping our force to better support joint force commanders, now and in the future. The modemization programs and the transformational systems that we are pursuing are key to our ability to meet the Nation's wartime, crisis, and peacetime requirements. We have put into place well-conceived programs addressing the needs of our Marines and their families, the requirement to enhance the current readiness of legacy systems, the critical role infrastructure plays in present and future readiness, and the balance between modemization and transformation.

Our capabilities. combined with those of our sister Services and Special Operations Forces, form the integrated array of military capabilities America needs to confront an increasingly varied and threatening National security landscape. You can remain justifiably proud of what your Marine Corps contributes as America's forward engagement and expeditionary combined-arms force. We are grateful for the unwavering support you provide in this vitally important work.

VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ISSUES

Mr. LEWIS. That was a hoorah you heard back there.

Gentlemen, we all want you to know we are very proud of the work that you are about. I find that we often spend a lot of time in this Committee, a lot more time than one might think, talking about air power. And I am sure that among my colleagues there will be some discussion of that today as well as some discussion about the supplemental.

We are going to be having a vote shortly after the hour, and it is going to involve two or three votes, so we are going to try to get your business done rather quickly. Members are going to be submitting questions for the record in an unusual volume rather than discussing these things here.

You have work to do that is serious work, but in the meantime, receiving information regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget is fundamental to our ability to help you as well.

I would like to spend just initially some moments discussing ships at sea. Clearly one of the most significant capabilities we have in terms of providing American presence around the world involve those ships. One of the elements of all of that that has always fascinated me is what we can do as we extend that power to have our enemy or potential enemy wonder whether or not we are there. And so that which is under the sea is really very, very basic to that which you described, Chief, and Mr. Secretary. I am concerned and the Committee is concerned about ongoing difficulties with the cost of providing submarine power. The Virginia class is a reflection of the heart of our concern. So I wonder if you would spend a few moments discussing that with the Committee, and then we will go forward.

Admiral CLARK. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I have the same concerns you do. I do believe that we have taken measures in this budget that have the potential to help this process along greatly. One of the things in the fiscal year 2004 budget is an investment to get to economic order quantity numbers that make it more effective and efficient to build any-it doesn't matter if it is a submarine or anything else. When your building rate is down, you pay excessive overhead and it runs the cost up.

And when you look at the submarine program in particular, you see a number of areas. The contract is written in a way that when there are wage agreements that would be passed back, those are added to the contract and so forth. And those are issues, and those are the sources of some of the increase. But the right thing for us to do is to get to a multiyear that allows the contractor to go to suppliers and do long-term acquisition of components so that the supplier can operate at a more effective base, and for us to get to multiple submarines a year to get on the right place on the production curve so that we are making better use of the fixed cost in the shipyard. That is provided for in this budget with a $400 million investment in economic order quantity issues and measures. And then the attempt to get to, with the approval of the Congress, a multiyear that would allow us to make progress on that front.

MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY REQUEST

Mr. LEWIS. Chief, I think you know of the Committee's reservations about multiyear contracting. The obvious difficulties we have with tankers on the air side, the lease program that is of significant ongoing controversy is a reflection of our desire to get assets out there as quickly as possible but, at the same time, maintain some control over the budget. So at the heart of your suggestionI know the priority you give to multiyear for submarines-but clearly can't be the only answer that is in line for getting us where we need to be..

And so I just underline my ongoing question by asking it this way: Why a multiyear? How can we justify considering a multiyear when we haven't seen the first ship yet?

Admiral CLARK. Well, I believe that we have been having this discussion for a couple of years. And you know my belief, that one of the things that we need to do is figure out how to become the best partners that we can become with industry. Clearly there are issues on the side of the contractor who has to produce effectively and efficiently. The responsibility for oversight in that rests with the acquisition executive. It is not a uniformed military role. But I obviously am greatly interested in it. But all the projections make it clear that if we can get to a multiyear, the kind of results that we have had in other programs reinforce the validity of the assumptions that lead us to the belief that we are going to save at least $100 million a submarine if we do that. When we analyze the cost data and we look at the fact we are in a small market, it is the only market producing these kind of submarines. And we have suppliers that are specialty suppliers, and when they are operating on the margin and the inability to plan over the long term to properly size their employee base and their production baseline, it runs the cost up.

Now the analysis shows us-and I have looked at this analysis and examined it-that the multiyear approach is a good and smart thing to do, and it is good and it is the rule that I put out, Mr. Chairman, it needs to be good for the sailors and it needs to be good for the taxpayers. And I believe that this is.

CONTROLLING COST THROUGH MANAGEMENT

Mr. LEWIS. I remember in the old days when I was spending some time examining contracts that involved the field of highway construction, that the biggest challenge we had in those days was a minor little thing called change orders. In multiyears, Mr. Secretary, you spoke about building the frame and then you provide some supplies or other material. Then you put in the most modern of the electronics. Those are called change orders. And man, I can tell you, if I were in the private sector, I would love to have you guys lined up with every ship you have got for 10 years, and then send you the change orders at our cost and not your cost.

Yesterday the Secretary of the Air Force opened a bag of worms that I thought was most fascinating that applies to all of our branches. The Secretary talked about the fact that with the F-16, we had people purchasing the F-16 in the marketplace, other countries, and they were able to produce a product that was signifi

cantly different and better than the one that our people are fielding as a result of stability in the purchasing marketplace, and they talked about how quickly it could be done, et cetera. Frankly, it came down to a question of management. If we rely just upon multiyear procurements as the way we can improve efficiency here, somewhere down the line we are going to find a clip out there.

I am very concerned that we do more than just talk about multiyear procurement. We aren't going to spend a lot of time rehashing this again today, but there is more than just multiyear to this problem of making sure that our procurement procedures, the management of this process, is run in a way that improves our efficiency. I have dwelt on that a bit.

Mr. Murtha.

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

Mr. MURTHA. Only a couple things. We need to know about the supplemental; when you need it, and when you run out of money, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary JOHNSON. The short answer is the summertime. And some of that is in early June and some in late July. The Marines are probably spending at the highest rate because, as the Commandant talked, 90 percent are forward based, deployed, and so forth.

Mr. MURTHA. I wonder if we could borrow some from USAA. I see they got $13 billion in your former job there; maybe they can lend us some money.

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

ROTOR BLADES FOR THE CH-46

Mr. MURTHA. The other thing is, I just want to mention to the Commandant, don't forget the CH-46 blades, because we are only carrying half of what you need to carry in those CH-46s and don't have them all out there. And it is such an old airplane. I know they are expensive, but we need to spend some money on those blades. General HAGEE. Sir, we couldn't agree with you more. And we are looking at that very hard. In fact, as the Navy is decommissioning some of its CH-46 Deltas, we are collecting those blades. That is a concern of mine, too, sir.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Frelinghuysen.

INTEGRATION OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, good morning, and thank you for your service. As we speak, the Special Ops people are doing a pretty dangerous work. And we salute their courage, and we know that they will perform admirably.

I have some questions relative to the Special Operations and how the Navy is integrating its Special Operations. The Marines, obviously you work side by side with the Army's equivalent and other Special Ops, to what extent that integration is working.

Secretary JOHNSON. Our SEALs are very much a part of the Special Operations and are very integral to everything they do. And

Admiral Clark might say something. The Marines have been working side by side, as you talk, not quite as integrative, but yet very, very supportive, and working many things that Special Ops would normally be doing. We are doing the work in Georgia, some training commitment that the Special Ops signed up to do, and the Marines said we can do that for you and allow you to do other things. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I asked the question because obviously each service has budget allocations. This involves advanced training, special equipment, the whole issue of inoperability. We like to think on this dais that the services are working close together. Can you reassure us that is occurring?

Admiral CLARK. I can assure you that the Special Forces across the whole element, Congressman, it is working. As the Secretary said, we have different layers. We categorize our SEALs in different categories. But I have a group of them that are assigned full time to this Special Operations Command, and they are working day in and day out and assigned to the same units with the Army folks and the Air Force Special Operations Forces. Then I have Special Operations Forces that are embarked in my own platforms and they work hand in glove with the Marine Corps in our operations at sea and with our own forces. And so there is great integration and jointness in our Special Operations structure.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So there is jointness between-obviously, there is jointness between the Navy and the Marines, but is there jointness with the Army?

Admiral CLARK. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There is.

Admiral CLARK. Without confirming or denying what Special Forces might be doing or not at all.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Whatever they are doing is remarkable.
Admiral CLARK. I assure you-they are integrated.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is dangerous, and we salute them.
Admiral CLARK. Thank you.

ANTIMINE WARFARE

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Relative to floating, tethered, and buried mines, the whole issue of the challenge of what we do to eliminate the possibility of our ships being blown up, what are we doing in terms of technology to promote more antimine warfare?

Admiral CLARK. The biggest thing, Congressman, is this. We made a commitment a few years ago to develop organic capability so that we would not have to have one-of-a-kind kind of mission ships doing mining warfare. And they were small and slow and hard sometimes to get to the point of action. We home-ported some, moved some minesweepers that we owned into the Indian Ocean area sometime back, and we have augmented those forces for this contingency.

And then the next thing is that our fiscal year 2004 budget brings forward the Littoral Combat Ship. And it is this Chief's belief that our future enemies are going to come after us with asymmetric means, and mine warfare is one of them. And as this new ship, designed to dominate the battlespace in the near land area, one of the three principal missions of this ship is going to be mine warfare. And as I said in my opening statement, designed from the