reprogramming action, as is currently required. This will be particularly beneficial in view of the increased flexibility to transfer Reserve Personnel (RP) dollars during periods of mobilization when Reservists are paid from Active Military Personnel (MP) account. Flexibility will be limited, however, by the $10 million realignment threshold between budget activities.

Question. Will the Chief of the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve have full management and control of his financial resources in order to execute their title 10 responsibilities for trained and ready forces?

Answer. Yes. This consolidation, while offering greater flexibility and responsiveness in the fiscal process, does not, in any way, inhibit the abilities of the Chiefs of Naval and Marine Corps Reserve from managing financial resources to execute their respective responsibilities under Title 10 United States Code. Funds will continue to be allocated to them in the same manner as today, but with a different nomenclature and set of rules governing their use.

Question. Having separate appropriations accounts for the Active and Reserve components allows Congress to monitor how well the services are executing their programs. What assurance can you give the Committee that the active components will not use the Reserve budget activities to fund their own bills or shortfalls?

Answer. Under current law, the Services have limited authority to move funds between budget activities. No more than $10 million may be realigned into Active or Reserve budget activities without prior congressional approval. Additionally, historic Military Personnel (MP) shortfalls of $100 million, or more, cannot be accommodated from the Reserve Personnel (RP) account.

RP funding will be a separate budget activity (BA) within the MP account. Any request to transfer funds between Reserve and Active BAs within the MP account will be fully vetted through the existing resource allocation decision-making process. As is currently the case, fund managers will be responsible for ensuring that resourcing specifically programmed and budgeted for reserve requirements is maintained.

PERSONNEL ISSUES

Question. Please explain your active duty military personnel end strengths levels to the Committee. What was the number of personnel on board in October when you started fiscal year 2003? Was that number over the authorized end strength level for the Navy and the Marine Corps?

Answer. Navy's active duty end strength was 383,108 at the beginning of fiscal year 2003. This exceeded our fiscal year 2002 authorized end strength of 376,000, but was within the 2 percent flexibility provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

At the beginning of fiscal year 2003, the Marine Corps' active duty end strength was 173,733. While this is 1,133, or 0.6 percent, over the fiscal year 2002 authorized end strength of 172,600, it was within the 2 percent flexibility authorized in the NDAA.

Question. Did that increase of personnel include those under a stop/loss action? Did it include any mobilized Reservists? If so, what were those numbers?

Answer. Navy's end strength on September 30, 2002 included 301 Sailors who were transitioning as Navy stood down from the post-9/11 stop loss but does not include mobilized Reservists.

For the Marine Corps, the beginning fiscal year 2003 end strength of 173,733 included 306 Marines on stop loss (298 enlisted and 8 officers). No mobilized Marines are included in that number since Title 10, United States Code, excludes from active end strength computations those mobilizations accomplished under Presidential Reserve call-up.

Question. To date, what is the number of Navy Reserve soldiers currently on active duty in support of the mobilization?

Answer. As of March 19, 2003, 9,979 Naval Reserve members are on active duty in support of the mobilization. As of April 22, 2003, 21,118 Reserve Marines are on active duty in support of the mobilization.

Question. What is the Navy's current mobilization cap? The Marine Corps? Answer. Based on March 2003 OSD guidance, Navy's current mobilization cap is 33,000 and the Marine Corps' is 40,786.

Question. What stop/loss action is currently in effect, and how many military personnel does that affect?

Answer. Navy Hospital Corpsmen in paygrades E-1 through E-6 with Navy Enlisted Classification Code (NEC) of 8404 (Field Medical Service Technician) are the only Sailors currently under stop/loss. This policy affects 2,616 Sailors who have an

EAOS prior to December 2003 and, of that number, we could expect about 960 to have plans to leave the service.

The Marine Corps implemented stop loss for all Marines (Active and Reserve Components) on January 15, 2003. As of April 22, 2003, there were 3,010 Active Component Marines (64 officers and 2,946 enlisted) and 4,993 Reserve Component Marines (79 officers and 4,914 enlisted) on stop loss. Of the 4,993 Reserve Component Marines on stop loss, 411 are mobilized consisting of 273 from the Selected Reserve and 138 from the Individual Ready Reserve.

Question. Can you estimate what your end strength level will be in September 2003, the end of this fiscal year, and starting fiscal year 2004? What level of end strength is funded in the budget request for fiscal year 2004?

Answer. We anticipate Navy end strength to be at the +2 percent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) flexibility of 383,214. End strength of 373,800 is funded in Navy's fiscal year 2004 budget request.

For the Marine Corps Active Component end strength, assuming operation IRAQI FREEDOM and the War on Terrorism requirements do not change appreciably from current projections, and our forces flow expeditiously back from theater, our current worst case estimate is approximately 180,250, or 3 percent above the fiscal year 2003 end strength authorization of 175,000. For fiscal year 2004, an end strength level of 175,053 is included in the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

Question. Currently, what is the monthly "burn rate" for your Navy and Marine Corps personnel costs?

Answer. The total monthly "burn rate" for Navy personnel costs is approximately $1.98 billion. The "burn rate" associated with the Global War on Terrorism is $340 million, per month, through March 2003.

For the Marine Corps, in March 2003, the total monthly "burn rate" for the Active Component personnel costs was approximately $838 million, of which, approximately $220 million was for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and the War on Terrorism.

Question. When do you anticipate the military personnel accounts will run out of money? Are you using your third or fourth quarter funds now?

Answer. Yes, future quarter funds are being used. Without additional funds, MPN would run out of funds in August 2003.

Under the current apportionment, the Marine Corps will run out of MILPERS money on 15 June 2003 unless supplemental funding is received or additional funds are brought forward from the fourth quarter. The Marine Corps had to bring forward third and forth quarter funding to close out the second quarter and will require supplemental funding or additional fourth quarter funds brought forward to close the third quarter.

Question. Are you considering implementing the authorities of the "Feed and For

age Act"?

Answer. No, we are not considering invoking the authorities of the Feed and Forage Act.

Question. What is the amount of supplemental funds needed for military pay and allowances through the end of this fiscal year for the Navy and Marine Corps?

Answer. The amount of supplemental funding needed in fiscal year 2003 for military pay and allowances is $1,620 million.

The Marine Corps received $1,200 million in supplemental funding for military pay and allowances. An additional $193.7 million is required to fund increased Family Separation Allowance (FSA) and Imminent Danger Pay (IDP) rate increases and the Hazardous Duty Pay-Location (HDP-L) determination for Iraq, Kuwait and Israel.

NAVAL RESERVE MISSIONS

Question: Is the Navy heavily utilizing its Reserve Component like the other services are doing for the Global War on Terrorism, or is the Navy Reserve underutilized?

Answer: The Naval Reserve is not being underutilized. The Naval Reserve mobilized over 12,000 personnel for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). This represents 14% of the Navy's Selected Reserve force and a little less than 3% of the Total Navy Force. In addition, as of the end of April 2003, the Navy has mobilized a total of 19,786, or 23% of the force, and demobilized over 7,700 Naval Reservists since September 11, 2001 in support of the Global War on Terrorism. We are committed to supporting the President's prosecution of the GWOT and will appropriately rotate mobilized Reservists onto active duty to enhance the Navy's forward presence and ability to respond globally as the President requires.

One Naval Reserve Tactical Aviation squadron was mobilized and two detachments of the Naval Reserve Special Warfare helicopter squadrons were mobilized. Additionally, 11 of 14 Inshore Boat Units and 6 of 22 Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Units were mobilized.

Substantial quantities of Naval Reserve medical personnel, Cargo Handling Units and Fleet Logistic Support aviation personnel, as well as more than 1,800 Naval Construction Battalion augmentation personnel were mobilized to fill surge requirements during the war. These numbers represent a balanced answer to the increase in wartime requirements for Navy.

Question. Can the Navy Reserve be doing more to relieve the active Navy's Perstempo/Optempo during this Global War on Terrorism? If so, how?

Answer. The risks associated with periods of surge will often require additional manpower and equipment from the Naval Reserve to sustain Navy commitments, and the Navy is using, and will continue to use, the Naval Reserve very effectively to relieve the Perstempo/Optempo strain associated with the Global War on Terrorism.

Commissioned units such as the Reserve Carrier Airwing, Maritime Patrol Squadrons, Coastal Mine Hunters (MHCs), and Fleet Hospitals provide needed support in peacetime as well as during crisis. Similarly, individual augmentees reinforce and sustain active forces through augmentation to Combatant Commanders' staffs, Intelligence and Cryptologic support, and Naval Control and Protection of Shipping operations. The peacetime and warfighting relief these units and personnel provide allows the Active Component the trade-space necessary to more fully use its forces to conduct deployed operations.

Question. Is the Navy Reserve involved in the Homeland Security mission? If so, in what respect?

Answer. Immediately after September 11, 2001, some of the first Naval Reserve units called into service were Naval Coastal Warfare units that were called upon to support the Coast Guard in the Homeland Security mission. This fleet protection mission is currently 100% resident in the Naval Reserve, though Navy has begun to migrate some of this capability to the Active Component in order to meet extensive overseas commitments. The Naval Reserve units will continue to be included in Coast Guard operational plans and will support the Coast Guard's Homeland Security Maritime mission as needed.

Question. Naval Coastal Warfare capability resides in the Naval Reserve. Is the Navy Reserve assisting the Coast Guard in protecting our ports, harbors, and coastal waters for Homeland Security? If not, why not?

Answer. The National Strategy for Homeland Security assigns the Coast Guard as the Lead Federal Agency for Maritime Homeland Security (MHLS). Coast Guard is ideally suited for this role because of their unique blend of civil and military responsibilities, including law enforcement.

Naval Coastal Warfare units have the capabilities to support the Coast Guard in their Maritime Homeland Security mission provided the circumstances warrant their involvement. Naval Coastal Warfare capability is included in several Coast Guard operational planning documents, and the capabilities are well known to the Coast Guard planners.

Question. The Committee understands that the Navy is involved in an initiative to redesign the Navy Reserve. What changes do you intend to make in the Navy Reserve as a result of the effort?

Answer. In light of the Global War on Terrorism and our vision for the futureSea Power 21, we are looking at ways to build a future Naval Reserve that is seamlessly blended into Sea Power 21, and is fully integrated with and operationally relevant to the active Naval forces. We currently are at the working group stage in the redesign effort. The working groups have been given guidance to propose methods of transformation for the Naval Reserve so that it is fully integrated with the active force. The redesign implementation plan will be evolutionary in nature and will be pursued with Congressional concurrence. The targeted areas for improvement include: creating a single personnel system, improving active duty ownership of Reservists, developing active duty education on Reserve capabilities, consolidating Active and Reserve equipment where feasible, and simplifying funding processes and validating requirements. No decisions have been made at this time. The Naval Reserve continues to meet its mission of support to the Fleet.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-End of questions submitted by Mr. Lewis.]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 AIR FORCE POSTURE

WITNESSES

HON. JAMES G. ROCHE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. LEWIS. The Committee will come to order.

The Committee is pleased to welcome the Honorable James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force and General John P. Jumper, Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Let me begin by saying, Mr. Secretary and General Jumper, that this is a very, very sensitive time for all of us who are responsible for playing a role one way or another in our Nation's defense.

As we find ourselves on the verge of war, many a thought comes to mind, many a frustration; many a prayer as well. There is little doubt that at the lead point of anything that we are doing will be the forces that you represent. And I am here to say that I couldn't be more proud of the preparedness that has gone into putting you in the position that you are in.

No small part of some of the change of recent decades is a reflection of work between the Air Force and this Committee, and we are, to say the least, indebted to your leadership that has been so responsive to the kind of change that takes us over the horizon. Indeed, there is not any doubt that whether we are talking about a minor little additive to our capability over time, an arena known as the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or we are talking about smart weapons or we are talking about your officers sitting by laptops communicating with each other and with us, it is a phenomenal world that we are living in. Because America is so good, we do remain I think as the hope for peace long term in the world.

I wanted to share with you the thought that there is many a person who presumes that sometime out there, as the world continues to change and to shrink, that there is absolutely no way that one day we will find ourselves in direct confrontation with huge-population countries like China or like India. I just do not believe that is the case at all. Or if we continue emphasizing research and development and the training and attracting of the very, very best that the country has to offer, we will continue to be so far ahead, that those leaders will look to find their way in the world without confrontation.

So the "must be's" that we are talking about today in your budget and the budgets of your colleagues are monies that involve our search for peace. And so as we contemplate war at this very mo

(345)

ment, it is because we are all about eliminating tyrants who would use terrorism as their first asset to gain their purpose.

General Jumper, your predecessor let us know very clearly that air superiority is not good enough. It is air dominance that is a requirement, and we do have that kind of capability, but there is more to a war than air alone. We all know that.

Indeed, if we are going to be good in your arena, we have to care for the people who make up your force, make sure that they can live on the pay they receive and have adequate housing, as well as the training and retraining, along with the assets that make them so good.

It is a privilege for me to have this responsibility at this special time in our history. You both know that your entire testimony will be included in the record.

Before going to you, however, let me call first upon my colleague from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha.

REMARKS OF MR. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Well, I know you folks are busy, and I am not going to say much because I know you want to get back to work. So we are over here to do everything we can to help you, and we know you have got some problems. And we know as important as air is, the guys on the ground have to really do the work. But, you are the big part of getting it ready to go into the ground. So we look forward to seeing some victorious results.

General JUMPER. Thank you, sir.

Secretary ROCHE. Thank you.

Mr. LEWIS. I have no idea how Chairman Young attends all of the meetings that he does, but he pays very special attention to our Subcommittee and he was with us in the Intelligence Committee room this morning for most of the time that we were there. So, Mr. Chairman, if you have any comments I would be happy to call on you as well.

REMARKS OF MR. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Basically I welcome the Secretary and the Chief here to this Subcommittee, which is a very supportive Subcommittee, and I think both of you know I want to say for the record and for the members of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that I talk to a lot of people in uniform, infantrymen, marines, airborne. And you talk to them, you know, "What do you really need when you get in? Are you scared and what kind of a tool do you need?" And without question they will say, "I want to make sure that anything that is in the air above me belongs to the United States." And that is where these folks have done such a tremendous job.

They have some other heavy hitting on their plate these days, which I am not going to go into at this point, but I want to just make a comment for the record that I made so many, many times before when we get into the issue of advancing the state of the art in airplanes, fighters, bombers, or whatever it is, that on occasion I have been told, Why do you have to invest a lot of new money in a lot of new fighter airplanes, because the F-15 is one of the