the comments I have to make next. We have a couple of votes on the floor and then, following that, there is a brief debate on the motion to recommit that we will all have to be enamored with, and then we have a couple of votes after that. So that is going to wipe out the rest of our ability to be here. So, exercising the discretion of the Chair and the recommendations of a couple of our members, led by Top Gun, I would like to call upon-if you gentlemen give me the leave-I would like to call upon Major Colin Miller to stand, if he would. You know, we have got some questions about software, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But tell us about this airplane, what your experience has been. What will it do? Give us a little dog-andpony show, Major.

Major MILLER. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I grew up in the F-15 in the Air Force, an incredible airplane and still extremely capable. The F/A-22 is a whole new ball game, it really is, just generations ahead. The things that as a pilot-the four transformational capabilities that I see daily, the stealth, the supercruise, the integrated avionics and maneuverability-when you put them together, you really get a synergistic effect that gives you an airplane that I believe just will never be beat. The supercruise is really eye-watering for a pilot. I never thought I'd say an airplane has too much thrust, and I won't say that today. But it is close. When you put it in military power, you are really moving around. What we are seeing is about a 50 percent increase in the range of our standard weapons that we carry on a lot of the fighters.

At the same time, it really decreases your vulnerability, because now all the other weapons that are looking for you have to work a very tough thematic problem because you are moving so fast. On top of that, you are very stealthy. And so first he has to find you, then he has to figure out how to solve that problem. And we have run against the ground and air systems, and we are starting now to run in integrated scenarios against heavily defended battlespace. And when you pull all that together, it is extremely frustrating for any force that is trying to engage you. While we are denying them shots and denying them situational awareness, the integrated avionics, when they are working, are really phenomenal. With very low work load, the pilot gets a complete picture of the battlespace that is in color. People are identified red or blue. And they are identified by platform height and whether or not they are trying to prosecute a target against you. It even tells you if they are trying to prosecute a target, prosecute your wing man, so you can help them.

So we have all that. We also have datalink is now working in the airplane, the phenomenal force multiplier, and will bring these on soon. So when you put all these things together for a fighter pilot, that is the airplane I want to be in. I have great situational awareness and I have great capability to prosecute the attack. And in many ways I am invulnerable.

Mr. LEWIS. Major, you may want to know that some years ago we would have thought we blew the lid off the Pentagon when we suggested that maybe we ought to test this baby before we just automatically leapt into a multibillion dollar potential procurement. All that you have described is fabulous, presuming all these systems are working together. And it was your civilian defense

members who are concerned about the future of the Air Force and this program who insisted we test it first. It is really, really important for us to be working together. We couldn't be more proud of the Air Force, and you personally, and the job you are doing. But we want to make sure that the assets we provide for you do, you know, what the people who are on the drawing boards say they think it might be able to do.

So, gentlemen, with that, I think we ought to let all of our friends go do much more important work than here. And with that, thank you, Major. The Committee is adjourned.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Questions submitted by Mr. Hobson and the answers thereto follow:]

SEXUAL ASSAULT SCANDAL AT THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Question. It is an understatement to say that I am outraged by recent reports that male cadets at the Academy victimized more than 50 female cadets and that officials at the Academy did nothing to help them. Female cadets reporting assaults suffered reprisals by academy leaders or fellow cadets. Twenty cadets said they were ignored, criticized, or disciplined after reporting a sexual assault. Female cadets not reporting assaults kept silent out of fear that they would suffer the same reprisals visited upon their more vocal sisters. This has to stop.

With all respect, General Jumper, it gives us no confidence to read in the newspaper "the Chief of Staff defended the generals running the Air Force Academy If this type of poisoned climate exists, the Superintendent and past Superintendents are, ultimately, to blame. It is called responsibility and leadership, sir. Two things that it is most important to show at the training ground of future Air Force officers.

Who is responsible (perhaps the female cadets themselves, or some General who you have promoted, retired, and decorated)?

Answer. With several reviews and investigations of the Academy situation incomplete, we cannot yet be sure we know all the facts, and we must not rush to judgment as to the personal responsibility of any individual. We intend to take another look at this issue when all the relevant information is in. As you are aware, we have replaced the leadership team at the Academy. We did so because we believe new leadership can most effectively implement the changes the Secretary and I will direct at the Academy in our Agenda for Change, which we expect to release next week, and any future changes we may find appropriate after receiving the reports of the Working Group, the Air Force and Department of Defense Inspectors General, and the review group recently mandated by the Congress. Our focus has been, and remains, addressing the issues raised.

Question. How are you going to address what has happened in the past and how are you going to prevent it from happening in the future?

Answer. As you may be aware, the Air Force is engaged in a comprehensive review of Air Force Academy programs and practices to deter and respond to sexual assaults. In connection with that review, we are looking closely at factors affecting both reporting and handling of alleged incidents of sexual assaults, including the cadet hierarchy and the relationships between the upper and freshman classes. We are also evaluating how the Academy administers cadet discipline in order to ensure there are no obstacles to the reporting of crimes. We are evaluating how we select, train, and organize the professional staff to ensure we provide the best available supervision and mentoring. We are also reviewing the process of investigating allegations of sexual assaults, as well as the awareness training, medical care, counseling services, legal consultation, victim advocacy, and spiritual support we provide to victims to ensure they receive the support that they need, and fair treatment throughout the investigative and judicial process.

While our review is continuing, the Secretary and I have made changes in Academy leadership in order to implement some significant changes to reinforce our goals to train and equip tomorrow's leaders at the Academy. We intend to ensure the safety and security of every cadet and to enhance the trust and confidence of the American people in the Air Force Academy. We will shortly announce a variety of changes including among others those regarding cadet life, Academy leadership, officer and non-commissioned officer selection and training, security for cadets, and the social climate at the Academy. These changes, which are to be implemented in time for the arrival of the entering Class of 2007 this Fall, are intended to reinforce

the values of character, leadership, integrity and honor that we must instill in every cadet and future Air Force officer.

Finally, we have made it clear to the cadets that sexual assaults will not be tolerated at the Air Force Academy, and all who commit sexual assaults will be brought to justice. In addition, those who knowingly protect perpetrators, and those who would shun or harass anyone with the courage to come forward and report these crimes will be held accountable.

AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Question. Mr. Secretary, I would like to congratulate you and the Secretary of the Navy for concluding the 4 December 2002 Memorandum of Agreement that forms an educational alliance between the Air Force and the Navy. This MOA is an excellent first step in implementing "jointness" for military education and I strongly support it. This educational alliance will maintain the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) as "world class" higher educational institutions; complementing each other; and ensuring high quality, relevant and responsive graduate education aligned to defense needs. Thank you.

How critical are the educational programs of AFIT and NPS for meeting the needs of the Air Force?

Answer. All programs at Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) are specifically designed to meet Air Force needs. The research conducted by AFIT students and faculty directly supports Air Force critical technologies. The Department of Defense and Air Force focus allows AFIT to quickly respond to new and changing Air Force requirements. While programs at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) meet and respond to Navy needs, in many areas the military focus is also applicable to the Air Force. The rationalization effort seeks to optimize the educational programs at AFIT and NPS to create world class institutions to meet the needs of all the Services and Department of Defense, including those of the Coast Guard.

Question. The MOA commits the two services to filling all seats at AFIT and NPS before sending students to civilian schools. How is the Air Force implementing that commitment? How is the Navy?

Answer. Air Force Institute of Technology's (AFIT's) Registration & Admissions Office (RR) is responsible for designating the source of education (AFIT, Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), or Civilian Institutions) for Air Force educational requirements. Our current guidance is that Air Force students will attend AFIT first, if the program is offered, then NPS, or finally civilian institutions. AFIT/RR is in regular contact with AFIT's graduate school and with NPS in implementing the guid

ance.

Question. The MOA requires the creation of a joint AFIT/NPS admissions and quota control process to provide for enrollment of students from all services and from the Coast Guard. What steps is the Air Force instituting to carry out that requirement?

Answer. While the Air Force and the Navy have separate admissions and quota control processes, the MOA requirement is being addressed in ongoing discussions between the two schools.

Question. The MOA requires the Air Force and Navy to review current AFIT and NPS policies and to establish common policies that represent best practices at both schools. What mechanisms has the Air Force put in place to accomplish this requirement, and how will you involve the faculty and leadership of the two schools in conducting the necessary review?

Answer. The draft implementation MOA is currently being reviewed by the faculties of both institutions.

Question. The MOA requires the Assistant Secretaries of Financial Management for the two services to program the resources needed to launch the alliance and ensure its success.

What specific initiatives will be funded in order to launch the alliance and make it successful, over and above those funds needed to sustain the excellence of the ongoing operations of the two schools?

Answer. The Air Force continues to research funding requirements to launch the alliance and ensure its success. The Air Force is committed to the alliance and to making sure it is resourced properly to ensure its success. The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Board of Visitors, in their March 2003 meeting, recommended that AU/CC and the Navy's CNET/CC determine those areas of the alliance that will be the most productive in terms of collaboration. AFIT/CC and NPS/CC are currently executing that tasking together.

NPS and AFIT do have different business models in terms of levels of direct and reimbursable funding-tuition payments are one area of difference. Both models

work fine for the respective services at the present time. However, the services are reviewing systems to determine if a more compatible business model is necessary to further the goals of the alliance.

Question. Is there a dichotomy in that the Navy charges tuition which it keeps to lower operating expenses where the Air Force does not?

Answer. The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) has Title 10 authority (Chapter 605-U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Section 7045(b)) that allows the school to charge tuition and related fees and expenses for international officers and sister service officers to attend. These additional funds are used by NPS to hire additional faculty, etc., due to the limitations of authorized faculty positions. Equivalent Title 10 authority (as that for NPS) would place both institutions on equal footing to account for international and sister service officer attendees. The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) does not have the equivalent authority and must allow international officers and sister service officers to attend on a space-available basis. The Air Force is currently analyzing possible AFIT requirements for charging tuition. Question. Oversight of the education alliance is to be carried out by the respective Air Force Board of Visitors and the Navy Board of Advisors. The MOA directs that each school's governing body will interact with each other.

What steps has the Air Force taken to interact with the Navy Board of Advisors? Answer. Oversight of the alliance is to be carried out by the respective Air Force Board of Visitors (BOV) and the Navy Board of Advisors (BOA), with interaction with each other. Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and Air University representatives were invited and attended the NPS BOA meeting on 29 January 2003. Representatives from NPS BOA and the Air University BOV attended AFIT'S BOV meeting on 17 March 2003.

Question. What would you think about a Joint Board of Visitors?

Answer. Separate boards recognize that Air Force Institute of Technology and NPS remain independent institutions. Close interaction will facilitate the collaboration essential to optimize both institutions. While a Joint Board of Visitors would give a single focus point for oversight of the alliance, and may emerge from on-going efforts, it would be premature, in our view, to judge the value of a Joint Board.

FUTURE OF THE C-5 AIRCRAFT

Question. General Jumper. I appreciate your designating the C-5A as the followon aircraft to the C-141 cargo plane currently operated by the 445th Air Reserve Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. These planes are to be re-engined. Should that not be possible, the 445th is to get C-17s.

On 27 April 2003, Secretary Roche announced that the Airworthiness Board would conduct a review of the C-5A to determine if the airlifter fleet is too expensive to maintain and should be retired. Where is this review?

Answer. The C-5A will be the first aircraft assessed by the new Air Force Fleet Viability Board (formerly the Air Worthiness Board). The board will assess technical and cost aspects of specific aircraft fleets, and then_make_recommendations to the CSAF/SECAF on whether to sustain or retire those fleets. The board will be assembled by the end of May 2003. Once the board is assembled, the C-5A assessment will start, and should be complete by October 2003.

Question. What is your personal view about what we should do with the C-5A? Does it include buying additional C-17s?

Answer. The Air Force is committed to divesting itself of legacy aircraft that are no longer supportable. Having said that, we also have airlift requirements that are imperative to the Air Force's global reach mission. The C-5A is a major contributor to this capability. In the initial stages of the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program (RERP), the C-5A is part of the System Development & Demonstration (SDD) effort. The SDD process involves an extensive teardown and reconfiguration that, along with the Air Force Fleet Viability Board recommendations, will allow us to make an educated decision on the feasibility, supportability, and cost-benefit of modernizing the C-5As. If the C-5A is not found to be a good investment, then an additional buy of C-17s will be required to meet the 54.5 million ton mile per day minimum requirement for our airlift fleet.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY BUDGET

Question. Overall, this has to be viewed as a disappointing budget for Air Force Science and Technology (S&T). It runs counter to a number of studies (National Academy of Sciences, Scientific Advisory Board) that called for a real increase in S&T spending. At a time when the national defense needs more scientific development for long-range planning, status quo seems inadequate.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the cut in applied research programs, which will be funded at an 8.6 percent reduction from last year. These programs are truly the seed corn for future weapons systems. Further and frankly, they also tend to pay the personnel bills at the labs, so are very important to the organic scientific workforce.

How did you set the amount of this request? Was it the Air Force or OMB? Answer. The 8.6 percent reduction cited in this question stems from a comparison of the Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004 amounts as reflected in the Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget (PB) request. However, this Fiscal Year 2003 amount includes almost $170 million in congressional adds. The Air Force has worked hard to maintain a balanced Science and Technology (S&T) portfolio and the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget requested amount of $2.2 billion is actually higher than the fiscal year 2003 appropriated amount of $1.8 billion for the Air Force S&T Program and provides for the technology development essential for the Air Force vision of an Expeditionary Air and Space Force. This amount includes $758 million for applied research efforts an increase of $60 million over the Fiscal Year 2003 requested amount, which equates to seven percent real growth. Although the civilian pay portion of this Applied Research funding goes down $20 million this is the result of a bookkeeping change vice an actual decrease in civilian pay funding-per congressional direction, civilian health care and life insurance funding for retirees was transferred back into the centrally-managed account from which it had come the previous cycle. If you subtract civilian pay and compare only the non-civilian pay portion of the applied research funding, the actual real growth is 24 percent.

USE OF GUARD AND RESERVE

Question. In the September 13, 2002, letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, with a copy to Secretary Roche, I complained about the misuse of the Guard and Reserves. Part-time reservists are being turned into full time soldiers through extended and unpredictable active duty assignments. While reservists are more than willing to do their share, especially in a time of crisis, they signed on with the expectation that periods of active service would be relatively short.

Are we using the Guard and Reserve instead of asking for the higher level of Active Component troops actually needed?

Answer. The Air Force has adequate active duty end strength. We are adjusting the Active Component force mix (not force size) to meet requirements and reduce our need to bring Guard and Reserve personnel on extended duty. We have defined stress on active duty career field areas and are working to redistribute manpower for areas of lower stress to higher stress to fulfill active duty requirements. We are also overhauling our requirements determination process. This new effort will incorporate a quicker method of determining manpower requirements that is tied more closely to UTCs (unit type code-deployment requirements) and defines levels of capability for both peacetime and wartime workloads. Ultimately, during a deployment, war planners will be able to define the capability required, select the right force to meet that requirement and then define level of capability at the home station and adjust work out appropriately.

Question. What is your Active strength and what should it be?

Answer. The beginning strength for fiscal year 2003 was 368,251; this was 9,451 over the authorized strength level of 358,800 for the end of fiscal year 2002. Air Force Active Duty End Strength for fiscal year 2003 is 359,000. The Air Force has adequate end strength and is adjusting its Active Component force mix (not force size) to meet requirements. This is a skills mix problem. We have defined stress on active duty career field areas and are working to redistribute manpower for areas of lower stress to higher stress to fulfill active duty requirements. We are also overhauling our requirements determination process. This new effort will incorporate a quicker method of determining manpower requirements that is tied more closely to ÚTCs (unit type code-deployment requirements) and defines levels of capability for both peacetime and wartime workloads. Ultimately, during a deployment, war planners will be able to define the capability required, select the right force to meet that requirement and then define level of capability at the home station and adjust work out appropriately.

Question. What percent of the mission is done by the Active Component, the Guard, and the Reserves?

Answer. This is a complex question because there's no easy method to directly compare the contributions of each component of our total force. For example, many members of the reserve and guard volunteer to serve and are able to contribute significantly to our wartime mission without mobilization. Trying to account for the contributions of each component to real-world contingencies can also become dif