is currently being "restructured". I think everyone would agree that there was a major disconnect between the Air Force and Energy a year ago. I'd like to explore with you today whether than disconnect is resolved. In my bill, we appropriated $122 million for the warhead life extension program last year and are being asked for another $178 million this year. These are significant amounts. Yet the Air Force only plans to spend $39 million through fiscal year 2008 on this program.

It also appears to me that there is much confusion on the exact number of warheads to be modernized, which obviously affects the cost of the program, and whether the Air Force is demanding that DOE modernize many more cruise missile warheads than will be needed in 2012 under the Bush-Putin strategic arms reduction agreement recently ratified by the Senate.

As I understand it, the Administration's nuclear posture review instructs the Air Force to keep the B-52H bombers until 2030. Only the B-52H bomber, last delivered in 1962, can carry or launch cruise missiles. The B-1 and B-2 have no physical capability to do so. The last ALCM (air launched cruise missile) was delivered in 1986 and is past its 10 year design life. The last ACM (advanced cruise missile) was delivered in 1994 and has a 15 year design life. The Administration's plan, after expenditure of billions of dollars for modernization, will result in our nation having 70 year old aircraft armed with 50 year old cruise missiles. I wonder if this investment is worth the cost, and will result in meaningful military capability.

Under the Bush-Putin agreement, our deployed nuclear weapons will drop from about 6,000 today to around 2,000 by 2012. Has the Secretary of Defense determined the exact mix of Trident SLBMs, Minuteman ICBMs, nuclear bombs, and cruise missiles that will be in the force at that time?

Answer. The exact force mix of nuclear weapons in the 2012 time frame is not determined at this point. Discussing these numbers in detail would require a closed session. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Implementation Plan of March 2003 provides the number of weapon delivery platforms (e.g., SLBMs, ICBMs, etc) projected in the force in 2012. Per the NPR and the Moscow Treaty, the total number of warheads in 2012 will be between 2,200 and 1,700. As we draw down to those numbers, the balance of specific weapons within this threshold will be examined biannually to determine the correct end-state for 2012. This decision will be based on our nation's progress in achieving required capabilities defined under the "New Triad" and whether the worldwide security environment will allow planned reductions to proceed.

Question. It seems to me that as we make a 3 reduction in the nuclear force structure by 2012, that Trident SLBMs and Minuteman ICBMs (which are to receive the more modern warheads from the MX Peacekeeper missiles that are being phased out) will be given priority, and that cruise missiles will have less of a role. Do you agree?

Answer. No, because the correct balance of forces is still being analyzed. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Implementation Plan of March 2003 does not provide the exact force mix of nuclear weapons in the 2012 time frame. Per the NPR and the Moscow Treaty, the total number of warheads in 2012 will be between 2200 and 1700. The balance of specific weapons within this threshold will be examined bi-annually to determine the correct end-state for 2012. This decision will be based on our nation's progress in achieving required capabilities defined under the "New Triad" and whether the worldwide security environment will allow planned reductions to proceed.

Question. Last year I asked you to answer this question, but your answer for the record asked me to ask someone else. Could you please send a classified paper to Mr. Hobson and to me to answer this question: Is there any military target in the world today, or one contemplated in the future, that cannot be successfully struck with an ICBM, an SLBM, or bomber-delivered nuclear bomb-that only a cruise missile can successfully attack?

Answer. The current force structure provides the warfighter with the survivability and flexibility needed to plan and prosecute both deliberate and adaptively planned nuclear response actions. The combined B-52 and cruise missile (air faunched cruise missile and advanced cruise missile) capability has singularly unique attributes designed to penetrate air defense systems and strike a potential adversary's high value targets, thereby minimizing risk to the aircraft or its aircrew. These attributes include: mission flexibility; hard-target kill accuracy; low observable characteristics; stand-off capabilities. Additional targeting clarification should be directed to OSD/ LA or JCS/LA, and will likely involve input from U.S. Strategic Command.

Question. Last year you testified ". . . sustainment of the existing cruise missile fleet was the course of action chosen until the need for a new system is identified." What is your plan to extend the lives of current ALCM and ACM cruise missiles to 2030? Is it feasible to do that, or will you really need a new missile eventually?

Answer. It is feasible to extend the lives of current air launched cruise missiles (ALCM) and advanced cruise missiles (ACM) to 2030. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) dated December 2001 states ". . . its current force of cruise missile can be sustained until 2030." Air Force will support this NPR direction by implementing the Service Life Extension Programs (SLEPs). The NPR Implementer gives further direction by stating, "The Secretary of the Air Force will complete ongoing sustainment and life extension programs and initiate required service life extension programs where necessary to sustain the ALCM and ACM until 2030 and restore required weapons systems reliability rates to design specification values." The SLEP studies identified aging components and potential component failures that might need replacement to sustain ACM and ALCM until year 2030.

The NPR Implementer also addresses the requirement for a new missile. It states the Air Force will continue to implement the ACM and ALCM SLEPS until the development of a new cruise missile. A next-generation cruise missile program would need to start around 2014 to ensure an initial operational capability in the 2030 timeframe.

Question. Has the Secretary of Defense formally approved a program to either extend the lives of current Air Force cruise missiles until 2030, or to develop a replacement missile?

Answer. Yes. The Secretary of Defense approved the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Plan in March 2003. The NPR Implementer directs the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain the current Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) and Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) fleet via the Service Life Extension Programs through 2030.

Question. What exactly is funded, and what exactly is not funded, in the Air Force's Future Years Defense Plan to extend the life of its cruise missiles to 2030? Answer. The Air Force has fully funded all known cruise missile requirements through the future year defense plan (FYDP). Additional activities will be funded beyond the current FYDP as required to extend Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) and Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) service life through 2030.

ALCM:

-Conventional/Air-Launched Cruise Missile Test Instrumentation Kit

-Inertial Navigation Element (also known as Global Navigation Control Unit)

ACM:

-Functional Ground Test Facility

-Thermal Batteries and Pyrotechnical Devices

-W-80 LEP Integration

-Joint Test Instrumentation Kit

-Functional Ground Test Facility

-Thermal Batteries and Pyrotechnical Devices

-Aging and Surveillance Program

-ACM Subsystem Simulator and Advanced Missile Simulator

-W-80 LEP Integration

Question. How much funding in then-year dollars beyond what is projected in your current Future Years Defense Plan would realistically be needed to extend the life of Air Force cruise missiles to 2030?

Answer. The following funding is projected beyond the current Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to extend cruise missile life to 2030. This includes Procurement; Research, Development, Test & Evaluation; Operation and Maintenance and Military Personnel funding.

Question. Have you conducted a formal analysis of alternatives for cruise missile life extension programs?

Answer. No analysis of alternatives was accomplished for the Advanced Cruise Missile or Air Launched Cruise Missile Service Life Extension Programs.

Question. Have you conducted a full life cycle cost analysis for cruise missile life extension programs?

Answer. Both advanced cruise missile and air launched cruise missile service life extension program studies included a life cycle cost and risk analysis on the components with life extension concerns.

Question. Have you accomplished an operational requirements document for cruise missile life extension?

Answer. A new operational requirements document (ORD) for cruise missile life extension is not required. Air launched cruise missile (ALCM) and advanced cruise missile (ACM) acquisition was completed under the Strategic Air Command (SAC) System Operational Requirements Document (SORD). ORDs are written/updated to document system capabilities, justification, parameters, program support, and force structure required to satisfy a validated need. They serve as the foundation for acquisition. For SORDS beyond Milestone III, it is only necessary to re-accomplish the requirements correlation matrix to comply with the ORD format for programs less than Acquisition Category I (ACAT I). Both ALCM and ACM are complete with acquisition and are considered ACAT III.

Question. What actions has the Defense Acquisition Board taken on extending the life of Air Force cruise missiles until 2030, or developing a new missile?

Answer. Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) approval was not required for ACM/ ALCM SLEP activities. SLEP activities were below cost thresholds requiring DAB approval.

Question. Last year, the Air Force had no funding in its budget to support any phase of the Department of Energy's W-80 life extension program. This year the situation is improved. Please answer separately, how much is in the fiscal year 2004

budget and accompanying future years program in support to Department of Energy's W-80 life extension program for:

W-80 flight testing?

W-80 integration and support?

W-80 handling equipment?

W-80 test manuals?

W-80 publications?

Answer. The tables below provide details on W-80 related funding:

Question. Does Air Force expect DOE to deliver any extended life W-80 warheads that would go temporarily into storage rather than immediately to deployment? If so, why?

Answer. The Air Force will upload all refurbished W-80 warheads onto the active cruise missile inventory.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-End of questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky. Questions submitted by Mr. Lewis and the answers thereto follow:]

CONSOLIDATION OF THE MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNTS

Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request recommends consolidating the six Guard and Reserve military personnel accounts with their respective active duty military personnel appropriations. The budget requested that the Reserves personnel pay accounts be Budget Activity 7, and the National Guard's personnel pay accounts be Budget Activity 8 under the active duty accounts.

Mr. Secretary please explain the reasons the OSD Comptroller had for merging the pay accounts into one appropriation per Service.

Answer. The OSD proposal to restructure the military personnel appropriations for Active, Guard and Reserve into one appropriation is a step in the right direction. It begins to finance our enterprise like our Total Force fights-as an integrated team. This will provide additional flexibility by obviating the need to use transfers to move funds between individual programs within the merged accounts. The consolidation will also reduce administrative workload and streamline funds execution and reporting.

Question. What level or degree of increased flexibility does the Air Force gain from this consolidation?

Answer. The Air Force will be able to reprogram $10 million into or out of the Reserve Component budget activities without prior Congressional approval. In addition to this flexibility, there will be no limit to the amount that can be reprogrammed with prior Congressional approval. With the separate appropriations, Air Force needs Congressional prior approval for any amount, and that amount is limited by the total amount of transfer authority allowed for the Department of Defense.

Question. Will the Chiefs of the Reserve components have full management and control of their financial resources in order to execute their title 10 responsibilities for trained and ready forces?

Answer. Approved DoD accounting and internal control procedures assign fiduciary responsibility to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial

Managment and Comptroller) for all Air Force funds. Management and control of the individual appropriations are delegated to the Air Force Director of Budget (SAF/FMB) for all Active funds and to the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves for their accounts. Overall management of the consolidated Personnel account will be a SAF/FMB responsibility; however detailed program management within the budget activities for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves will continue to reside with those organizations.

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. Since the proposal places Guard and Reserve military personnel (MILPERS) funding in separate Budget Activities, Congress will still have visibility into its execution. The Department's proposal to restructure MILPERS appropriations begins to finance our enterprise like our Total Force fights—as an integrated team. This will provide additional flexibility to move funds between individual programs within the merged accounts and reduce administrative workload while streamlining fund execution and reporting.

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 Air Force?

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.

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. Yes, this increase did include personnel under stop/loss action, but did not include mobilized Reservists since mobilized Reservists do not count against the active duty end strength. Approximately 7,300 of the overage was due to the stop/ loss program and the remaining 2,200 is attributed to exceeding accession goals and improved retention.

Question. What stop/loss action is currently in effect, and how many military personnel are affected by that?

Answer. On 13 March 2003, the Air Force announced the details of a limited Stop Loss action. Effective 2 May 2003, retirements/separations of 43 officer and 56 enlisted high-demand specialties are suspended. Projected impact (number eligible to retire/separate between 2 May 2003 and 30 September 2003) is 6,172 active duty officers/4,858 active duty enlisted and 834 Air Reserve Component officers/3,030 ARC enlisted.

Specialties under Stop Loss will be reviewed every 60 days and personnel released from Stop Loss will be afforded up to five-months transition time. As OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM progresses and the Air Force reconstitutes, we will discontinue the use of Stop Loss using the 60-day review process.

Stop Loss exemptions include involuntary/hardship discharges, mandatory retirements and separations, discharge by reason of conscientious objector status, members who have shipped or are scheduled to ship household goods, members on terminal leave, and members previously Stop Lossed who have since established a retirement/separation date. In addition, members may request a Stop Loss waiver if there are unique circumstances warranting exemption.

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. The current estimate of strength for 30 September 2003 is 367,100 (8,100 over the authorized level of 359,000). This overstrength is caused by improved retention and our ability to meet the accessions goals. The effect of the new stop/loss program that is expected to begin on 2 May 2003 will add to the strength overage. Even though stop/loss affects more individuals, we anticipate that those who planned to separate before the end of the year and now will not be able to could add approximately 4,700 to the strength overage, depending on the duration of the Stop Loss program currently in effect. The funded strength level included in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 is 359,300.