tive participants in that review, and we will just have to wait and see how it comes out, but we are deeply involved in that. Mr. DICKS. Just on that point, is that why you didn't require any military construction in Europe this year? Secretary WHITE. We did. We have Military Construction projects in Europe in 2004. Mr. DICKS. You do. Secretary WHITE. And in 2003 as well, yes. Mr. DICKS. The Chairman has yielded to me. Thank you very much. On the Stryker Mr. LEWIS. How much time do you think I am yielding to you? Mr. DICKS. Whatever I can get. Mr. LEWIS. I am going to get to you in a second. Chief, do you want to respond to that at all? General SHINSEKI. I would just add, just to reinforce the Secretary's comments Mr. LEWIS. By the way, I think I may yield over here next time. Excuse me. General SHINSEKI. I think in the long term what serves us best and how we make our decisions in the near term is to look for strategy that has a good description of where we want to be in the future. The question may start with do we think there will be a NATO in 10 to 15 years. I personally think so and I would hope so. Do we see our membership in it as important, our leadership in it as important? I think so. And if that is the case, what is NATO going to look like in the years ahead and how do we see ourselves being contributing members and where does that footprint look? I think that strategy is being looked at by the Combatant Commander and I think we ought to give him time to get to the best description that he can provide. And we certainly help him with that. But once he has made that plan, that description, then we will do everything we can to swing our priorities to be able to help him accomplish that, but I do think the long-term view is certainly helpful. Mr. LEWIS. Gentlemen, from time to time, we do have questions about the size of our total budget that goes towards the military. We have fewer of those questions today than we have in the past, but to have you talking about the long range is very important to this member, for indeed we spend money every year not because we are interested in pursuing war but, rather, America is going to lead the world over the decades ahead. Go out to 2020, our objective is to have peace with the world, the Indias, the Chinas, the future leadership forces in the world. So that long-range thinking is very important to me. Mr. Dicks. HIGH-SPEED SEALIFT SUPPORT FOR STRYKER Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Army has recently decided to field a fleet of 12 high-speed vessels, catamaran-style ships to further its goal of being able to transit a Stryker Brigade in 96 hours: is that correct? Secretary WHITE. No sir. The program is seven vessels. ultimately, is you don't want to wear them out and their families out, too. I am not really asking a question, but I do think you raised a very fundamental and important point. General SHINSEKI. There is no disagreement here, Congressman. We are, you know, in agreement with you-violent agreement, in fact. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Visclosky. We are coming close to the end of this hearing, but I wanted to make a few comments in connection with all of this. I mentioned earlier that oft times we are criticized for the portion of the national budget that goes to the national defense. It gets close to, among discretionary dollars, to half of our total national budget. Those of us who have been on this Committee for years have constantly tried to remind people that one of the very few really, really important reasons for national government in the first place is to secure our democracy and our freedom. Indeed, today, people understand just how important our being ready and prepared and doing the R&D, et cetera is. We don't hear very many calls about reducing numbers of troops at this moment, while not so long ago that was almost the byline around here. We don't hear very many expressions of concern about recruitment, for example. We are breaking records regarding recruitment in the Army presently, and not so long ago our frustration was where do you find those volunteers and how do we pay them enough to keep them. It is an evidence that when America is challenged our people respond, and it is reflected in the services across, but especially in the Army. Mr. Secretary, I want you to know how much I appreciate your personal service here. You have made a very extended commitment beyond what most could ever ask, and you have carried forth this job extremely well, and I appreciate that. Secretary WHITE. Thank you, sir. Mr. LEWIS. Speaking to my friend the Chief, Eric Shinseki, I will never forget-just very shortly after I was first given the privilege of having this job 4 years ago, I went to the swearing in of the new Chief of the Army; and I learned in that process that this fellow, when he was born in Hawaii, was a foreign alien, World War II time. Think of what it says about America to have a foreign-born alien now the Chief of the U.S. Army. Think of what it means further to have that leader, after 37 years, not just lead the Army but do it so well. Indeed, it is a very, very impressive reflection of our process; and we ought to all be grateful for the fact that our system works as well as it does. America leads the world because they have got people who can help us lead. So, with that, if there are no further questions, the Committee is adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. [CLERK'S NOTE.-Questions submitted by Mr. Hobson and the answers thereto follow:] be littered with biological and chemical agents is a most frightening prospect. I am not sure what you could say here in this setting, but obviously news reports point to alleged inadequacies in terms of training and thinks of this nature. I have no doubt that you have given your full concentration to all the possibilities and to all what I think you classified as unpredictables. Can you give us some higher level of reassurance that those many troops on the ground are prepared for every eventuality? General SHINSEKI. Congressman, as I have indicated earlier, this is the toughest part of our mission preparation. First of all, there are lots of unknowns, but what we do know about it we have taken steps to safeguard and protect and prepare our soldiers. As I indicated, over the past 6 years, 19 new chemical and biological defense systems, detectors; first of all, five detectors for chemical and biological agents that we didn't have in Desert Storm. Part of this has been a new protective overgarment and a new mask that replaces the one that we had and that every service member who deploys has four sets. That is a capability. Now, we have taken our soldiers and put them in the most trying training conditions, and you operate fully protected with your mask on for a period of time to get you used to the discipline and stamina that goes with operating in this environment. And whether it is February at Fort Stewart, Georgia, or August in the National Training Center on a training exercise, you can expect that you will be fully protected and you will have to operate in that condition and complete your battle tasks as a part of that training scenario. So I will tell you that we have made major efforts at preparation for the last year now. If you see the film footages of our formations that are forward in the area of responsibility today, a good portion of what you see are people operating that equipment. There are still unknowns, but our confidence level at being able to operate in this kind of an environment is significant. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Visclosky. FORCE STRUCTURE Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I do appreciate the work you do in transformation in trying to gain control over obviously a very large organization and ingrained cultures and habits and interests in trying to make a fundamental change. I would associate myself with the point Mr. Obey had made earlier, though, as far as the absolute size, given the TEMPO of operation, the commitments that have been made, the increased mobilization of Guard units and Reserve units, the changed demographics of enlisted personnel as far as their marital status and family-in-distress deployments cause in that situation, that we are not going to have the determination of that today or in the immediate future. But at some point I do think we are going to have to examine whether we have enough people. Because in the end, as you both state in your testimony, each one of those individual Americans who have put that uniform on and decided to risk their lives for our interest are the most important components; and the question, ultimately, is you don't want to wear them out and their families out, too. I am not really asking a question, but I do think you raised a very fundamental and important point. General SHINSEKI. There is no disagreement here, Congressman. We are, you know, in agreement with you-violent agreement, in fact. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Visclosky. We are coming close to the end of this hearing, but I wanted to make a few comments in connection with all of this. I mentioned earlier that oft times we are criticized for the portion of the national budget that goes to the national defense. It gets close to, among discretionary dollars, to half of our total national budget. Those of us who have been on this Committee for years have constantly tried to remind people that one of the very few really, really important reasons for national government in the first place is to secure our democracy and our freedom. Indeed, today, people understand just how important our being ready and prepared and doing the R&D, et cetera is. We don't hear very many calls about reducing numbers of troops at this moment, while not so long ago that was almost the byline around here. We don't hear very many expressions of concern about recruitment, for example. We are breaking records regarding recruitment in the Army presently, and not so long ago our frustration was where do you find those volunteers and how do we pay them enough to keep them. It is an evidence that when America is challenged our people respond, and it is reflected in the services across, but especially in the Army. Mr. Secretary, I want you to know how much I appreciate your personal service here. You have made a very extended commitment beyond what most could ever ask, and you have carried forth this job extremely well, and I appreciate that. Secretary WHITE. Thank you, sir. Mr. LEWIS. Speaking to my friend the Chief, Eric Shinseki, I will never forget-just very shortly after I was first given the privilege of having this job 4 years ago, I went to the swearing in of the new Chief of the Army; and I learned in that process that this fellow, when he was born in Hawaii, was a foreign alien, World War II time. Think of what it says about America to have a foreign-born alien now the Chief of the U.S. Army. Think of what it means further to have that leader, after 37 years, not just lead the Army but do it so well. Indeed, it is a very, very impressive reflection of our process; and we ought to all be grateful for the fact that our system works as well as it does. America leads the world because they have got people who can help us lead. So, with that, if there are no further questions, the Committee is adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. [CLERK'S NOTE.-Questions submitted by Mr. Hobson and the answers thereto follow:] FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES Question. The biggest Army procurement is the acquisition of 83,170 trucks and 10,000 trailers for a total of approximately $18 billion through the year 2024. Later this month-on March 26, 2003-the Army is to choose between two vendors who have been in a "bake off" to sell the next version of the FMTV. Is this competition moving on schedule? Answer. The Army is nearing contract award. The FMTV A1 competitive rebuy contract award has been delayed until April 2003 while two remaining certifications/ notifications are provided to Congress. Question. Will there be a gap between the end of the current contract and deliveries under the new contract? Answer. There will be no gap between the end of the current contract's deliveries and deliveries under the new contract. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Question. It is being suggested that the Army Corps of Engineers—particularly the civil side-does not belong in the Army. What was behind this proposal, and has the idea now been discredited? Answer. One of the high priorities of the Secretary of Defense has been to reduce or eliminate activities within the Department of Defense that divert resources away from the primary defense mission. As part of this review, options were considered that could have led to the transfer of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program to other agencies. The Army has no such initiative underway, nor has the Army been asked to undertake such an initiative. We understand that this matter is no longer being considered. Section 109, Division D, of the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act expressly prohibits use of any funding for this purpose in fiscal year 2003. The Civil Works program is resourced separately from other Army and Defense Department activities, so there is no question of diversion of military resources. Moreover, the Civil Works program provides a trained and ready engineering and scientific workforce within the Army, available to be reassigned as needed to defense missions such as environmental restoration of oil fields or rebuilding infrastructure in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. HEMACOOLERS Question. For the third year in a row, fiscal year 2003 contained a plus-up from me for Portable Low-Power Blood Cooling and Storage Devices ("Hemacoolers"). You need this system now for portable, low-energy use, blood storage in forward deployed units. How can I encourage the Combat Support Medical Procurement staff at Fort Detrick to move ahead on this? Answer. The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick is actively moving ahead with this important technology. The Command received $250,000 in research and development money in April 2001 for development of a low-power blood cooling and storage device. That money was provided to Energy Storage Technologies, Inc., of Dayton, Ohio, in the form of a cooperative research and development agreement. Energy Storage Technologies completed development of the device and provided a briefing to the Army on a prototype device on March 4, 2003. Testing is required on the device before a full production contract can be awarded. ROTATIONAL FORCE IN EUROPE Question. General James Jones, Commander of United States Forces in Europe, has discussed the possibility of moving to a United States presence in Europe made up of (1) troops on short term rotation, (2) families left at home in the U.S., and (3) "lily pad" compact bases scattered in the New (Eastern) Europe and Africa: Camp Bondsteel would be a model. Such an approach would fall heavily on Heidelberg and the heavier United States Army. What is the Army opinion of this vision? Answer. The Army Staff has been directed to conduct an extensive review of Army strategic posture looking out over the next ten years to ensure that the Army is able to meet all the requirements of the combatant commanders and is well positioned to seamlessly transform to the Objective Force. Concurrently, the Secretary of Defense has directed that his staff, the Joint Staff, and the combatant commanders review future posture, overseas basing, and rotation policies. The Army is working in close coordination with these efforts to ensure the synchronization necessary to meet the Army's responsibilities for flexible power projection and sustained land |