Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization

COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Shinseki, I want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your extraordinary service. I also want to pursue the issue of the readiness of our troops to face a biological or chemical attack.

Last July, the Army Audit Agency submitted a report that was critical of the Army's preparedness to deal with such an attack, and the results of the audit were very troubling. Of 2,500 reviewed at Fort Hood and Fort Lewis, 18 of them were found not to be proficient in operating chemical and biological defensive equipment. Inspectors also found that many units were not performing adequate maintenance on their chem/bio equipment. And there have been other reports recently by 60 Minutes and others that have also raised very troubling questions about whether our troop would be adequately prepared and protected if they face chemical or biological weapons.

First, could you tell me how the Army has responded to these audits and reports? And second, are you personally confident that our troops are adequately trained, equipped and prepared to face a chemical or biological attack?

SHINSEKI:

Senator, just a point of clarification, was that report a year ago or two years ago that you're referring to?

COLLINS:

I believe it was last July, just this past year.

SHINSEKI:

Last July. OK. There have been several of these surveys. And in some cases, we have asked these agencies to go out and take a look because of things we've heard. The one I'm most familiar with was several years ago, and I'd have to go back and take a look at exactly this report.

I will tell you when we looked several years ago—when we talk about units in a battalion-size unit—two years ago our problem area with the two soldiers who were on the battalion-level staff had had responsibilities for certain select pieces of equipment. So in a set 5 to 800 person organization, the focus of that investigation was—we found some shortcomings in training and maintenance at that level, and we've gone to work and corrected those things.

I will have to look and see specifically what this last July report was about. But whenever we discover that there is some concern, we go back out there and ensure that the commanders are doing—and are resourced to what it is we expect of them, ad the training that goes along with operating in this environment is part of our mission set that we train to. As I say, whether you're at Garrison and Fort Stewart in the winter-time or August in the MTC, you can expect that these tasks are a part of that set of skills that individuals have to train to.

In answer to your question, I am confident we are training and the standards are significant. This is the toughest part of our training mission. And for those units that are currently on the ground and in the fort areas, I can tell you they are dealing with this requirement on a daily basis.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

Admiral Clark, I'm pleased that the budget this year turns the corner on shipbuilding and provides for funding for 12 ships. But nevertheless, the Navy is still dealing with the legacy of underfunding year after year. And the result of that with the planned retirement of the Spruance-class destroyers, is that the fleet is projected to fall under 300 ships in coming years, bottoming out at, I think, 291 ships in the year 2006.

You have testified in the past that ideally to meet mission requirements, you would need a fleet of approximately 375 ships. Is that still your judgment, that a fleet ideally would be about that size?

CLARK:

Yes, Senator, it is.

COLLINS:

I'd like to talk to you about how we can recapitalize our fleet, not only through new construction, but also modernization of the Arleigh-Burke class of destroyers. It seems to me that one way that we can reduce total operation or total life-cycle costs is by reducing the crew size on our DDG's, using the technological breakthroughs and designs that we've learned in designing the DDX. What are your thoughts on modernization of the DDGs to make sure we're maximizing their useful life and to also reducing overall costs by reducing the size of the crew?

CLARK:

Well, I think that's absolutely the right direction to go. We have been doing some experimenting with a smart ship for the last several years.

CLARK:

We see a lot of that manifested in the design of DDX, and while we don't know exactly how many people DDX is going to have on it, we know it's going to be dramatically less than what we have on our mainline—ships of the line today. When DDG comes up for its mid-life, and we must begin to project towards that mid-life upgrade, we are going to need to apply the improvements that technology will allow us to bring to bear.

Senator, when we talk about the total number if ships and we talk about capability like DDG, the Burke class is a great ship, it's a terrific ship. We're still building them. One of the things that I don't believe that we've always done as well as we should have done in our Navy is start thinking right up front where's the mid-life improvement on this platform? Because if we don't do that, history—you look back over time, you lose the ship early. The taxpayer does not get the return on investment that it laid out when it invested in the platform.

We're not there yet on DDG, we're still building them, but we have got to be moving toward that with the things that we've discovered in some of our smart ship experimentation.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

General Jumper, my time has expired but I just want to associate myself with the concerns expressed by Senator Allard on the allegations involving rape and other sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy.

One of my proudest responsibilities is to recommend young men and women to attend our service academies, and the idea that I'm recommending young women who then may be at risk of sexual assault is just appalling to me. And I know that it is to you, as well. And I just want to let you know that in my capacity as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee I, along with Senator Lieberman, have asked the inspector general of the Department of Defense to investigate these allegations. And I'm pleased to hear your comments, as well, this morning.

JUMPER:

Yes, Senator.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.