Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Mar. 6, 2003
Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization

REED:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And, thank you, gentlemen, not only for your testimony today, but for your service. And, let me begin there was a article in the Kansas City Star, the first line, as is follows, troops heading for the Iraqi theatre are not getting health screenings, especially blood sampling mandated by a law enacted in 1997, enacted by Congress.

Secretary White, is that the case? Is the Army not screening pursuant to this law?

WHITE:

My information is that we are screening. I think it's imperative that we screen, that we have DNA samples, blood samples from every soldier that deploys. And I will check that information.

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I understand that, and I'm not the expert, but that the DNA samples are different than the blood screenings mandated by this congressional act. But, I'm not certain of that point.

WHITE:

I will get you information for the record.

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary Johnson, is the Navy following this law?

JOHNSON:

Yes, sir. And we will check and get back to you to make sure, but we've had no challenges so far.

REED:

And, Secretary Roche?

ROCHE:

Senator, I've gone through the lines for people going overseas in two different bases to see how it was done to make sure that we do it correctly. We do a baseline on someone before we go, including blood, DNA, et cetera. We then monitor conditions in the particular area where they may be stationed. And then when they come back off the rotation, when they come back, we will do another medical review to compare it to the baseline and anything we may have learned overseas. I think we have this reasonably under control, sir.

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary White, many of the questions this morning focus on the forces that will be needed to, not only decisively engage and defeat Iraq, if so ordered, but the longer term occupational forces, and that's put a particular burden on the Army. The Navy, the Air Force, are expeditionary forces, they have the flexibility of reconstituting and falling back pretty quickly. But, if there is an extended occupation, the Army will bear the brunt of it. And I wonder, again, at this point, what percentage of the Army has been committed to the Iraqi theatre of operations roughly?

WHITE:

AC, plus RC, probably a third.

REED:

A third?

WHITE:

It's talking about central command in general with all the deployments around CENTCOM and looking at AC and RC and those that have been alerted to deploy, assuming that they deploy, probably a third of it.

REED:

A third. And, what additional...

WHITE:

Maybe a little less, maybe 30 percent.

REED:

And what additional percentage has been alerted for possible deployments, do you know?

WHITE:

Well, I think—well, that includes—that would be the top end figure.

REED:

And, of course, with this deployment forward you have to have a rotational force behind. So, essentially either the deployed forces together with their rotational force could be upwards of 50, 60 percent of the Army?

WHITE:

Well, that's right. If you look at Afghanistan, we have rotated three different divisions into Afghanistan to date, 82nd to the 10th mountain and the 101st.

REED:

One of the reasons I'm concerned about it is that generally these things usually take longer and more people than you expect, even in your most realistic estimate. I recall last October when plans for the operation talked about a light force of 75,000 Army ground personnel with air power. There's 300,000 troops in the theatre right now, Marines, Army, Air Force, et cetera. And I think we'd be wise to assume the worst case, which would drive numbers up. And I know your discussion with Senator Levin suggested that, you know, you have a range. But, my guess would be that it'd be the top end, not the bottom end.

WHITE:

Well, our experience, as you know, in Bosnia and Kosovo, Bosnia we're in our eighth year; Kosovo we're in our fifth year, I do believe. Although at much lower levels than we were initially, which suggests it's a long-term effort. I think the Secretary of Defense made the point the other day that the hope would be that very soon in this it would be an international effort and that others would contribute, which would lower the burden on us, as has been the case to a certain extent in Afghanistan.

REED:

Let me raise another issue which is related, and that's the pressure that we're all seeing back home with national guard and reserve, and, again, this falls most particularly on Army National Guard and reserve units, although the Air Force also. My troops have basically all been mobilized. There's a few remaining for a year. My suspicion though, because of the expertise of these soldiers, military police officers, civil affairs people, information specialists, that those are precisely the people you'll need, not just this year, but the following year. Where are you going to get them? Because I can tell you the imposition, the disruption, these are patriots, but they're going to come back in and you're going to have to replace them, I guess, is my point.

WHITE:

I think the mid and the long-term concern is if we stay at current levels of mobilization, eventually it's going to impact on reserve component retention, and, recruiting as well. Now, in the first 18 months of the global war on terrorism we have been very fortunate we haven't seen that. But, a year from now, two years from now, depending upon what level of mobilization we're at, we're certainly concerned about that.

REED:

Well, I guess—and, again, this I think applies with most impact on the Army, but also the Air Force and to a lesser degree, the Navy. I would assume that you're preparing plans right now to meet this very likely contingency and the sooner these plans are presented to us, the more opportunity we'll have to look at your proposals, which I think involves increasing end strengths, incentivizing additional retention or enlistment in reserves, National Guard, or resizing the force between reserve component and active component. And all these issues, if they are delayed further, will slow down, I think, your ability to respond.

WHITE:

And, Senator, you know that that's all under consideration. I think the secretary talked about it while he was here, the right mix of ACRC and it is a matter of urgency for us.

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I didn't mean to pick on you, Mr. Secretary, but the Army is the lead, I think, in the forces that will occupy that country. Mr. Secretary, thank you.

Thank you all.