Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee - Marine Corps Ground Equipment

Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee - Marine Corps Ground Equipment

HEARING OF THE DEFENSE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: MARINE CORPS GROUND EQUIPMENT
CHAIRED BY: REP. MARCY KAPTUR (D-OH)
WITNESSES: GENERAL PETER CHIARELLI, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY; GENERAL JAMES AMOS, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. KAPTUR: The committee will be in order and we'd ask our special guests to take their place. We want to welcome everyone this morning.

Today, our committee will hold a hearing on the causes and possibly, some solution for the injury suffered by our soldiers and Marines due to the very heavy equipment loads carried by our infantry.

We are pleased to welcome General Peter W. Chiarelli, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and General James Amos, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps. Thank you, gentlemen, so very much.

These two gentlemen are well qualified to address the problems and some potential solutions to how we, simply put, are breaking down our soldiers and Marines. Thank you, both, for being here and for your many years of service to our nation.

General Chiarelli, you have stated that the Army has over 20,000 soldiers in a non-deployable status; many of them non-deployable due to injuries received by carrying a very heavy combat load over rugged terrain for an extended period.

The load that our soldiers and Marines carry over extended distances, over rough terrain and often, high altitudes, frequently exceeds 100 pounds; body armor alone, can weigh 30 pounds. The personal weapon, ammunition, water, possibly a radio, spare batteries, all adds to the load that must be carried.

The committee is looking forward to your statements and answers to our questions on how we can provide better load carrying devices, how we can take some gear out of the rucksack; possibly by more frequent and more forward resupply; and how we can make gear lighter while still achieving the desired capabilities.

Before we turn to the opening statements from our witnesses, I would to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of our Subcommittee on Defense, Mr. Young, for any remarks that he might have.

Thank you so much, Bill.

REP. YOUNG: Madame Chairman, thank you very much and I want to share in your welcome to the two very distinguished military leaders.

The men and women who serve in our uniform are the best part of our national defense. All of the technology in the world isn't going to work right without the right people handling it. This subcommittee has a very, very strong feeling toward anyone who serves in our military.

The interesting subject today, talking about lighting the load, is a good idea because I've seen some of the soldiers in the field trying to handle those 100 pound, and more, loads of equipment, weapons, whatever, and that's a pretty tough load to begin with, let alone when you get up to an altitude of 10,000 feet or more, which is some of the Afghan territory.

The subject of today's hearing is really, really important and we look forward to your testimony. Thank you for being here today.

Thank you, Madame Chairman.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you, Mr. Young, very much.

Now, General Chiarelli, you may proceed with your summarized statement; your entire statement will be placed in the record.

GEN. CHARELLI: Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Young and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the impact of combat loads on soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is my first occasion to appear before this esteemed committee and I pledge to always provide you with an honest and forthright assessment. I've also submitted a statement for the record and I look forward to answering your questions at the conclusion of my opening remarks.

First, on behalf of our secretary, the Honorable Pete Geren and our Chief of Staff, George W. Casey, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your strong support and demonstrated commitment to our soldiers, army civilians and family members. I and the other senior leaders of our Army care deeply about them; the soldiers' well being is our foremost priority in everything we do.

Over the past several years, the Army has fielded numerous technologies and greatly improved soldiers' capability and survivability of the force. However, the further challenge affected by this progress has been more and more weight added to a soldier's load and the wear and tear on soldiers demonstrated by the increases we've seen in muscular-skeletal issues has had significant impact on our deploy ability rates.

This is a challenge and it needs to be addressed; however, we must also recognize that there is no simple solution. The reality is, there is a trade off to be made between force protection and effectiveness. Certainly, we could outfit a soldier with every piece of body armor and equipment available, essentially encasing him in a cocoon of protective technology, but doing so would diminish his effectiveness and his ability to maneuver on the battlefield, thus putting him at even greater risk.

A cumbersome load, for example, could cause heat injury or hamper a soldier's ability to take cover quickly from enemy fire in the event of an attack. So, the challenge cannot be solved simply by developing, procuring and fielding lighter technology and equipment, although that is a critical part of the solution.

Instead, to properly address issues requires a comprehensive approach that focuses on soldier training and conditioning, as well as finding alternate ways to transport equipment and supplies on behalf of soldiers and I assure the members of this committee that it is what our Army senior leaders are focused on doing; we're exploring short term solutions as well as those that will meet ground force needs well into the future.

First, we're in the process of changing the Army's physical fitness doctrine and training programs to better prepare soldiers for the demands of military operations. Individual evaluations suggest that soldiers who train and condition properly are much less likely to sustain an injury after deployment.

Therefore, we believe the best way we can help our soldiers to avoid injury due to excessive load is by preparing them as well as possible for the physiological demands of their mission, and the results today have been very, very positive.

A concerted effort is also being made to reduce the heaviness and bulkiness of combat gear and body armor required on the battlefield. Right now, this can be accomplished by reducing the area of coverage and/or the level or protection in certain areas and we rely on commanders on the ground to make correct decisions on behalf of soldiers on mission parameters, such as climate, environment, (time?) and mission duration.

Let me be clear, if this is absolutely where and by whom these decisions should and must be made; by commanders on the ground who are well trained and fully understand the various consideration and the current enemy situation, not by those of us removed from the battlefield back in Washington.

Our job is to make sure commanders have everything they need to be successful and a variety of research, development and engineering organizations are currently assisting the Army in tackling the challenge of soldier load.

The challenge of equipping soldiers on the battlefield with the right technology and level protection, without over loading them, is a difficult one. However, I am confident that we are taking the correct actions to reduce the burden on soldiers by making adjustments to the Army's physical training and conditioning programs, by finding ways to reduce the weight of individual pieces of equipment and body armor, and by pursuing improved, new technologies and methods for carrying or delivering part of the load.

I assure the members of this committee that there is no greater priority for me and the Army's senior leaders, than the safety and well being of our soldiers. Men and women who wear the uniform (for?) our nation are the best in the world and we owe them and their families a debt of gratitude for their service and many sacrifices.

Chairwoman Kaptur and members of the committee, I again want to thank you for your continued and generous support of the outstanding men and women of the United States Army and their families, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you very much, General Chiarelli. Thank you for your testimony.

General Amos, why don't we proceed with you? Good morning and welcome.

GEN. AMOS: Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Young and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to share what the Marine Corps is doing to mitigate combat load injuries and to lighten the load for our war fighters.

On behalf of all Marines, Sailors and their families, I extend my appreciation for the continued support that this committee and Congress provide to our Marine Corps. I'll take this opportunity to highlight just a few things that the Marine Corps is doing with regards to lightening the load.

Over the last four years, the Marine Corps has not seen a significant increase in injuries directly related to changes in the weight or type of equipment. A delicate balance exists between mission accomplishment and force protection. Numerous tactics, techniques and procedures have been developed to mitigate the distances dismounted Marines must traverse and therefore, the amount of gear they must carry.

The fact remains however, that current military operations ultimately require Marines to dismount and engage the enemy in close combat. To do so, it necessitates Marines who are agile and unencumbered enough to carry the day, but protected enough to survive. This is a delicate balance.

The most significant part of the individual Marine's load is his or her body armor. At least 30 percent of a Marine's load is his personal protective equipment. The technology to protect Marines is better than in previous generations, but comes with significant cost in weight.

Please know that your Marines are the best protected force on the battlefield. We have ensured that they have the very latest technology has to offer. Because we are constantly engaged in fluid combat operations, we understand that our commanders on the battlefield are in the best position to determine the most effective combat load for any given situation. Operational commanders determine how best to equip their Marines based on their analysis of mission requirements, the enemy situation and environmental conditions.

To enable this flexibility, we provide a range of options in personal protective equipment that can be configured to meet varying levels of threat. You'll see some of that here demonstrated this morning, shortly.

We believe conditioning is a major contributing factor to the success of mitigating combat load injuries. Physical fitness is an essential part of the Marine Corps and has been rooted in our most basic levels of training. Marines are renowned for their being physically ready for the challenges of austere and demanding environments, but there is always room for improvement.

As part of our lessons learned process, we determined that we needed to tailor Marine physical training to the realities of weight in combat missions. In October 2008, the Marine Corps added a new combat fitness test to its long standing physical fitness test. The combat fitness test is actually a training regimen that specifically addresses movements typical of combat operations and seeks to improve a Marine's ability to perform them, while decreasing associated injuries.

The best weapon and most precious asset in the Marine Corps is a well trained, equipped and conditioned Marine. With your continued support, your Marine Corps will remain the nation's force of readiness and continue to fulfill its mission of being ready when the nation is the least ready.

Thank you. I request my written testimony be accepted for the record and I look forward to your questions.

REP. YOUNG: Madame Chairman, I wonder if we could invite the soldiers with their heavy equipment to take a seat and lighten their load a little bit.

GEN. CHIARELLI: If its okay with you, sir, can we, before they sit down, just kind of explain what you see up here very quickly?

REP. KAPTUR: Sure.

GEN. CHIARERLLI: I want to introduce this soldier, Staff Sergeant Fred Rowe.

Fred is from Greenville, KY. He is married, currently doesn't have any kids. He has been assigned to both the 82nd and is currently assigned to 101st preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. He has been to Iraq twice on two deployments; this will be his first to Afghanistan.

On his second deployment to Iraq, he took three rounds to the chest, got up and completed the mission; which shows you the quality of protection by these plates.

We asked Staff Sergeant Rowe to wear the full-up -- what the Army calls the Improved Outer Tactical Vest -- with SAPI plates front and rear, plus SAPI plates on the side. Without all the other accoutrements, because it's a size medium, would weigh 30 pounds. To give you an example, if we were to move up to a size large, like I would wear, I'd be carrying an extra 3.2 pounds because of the extra weight of the plates; up to 33.2 pounds.

This is the full-up gear right here that provides the best protection over the largest portion of the body that both the Marines and the Army have at this time.

REP. KAPTUR: General Chiarelli, what is the total weight of equipment that Sgt. Rowe is carrying right now?

I notice he doesn't have on the optical scanner and some of the other things that --

GEN. CHIARELLI: I did not totally weigh his truck.

Sgt. Rowe, do you know?

SGT. ROWE: (Off mike) -- depends on the mission ma'am. My kit can weigh up to about 98 pounds. Depending on the mission -- sometimes I'll have 70 pounds, but with ammunition, grenades, flash- bangs and all the other equipment, it's going to be over 70 pounds. -- (inaudible) -- my kit weighed just shy of 100 pounds.)

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you; thank you for that.

To your knowledge, Sgt. Rowe, have the soldiers ever been asked about equipment loads in your career? Did you ever get a survey or anybody talk to you about what we could do to lighten your load?

SGT. ROWE: (off mike) -- yes ma'am. I've actually taken a survey --(inaudible)-- . I think in the survey they asked if you would accept the responsibility of having a plate carrier or something lighter that doesn't have as much flack protection from shrapnel and --(inaudible)-- and as far as I know, ma'am, every person that has ever worn the kit --(inaudible)-- checked yes.)

REP. YOUNG: Sgt, your experience in Iraq when you were hunting down or pursuing a terrorist, he was moving pretty light I understand; he didn't carry the heavy load because he hit and run.

How much restriction is there on you in pursuing that bad guy and hunting him down?

SGT. ROWE: (Off mike) -- most of the time in was in Iraq, sir, I was a sniper and we weren't actually chasing people down, but whenever I was Infantry Squad Leader, we would react to contact and if the individual is not in your line of sight -- (inaudible) -- you can't pursue them. You have to go ahead and stand your ground and maintain what you have because there's no way that you will ever catch them.)

REP. YOUNG: I bet you couldn't do the 100 yard dash in 10 seconds could you?

SGT. ROWE: (off mike) -- no sir.

(Laughter)

REP. YOUNG: Thank you for what you have done and what you will continue to do. We appreciate your service to our country.

REP. KAPTUR: Yes, I believe that we have --

MR. : (Off mike.)

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you, Mr. (Rothman ?) very much.

I was going to asked Sgt Rowe if you would step a little bit over to your right, we're going to ask General Amos to introduce your guest from the Corps; I know that Congressman Frelinghuysen has a question --

GEN. AMOS: Ma'am, this is Sgt Harris, infantry Marine, Squad Leader, two combat tours with 1st Battalion 6th Marines, both of them in Iraq.

He is wearing what we call the scalable armor. Now, he has many of the same -- we did our best to try to put the same equipment on the vest itself, but you'll notice that the vest that he is wearing provides him a lot more opportunity to move.

What this has done -- this was an attempt about a year and a half ago to develop a opportunity to divest yourself of all or some of the heavy equipment and protection and recognizing -- (inaudible) -- in the mountains of Afghanistan in the hot temperatures, high altitudes, you need to be able to move just exactly for the very reason Congressman Young talked about.

So, this is a scalable vest -- it's called the plate carrier. It has the same enhanced small arms protective plate in the front, one in the back -- just the same way as his vest does. It has the plates on the side -- if you'd point to the side SAPI plates -- those just attach off and on and that is an out shoot of about the last three years of combat in Iraq understanding that the snipers would shoot at the sides, so we put those on there.

This thing is significantly lighter; it's about 10 to 15 pounds lighter than what we have over here and we're issuing that now to the Marines in Afghanistan and again, we're allowing the commander to make the call.

We have a full vest that we did not bring -- very, very similar to this vest, weighs 33.5 pounds -- it looks exactly like this except its Marine tan. We have that capability and we provide that protection. Most of our Marines in Iraq are wearing the heavier gear, but this is an acknowledgement that if we can scale and allow the commander to pick the right armor, depending on what the situation is, then he is more apt to be able to maneuver in high altitudes and hot temperatures.

Sgt. Harris, you have anything you want to talk about, about your personal --

SGT HARRIS: (Off mike.)

GEN. AMOS: One of the things that you'll see, you'll notice on Sgt Harris, he's got kind of a strange looking shirt on -- that was developed about two years ago as a result of our Marines being burned when the IUD's would go off and we ended up with a lot of Marines' hands, neck, body, being burned; you'd see it down at Brook Army Hospital.

So, the Marine Corps Systems Command developed -- did a rush and really worked very quickly to develop what they call FROG gear, which is Fire Resistant Organizational Gear and it now has it for the shirt, we've got a balaclava we put over our head, and we've got Nomex gloves; the whole idea is to reduce the burning in the event of a vehicle IUD mishap.

So, we've gone to that and in fact, you'll find a lot of Marines wearing aviation flight suits right now, because they're Nomex, on patrol in Iraq. They like them because their fire resistant.

REP. KAPTUR: Congressman Frelinghuysen.

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: Its 130 degrees in Iraq and you're an Army sniper and let's say you're a Marine sniper.

Do you have the flexibility on your own to reduce the amount of gear you have so you can actually maneuver? It's pretty damn difficult to fire a rifle if you can barely move your arms. I just wondered is there -- do you have that flexibility or is there some greater god in terms of a unitary policy that you have obey, both the Marines as well as the Army? Do you have some ability to adapt?

MR. : (Off mike.)

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: And that's exactly what we want to go to, is that same capability to do that.

I will tell you, in 2006 -- since we're talking about snipers -- the snipers were in fact aiming for the femoral artery of the leg even wearing this gear, in order that they could get a soldier to bleed out. So the thought in 2006, of shedding this kind of protection for something less, you would be putting your soldiers' lives at risk.

I think most commanders would power this down to company commanders, particularly in Afghanistan, to make that call based on enemy situation on when they can shed gear and go to a plate carrier because the situation allows it.

REP. : Thank you both for your service.

Thank you, Madame.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you.

I think I'd like to hold questions for the moment; we'd like to ask our guests to please be seated. While they're doing that, General Amos and General Charelli, what is the total potential weight that each soldier or Marine would have to carry? What is the potential total weight?

GEN. AMOS: I've got some actual figures here that -- we had a battalion just come back from Afghanistan about three months ago -- 2nd Battalion 7th Marines -- and in an effort to try to capture what their weights were, we sent a Marine Corps Lessons Learned team over to Afghanistan and actually weighed these guys.

We said "Okay, put them on a scale with what they typically wore." The lightest was the Squad Leader; so that was the Marine that was in charge, typically a sergeant, like Sgt Harris. He was wearing 78.94 pounds of gear. The mortarman was the heaviest in that squad; he was wearing 142.26 pounds of gear.

Now, there is an old military historian by the name of SLA Marshall who many, many years ago said an infantry man should never wear more that 50 percent of his body weight. This mortarman is wearing 142.26 pounds; when you think about how much he probably weighed, maybe 170 to 180 pounds and you go to what SLA Marshall talked about -- this has been a problem for infantry men, to be honest with you, all the way back to the days of Alexander the Great.

It is a problem and it's something that we're struggling with, but I will tell you from the services' side of the house, there is no slack in effort to try to capture as much advanced technology that's out there to lighten the load. We can talk about that in this hearing, we can talk about initiatives that are underway right now to lighten the load, but there is no shortage of money being spent from the science, the technology and the developmental world to try to get our Marines and soldiers loads down.

There are several initiatives which we can talk about.

MS. : (Off mike.)

GEN. AMOS: I don't ma'am, but I'll be happy to answer any questions.

GEN. CHIARELLI: Our doctrinal fighting load is 48 pounds and it can range from 48 pounds up to 120 pounds.

We've done some looking at Afghanistan; the average fighting loads in Afghanistan are 63 pounds. I think that's basically what Sgt Rowe indicated; maybe a little lighter in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq. They vary from that 63 pounds up to 130 pounds.

I took a look at World War II fighting loads and the difference between World War II fighting loads and the fighting loads I just cited is about the weight of the tactical vests you see right there. So, what we have added since World War II in the amount of weight is basically in that IOTV with SAPI plates; plus additional capabilities that our soldiers didn't have in World War II.

So, we're looking at an average load of 63 pounds in Afghanistan today.

REP. KAPTUR: General Charelli, in your testimony submitted to the record, you I indicate that in one study, infantry soldiers carrying a load of 101 pounds for 12.5 miles had a decrease of 36 percent in marksmanship; being the number of targets that were hit.

A 33 percent increase in the distance from the target's center and an increase in back pain compared to pre-load and (march scores ?). Then, a little bit later on, it indicates in your testimony that a 72 pound increased energy required by 40 percent on behalf of the soldier and the time required to complete an obstacle course increases 10 to 15 percent for every additional 10 pounds carried.

My question to you really is what are we doing -- I looked down the list that every member's gotten of equipment that's being carried by our soldiers and you know, we put all this money into research, but the optical scope and illuminator, that's almost nine pounds itself. What can of dispatch is there to try to look at each piece of equipment and to try to have its weight --

GEN. CHIARELLI: We're working very hard at finding ways to lighten the load, I can promise you that.

One of the things we're looking at is civilian, off the shelf solutions to many of the things we do. And our rapid equipping force is leading the way in the Army at finding some of those things that will lower the weight. But I have to tell you, the advent of the SAPI plate is a mid '90s, we feel that the first SAPI plates, ceramic plates in early 2000 and the protection that they have provided and their ability to stop rounds is such that we've offered a level of protection to soldiers that they've never had on the battlefield. Our sergeant here would not be alive today if he did not have those SAPI plates on.

I made a trip up to ARL Army Research Laboratory to see what they were doing to try to lighten those plates even further. And they told me quite frankly that it's going to take a lot more time given the improvement in ballistics which they have to stay up on, we've come out with two improvements to the SAPI plates. We're on e-SAPI today which provides more ballistic protection. It did not increase the weight, but it caused more ballistic protection. But the technological chances of being able to cut that weight in half are still many years down the road when it comes to the plates themselves. But we're looking for other ways that we can do that.

I might mention, I totally agree with General Amos, physical conditioning and what we're finding through the University of Pittsburgh study that's been conducted, nutrition are key elements in helping soldiers when they have to carry these loads in avoiding the kind of muscular skeletal issues that we are seeing today.

REP. KAPTUR: Could you please provide for the record, and then I'm going to call on Mr. Young, a brief summary of each piece of equipment that the soldiers carrying or the Marine is carrying and the research underway to lighten that piece of equipment.

GEN. CHIARELLI: Yes, ma'am.

REP. KAPTUR: Because I'd be very grateful for that. Yes, Mr. Young.

REP. YOUNG: I want to thank the Chair and we had discussed at a prior meeting the possibility of the devising a system or procedures to provide UAV support or some robotic type support for the fighter because for example in here what these sergeants are wearing doesn't include their weapons, doesn't include a whole lot of ammunition, doesn't include water that they might need for a couple of days, it doesn't include communications equipment, radios, night vision goggles, things of this type. Is there any work being done by the Army Arterial Command in trying to devise a strategy or procedure or a method where the troop on the ground could helped with some of this extra heavy load that they need when they get to the fight but they might not need getting to the fight?

GEN. CHIARELLI: There is. First of all, we're looking at robotic vehicles as a way of being able to transfer that load from the soldier to a vehicle that would travel along with the soldier and carry a good piece of that. That technology is something we're looking at and testing right now.

But currently in Afghanistan, I'll let Jim talk about UAVs and what they can do. We are using as a primarily way to take this load off the soldier's back the use of air drops. We deliver 26,000 pounds a day using air drops, different air drop technologies. And we have come up with technologies that are very, very accurate at a half the cost of what they used to be, and don't require soldiers to recover the components of the air drop. Basically those things which bring that load to ground are discarded after the drop is made.

So this is going a long way in helping us to get some of those pounds off our soldiers back. And we see the increase in air drops as something that has proven to be very, very helpful in Afghanistan.

MR. AMOS: Sir, we also are using the air drops. TRANSCOM, General McNabb and all his airmen have done some remarkable work with precision air drops using parafoils (ph) to try to get the stuff out so that you don't have to either carry it along the highways of Afghanistan which are becoming more and more IED laden. And so that's an effort that's underway right now and works quite well.

About a year and a half ago the Marine Corps commissioned a study by the Naval Research Advisory Committee on the issue of lightening the load. And after about six months of effort by some very renowned ladies and gentlemen across our country going into industry and into all the S&T developmental parts of the world and then going back into history, they came out and they said look, we are probably right now at about as far along as we can be with the current technology as we know it today with regards to being able to lighten things like the SAPI plate, small arms protective plate, we need new technology to be able to get that thing lighter.

But they said there's other ways that you can lighten the load. One is weight redistribution. In other words, the actual weight, it's a bit of a ruse but it actually works. You can redistribute the weight and get it more over your hips and therefore feel like you can actually lift yourself better and maneuver better. So that's one way.

The other piece of it was get it off the Marine or the soldier and get it on to something else that actually can carry it for you. The front cover of our Marine Corp Gazette this month has a picture of a Marine up in the mountains of Eastern California at our mountain warfare training center loading up mules. Now I mean I realize that's not new technology but we actually teach a course for Marines how to load mules and we use it in places like Afghanistan. So that very bottom of the food chain, that would be the basic way you transfer loads.

But what we're looking at right now and what is near term requirement is the whole idea of a cargo UAV. And if you can imagine, you know we're pretty successful with UAVs now, we like them, we've got little ones and we go all the way up to the big ones. But nothing is out there to haul stuff around on the battlefield. A year ago we had a battalion engaged in Afghanistan and the company got into a heck of a fight and it was in the summertime, it was hot, and we had one opportunity to resupply them and I remember reading the report, the spot report from the company commander and he had a choice between being resupplied with water or being resupplied with ammunition. And it was at that point we said we've got to do better than this.

And so the concept of a cargo UAV was born and right now the whole idea would be we're going to get something off the shelf within hopefully the next three to four months. We had an industry day last week within the Marine Corps, brought in folks that have these commercial off the shelf UAVs that are out there and can it be modified to carry cargo, somewhere, anything between 500 pounds to probably 1,250, 1,500 pounds. Take off vertically precision, set it down, drop it off, then go to the next spot. Redo it day, all day, all night it doesn't, UAVs aren't afraid to fly at night, they just go out by themselves and do it.

That's where we're headed. We want to get a solution now to get into Afghanistan this summer. And then we have a program where we are looking for something that would be optimum for the future. An expendable, low cost precision UAV to be able to carry logistics.

So you're going to hear more of that as we find out what we are going to do, but we are committed to getting that for this coming summer.

The other thing is what General Chiarelli was talking about is DARPA has a project they call Big Dog and it was a robot, it looked about the size of a Great Dane and it had robotic legs and it had a gasoline powered motor on it and it had gyrostabilizer legs and it could climb up and the whole idea is to shed weight on this thing. They have taken that now to the next level and I was briefed on it about two weeks ago and I think there's great potential. So we won't see that this month but we hopefully will see that sometime in the next 24 months where you can imagine a squad with one of these robotic dogs, quiet, completely self contained where you can put three or 400 pounds on this thing and it'll just follow you along like my Labrador Retriever does today.

So there's a lot of effort going on to try to shed the weight onto something else, sir.

REP. YOUNG: General, thank you very much for enlightening us about the newest technology of the mules. Whatever works. Madame Chairman, you've got a good attendance so I'm going to yield back my time so other members can take part in this hearing.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Visclosky.

REP. PETER VISCLOSKY (D-IN): Thank you Madame Chair. Just two questions. There's a wide range as far as the weight a troop carries. Is there beyond which frequency of injuries grows dramatically? Is there some threshold where suddenly you're seeing a lot more injuries to our troops because of the weight?

MR. AMOS: Sir, I don't have that information. I'd say intuitively obviously the higher we get up these weights that I talked to you about in this second battalion, 7th Marines, 140 pounds, there's absolutely no question that you might be able to carry that around the street but you start going up mountains, you can't do it, you start hopping in and out of MRAPs, step down from an MRAP that sits two and a half, three feet high off the ground from the step --

REP. VISCLOSKY: Being shot at I mean just --

MR. AMOS: Absolutely. So there, you know, intuitively there's a threshold, but I don't know precisely what it would be and I don't know that we have that kind of information.

REP. VISCLOSKY: And I assume there'd be some variation between the size of the actual soldier, airmen and the load they're carrying, too. I was just wondering if suddenly you're seeing some incremental increase over a certain threshold.

One other question, for those who are our enemies, what is their basic load, if there is such a things? My impression is it's relatively light, but I do not know.

(Cross talk.)

MR. AMOS (?): It's a t-shirt and --

GEN. CHIARELLI: That's about it. The weight of the weapon. They do not have the protective gear. But their casualties are much higher than ours and their effectiveness is not as great as ours because of their lack of equipment and protection we're able to provide our soldiers and Marines.

REP. VISCLOSKY: Does it give them, I assume there's some advantages understanding they have higher casualties and there's other things we can do to compensate for the, if you will lack of mobility because of the amount of weight are troops are carrying, what advantage do they have because they are so light?

MR. CHIARELLI: I think that's why we are both looking at different ways that we can lighten the load and particularly move to a plate carrier where the enemy situation allows you to do that without putting the solider or Marine --

REP. VISCLOSKY: I agree.

MR.CHIARELLI: -- at greater risk than you're willing to accept and that he's willing to accept given the enemy situation.

REP. VISCLOSKY: I wish you well I just I can't imagine how terrifying it is, you're in combat, you're risking your life, you're carrying this and then to find that right adjustment and modification, and I honestly got to wish you well and whatever we can do to help --

MR. AMOS: Well it is a balance sir, and the flip side of it is if you talk to our staff sergeant and a sergeant that were in heavy combat, they would tell you that there were times when they absolutely would not have wanted to shed any of the stuff that they were wearing because the threat dictated that if you're riding around in the back of an MRAP or -- (inaudible) -- humvee in an area that's known for IEDs, most of the soldiers and Marines I would say would rather have that stuff on than a plate carrier because a plate covers significantly less of your body.

So there are times when they absolutely want to have that kind of coverage and as General Charelli was talking about, in 2006, General Brogan(PH) who's sitting behind me as a result of an urgent UNS(ph) our, what we now wear our big vests, a modular tactical vest, and the whole idea was counter sniper. It was the shots coming in the next, the shots coming in under the arms, the shots coming into the hips, and so we did a rapid turnaround to develop this thing. Now it's bigger and bulky, it's just like their vest, but it had a purpose and whole idea now is if we can give the commander on the ground the opportunity to make decisions on how much or how little, then I think that's absolutely where we need to go.

But we value life a lot more than our enemy does. And the last thing we want to do is send a young soldier or Marine home because of maybe a lack of irresponsibility or lack of responsibility on our part. So it's a balance.

REP. VISCLOSKY: Gentlemen thank you very much and for your service. Thank you

REP. KAPTUR: Mr. Frelinghuysen.

REP. RODNEY FRELINGHUYSEN (R-NJ): Thank you, Madame Chairman. Gentlemen, we have made some progress in terms of the weight of solider weapons. I represent Picattiny Arsenal, they've just lowered the weight of the 50 caliber machine gun, doing some things relative to you know, the weight of barrels, the ammo, you know, the clips for ammo, you know, I guess they call them plasticized, use of titanium. Are you satisfied we're making enough progress in that area? Perhaps General Charelli?

GEN. CHIARELLI: I think that's one of the areas that really shows a tremendous opportunity to make some real reductions in weight. We found in the special operations community an M20 machine gun which I think most of you know is a pretty good size machine gun. The special operators had had this weight problem with the standard one we issue our soldiers and they had developed and I believe it came out of Picattiny a weapon that was nine pounds lighter. When you can shed nine pounds on a machine gun like that, that's tremendous weight savings. We've issued 100 of them and have another 500 on order to get out to our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Same thing with the M249 commonly called the Saw. They've been able to shave off an additional two pounds off of it and make it might lighter. Picattiny is working on caseless ammo I know and that shows rate future because if you could get rid of that brass on every single round of ammunition you carry you could shed more load. The issue with that of course is we will have to move to something other than the M4 because it as I understand it will not fire caseless ammo. But those are the kinds of things that I see that show great promise for helping us lighten that load.

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: On just getting back to the use of UAVs, the cargo, I assume the larger the UAV perhaps the greater opportunity for the enemy to detect what we're using. How are we dealing with those types of issues? And I assume you know you get conditions on the ground, I'm talking more about Afghanistan here where you have a brown out and you have a similar sort of situation whether you had the opportunity to bring in water or ammo. I just wonder what sort of progress are we making with the UAVs?

MR. AMOS: Well sir right now we don't have in one in theater right now. We have UAVs but we don't have --

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: Yes, I know that.

MR. AMOS: -- we don't have a cargo UAV and as a result of this industry day that we had a week ago, we're trying to sort out, okay, what is out there now that's already made so that we can capitalize on that.

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: One has to assume that obviously the special operators are getting stuff in but they're using conventional air drops or --

MR. CHIARELLI: I think they're using mostly the air drops and some of the air drop technology that's been brought on board in Afghanistan.

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: UAVs are on the drawing board, the cargo?

MR. AMOS: Sir they are from the sense of what we'd really like to have in the future. That's the one, those are kind of under development. But the near term itch which is the forces in Afghanistan right now, you know, I'm looking for something more than a developmental solution, I'm looking for something now.

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: We can't wait.

MR. AMOS: We can't wait. And for all the reasons we talked about so we don't know how big this is, we don't know what we're going to decide on. I've seen pictures of ones, I've seen them, that are as big as this room and I've seen smaller ones so, you know, ideally what you'd like to have is something that's small, that's quiet, that can carry this load of 500 to 1,200 pounds. And that's what we're going for right now. We just don't know if -- there's some small commercial helicopters, some very small ones, that we have companies looking can they modify that to fly it remote control, just like we do all our other UAVs hand it off as it moves into theater moves farther down range, and then take control at the receiving station and then just land the thing.

And the good thing about that is even in a dust storm, you know, UAV can land by itself, it's not like me as a pilot where you get nervous in a brown out. So we just don't have it yet, but we hope to have it and introduce it this coming summer and that's where we're headed.

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: Excellent. Thank you Madame Chair.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Moran.

REP. JAMES MORAN (D-VA): Thank you very much, Ms. Kaptur and we thank you for chairing a meeting from two such distinguished military leader and I have great respect for both of you.

In fact, General Amos I was pretty impressed, I mentioned to General Amos late in the afternoon yesterday that my nephew who's in the Marine Corp was complaining because he was sent to New River on financial management because of some dumb appropriations committee that wanted more financial management people in the Marines so he got stuck with that. So I mentioned it and today he's in Iraq fighting so -- (laughter) -- you know, it's conceivable it could coincidence but I just gave all the credit to you, I was really impressed by that, -- (inaudible).

You know in our briefing we're told that we have about 20,000 soldiers that are non-deployable, I think that was in your testimony General Charelli, largely because of bone and muscle injuries. And it's increasing, seems fairly dramatically, about 10 percent annual it appears.

I don't think any, now the explanation it says that you're planning on lessening equipment loads, improving conditioning, providing new load carrying capacity, technology, et cetera. I don't think any of us think that the problem is one of the human endurance of the soldiers. But it's probably more the human judgment of their superiors, yourselves excluded obviously, but I wouldn't say it because I know you do a fine job.

But I think over time we've loaded them up and I suspect I'm not alone in this. It's too much. You know, 100 pounds is too much to be carrying on a regular basis let alone 140 in terms of maneuverability, adaptability and just what the human body is capable of bearing over a long period of time.

It's too much, and the problem is I believe you when you say you know we're working on lightening it, but we've been in Afghanistan for seven years, we've been in Iraq for almost six and it seems to be going in the other direction.

Now maybe we're part of the problem, I mean I've got you know a question here about are you trying some of the new sniper technology that is put on vehicles but could be put on soldiers individually that detects where sniper fire came from. I mean, that's new technology. But gosh in this context of that much weight having to be carried by individual soldiers, I can't imagine adding anything to it no matter how helpful that technology was and yet we're talking about radios, we're talking about any number of other things that just seem at some point counter productive. You wonder in a platoon if we couldn't share some of the load that if everybody has to, I mean, if we come up with radios obviously not everybody needs to carry the radio if you were to use snipe technology not everybody needs to have that, et cetera.

I know you've thought about this and I don't want to belabor the point and it's been pretty much the thrust of everybody's question but we are concerned I think legitimately so. Let me ask a question though about the Army fitness levels, General Chiarelli, because that's where we read the articles they apply primarily to the Army apparently. We've made accommodations for prior, I don't want to say I guess felony records although I don't think it's so much felony but brushes with the law and so on, we apparently have relaxed those standards, we've relaxed some of our educational standards where we read. But we have too many soldiers who are being rejected for reasons of obesity.

Now I was asking some of the folks about that and they said well one of the problems is not just obesity, but we have a cookie cutter approach. We take the weight and the height and that determines whether somebody is eligible or not. One of the things that disturbed me, a young man I know who's a ball player, really well conditioned, he can run a sub five minute mile, but he was rejected because he was too heavy, even though it was all muscle. Not that was ROTC so I don't know that that applies to regular standards, but if it does, it seems to me we need some flexibility that the body mass index, the conditioning, that needs to really be what we're looking at and not just some standard criteria, simplistic criteria really.

I mean my son's 6'6", he weighs 290 pounds, but he's got a 33 inch waist, you can't pinch his skin anyplace. But he's over your criteria, he would be labeled as obese and he's anything but. General Chiarelli, do you have that kind of flexibility in determining what is how we define obesity?

GEN. CHIARELLI: We do and the regulation uses height and weight as a screening tool only. Body fat is the final determinant on whether or not we feel that you're obese and do not meet Army standards. So anyone who would only use height and weight and use that alone to disqualify an individual from service, that would not be in keeping with the regulation as I last read it, which requires that only as a screening tool but body fat is the final determinant on whether or not you're obese.

REP. MORAN: Okay. Well maybe ROTC has different criteria that are not wholly consistent with regular enlistment.

But you guys are doing a great job, this is not a hearing to be critical but it is an opportunity to register concern. We're asking too much of our soldiers when they're having to carry that much heavy equipment. It's wrong, it's got to change, we've got to figure out a way to lighten their load.

Thanks.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you Mr. Moran.

GEN. CHIARELLI: Madame Chair may I --

REP. KAPTUR: Yes, General? Please.

GEN. CHIARELLI: -- apologize and just make a clarification?

REP. KAPTUR: Please.

GEN. CHIARELLI: On our statement that we have 20,000 non- deployable soldiers, that is correct on any given day, plus or minus. But if I in any way infer that those are all due to muscular skeletal issues, I apologize because that is not my intent. We currently have 10,000 soldiers in warrior transition units who are non-deployable, who were injured in combat or have very complex medical cases. And then we have another 10,000 soldiers who for whatever reasons are non0deployable. And a small fraction of those are muscular skeletal issues and were seen coming out of Afghanistan. We just see that as a portion that we need to attack to get at this issue of non- deployability. But even if we were able to eliminate all of those, it would be a small fraction of the 20,000 that we have that are non- deployable.

REP. MORAN: I think your testimony should have said many of these 20,000 so I thank you for that correction.

GEN. CHIARELLI: I apologize.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you for the clarification. Both generals, can we assume that the contractors who provide all this equipment are under direction by each of you to reduce the weight, that there is ongoing effort in each piece of equipment? Can we assume that or not?

MR. AMOS: Ma'am, the contractor will respond to the amount of pressure directly applied to them and what we do when we are developing a piece of equipment, for instance the scalable plate carrier, we sit down and we'll work with them when the contractor will actually particularly go and out and we'll say okay this is the requirement and then we'll get some bids in and then we'll pick the prime contractor. And the prime contractor then will have to meet the specifications of the contract.

So we actually work with them and we got, for instance we've got kind of a war fighting lab but we've got a Marine Expeditionary rifle squad group of folks, kind of a skunks works that deals specifically that making sure the stuff we buy is as light as we possibly can get it, and it fits well where it's supposed to fit on the body. And we try that out on Marines.

So the answer is they are, they're not actually just turned loose to just give us what they have and we accept it. We force the issue on trying to get the very latest amount, everything from just shedding pieces of this kind of Kevlar web gear to get it down to a weight that we think is the very least but yet provides the minimal amount of protection that's required.

So we do that, ma'am, we don't turn a contractors loose on this thing, they actually have to live up to our standards.

REP. KAPTUR: Well I would hope that in communications with them that you know, you would reemphasize in written form your strong efforts to try to reduce the weight, whether it's the material, whether it's metal, whatever it is, I would think that that would be a very useful effort.

General?

GEN. CHIARELLI: We, too, are looking for solutions to this not only in our laboratories but with commercial off the shelf pieces. I was given two charts prior of the hearing where we're down to as Sergeant Rowe(PH) talked about his knee pads, we're looking at a brand new knee pad now that'll save eight ounces over the current knee pads that he wears.

I've got two pages of all those items that from --

REP. KAPTUR: Good.

GEN. CHIARELLI: -- boots to knee pads to compasses to sites to flashlights where we're looking at different ways that we can procure equipment both developed in our labs but also commercial off the shelf that will lighten that load. And we're literally looking at reductions of ounces in the smallest pieces of equipment to try to get accumulative good for the soldier.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you both. That's very encouraging. Mr. Kingston?

REP. KINGSTON: Thank you, Madame Chair. General, you've mentioned earlier that you were considering and off-the-shelf solution in some cases in equipment, I believe you said that. What would be some of those items that you were talking about?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Boots, sir, kneepads, flashlights, ankle head flashlights, assure fire magazines. You can reduce weight quite a bit with magazines. We've found a magazine over the low 8.8 ounces possibility.

REP. KINGSTON: You're referring to retail purchasing?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Some of this is commercial off-the-shelf that is produced.

REP. KINGSTON: And that's a fairly attractive product you're talking about, right?

GEN. CHIARELLI: It is.

REP. KINGSTON: And what kind of procurement problems does that create?

GEN. CHIARELLI: We have the Rapid Equipment Task Force that we established at the beginning of the war that we use extensively to go and find those technologies. They have individuals down range and, I think, as Sergeant Rowe mentioned, he indicated he filled out some surveys. I would be that some of those surveys were from our Rapid Equipment Task Force asking soldiers, "What are the pieces of equipment that you would like to see lightened?" "How can we help you out?" "What do you need that is better?" And they go to our labs to look for solutions and, many times, they find them there. They go to the special operations community. They go across service to make sure there's not something in another service that we are not aware of. I gave you the example of Special Operations and the 240 machine gun that was found by our Rapid Equipment Task Force. And they look for commercial off-the-shelf to lighten that load.

REP. KINGSTON: If you found a commercial flashlight that was better than the one you're using and it's universally accepted among the soldiers, how hard is it for you to moves towards, "Let's just get rid of the old flashlight and buy this new one,"? How difficult is that to do? How much red tape would you encounter?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Today, that is something we can do rather rapidly with the Rapid Equipment Force.

REP. KINGSTON: So the Rapid Equipment Force is working fairly well?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Very well.

REP. KINGSTON: Are there any suggestions for changes or improvements?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Well, I worry at times, with the loss of supplemental, that we will not have the funds that we need sometimes to ensure that they have the money that they need and, believe me, they follow all the procurement rules. They even have a PEO that oversees what they're doing, but they can move rather rapidly through the system. So I worry that, at times, unless we look at some procurement reform, organizations like our Rapid Equipment Task Force and the Army Asymmetric Warfare Group may have problems doing their job.

REP. KINGSTON: I haven't read your testimony; I've scanned bits and pieces of it; but I don't see that in here as, you know, you're underscoring the importance of that kind of flexibility. Is it in here?

GEN. CHIARELLI: I believe it is, sir.

REP. KINGSTON: Okay.

GEN. CHIARELLI: We talk about the REF.

REP. KINGSTON: Because I think it's very important for members of Congress to know that you do need to have that flexibility because I remember one time General Megs, when he was in charge of the IED Task Force, he said that, "You got to keep in mind, we are competing against every Radio Shack product that's out there in the commercial world and we have to stay ahead of them only we have to buy it through the government and, sometimes, that slows us down." And so, I think that we need to understand that in order for you to have as many choices of products as possible, you have to consider these commercial things and having the flexibility to move on them.

GEN. CHIARELLI: It is absolutely amazing what this Task Force has been able to do. They were able to fill 60 percent of things that soldiers ask for in less than a year, 60 percent, and the other 40 percent is under two years. That's 90 individuals I have in that Task Force, we purposely kept it small, and most of them are forward in the field collecting data from soldiers and finding out how we can get them the things that they need.

REP. KINGSTON: Well, if there's anything else you want to add to your testimony, you sound like you did that for the record, what page is this on?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Thank you, sir. I promise you, I will review my testimony and make sure I've give you a fair explanation of REF and, if there is more information I can provide, I will provide it and get it to the Committee as soon as I can.

REP. KINGSTON: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.

REP. KAPTUR: All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Rothman?

REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you, Madame Chairman. Generals, thank you for your service. Lots of questions. Just to put some of this in context, is there a better equipped fighting force in the world than ours?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Sir, that's absolutely a resounding no, there is not.

REP. ROTHMAN: General?

GEN. CHIARELLI: I totally agree.

REP. ROTHMAN: Next, just to put this in additional context, it's really critical, generally, really for us to receive that percentage of non-deployed units who are there because of these kinds of stress and ergonomic injuries, so if we could get that for the record, that's critical because we're here and, listen, we're all parents or concerned people who care about our kids and grandkids and, certainly, our soldiers and marines and everyone fighting for us. We don't want them to carry anymore than they need to, to do their mission and survive, but the balance is between flexibility of force, survivability, and the mission accomplished, so how badly are our forces suffering, so to speak, because of this great burden of equipment? And how is it being manifested, either in, or rather, reflected in failure of mission, compromise of mission, and non- deployed units? So we have to know what we're giving up because, obviously, if we have a finite sum in our budget, should we be pouring it all into a lighter rug sack or some other training, pay, benefits, whatever, other need we have to address? If we could get that for the record, sir, that would be great, unless you have a better answer than you just gave Mr. Moran?

GEN. CHIARELLI: I don't believe I do and I don't believe at this time, I'm going to be able to provide you the level of precision you want in trying to determine that.

REP. ROTHMAN: Okay.

GEN. CHIARELLI: I was briefed last night of work being done by the University of Pittsburgh with a hundred firsts where Sergeant Rowe will go. It's work like that that is going to get us to that finite number and I promise that, as soon as it is available, I will give it to the committee. Everything I have now is anecdotal.

REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you, General. I apologize. I'll try to get through as many questions as I can. How big a problem is this for your forces, for you as commanders in terms of your strategic objectives or the mission objectives for you? Has it compromised your ability to get your jobs done in the respective theaters, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Sir, it hasn't within the Marine Corps and I'll just speak for my community. It has not. Again, if we go back to how we began here with a recognition by both services that we need the scalable, you know, the opportunity to do the scalable body armor. And if you remember kind of where we began several years ago with a lot of casualties in 2005--

REP. ROTHMAN: Absolutely.

GEN. CHIARELLI: --some heavy casualties, a lot of public interest generated and rightfully so by parents and by members of Congress and by Marines, we began looking for ways where we could provide that ultimate protection.

REP. ROTHMAN: So you feel we have made tremendous progress. The survivability of injuries on the battlefield and less injuries than before given the activity every single day and exposure of our forces to harm, we've done extraordinarily well. One other fast question. Batteries. What does the average soldier or marine carry in terms of batteries? I'll tell you why we're asking. We're working on with different folks in the R&D about battery technology to lighten the weight of the batteries. Would that make a significant dent in the weight that a marine or soldier would carry?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Yes, it would, and we're already seeing great advancements in battery technology that is pushing that weight down. If you talk about our ground soldier ensemble that we've been able to drop the weight of it by a pound-and-a-half in newer models because of batteries and improvement in battery technologies. We now have batteries that are scaled for the mission. Short mission, smaller battery, lighter battery. Longer mission, larger battery, more power for a longer period of time. So batter technology is something that is definitely working to lighten the load.

REP. ROTHMAN: And, finally, your request in the 2010 budget will incorporate what you believe is the dollar figure necessary to, in the context of all your needs, address this issue to the extent that you feel is appropriate, or are you going to be underfunded in this 2010 budget in this area?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Sir, it's yet to be seen because we haven't seen what's been approved out of the Department of Defense and you know that, so not only can we not comment, I really don't know what that is, but I will tell you that from the Marine Corps side of the house, the Research and Development dollars, which are mostly paid for out of supplemental right now, but we've put three percent, we've increased our R&D money in the budget by three percent. Now, it doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a significant amount of money in the baseline. But the R&D piece of this thing is yes, the answer is yes, and as long as we can get that, then we'll be able to continue. Because this is science and technology stuff. This is DARPA working on lightening the batteries and all of the things that we've been talking about today. This is stuff that cost money to experiment with. So the answer is yes from the Marine Corps side.

REP. ROTHMAN: R&D very important.

GEN. CHIARELLI: R&D.

REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you. Thank you, generals. Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you, Mr. Rothman. The committee has just been great this morning. It's been a very easy job. Very respectful of one another. Ms. Granger?

REP. GRANGER: Thank you. I have to follow up on Mr. Rothman because we are -- what we're talking about is balance. How do we balance protection of our troops, effectiveness, all of that, and you're looking at equipment and redistribution, but we also have a responsibility to our troops that it's one decision you'll make when you're in the field and you're there in the action and you're 27 years old.

The other responsibility, we've talked on this subcommittee so much, is what our responsibility is to those troops for their lifetime for the service they gave.

Maybe because I took two pain pills when we're sitting here for my back that maybe the reason that I focus on this, but I know that this weight, literally, can contribute to a lifetime of difficulties and pain, so we have to keep that in account also, too. It's our responsibility for all of you who've served and to do the best we can for you now and for the rest of your lives.

This is a very important issue and I think we should be looking at everything. I have to know that the University of North Texas Health Science Center, which is in my district, has given a lot of attention to that and part of it can be some treatment in the field by medics to get some relief, as well as the training that you're talking about and nutrition. I think we really need to focus onto this all the time with whatever science we need, research, give you the right equipment at the lowest weight, but keep that responsibility in mind of when you leave the service or you retire that we've left you in the best physical shape we can.

GEN. CHIARELLI: Ma'am, if I could comment on that, there is recognition that, if you go back to boot came in the Marine Corps fifteen years ago, we issued recruits flat-bottom sneakers, Converse sneakers, and then we went out and then we couldn't understand why they twisted their ankles and why they had flat feet and why we had all these shin splints.

So, now, we've brought in athletic trainers and we actually have them at all our recruit depots, we have them at our entry level training like schools of infantry, and we have athletic trainers now out in the fleet at the major headquarters to help us understand how you better condition marines and what kind of equipment we can get for them that would help those kinds of injuries that we saw fifteen years ago.

We actually have, on the onset of injuries at some of our entry level training, that that recruit gets whisked off, finds himself or herself in front of a bona fide athletic trainer doing rehabilitation kind of exercises. So there is a recognition of just exactly what you're talking about. That we need to bring that piece of it in here. It's not just equipment lightening, it's the whole thing. It's the balance on your body and then how you condition your body.

GEN. CHIARELLI: If I might add, we, in Afghanistan, are assigning physical therapists down to the brigade and battalion level so that we have that doctor down there who is able to work that injury should that injury occur and be a musculoskeletal. I think your comments were so correct. I would also argue that, when I was 19 years old, I felt I was a lot more bulletproof than my parents felt that I was and I would do probably some things that, in my older age, I question why I did that. I think we always have to remember, when we're shedding protection, that at 19, you probably feel that, "I can outrun that bullet," whereas someone with a little more experience, a little more time in combat realizes that that's not something you can always do. So I think it's important to give our leaders the ability to make that important call.

REP. GRANGER: Thank you very much. Thank you.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you. Mr. Bishop?

REP. BISHOP: Thank you very much and, again, welcome, gentlemen. This is a very, very, very pertinent subject area and this committee is very concerned about it.

One of the things that we've been doing the last three or four years with regard to equipment weight, we funded research on a new weapons system to reduce the load and one of the requirements was that the weapon and the ammunition be reduced for the very reasons that we're here today. XM8 was a weapons systems that's been looked at by the Army and, of course, it's been tested in part at Pickett County, but the key was reducing the weight of the ammunition using the Polymer as opposed to brass casings.

Preliminary research indicated it would reduce the weight by two- thirds.

The average weight would go from 15 pounds to 5 pounds for the ammunition and the weapon which seemed to be an improvement, but somehow, that was moved from the Army to the Joint Committee of a study for use across the services and, somehow, that's bogged down, but that certainly goes to emphasize what we are talking about here.

The other thing is I've not heard anybody mention Kevlar for the body armor which, around the beginning of the deployments to Iraq, parents were going to sporting good stores or various places and mailing Kevlar vests to their children over there which spurred this Committee to try to accelerate the acquisition and the procurement of the body armor. For Kevlar, I was told--I'm not an expert on it--is a lot lighter and would give more flexibility. And if you could comment on that, that would be fine.

The other thing I want to touch upon which I think is extremely important today is that I'm told by staff that the military is not making informed decisions for improving the tactical combat casualty care or the body armor because you're not collecting sufficient data. We're told that 67 percent of the wounded are returning to duty in theater and many of them are not treated in a hospital and, as a result, we have almost no information on what medical care was provided at the point of injury. And the Secretary of Defense's Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care says that less than one percent of all wounded has complete documentation.

It seems that without a systematic data collection and analysis, far forward medical care can't improved and we also can learn about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the body armor that protects our troops. Is there a way that you can get data at the level of the first responders, rather than trying to collect it at the surgical center, at the medical center, at some point later, so you know where it was that the body was penetrated, what kind of body armor was worn, was it properly positioned, and all those kinds of things so that the changes that we make in this Committee and that we're funding what you ask us for are not based on anecdotal information, but on systematically collected and studied data?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Well, as far as the current plates that we use, our SAPI plates, I'm confident that they are the finest piece of equipment available today. We have made movement forward in Kevlar and both General Amos in the Marines and the Army are looking at a new Kevlar helmet that will provide additional protection when it comes to providing care forward on the battlefield.

After spending two years in Iraq, I can tell you that I feel that one of the things that has led to the high survivability rate of our soldiers is our Combat Lifesaver Program where your buddy is trained in emergency medicine and can immediately render aid. I don't know of anyone who has a penetrating wound that would not be transferred where the kind of data that you're talking about, Sir, could be collected.

I mean, any kind of a penetrating wound, you're going to get immediate aid by a combat lifesaver and then you're going to be moved to that location. I'm sure there are things that we could do to better collect that data when it comes to our ability to electronically provide it, but I'll have to take a look and see exactly what we are doing.

REP. BISHOP: Yes. The stress fractures, the orthopedic type injuries that result from the load carrying or the load shifting which, generally, are not documented and, according to the Secretary of Defense's Tactical Committee, don't get any documentation, less than one percent, which means that we really don't have data--we know that there are some injuries from these loads, but we don't have real documentation of it.

GEN. CHIARELLI: That's why I'm excited about what the University of Pittsburgh is doing for us. They're in, I believe, it's the second year of a long term study to collect just that kind of data both before the rotation and once the soldier returns. And providing the soldier the tools he needs to work on his physical strength while he is deployed.

REP. BISHOP: If the Chairwoman will allow me to ask one more question, I will be grateful?

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you.

REP. BISHOP: It has to do with the deployment times. For the Army, it's 12-to-15 months and, the Marines, it's seven months. Someone carrying a hundred pounds in 110 degree weather would wear down the body much more with the extended deployments than, for example, with Marines, the shorter deployments. And, of course, the better dwell time would give the body a much better time to recuperate. Is that also a contributing factor to the injuries that we are talking about with the load carrying, the fact that they have extended deployments?

GEN. CHIARELLI: There's no doubt in my mind, I think you've stated that absolutely correct, it's both a function of dwell time and the opportunity to recover from the injury, but it is also a function and I think why we're seeing more effect of this than the Marines are because of 12-to-15 month deployments.

REP. BISHOP: And nutrition?

GEN. CHIARELLI: And nutrition.

REP. BISHOP: Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you. Ms. Kilpatrick?

REP. KILPATRICK: Thank you, Madame Chair. Generals, it's good to be with you this morning. The best part of our military are the men and women soldiers, sailors, marines, and air force who commit their lives every day to defending our country. I served on the Air Force Academy Board for about four years and visiting Colorado and watching them and hearing them and, now, having gone to see some Marines and Navy and also Army, it's the troops who really defend us and they're so young and, as a grandmother, I'm just always moved by their dedication.

The two sergeants, both having been deployed to Iraq and one, if not both, on their way to Afghanistan, lessening is load is paramount and I know there are only two or three ways to do it. Either you reduce the area that's covered, or you develop technological kinds of things which you're both working on and the testimony you've provided this morning has been very helpful, or you transport by some other means, unmanned vehicle or other, some of the equipment so that they have it when they need it. I like the fact that you said, airdropping, and sometimes when you airdrop, some of it disintegrates or goes somewhere so you'll have to worry about them still having what they need to defend themselves as well as their brigades and the like.

I'm real concerned. I love what you said, too. We value life more than many of our enemies and, because of that, and I heard a little squabble over here when one of my colleagues asked, does our, I'm saying 'enemy' you all might call them somebody else, take care of their soldiers and marines like we do, in terms of their body armor? And the answer was no. They sometimes just have a weapon or two, so they're lighter and they could move around.

You also mentioned they are skillful enough where they know our body armor so they try to shoot where they know it's not. I don't know how you defend against that and you've all been--the technology you've discussed about it--their fitness.

One thing I've found on my travels is the men are small, men and women, and having just come from this district and having been on an aircraft carrier as well as a couple of submarines, going up and down the steps and all of that, it's very important, in combat as well as they do their fitness training and you talked about that this morning, that they be prepared for what's before them.

Iraq is one war and I thank God I've always been an opponent and I'm looking forward to the drawing down of some of our troops there, but some of those same troops are now on their way to Afghanistan. Different terrain, different war. I come from Michigan where twenty- five different sets of Arabs have been living with us all our lives. Friendly and all of that in Michigan. So when we go to another country with a different kind of social values, religious beliefs, and all of that, we really, in addition to fighting the physical war, we're also fighting culture, religion, and all of that. So we come to a situation where the soldiers and marines and sailors and all are in a difficult situation. I'm very concerned about Afghanistan. Very concerned. All my Arab friends say it's a different kind of people there, even than Iraq. The two sergeants, both sergeants, yes, have dedicated their lives, have come back healthy.

They're now about to be deployed somewhere else.

Is lessening the load as paramount as the striker brigades or the other brigades that they have to fight with, the comprehensive coordination of the various military services? You know, in this committee and all our chairmen, really, in our committee, the men and women come first and whatever they need, I don't care what OMB says, you have to let us know that and I'm not real sure that enough of that is being done, number one.

Are we ready for Afghanistan as we up troop there and diminish the numbers in Iraq? Generals, are men and women prepared? Would you say that, yes, we've done all we can as this committee and their supervisors or commanders that they are ready to fight this war? I know that was a lot, but--

GEN. CHIARELLI: If you give me the opportunity to answer first here. A resounding yes. I appeared before this subcommittee last year several times as the Head of Requirements for the Marine Corps and, as Pete and I began our verbal statement this morning, we began with a thank you and the honest-to-goodness truth is thank you because I can't think of one thing, I'm not making this up, I can't think of one thing that they Marine Corps said, "Hey, we really need -- " this is committee said, "I'm sorry, we can't afford it." That has not happened one time.

So the answer to that is you've given us everything we need. We anticipate that will continue as we go into FY10 and we build it and we get the fit of bill for a Palm-10. So I'm optimistic about that.

The training piece is pretty amazing because you take -- I'll give you an example of a young third battalion, seventh marines, right in the middle of Ramadi in heavy kinetics and things changed instantly.

Almost within about two weeks, that battalion who was going out and losing marines, they'd lost a bunch of marines, all of a sudden, the Sunni awakening finally came from West-to-East and hit Ramadi. And when that happened, the sheikhs in Ramadi began to change. And so, here are 18-year-old men that lost their best friend two weeks ago that are now being asked to change their mindset, it's like reprogramming a new Windows application in their brain going, "Hey, listen, we have to treat these people differently now. We have to approach them completely different." And they did it. They were able to change.

And so, first of all, that's a testimony to the kind of young men and women we have. The second piece of it is, which gets to your question, is the training that they get before they go in both our services, I promise you that it is focused, it is absolutely drilled into culture, language. It's not just kinetics. It's not just how bad can we be? I many cases, it's how good can we be. And so, the training is very specific.

We're putting in 8,000 marines right now into Afghanistan over the next 90 days. Every one of those marines have gone through about three or four months of extensive training to prepare them for the culture, the physical fitness part of this thing, the language, and their mission, so that's the marine corps. First of all, you've done a remarkable job taking care of us and, second of all, your marines, your young men and women, are prepared.

GEN. CHIARELLI: I can't add anything to that. All I can say is thank you. Thank you for everything the committee has done. You've given us everything we need and I know of no time that there has been something that you have told us, "No, I'm sorry, we can't do that."

And for that, we are grateful and I know I speak for the 1.1 million soldiers and their families in thanking you for all that you have done and will continue to do.

REP. KILPATRICK: It's important. That the data -- I was going to say something about the data and I see Congressman Bishop did that -- very important. It's got to be scientific as we go forward. Whatever we need to lighten the load to win the war and to bring all of our soldiers and sailors, all of that, home. Thank you for your service.

GEN. CHIARELLI: Thank you.

REP. KILPATRICK: Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you very much. Mr. Dicks?

REP. DICKS: General Chiarelli and General Amos, I'm sorry I wasn't here, but we had to have a hearing with the Forest Service this morning before--my other committee. But I want to thank you both for your good work and your efforts to help our troops. Let me ask you something. You know, we now say we have 20,000 who are non- deployable. What happens to those non-deployables? What do they do?

GEN. CHIARELLI: Ten thousand, or just under 10,000, Congressman, are currently in our warrior transition units, and they are on a regimen of care that will either see them leaving the service or possibly returning back to their units. That number has dropped from a high of 13,000 in July down to now less than 10,000, somewhere in the vicinity of 97 (hundred) to 9,800.

The other 10,000 that I speak of are normally left in units. They have injuries that are not as severe, that do not require that they be seen in a WTU. And they remain with the rear detachment and heal, making their medical appointments and hopefully, before too long, returning to their units. So --

REP. DICKS: It would seem, you know, that some of these people would be, as you had suggested, be able to do other, have other roles in logistics or support or whatever. And I take it that's what your doing.

GEN. CHIARELLI: That's exactly what we're doing. That's why they're not all in a WTU. If you're in a warrior transition unit, your number one goal is to get better and make a determination whether or not you're going to remain with the service because that's what you and your family want to do, or whether you've made a decision to leave the service. Those that are left with their units -- the rear detachments in their units, they're doing other tasks in that rear detachment, and getting better.

REP. DICKS: And every time I go out there at Madigan, to see the warrior transition unit at Fort Lewis, you know, all these troops want to do is get back to their units, so I don't detect that this is, you know, any one is taking, maybe there are a few, but the vast majority want to get well and return to service. I mean, I think that that's how you view this as well.

GEN. CHIARELLI: That's exactly right. I can't state that any better.

REP. DICKS: General Amos, what about the Marines? How do -- what are you doing with your non-deployables?

GEN. AMOS: We don't have -- because of our deployment schedule's a little bit -- non-deployables make up Marines that are fixing to hit the end of their service. Some are wounded and they're -- (inaudible) -- for wounded warrior battalions. Our numbers are significantly smaller. Those that are in our wounded warrior battalions are just exactly like General Chiarelli talked about. Their primary focus on life is to get well. And we work with them and care for them. That number is reasonably small.

But because of the seven month deployments, what this allows us to do to those Marines that would normally be towards their end of service and may be not deployable for a lengthy deployment, seven months allows us actually some more flexibility. It allows us to harvest out and get those Marines and put them in. We have also offered bonuses for Marines that will stay and extend. In other words, if you've got -- if you've only got five months left on your contract, and instead of becoming a non-deployable, if you want to stay with your unit, which is exactly what most soldiers and most Marines want to do, they want to deploy. They may not want to re- enlist, but for a small amount of money, we can afford them the opportunity to stay and complete that deployment. So we're doing -- we're trying to be creative to keep a lot of those.

There is a portion of them now that we actually put in the training pipeline. In other words, they are back at Lejeune and Pendleton and now at Twentynine Palms, and because of their combat experience, they become role players, they become mentors, they become trainers for the Marines, for the units that are actually going through. So there is nobody sitting around lamenting the fact that they're -- we're actually using them.

REP. DICKS: Okay. I want to -- I have another question for General Charelli. Tell us about the Land Warrior equipment.

When I was out at Fort Lewis, they told me that this was -- that they had, I guess it was the -- one of the Stryker brigades had used it and everybody thought it was a huge success. What -- tell us about this. What is this -- this is, I guess, as I understand it, is technology that enhances communications and situational awareness.

GEN. CHARELLI: It is an amazing piece of kit. And I think it's going to be revolutionary. And I think that the Stryker brigade, the first one that used it came back and indicated that they were much more effective in this kind of fight that we're in. I will tell you that for this committee, that that first piece of kit that we issued, and what it does do is it provides situational awareness. It allows you to provide down to that soldier level through an eyepiece that he looks into, where all his buddies are. And anybody else who's approaching his position that's using this kind of gear. So it gives him unbelievable situational awareness and ability to pass down information. It comes at a total weight of ten pounds. We've improved that through battery technology down to 8.5 pounds, and we're coming out with a new set -- system called "ground soldier ensemble", which will get even lighter. This is one of those instances where we've added to the soldier's weight, but the soldier is more than happy to carry it because of the extra capability it gives him in the fight. And I agree with you, it was the soldiers at Fort Lewis who used the very first models of this who came back and said, "This is something we just have to have."

REP. DICKS: Now, what about -- how will this play out in Afghanistan? Is this something that we're going to need in Afghanistan?

GEN. CHIARELLI: We will have it in Afghanistan with one of the units we're sending over right now, Congressman, from Fort Lewis. It will go --

REP. DICKS: 5-2.

GEN. CHIARELLI: 5-2 will go over with it, and we are very, very excited about collecting the data to see how effective it is in that kind of environment.

REP. DICKS: Thank you.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you very much. I have to say, in listening this morning, certainly thinking about Afghanistan, the relationship between weight and endurance in a mountainous terrain concerns this member. And I know we've talked a lot about alternatives to carrying all that weight and not knowing all of the encounters that our soldiers will have. Some of the information in the record here about -- or in the testimony relating to upper body endurance decreasing 60 percent for periods during which that soldier has to walk 10 to 15 miles is pretty stark figures. And I know the Generals are more aware than anyone what this actually means.

Congresswoman Granger talked about back injuries, and for the individual body armor, it states here in the testimony, actually, of General Chiarelli, that 48 percent of the soldiers who wore that for four hours or more, 70 percent had neck and back pain, and from the years 2004 to 2008, low back, mid upper back, neck pain were the chief complaints of soldiers seeking care, and that injury is likely to be greater in Afghanistan, given the higher elevations and steep, rugged terrain. So I'm asking myself, here, you know, you Generals have really an incredible responsibility here to try to provide our soldiers with the greatest ability for success in their mission with this incredible weight. I mean, I -- it's unbelievable what they're doing.

But this is just a huge burden. And we worry about -- I worry about maneuverability, I worry about endurance. I mean, I think each of us have been at places in our lives where you knew you were at the edge of your endurance. And that's not a very good feeling. And so I just wish you well in your efforts and this committee stands ready to support you in any way that we can. I was going to ask Mr. Young if he had any concluding comments at this point.

REP. YOUNG: Madame Chairman, I want to thank General Chiarelli and General Amos for being here today, and for working so hard on this issue. But I especially want to thank the two sergeants who came in carrying their heavy load to demonstrate for the members of the committee just exactly what it is we're talking about. We can talk about it a lot, but we understand it a lot better when we really see it. So thank you very much for inviting the two sergeants in. Madame Chairman, this has been a good hearing, and thank you very much.

REP. KAPTUR: Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Young. We'd like to thank, again, General Chiarelli and General Amos formally this morning for your appearance, for the sergeants who so ably represented your services. Thank you. Thank you for your commitment to our country. For all of those who have attended, I want to thank the subcommittee this morning. You have been fantastic. Thank you very much. It's adjourned.

END.

Source