trol for long-range naval fires. Extended range projectiles and TACTOM, coupled with Navy/USMC existing TACAIR capabilities, provide near term fire support. VIEQUES 123. Senator BUNNING. Secretary England, yes or no, will you authorize live fire training on Vieques if the CNO and Commandant of the Marine Corps request it? Secretary ENGLAND. If I was asked by the CNO and Commandant to authorize live fire training in Vieques I would consider the request, but the answer is not a simple yes/no. There are other issues/factors that need to be considered, such as the extent of statutory and regulatory environmental compliance that may be required, required agency notifications, and the impact on security forces. All of these issues must be weighed and addressed in determining how to make the most of available resources in support of training that will ensure the readiness of our forces to deploy and meet the real world challenges. AC-130 GUNSHIPS 124. Senator BUNNING. Secretary Roche, is it correct that all of our AC-130 gunships are over in Afghanistan right now and there are none left back here for training? Secretary ROCHE. No, that is not correct. The Air Force has a total inventory of 21 AC-130 gunships: 13 AC-130U belonging to the 4th Special Operations Squadron, and 8 AC-130H belonging to the 16th Special Operations Squadron. Both of these squadrons are assigned to the 16th Special Operations Wing, Hurlburt Field, FL. Of the 21, no more than 9 were deployed at one time to Operation Enduring Freedom. There are 2 AC-130U and 1 AC-130H designated for training. AC-130 PURCHASES 125. Senator BUNNING. Secretary Roche, do you plan to buy more AC-130 gunships? Secretary ROCHE. Yes I do. Program Decision Memorandum (PDM) IV provides funds to convert four C-130H2 to the AC-130U configuration, O&M, and personnel. Two of the gunships will be funded from "cost of war" monies. Because the only C130H2 aircraft available belong to the Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard the PDM funds C-130J aircraft to replace the four aircraft taken for conversion. This is a wise decision because developing an AC-130J would take much longer and cost considerably more in RDT&E, and require a new logistics trail that would also have to be developed at considerable expense. NATO AWACS 126. Senator BUNNING. Secretary Roche, there are currently NATO AWACS aircraft flying over this country to assist in our homeland defense, while ours are prosecuting the war against terrorism. If another war came up right now, would we have enough of these types of aircraft? Secretary ROCHE. If the United States were confronted with another war or contingency, we would have to reprioritize the existing missions performed by our fleet of AWACS aircraft. Depending on where we are confronted with a conflict, the requirement for airborne surveillance and command and control could be filled by the most appropriate air or ground based system. AWACS PURCHASES 127. Senator BUNNING. Secretary Roche, if not, do you plan to buy more AWACS aircraft? Secretary ROCHE. We do not have any plans to procure any additional legacy systems. The current fleet of AWACS aircraft is slated for continued upgrades to its surveillance and battle management capabilities until replaced by a future MultiSensor Command and Control Constellation. This will allow us to take advantage of air and space transformational technologies to meet emerging threats and future requirements. HIGH DEMAND, LOW DENSITY 128. Senator BUNNING. Secretary Roche, what other high demand, low-density items do you plan to address in this year's budget? Secretary ROCHE. The Air Force has requested almost $400 million for Special Operations/Combat Search & Rescue Operations, MILCON, and Aircraft modifications for the HH-60, HC-130, and C-130. LEASE NEGOTIATION 129. Senator BUNNING. Secretary Roche, why were the authorizing committees not consulted when you secured permission from the Appropriations Committees to negotiate a lease for 767 tanker aircraft from Boeing? Secretary ROCHE. After the events of September 11, both Appropriations Committees asked the AF what programs could be accelerated. Tanker re-capitalization was one such program that we evaluated. Members of the House and Senate asked the USAF to provide informational briefings on this re-capitalization option. The briefings were based on the notional lease proposal from Boeing. SAF/AQ provided it to Members and professional staffers on the SAC, SASC, HAČ, and HASC during the months of October through Dececember 2001. SAF/AQ also briefed the OSD staff, CBO, and OMB. [Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the committee adjourned.] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2002 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. RESULTS OF THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., room SH216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. Committee members present: Senators Levin, Landrieu, Reed, Akaka, E. Benjamin Nelson, Bingaman, Warner, Inhofe, Allard, and Sessions. Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff director; Cindy Pearson, assistant chief clerk and security manager; and Gabriella Eisen, nominations clerk. Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Richard D. DeBobes, counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; and Peter K. Levine, general counsel. Minority staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, Republican staff director; L. David Cherington, minority counsel; Edward H. Edens IV, professional staff member; Brian R. Green, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward, professional staff member; and George W. Lauffer, professional staff member. Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert, Daniel K. Goldsmith, and Thomas C. Moore. Committee members' assistants present: Erik Raven, assistant to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Marshall A. Hevron and Jeffrey S. Wiener, assistants to Senator Landrieu; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; Peter A. Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Benjamin L. Cassidy, assistant to Senator Warner; J. Mark Powers and John A. Bonsell, assistants to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; James P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator Sessions; Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins; and Derek Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. The committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the results of the congressionally-mandated 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). We have the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith; the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, General John Gordon, USAF (Ret.); and the Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Command, Admiral James Ellis, USN. We welcome all three of our witnesses. After the Cold War, the United States forged a new relationship with Russia, including the first strategic arms control agreement, the 1991 START I Treaty, a treaty that significantly reduced U.S. and Russian nuclear forces. At Helsinki in 1997, President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin pledged that following the entry into force of START II, with its additional reductions, our two nations would work towards a START III agreement, with a deep reduction in the number of nuclear warheads to between 2,000 and 2,500 by the end of 2007. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin specifically said that "START III will be the first strategic arms control agreement to include measures relating to the transparency of strategic nuclear warhead inventories and the destruction of strategic nuclear warheads." President George W. Bush pledged to seize the historic opportunity afforded by our new relationship with Russia. Declaring that Russia is "no longer our enemy," then Governor Bush stated in a May 23, 2000, speech that "it should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech at the National Defense University just 2 weeks ago that "through our Nuclear Posture Review, we adopted a new approach to strategic deterrence that increases our security while," in his words, "reducing the numbers of strategic nuclear weapons." But the recommendations of the Nuclear Posture Review may not, in fact, reduce the actual number of nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal because instead of destroying warheads, as Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin envisioned under a START III agreement, the Nuclear Posture Review proposes to shift some or all of the warheads removed from missiles, bombers, and submarines to a responsive force, in other words, a back-up force. Instead of being irreversibly destroyed, those warheads could be redeployed in a matter of weeks or months. The Nuclear Posture Review proposes simply to move those warheads from one location to another. This approach will make it unlikely that Russia will destroy its nuclear warheads. If we store our nuclear weapons, Russia is likely to follow suit. If there are more warheads retained by Russia, the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons will increase. That was the danger cited in last year's bipartisan task force led by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. Their task force concluded the following: "The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia |