assets, standoff precision weapons capability, and Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) capabilities, but the bottom line is there are no quick fixes.

We have also taken steps to ensure we have sufficient personnel to support future OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO demands by addressing our total end-strength. The Air Force's programmed-end strength was reduced from 357,000 in fiscal year 2001 to 352,200 in fiscal year 2002. We are no longer attempting to achieve this reduced end strength and have added back 6,600 billets in pursuit of a new fiscal year 2002 programmed end strength of 358,800. In addition to adequate manpower, we continue to focus on other quality of life issues which address the effects of PERSTEMPO by providing improved family support, better working conditions, and improved compensation.

General SHINSEKI. Please allow me this opportunity to define the terms PERSTEMPO, OPTEMPO, and deployment tempo or DEPTEMPO, OPTEMPO is the annual operating miles or hours for major equipment or systems in battalionlevel or equivalent organizations. PERSTEMPO is the number of days an individual soldier is engaged in official duties at a location or under circumstances that make it infeasible to spend off-duty time in his or her normal residence. DEPTEMPO is the average number of days spent away from barracks or quarters for training or operational deployments. DEPTEMPO is measured as the number of days a unit would have to deploy as a whole.

That said, I can best answer your question from a DEPTEMPO perspective. The Army has studied DEPTEMPO and associated readiness issues and implemented several initiatives to improve the readiness of the force, mitigate the impacts of deployments, and improve the well being of our soldiers and their families.

The Army manning initiative has significantly improved the personnel readiness of our combat divisions. We have manned these units to 100 percent of their authorized personnel to ensure they have the resources to execute and sustain the full range of missions they might be assigned. Fully manning the divisions has reduced personnel turbulence and increased unit readiness.

We have implemented a corps alignment policy that tasks one corps at a time to support both Bosnia and Kosovo? allowing the other corps to focus on collective training requirements and quality of life. We believe this policy can provide additional leader focus and predictability to both deploying and non-deploying units.

The Army has increased the use of our Reserve component for overseas deployments to distribute mission load, mitigate active force shortfalls, and reduce active component DEPTEMPO. At the same time, our Reserve component soldiers have developed valuable mission experience. We have studied the frequency, deployment, and recovery for our Reserve components. We are adapting our model for mobilization, training, and deployment for contingency operations to reduce the impact on soldiers, families, and employers.

The Army has implemented a deployment policy that limits operational employment to 179 days. Where appropriate, based on specific mission requirements, we have reduced deployment lengths to as low as 120 and even 90 days. We are implementing PERSTEMPO legislation directed by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 that requires general officer involvement in decisions to deploy soldiers for greater than 182 days over a moving 365-day window. Additionally, the Army also implemented a PERSTEMPO tracking and management system and a stabilization policy that prevents soldiers from back to back deployments. The Army also designs and announces deployment schedules to ensure deployments are spread throughout the force and to offer a greater degree of predictability of deployments. We continue to study ways to reduce soldier time away from home.

DEPARTURE AREA CONTROL GROUP OPERATIONS AT PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE

62. Senator ALLARD. General Shinseki, in your written statement, you state the budget meets the Army's strategic mobility goal of fiscal year 2003. Does this include the Army's requirement for a building at Peterson Air Force Base to support the Departure Area Control Group operations? It is my understanding that building has been slipped to fiscal year 2004. Please explain.

General SHINSEKI. The budget does not include the building at Peterson Air Force Base to support the Departure Area Control Group operations. During the fiscal year 2002 program review and subsequent discussions, U.S. Army Forces Command requested that funds programmed for the Departure Area Control Group building be reprioritized and reallocated to support the Sabre Hall project at Fort Stewart. The funds were subsequently reallocated with the understanding that since there is no funding for the Army Strategic Mobility Program in fiscal year 2004, the De

parture Area Control Group building would compete within the Army's normal installation infrastructure program, until such time as funding becomes available. The project may also be considered in a planned follow-on program to the Army Strategic Mobility Program in support of Army Transformation, which will be the Army Power Projection Program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

63. Senator COLLINS. General Jones, you recently testified to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense that "the future of naval precision fires is represented by the Zumwalt class DD-21 Land-Attack Destroyer and the development of an Extended Range Guided Munition." Further, General Nyland testified before our Seapower Subcommittee that the Marine Corps, at present, lacks organic fire support capabilities. General Nyland highlighted the need and requirement for the Advanced Gun System currently scheduled to deploy on DD-21, which would help to address this sustained fire support shortfall. He went on to state that, "I am confident that the top-down strategy review will reveal, given the state of the world and the potential for future conflict, that DD-21s validity and value will be certain to be characterized as a necessity and a relevant element of the future security.” Taken together, these planned enhancements will dramatically improve the range, responsiveness, accuracy, and lethality of the Naval Surface Fire Support provided to forces ashore. General Jones, would you agree that the attributes and technologies, such as the Advanced Gun System, Extended Range Guided Munitions, and Land Attack Standard Missile, currently scheduled to deploy on DD-21 will make significant strides in addressing this critical fires support shortfall?

How key is the DD-21 program to transforming our naval surface fires capabilities?

General JONES. The attributes and technologies being developed for DD-21 are vital for meeting the Marine Corps' Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) requirements. The Navy has recognized the current deficiency in NSFS and has embarked upon a two-phased program to eventually satisfy the requirements of the Marine Corps.

Near-term programs such as the 5"/62 gun, Extended Range Guided Munition and Land Attack Standard Missile will provide an enhanced NSFS capability, but will not meet all of the range and lethality requirements for supporting the Marine Air Ground Task Force in future expeditionary operations. These systems will enhance the fires support capability of the Navy in the near-term, but will also provide a means by which to leverage technological development to reduce the developmental costs of far-term. Specifically, the technological developments supporting the 5-inch Extended Range Guided Munition program will directly benefit the 155mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile under development for the Advanced Gun System for DD-21.

In the far-term, the 155mm Advanced Gun System, with a family of precisionguided and ballistic ammunition, and the Advanced Land Attack Missile, with a family of general use and specialty warheads, will fully meet these requirements. The capabilities provided by the DD-21 and its associated systems remain vital to realizing the full potential of Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare and the conduct of expeditionary operations and sustained operations ashore in a fluid, non-linear battlespace.

OBJECTIVE CREW SERVED WEAPON

64. Senator COLLINS. Secretary White and General Shinseki, the Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW) is a perfect example of leap-ahead technology to support Army Transformation. The advanced materials from which it is made, and the increased lethality and survivability that come from this weapon should push it to the forefront of Transformation, yet it has taken a back seat to other work. As Secretary, can we expect you to press forward on this weapon system and ensure that our fighting men and women have the best possible equipment? General Shinseki, would you care to add any comments on this program?

Secretary WHITE. I agree that the OCSW has great potential to provide our soldiers with a lighter, more lethal weapon system that has leap-ahead characteristics. Rather than saying that this program has taken a back seat, I would say that more work needs to be done before the Army can commit to full development and fielding. The Army has applied lessons learned from the Objective Individual Combat System. Among those lessons are ensuring that the system is sufficiently mature before transferring it from the science and technology base to a program manager and ad

dressing important issues, such as affordability, reliability, and manufacturability. Once these issues have been resolved, the Army will have confidence that OCSW is ready for transition to system development and demonstration and follow-on procurement. The Army shares your desire to get OCSW in soldiers' hands as soon as possible.

General SHINSEKI. I agree with Secretary White that OSCW, when successfully developed and fielded, will provide leap-ahead capabilities. I would add that OCSW will greatly enhance the lethality and survivability of dismounted warriors. It also has potential as an armament for vehicles. OCSW's ability to engage targets in defilade at extended range offers the Army warfighting capabilities that we need.

65. Senator COLLINS. Secretary England, we have discussed the P-3 aircraft as an integral part of our current war plans, patrol and reconnaissance programs before, and the fact that the average age of the P-3 platform is roughly 25 years old. While aircraft avionics upgrades have kept the plane relevant and viable in today's threat environment, the airframe itself is reaching the end of its useful service life. I am aware that an ongoing service life assessment program is studying this airframe fatigue life issue and that there is an ongoing Analysis of Alternatives underway to look at the Multi-Mission Aircraft as a follow-on to the P-3 program.

What will the fiscal year 2002 budget amendment allow us to do to further extend the life of our current P-3 aircraft and/or further identify a follow-on program to meet this critical patrol and reconnaissance Navy mission?

Secretary ENGLAND. The fiscal year 2002 amended budget contains $53.8 million of Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation funding to conduct the next phase of the planned acquisition (Component Advanced Development) for the P-3 replacement aircraft. Contracts will be signed with one or more contractors to further refine concepts proposed late in 2000. The Navy plans to continue work on analyses supporting development of acquisition documentation, performance specifications, and acquisition planning required by current directives and law.

66. Senator COLLINS. Secretary England, do you agree that the Department needs to actively pursue and apply resources in the near-term to ensure that we can continue the P-3 reconnaissance operations without impacting readiness, as these aging aircraft reach the end of their useful service life?

Secretary ENGLAND. The Navy agrees that the capability provided by P-3 aircraft is a core capability it intends to leverage in the future. The Navy is actively pursuing alternative funding options that minimize impact on readiness within budgetary constraints.

[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room SH216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Cleland, Landrieu, Reed, Akaka, Ben Nelson, Carnahan, Dayton, Warner, Smith, Inhofe, Allard, Sessions, and Bunning.

Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff director; Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; and Peter K. Levine, general counsel. Majority staff members present: Kenneth M. Crosswait, Richard W. Fieldhouse, and Terence P. Szuplat, professional staff members. Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, Republican staff director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director for the minority; L. David Cherington and Scott W. Stucky, minority counsels; Brian R. Green and Mary Alice A. Hayward, professional staff members.

Staff assistants present: Jennifer Key, Thomas C. Moore, and Jennifer L. Naccari.

Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; Peter A. Contostavlos and William K. Sutey, assistants to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Brady King, assistant to Senator Dayton; Wayne Glass, assistant to Senator Bingaman; Margaret Hemenway, assistant to Senator Smith; John A. Bonsell, assistant 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.